Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#221

Post by learnstats2 » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 11:28 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #112

fractionalhare wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have an answer off the top of my head, but I did some searching for you. A short article from inequality.org [1] suggests that most of the richest people in the world (Forbes 400) were born with significant financial advantages, if they weren't already wealthy. Since there are many more rich people than the Forbes 400, that doesn't seem too representative of the usual rich person. It's hard to find anything c…

Those “born on first base” — in upper-class families, with inheritances up to $1 million — make up 22 percent of the 400. [1] I wouldn’t call 22% of the richest 400 people in the world having inherited more than $1M to be evidence inheritance dominates the causes of inequity. I mean, another way to put it is “80% of the richest people in the world DID NOT inherit their wealth.” [1] https://ips-dc.org/the_self-made_ha…

You've totally misread this. First base is the lowest category of wealth that the article describes.

22% received support and inherited up to a million, and a further 40% inherited at least a million - more than a lifetime's worth of income.

People outside these categories included those whose parents ran a successful business.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#222

Post by anemoiac » Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 12:49 AM UTC

enriquec wrote: post #99

anemoiac wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hierarchy is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. We can reduce levels of inequality without producing the negative outcomes you fear. I’m not sure whether this applies to you (I’m not implying that it does), but I continually find it interesting to hear Americans expressing the fear that acting to reduce inequality will somehow limit social mobility, as if they don’t realize that much of the developed world has greater…

In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies. You keep harping on the US, but it is one of - if not the most - upwardly mobile societies in history. One of my favorite anecdotes is how the 'unclassy american tourist' is a product of us being the first society to affo…

> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility

> You keep harping on the US, but it is one of - if not the most - upwardly mobile societies in history.

The data doesn't support your conclusions. The US has lower social mobility than many of its (more redistributive) peers in the developed world. [1]

1 - https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index...

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#223

Post by agumonkey » Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 9:02 AM UTC

orange_tee wrote: post #24

padolsey wrote: post #2

These conclusions seem to spit in the face of "meritocracy". It's always puzzled me that this idea of meritocracy, especially in tech (notably USA), is so pervasive, bleeding into our corporate performance reviews and our pro-diversity efforts ("we hire only according to merit" ). But it is so internally irrational. I'm reminded of this argument: > The case against meritocracy can be put psychologically: (a) The abol…

You are so focused on economic inequality that you ignore the greater picture: there will still be a hierarchy. There will still be humans dominating other humans and asserting themselves above them. Maybe in the far future humans will create a social technology to live in true equality but in the immediate future this is clearly not happening. As long as there is a hierarchy, you cannot really have equality, sorry.…

One thing I think about is the quality of domination, if I may say it this way.

Someone with a better understanding is a normal authority, it might 'dominate' others in the sense that they have to follow his lead and maybe not feel it's right but in the end it's the best path.

On the other hand there are so much bad authorities that percolate through luck, appearances, bullying, networking.. and it will be 1) very clear their ways are detrimental .. sometimes almost absurdly, 2) very difficult for people below to change this.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#224

Post by legulere » Fri, Jan 01, 2021, 7:28 AM UTC

jayski wrote: post #183

legulere wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is a powerful bureaucrat with no money more desirable to you than a rich entrepreneur that had to prove his value before attaining reward? Because the bureaucrat had to prove their merit among the whole population while the rich entrepreneur just had to prove their merit among other kids that were privileged enough. Just think of Bill Gates that went to probably the only school that had a computer in the world.…

let's say someone is born into extreme poverty, and through decades of hard work becomes wealthy enough to give his child a great education and a 1 million dll inheritance. is it not his right to use his money on his child? then lets say this child turns this education and inheritance into 1 billion dollars worth of wealth. does this have no merit?? ive seen many people squander privileged upbringings, i think if you…

> let's say someone is born into extreme poverty, and through decades of hard work becomes wealthy enough

That seems more luck than hard work to me. Just read the paper.

Even if that was possible. Do you want in a world where people with merit call the shots or a world in which people that cheated their way to wealth or simply inherited wealth call the shots?

Money can be transferred, gained through stealing and luck which all does not require merit. It is not a good proxy for merit.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#225

Post by 6510 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

curryst wrote: post #204

jasonclaid wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the existence of hierarchy that is the problem. It is the type of hierarchy and the effects of that hierarchy. The parent and the study argue that we should give greater resources to those with the least resources in such a way as to broaden access to opportunities. You can argue that is not worth the expense (it costs X to produce Y outcome and redistributing X would lead to negative impact Z. Y + Z result…

> “Inequality inevitable” sidesteps that and asks that we just give up before even trying or imagining different possibilities because we’ve failed in the past. It is hard to not see such arguments as a misguided effort to rationalize one’s self interest. I don't agree with this. I tend to agree that inequality is inevitable, but where I think I disagree with you is on the definition of equality. If we create an even…

Complaint about people rising to the top who lack the qualities we want to see in leadership suggests [to me] that we [collectively] already have a complete picture of the qualities we admire. Our problem isn't in measuring the qualities but in rewarding the ratios. On a personal level we know how to pick a breeding partner. Collectively selecting the dna cant be all that different. It seems culturally disturbing to reward beauty for example but if beauty > reproduction is good why not beauty > wealth > reproduction? We already have greed > wealth > reproduction, intelligence > wealth > reproduction and inheritance > wealth > reproduction. Those seem just as lame upon close examination. You play chess for your life vs someone with 3 times the intellect? Or monopoly where the opponent starts with all the money and all the streets?

The phenotype is a confusing angle. We should do some honest objective conversation about it collectively. Do we want people to be their natural self or do we prefer it if one goes out of his way to become something? Do we genetically optimize for the biggest possible struggle or for the slacking? We seem to look at the flexibility as a positive quality but does it really make a healthy breeding stock?

As a human I have to constantly challenge myself mentally and physically or I decay pretty rapidly. I had a sick cat one time that slept on my sofa for 4 years only getting up to eat. Then one day another cat came into the house and she leaped 3 meters off the sofa and ran after it. If I sleep for 4 years I doubt there will be any walking, definitely no running, jumping is out of the question and getting into a fight is unimaginable. We might have really good brains and a good digestive system, the rest of the body could do with some updates.