Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality • Hacker News Board

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#101

Post by newyankee » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:20 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #21

newyankee wrote: post #2

One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed. This has grave implications on policy and really blinds people born with a silver spoon to the real problems in society as they have a 'i deserve it and they don't syndrome'. Contrast this with a poor society that is growing rapidly where you see islands of wealths with certain individuals, at least people over there…

Depends what you define as success. Hard work generally does lead to gainful employment and the ability to afford a home/car which used to be the canonical symbol of success in America. If you think success is "be as rich and respected as I desire to be" then that absolutely will not hold.

basic necessities of life, healthcare, and no worry with emergency destroying you completely

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#102

Post by refurb » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:21 PM UTC

kolbe wrote: post #38

If you don't even have the ability to quantitatively differentiate luck and talent, what is the point in developing an economic model completely dependent on those two things?

This is a good point. You can't actually measure any of these things, thus you can't prove them. What's the point in debating them then?

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#103

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #96

falcolas wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard work only increases the chance for opportunities, to a certain ceiling. It is not, however, the only factor. Or even the most important factor. Let's use a few sterotypes for examples: A hard working trucker will take years to set aside $10,000 in savings. An average programmer at a financial institution can do the same in months. A debutante able hire a stock broker to invest their slush fund can do the same in…

I understand and sympathise with that example. But surely you agree that not all lines of work can be equally compensated. That doesn't mean that hard work is ineffective and a lie though?

It kinda does. If the "types" of work that get compensated well enough for success are arbitrarily chosen, then that indicates that hard work itself is a lie.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#104

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #28

hliyan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the problem is that the results of merit accumulate geometrically, so that beyond a certain threshold, some people just start rapidly pulling ahead of the pack?

That's a choice that society has made, through laws and institutions which benefit the wealthy -- such as treating corporations as people. It doesn't have to be that way.

There's a natural power law distribution to many things. Economics is a natural force. We can't change it just by dictating that we'd like some things to change, just like we can't change other natural elements by fiat.

There's a process, a technology, a science that has to be applied to shape and command natural forces. Human psychology is no exception. Things must be done within workable, realistic parameters. We can't just say "everyone will share and be happy and nice now" and expect it to work like that.

"Corporations as people" is a massive politically-charged misnomer that doesn't mean anything by itself. The entire point of incorporation is to create a separate, independent legal entity divorced from its principals. This is what is meant when "legal personhood" is discussed. You have to be specific about what you'd like changed.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#105

Post by DoreenMichele » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

I don't even know where to begin to critique this. It entirely leaves out factors like race and gender that are known to have an impact.

I've spent a lot of years trying to understand the details of exactly how my gender is a factor and trying to find solutions to those details. I don't believe it has to be a problem, but we know it currently is a problem, and these cleaned up models seem to never include the idea that if you are female or a person of color or gay etc, you will tend to have "demerits" or be handicapped (in the horse racing sense of carrying an extra burden).

If talent, work and luck were everything, then we shouldn't have such consistent outcomes that certain groups overall do better than others.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#106

Post by kaolti » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

steaknsteak wrote: post #73

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never known a hard-working person who wasn't successful?

It's moreso that the inverse is true. Not working hard will almost certainly not lead to success (unless your family is rich enough to where you can just "buy" more success). Working hard will not necessarily lead to success, but it's a prerequisite. The amount of work required also depends on what obstacles you're born with and degree of success is desired

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say lol.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't any other factors or that this justifies not helping less fortunate people.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#107

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

Lewton wrote: post #97

steaknsteak wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's moreso that the inverse is true. Not working hard will almost certainly not lead to success (unless your family is rich enough to where you can just "buy" more success). Working hard will not necessarily lead to success, but it's a prerequisite. The amount of work required also depends on what obstacles you're born with and degree of success is desired

I’ve never worked hard in my life and I earn more than my (hard working) parents combined

Careful when making that statement that you don't fall into the trap of believing that only physical labor counts as "hard work".

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#108

Post by kolbe » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #102

kolbe wrote: post #38

If you don't even have the ability to quantitatively differentiate luck and talent, what is the point in developing an economic model completely dependent on those two things?

This is a good point. You can't actually measure any of these things, thus you can't prove them. What's the point in debating them then?

I disagree. Unprovable things can and often should be a part of a dialogue. I don't know what that has to do with unquantifiable things being left out of quantitative economic models, though.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#109

Post by notspelledright » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #22

One of the biggest issues that discussions of inequality ignore is generational issues. People view wealth as an individual thing. However, if you look at American society, probably the majority has been generational. Each generation worked and saved to better their children's lives. An example of this is probably in immigrants. Many people came with practically nothing but he clothes on their back. They took whateve…

I'm not entirely sure that this is correct. As an example, this recent article from the NYTimes looks at the economic status of black Americans and their children vs. white Americans and their children: [1]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#110

Post by ABCLAW » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #99

ABCLAW wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many real estate markets in the west, gainful employment substantially above the median income is still not even close to enough to secure a reasonable sized 'home'. Then there are places like Vancouver, where the average yearly income is less than the average yearly payments for residential properties. But if you got in and leveraged yourself to the hilt starting in 2008, you could own a sizable equity stake in a…

Why does success mean being able to afford a home in one of the most expensive real estate markets in North America? If I were to say "I'm not successful because I only make $200K and can't afford a home in Manhattan", people would laugh in my face.

I think we're radically changing the goal posts of success if a wide swath of educated, hard working young professionals can't afford to lay down roots in the cities they grew up in because of the current absurd asset bubble's effect on home prices.

Additionally, your example is kinda silly. on an income of $200k, you can afford a high end luxury apartment with approximately half of your income - as a bachelor.