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

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

#111

Post by FranzFerdiNaN » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:27 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.

Yes, if the baseline for the richest country in the world is "has a roof" then hard work mostly is enough to succeed. But there are too many people who work extremely hard, sometimes at two or three jobs, who barely can afford to eat and need government assistance. So no, hard work is not a good terminology.

There simply isn't a link between "working hard" and any measure of success above the lowest baseline. Some people succeed because of a small one million dollar loan from their parents without having to ever work hard.

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

#112

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

troupe wrote: post #86

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty. Some have kids. Others are in grad school. Some are even dealing with both.

> Plenty. Some have kids. Others are in grad school. Some are even dealing with both. Yes people who go out and have kids without thinking through how they will provide for them usually have to work pretty hard at first. Still most of the people I've seen in this situation aren't really as bad off as they think. If you didn't plan for having kids, you likely aren't in very good control of your budget either and a sma…

Then you're just not looking hard enough, or your moving your goalposts of what you count. You're also falling into the trap of believing that all children are planned. Pregnancy happens even if you take precautions to have safe sex, and in many parts of the country, a person's options for dealing with that are extremely limited.

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

#113

Post by FranzFerdiNaN » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #85

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what you define as hard work. There's stories on Reddit's late stage capitalism subforum about a graduated biochemist entertaining customers at Starbucks with random facts; it was considered cute by the original poster, like, wow, a smart barista. While it was sad that he worked hard to get his papers but couldn't land a job.

I don't see how job opportunities in any field reflect on whether or not hard work is effective?

It proves that hard work had nothing to do with succeeding. Getting a biochemistry degree is hard work yet it gave the owner nothing more than a job a high schooler can do.

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

#114

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

denzil_correa wrote: post #17

mapcars wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide Earning a living should not be a problem in the modern world with basically any kind of job. One of the big problems is people want the latest iphone, the best car, the most luxurious home, holidays, etc. The expectation of life had been set too high to make it happen even for a small part of the population. What is actually needed is way, way differe…

> Earning a living should not be a problem in the modern world with basically any kind of job. It would be interesting to see the thought process and methodology that brought you to this conclusion.

I mean, I personally do agree with that. If you have a full time job, you should be earning enough to where you can provide for yourself and your family without having to resort to food stamps or welfare or anything like that. Unfortunately, Amazon, Walmart, et al disagree.

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

#115

Post by falcolas » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:32 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?

Well, no, I'd say that it means that the line of work matters much more than the amount of work put into it.

Between two salesmen in the B2B industry, the amount of work put forward will create a difference in their overall pay. But both salesmen will make more than the hardest working waiter or waitress.

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

#116

Post by FranzFerdiNaN » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:33 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?

Of course they can. It's a political choice not to.

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

#117

Post by ihm » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

sol_remmy wrote: post #98

Thiez wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your definition of inequality, which basically equals popularity, is a useful one. The article is about income inequality. While it is true that people always making the unpopular choice would reduce winner-takes-all effects, it's not worth it: it requires great personal sacrifice, and as an individual there is almost no gain: society is hardly going to benefit when you intentionally hamstring yourself…

> I don't think your definition of inequality, which basically equals popularity, is a useful one. The article is about income inequality. My definition is perfect. High popularity -> high income -> inequality. If you bandwagon onto a popular author like J.K. Rowling, then you are further enriching her and causing inequality. If you want to legislate away inequality for say, Twitch streamers, then pass a law that no…

It doesn't have to be the case that high popularity -> high income. That's how we structure it in our society currently but there's no reason it has to be that way.

We could still have popular things, and even reward their creators with a lot of money, but less than we currently do.

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

#118

Post by rectang » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #104

rectang wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> Economics is a natural force.

The extent to which "natural" inequality is amplified by institutions varies. Dictatorship is a very "natural" way to distribute rewards.

We don't have to accept dictatorship as our destiny just because it is "natural", nor do we have to accept current levels of economic inequality as immutable.

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

#119

Post by quotemstr » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #81

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #78

In a meritocratic society, there is positive correlation between talent and success. But how steep should this relationship be? If the talent-success slope is very steep (i.e., a small talent difference causes a large capital gap), you might end up having a wide distribution of wealth (severe economic inequality). On the other hand, if the slope is quite flat (i.e., a big talent difference makes little difference in…

You assume the ability to gain capital has anything to do with the ability to invest well. A quick check of sports stars shows this is very far from the case. Talent is not universal, being a great Doctor has little to do with being a great painter or investor.

> Talent is not universal, being a great Doctor has little to do with being a great painter or investor.

You might like to think so, but g says otherwise.

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

#120

Post by runeb » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

troupe wrote: post #80

runeb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can it be inequality if you are not comparing someone who delivers the exact same service or product?

It isn't the quality of the service or product that is being compared. It is the fact that when you buy from companies with really good/popular products you are doing so with a bunch of other people and that puts more money in the pockets of the people who made quality products. If you don't like them having lots of money, spend your money elsewhere.

Is that inequality though? I believe inequality is when differences are unjust or someone or something is being discriminated against based on other things than merit or quality.