Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s better to be born rich than gifted

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 202 posts

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#141

Post by jwatte »

jesssse wrote: post #132
RestlessMind wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? Like many things in social contract, the answer is - okay to a reasonable degree, but extremes should be discouraged / forbidden. Some concrete examples: annual limits on gift taxes, inheritance tax beyond a certain estate size etc. Policies which will level the playing field between rich and poor kids: - very high rate of inheritance tax beyo…

I am confused about taxes. When a person gives their family member a gift, why do you feel entitled to a portion of this private exchange of wealth?

The only reason you can accumulate and have wealth, is that the society exists.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#142

Post by mcguire »

Qworg wrote: post #13
dokein wrote: post #6

This isn’t going to be popular, but: Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost. For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer op…

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

There was an article posted here recently about the originator of the term "meritocracy". He wasn't entirely positive about it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18179583

From one of my comments: That's the weird part: “I.Q. + effort = merit” sounds pretty positive, right?

But,

"A system of class filtered by meritocracy would, in his view, still be a system of class: it would involve a hierarchy of social respect, granting dignity to those at the top, but denying respect and self-respect to those who did not inherit the talents and the capacity for effort that, combined with proper education, would give them access to the most highly remunerated occupations."

The intended result doesn't sound very appealing. Then there was this quote:

"Young’s vision was decidedly dystopian. As wealth increasingly reflects the innate distribution of natural talent, and the wealthy increasingly marry one another, society sorts into two main classes, in which everyone accepts that they have more or less what they deserve. He imagined a country in which “the eminent know that success is a just reward for their own capacity, their own efforts,” and in which the lower orders know that they have failed every chance they were given. “They are tested again and again…. If they have been labeled ‘dunce’ repeatedly they cannot any longer pretend; their image of themselves is more nearly a true, unflattering reflection.”"

That sounds familiar.

"But one immediate difficulty was that, as Young’s narrator concedes, “nearly all parents are going to try to gain unfair advantages for their offspring.” And when you have inequalities of income, one thing people can do with extra money is to pursue that goal. If the financial status of your parents helped determine your economic rewards, you would no longer be living by the formula that “I.Q. + effort = merit.”"

And so does that.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#143

Post by justinator »

dokein wrote: post #6

This isn’t going to be popular, but: Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost. For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer op…

> Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?

I'm pretty happy to have been brought up poor. I had to figure things out for myself, and if things went wrong, it was my fault. Emerson's "Self Reliance" became my guiding star. To be "indefatigable" is not something easy to teach if you have options for exits.

As Dylan put it, "helpless, like a rich man's son"

It doesn't make me rich; but it certainly doesn't make me think of wealth as the end all, be all, in life.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#144

Post by _8j50 »

You know what's better than both? Perseverance. Learned or by birth,those who can persevere succeed. The world is full of gifted losers. Even those born rich might not amount to more than what they were born with.

If a child grows up to be a decent human being,a functional member of society ,a responsible spouse,parent,child and can hold down a decent job is that person not doing better than a rich and gifted person that can't function well in society and does not treat others well?

All I'm saying is 'better' should mean across the board better. Not just financially , career wise or contributions to society.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#145

Post by mcguire »

cm2012 wrote: post #102
ageek123 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life? Nobody’s suggesting that parent’s shouldn’t use whatever resources they have. But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. The way you boost smart poor children is by taking money from non-poor parents. So you really are suggesting that non-poor parents "shouldn't use whatever resources they have." I don't think anyone fun…

Luckily, there are massively diminishing returns to money's effect on educational outcomes and overall happiness, so a dollar taxed from the rich is worth much less to them than to the poor it is given to.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479093/

Table 3 is interesting.

"Almost half (50.7%) of the children with low IQ [0–79] came from families with income "

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#146

Post by dahart »

jesssse wrote: post #130
dahart wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. It is not zero-sum, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in either the US economy nor the global economy. If we educated everyone, and everyone with potential reached their potential and contributed to the economy, we can all have more wealth. It’s not a requirement that someone lose, and this is what I meant by a return of two dollars for every dollar spent. > The way you b…

College is already overpriced because of government subsidies. Your plan would make it worse.

> College is already overpriced because of government subsidies.

That is an interesting narrative. Direct state funding per-student for college is down in almost all states over the last 10 years and the last 30 years. Tuition has risen for several reasons: 1- to compensate for lack of state funding, 2- because colleges and universities have larger higher paid administrations than ever before. Some of the subsidies we have are nothing more than consolation prizes for state funding cuts that are larger than the subsidies, so I simply don’t buy that public funding has caused tuition to rise, when public funding is declining overall.

> Your plan would make it worse.

I didn’t share a plan, so I’m not sure what you mean.

But, I have to wonder, why does it matter if tuition goes up, if it’s a net positive to the economy? Why would it matter if tuition goes up, if it’s paid for? Why do you assume that tuition prices would look anything like they do now if all of education was publicly funded?

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#147

Post by mcguire »

tomp wrote: post #52
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

I interpret meritocracy as being judged by the outcome of your doings . If someone has IQ 10000 but spends it to dominate WoW, then... I don't see why they should be paid a lot (some other people might disagree, though). Likewise, if someone leverages their genetics, family, wealth, skills, efforts, and luck towards great outcomes (e.g. Elon Musk), then they should be rewarded, as they're meritocratically the best .…

"If the only people who can do that are "the wealthy"..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Family_and_person...

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#148

Post by EdgarVerona »

dokein wrote: post #6

This isn’t going to be popular, but: Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost. For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer op…

To me, it's not so much that they shouldn't be allowed to do that - it's just that we need to recognize the advantage it gives.

These statistics should give a person pause when they talk about "bootstraps" or when they hold a Calvinist perspective that a person not being successful somehow "deserved it." It doesn't mean that we need to have some sort of totally even playing field: but it does mean that we shouldn't pretend the field is even - even if the actionable result is just to treat poor and/or unsuccessful people with more empathy and compassion than we might have previously. And perhaps a measurement more of self-examination when we decide (consciously or unconsciously) that we are "better" than others due to our success.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#149

Post by mcguire »

iguy wrote: post #85
Thriptic wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fully willing to admit that there may be functional cultures in the world which frown upon showing preference to friends or family at the expense of random people. I've yet to see any of them though.

Well this is certainly one axis along which they vary. There's a line between "is it OK to start a start-up with your dorm-mate?" and "is it OK to spend 5% of the nation's budget buying submarines through your brother-in-law's banana company?" You have information about your dorm-mate, and you aren't acting on behalf of others. But if the same norms applied to CEOs and judges, we could not have our civilisation.

"But if the same norms applied to CEOs and judges, we could not have our civilisation."

Those norms don't apply to CEOs and judges?

News to me.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#150

Post by samontar »

obscurantist wrote: post #103
Kaveren wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you don't, where is this supposed to come from? 130 IQ on 15 SD is probably significantly too high as well to be the mean average.

I've lived in the Bay Area since before starting kindergarten. No way the average IQ of software engineers here, or anywhere, is close to 130. Software engineering might be one of the only STEM disciplines that gives credibility to the Ortega hypothesis.

Haha, in my various jobs I always considered myself fairly gifted in intelligence. Then one day I met a guy who is actually clearly damned intelligent - a technical cofounder of a company. The speed with which he would comprehend a problem and approach it was off the charts in comparison to me. Quite remarkable, really, and it sort of made me realize how smart some people can be. It was like going to college again and finding out that while you were exceptional in school, you’re now with a lot of people just like you. Love it.
Post reply on HN