The base model, where one day you double your wealth and the next you lose half - is that based on anything or just easy to implement?
Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
31–40 of 197 posts
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#32One 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 sure the Y-generation would agree it worked for them.
The student loads have never been such a burden. The cost of housing skyrocketed. If they want to eat for the same price as their grand parents they need to eat junk food.
I mean: my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma.
But the flat screen prices are very cheap so they got that going for them.
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an absolute, binary statement, yes, because it is not always true, not even close. Hard work is only one component of success. Physical attractiveness and charisma are often at least as important, even though logically they seem irrelevant. Dealing successfully with humans is often not terribly intuitive.
I don't think anyone is saying they are irrelevant, nothing is black and white. For practical purposes however, hard work does lead to success.
You've never known a hard-working person who wasn't successful?
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#34One 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…
Isn't it the striving, the need to move from one circumstance to the next, is what propels us forward?
People don't make progress in spite of their struggle, progress is made because of the struggle.
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#35Earlier 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…
What do you base this on? I know plenty of people working multiple jobs and saving every dollar they can who still barely get by.
You see many people in the United States who are working hard and avoiding foolish decisions that cannot seem to provide for their needs and set money aside for the future?
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#36One 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…
The American dream is about climbing from the bottom to the top, the idea that the 'real' American dream is working your ass off your entire life on the bottom rung so you can put your kid on the second rung and he can work his ass off his entire life to put his kid on the third rung and so on, always with the risk that one generation will slip and fall back down is total crap. It is antithetical to the idea of meritocracy.
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you base this on? I know plenty of people working multiple jobs and saving every dollar they can who still barely get by.
You see many people in the United States who are working hard and avoiding foolish decisions that cannot seem to provide for their needs and set money aside for the future?
[deleted]
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#38If 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?
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#39One 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…
Keep in mind that many of those immigrants were still doing a lot better in the US than they were where they came from. So they may "well off" in significant ways even if not compared to someone who was born here. And for some people, living past 35 is well off compared to their homeland.
Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you base this on? I know plenty of people working multiple jobs and saving every dollar they can who still barely get by.
You see many people in the United States who are working hard and avoiding foolish decisions that cannot seem to provide for their needs and set money aside for the future?
Plenty. Some have kids. Others are in grad school. Some are even dealing with both.