Live data from Hacker News

Is a Hard Life Inherited?

nytimes.com

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Is a Hard Life Inherited?

#31
From an European (Belgian, if you're interested) perspective, it's borderline shocking that these questions are so hotly debated.

When I contrast the image I get by consuming American media and what I witness here, the contrast is astonishing. Social mobility seems to be much more prevalent here than in the states. Of course, the gap between "poors" and "rich" is much smaller. But I can legitimately say that everyone here has a chance to make it. It might be harder for some, but it's rare to really have your head under the water, as I've heard happens often to poor people in the states (too many accounts, both from traditional and social media, too discount as pure fancy).

It's shocking that education is not a right. Here, it costs less than half a month salary to get tuition for a year; and the level is good besides (w.r.t. the states, not saying it couldn't be better).

And in the end? The quality of life is I believe the same here as in most well off places in the states. But the people at the bottom suffer less. That's a win in my book.

Re: Is a Hard Life Inherited?

#33
post #10

I am reminded of PG's essay on income inequality. Worth reading if you haven't: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html

I haven't read this particular essay, but I've read those on wealth and income inequality from Hackers & Painters, and those seems rather similar from what I've skimmed.

PG makes a good point when he says that inequality is not intrinsically bad. It's not bad if the quality of life of both the poor and the rich increase. The fact is that it has been shown that the quality of life of the poor has in fact decreased. In this context, the rise of inequality doesn't seem agreeable.

Especially when you consider the source of this inequality: entrepreneurs are not out to eat the poor people's lunch; but if the crisis has shown anything, it's that greed at multiple strategic points in the system (esp. the banking system) had very bad consequences for the people ground by the wheels of said system.

I think it's useful to keep in mind the time at which those essays were written (first half of the 2000s), when such opinion may have been easier to form. I'm curious to know if PG would write the same today.

Re: Is a Hard Life Inherited?

#34

Isn't success in the United States better explained by hard work and intelligence? You can lower the cost of being unsuccessful by expanding the availability of health care for the poor, increasing long-term unemployment benefits or raising the minimum wage, but the middle class doesn't rely on these programs for its success.

> Isn't success in the United States better explained by hard work and intelligence?

That's the official party line, at least.

Re: Is a Hard Life Inherited?

#35
ONE delusion common among America’s successful people is that they triumphed just because of hard work and intelligence.

The ability to work hard (conscientiousness) and intelligence are also heritable to a significant degree. The central supposed conflict between inherited privilege and innate qualities simply doesn't exist because our qualities are inherited[1].

This always surprises me when I read about privilege and related subjects, the fixation on race, sex and, as in this case, class. I can name at least five factors that matter much more for your life outcomes:

1. conscientiousness,

2. being born in or able to move to the first world,

3. intelligence,

4. conscientiousness again,

5. and looks (face symmetry, height).

OK, I cheated a little but conscientiousness really matters a lot. I highly doubt music classes, or library card would crack the top 100. Maybe as a correlate for educated (ie. likely intelligent) parents.

Those used to be heavily influenced by class due to widespread malnutrition but this is now gone from the western world. Which is why we see diminishing returns from investments in education, or any intervention, really.

Let's take truancy and suspension as an example since it was mentioned in the story. Is suspension responsible for kids' later poor educational outcomes? Unlikely[2]:

while suspension is strongly associated with educational outcomes, the relationship is unlikely to be causal, but rather stems from differences in the characteristics of those suspended compared to those not suspended. Moreover, there is no evidence that suspension is associated with larger educational penalties for young people from disadvantaged family backgrounds compared to those from more advantaged family backgrounds

Even in the west you can simply be unlucky but as a society we're bumping against the limits of who we are. I'm not saying that the usual "get married, stay married, take care of your kids, don't inject H, crime doesn't pay" is not a good advice but let's not forget that we're just a bunch of clever apes and perhaps should ease up on the hubris that somehow we should be able to better manage never before seen levels of complexity ("Hey, here are a few steps I came up with!").

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880

[2] http://ftp.iza.org/dp7794.pdf

Re: Is a Hard Life Inherited?

#36
post #17
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I hate the argument that boils down success to just being lucky I don't think that that's the real argument being presented in the editorial. Rather, it's that for a large portion of humanity, success means overcoming tremendous odds. When your parents sit home and drink 22oz Milwaukee's Best Ice all day, how do you even learn what you need to do to be successful?

It also goes other way round. Just as bad behavior cause economical problems, economical problems cause social and behavioral problems. If you live in a place with huge unemployment rates, not much to do and little hope for future, you are more likely to start drinking or get into trouble. The effect can be seen when local economy goes down the drain while the people stay in place - problems goes up usually. To add t…

I see a thermodynamics corollary there.

The overall "temperature" in an area is the mean income of an area. Colder is poorer. You may be able to apply some heat here and there, but any source of heat (money) is drained and attempts to balance out with the ambient cold temperature. And given the expanse of a cold mass, a localized heat source is nary enough to raise the ambient temp by fractions of a degree.

This cold temp is what we would call a blight or distressed neighborhood. The way to fix this is to raise the temperature everywhere by broad injects of money/goods/services.

Re: Is a Hard Life Inherited?

#38

Isn't success in the United States better explained by hard work and intelligence? You can lower the cost of being unsuccessful by expanding the availability of health care for the poor, increasing long-term unemployment benefits or raising the minimum wage, but the middle class doesn't rely on these programs for its success.

Yes, success in the United States can be explained by some combination of hard work, intelligence, and luck.

Hard work and intelligence can, to a depressingly large extent, be predicted by the success of your parents.

Re: Is a Hard Life Inherited?

#39
post #28
post #24

I'm not sure if most of the commentators here are joking or just being too subtly sarcastic, but truly the best predictor of a person's success is the success of his parents during his formative years. It's not a hard-coded rule, but it's statistics: if, given two persons of equal age, gender and health, you would have to bet how they turn out, your best bet would be to look at their parents and assume the same will…

Nitpick (since I don't dispute your main point): Parents aren't the sole source of influence in a person's formative years. Kindergarten, neighborhood, peer group, school are just as if not more influential. In fact, some promising ways to inject higher quality human capital than some families are able to provide on their own rely on those other channels.

[deleted]

Re: Is a Hard Life Inherited?

#40
post #28
post #24

I'm not sure if most of the commentators here are joking or just being too subtly sarcastic, but truly the best predictor of a person's success is the success of his parents during his formative years. It's not a hard-coded rule, but it's statistics: if, given two persons of equal age, gender and health, you would have to bet how they turn out, your best bet would be to look at their parents and assume the same will…

Nitpick (since I don't dispute your main point): Parents aren't the sole source of influence in a person's formative years. Kindergarten, neighborhood, peer group, school are just as if not more influential. In fact, some promising ways to inject higher quality human capital than some families are able to provide on their own rely on those other channels.

What do you think best predict what kind of neighborhood someone grows up in, what kind of kindergarten that can be afforded, peers someone has a chance get to know and what schools they will attend?

The chain of causality from parent's success (or lack thereof) to children's success doesn't only go via the parents direct influence on the children, but probably more through the environment they have the means and foresight to provide.

Post reply on HN