Live data from Hacker News

The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

technologyreview.com

331–340 of 356 posts

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#331
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're still wealthy, though, that's the main point. It's not that wealthy parents = billions of dollars, it's that the path to billionaire status overwhelmingly starts with abnormally good starting conditions.

Billionaire is a bad metric. These are outliers of outliers. Obviously everyone can't be a billionaire. That's like asking why everyone isn't an Olympic gold medalist. Of course the path to a billionaire is going to start with abnormal conditions. It's also going to be completely abnormal along the way, too. It's an abnormal outcome. Why would you expect anything different?

> Obviously everyone can't be a billionaire.

The question is should anyone be a billionaire? Many of us think the answer is 'no'.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#332
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaire is a bad metric. These are outliers of outliers. Obviously everyone can't be a billionaire. That's like asking why everyone isn't an Olympic gold medalist. Of course the path to a billionaire is going to start with abnormal conditions. It's also going to be completely abnormal along the way, too. It's an abnormal outcome. Why would you expect anything different?

> Obviously everyone can't be a billionaire. The question is should anyone be a billionaire? Many of us think the answer is 'no'.

Should anyone run a sub-4 minute mile? Should anyone be 7 feet tall? Should anyone make the world's largest pizza? What other outliers are you going to put yourself in charge of regulating?

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#333
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is really callous and unmerciful compared to other places in the world like Europe, which has a level of public spending that many view as unsustainably high? Edit: plenty of economists are saying this! It's hardly a controversial view

The US is #15 on the debt relative to GDP country list according to [1,2]. So you are saying in the US "spending is unsustainably high" AND "life is really callous and unmerciful" at once? [1] https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-debt-... [2] Sorted: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTcH12ah_hJh...

No. I'm saying that the idea that the European model is the solution is simplistic at best.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#334
post #240
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They seem to have sustained this far.

The turkey said that same thing the day before Thanksgiving. The OP might be incorrect, but you are using the wrong argument against theirs.

If the title of the article is anything to go by, it will be mere luck if one system services and another doesn’t.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is really callous and unmerciful compared to other places in the world like Europe, which has a level of public spending that many view as unsustainably high? Edit: plenty of economists are saying this! It's hardly a controversial view

Northern Europe or Mediterranean Europe? Greece and Italy are a mess, but the North's budgets look a lot better than the U.S.'s does.

Well let's be generous and also include Portugal and Spain for good measure, both of which have seen an entire generation's prospects suffer massive harm due to EU (eurozone) policy. It's always funny to me how blithely the destruction of millions of people's lives and potential is waved away when it doesn't fit the narrative.

And then lets take a look at the North: Germany employs the Euro to support its economy by decreasing the true cost of its exports, resulting in the impoverishment of the southern European countries already mentioned. France's economy has been facing calls for major reform for decades now and - not sure if you've missed it - the latest economy related political problems have led to a minor civil war. Both economies also now face the prospect of integrating millions of low-skilled, penniless new arrivals. Those are the two biggest economies by far in the EU (if UK leaves). And then there's no shortage of other economies snapping at Europe's heels, all perfectly capable of manufacturing products that are equal if not superior to what comes out of Europe. Many think that German automotive engineering dropped off a cliff in terms of quality in the early 2000s and never really recovered, as a consequence of superior quality from Japan and Korea. And now China are just starting to penetrate Western markets with cars that are plenty good enough.

Also don't forget the Euro does not have the privilege of being the world's reserve currency. This gives the US a massive advantage and lessens the impact of deficits.

I live in one of these high benefit economies and having been taxed for years feel I'm owed something in return. But I don't expect it. Given the trends afoot I think anyone below 50 in Europe that thinks the welfare state will continue to be like it is now over their lifetime is utterly delusional.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#336
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the mathematical simulation is more precise because you've exactly stated the model and ran it. While doing it verbally allows for all kinds of interpretation and is therefore much harder to interpret. I apologise but I also really sincerely don't understand your verbal reasoning in the context of this particular paper. They took two underlying distributions and managed to produce something that look…

I reread our back and forth, and I think my clearest explanation is in the original post where I quote from the author. So I think we might be at the limits of my ability to communicate in this medium. But even in the instance you are talking about -- let's just abstract away everything else -- we know that the output of a gaussian process over time will be a very wide dispersion. If you assume stock prices follow so…

I won't dismiss what you're saying but tbh it's very opaque - do you have a link to something that explains what you're trying to say? Something mathematical would help (for the reasons I outlined in my earlier reply!)

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#337
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the mathematical simulation is more precise because you've exactly stated the model and ran it. While doing it verbally allows for all kinds of interpretation and is therefore much harder to interpret. I apologise but I also really sincerely don't understand your verbal reasoning in the context of this particular paper. They took two underlying distributions and managed to produce something that look…

Given the starting numbers, the math is fine. But because the starting numbers are not real data, they had to create them out of a simplified model - and all the decisions that went into that model can be criticized and used as reasons that the output is wrong.

I don't think that's a problem. A lot of valid work has been done on simplified models and they're there to illustrate what might be going on rather than absolute proof. And yes you can criticise them, since that is the point.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#338
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reread our back and forth, and I think my clearest explanation is in the original post where I quote from the author. So I think we might be at the limits of my ability to communicate in this medium. But even in the instance you are talking about -- let's just abstract away everything else -- we know that the output of a gaussian process over time will be a very wide dispersion. If you assume stock prices follow so…

I won't dismiss what you're saying but tbh it's very opaque - do you have a link to something that explains what you're trying to say? Something mathematical would help (for the reasons I outlined in my earlier reply!)

Let's take a function that produces normally distributed random variables. Let's run this function at every moment in time starting at t=0, and then sum it with the prior sum.

You can use a function that sort of looks like that to simulate a lot of different processes (a random walk, brownian motion etc).

Here is a more mathematical write up of the properties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process

Now I can run this "simulation" -- even though the inputs and outputs are well understood -- many times and say it represents:

1. A stock price

2. The random motion of a particle given the kinetic energy of the particle

3. The wealth of an individual given intelligence and hard work

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#339
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously everyone can't be a billionaire. The question is should anyone be a billionaire? Many of us think the answer is 'no'.

Should anyone run a sub-4 minute mile? Should anyone be 7 feet tall? Should anyone make the world's largest pizza? What other outliers are you going to put yourself in charge of regulating?

None of these (except the pizza?) are the result of policy, a billion dollars is. None of these polarize undemocratic power, a billion dollars does. None of them are innate in the sense that they cannot be separated from the person like extreme wealth. Height and athletic ability are neutral in a way that extreme wealth are not. Height and athletic ability are biological and meritorious in a way extreme wealth could never be. These aren't in the same category and cannot be reduced to a value neutral "outlier".

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#340
post #109

I went to an elite engineering school. My colleagues are all really smart. After 20 years, some are wealthy, some are poor. There is no apparent link between how hard they worked and how rich they became. However you can definitely trace how a few good breaks led to one guy being rich and another not. Did the guys who went to work for Google take any additional risk? Yet, they are now millionaires. How about the entr…

> Yes, by my direct observation, it’s mostly chance. Wait, what? Are you sure you're reaching the right conclusion? It sounds like your anecdote supports the opposite once you stop looking inter-your-small-group, and start comparing groups. Have you compared median wage data for your elite university versus median wage data for the country you are in? I suspect the difference is noticeable. It appears you are making…

This is a very good point. I would be shocked if the median income among grads from an elite engineering school is not considerably higher than the median income of the population.
Post reply on HN