Once poor, always poor? • Hacker News Board

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#41

Post by amcoastal » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:20 AM UTC

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #38

amcoastal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the people gaining the wealth that some rich families are losing are people that need high economic mobility and not just other rich people?

How does the fact that 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth within 3 generations gel with wealth being lost to other rich people? That doesn't logically make sense. If that was the case then there would slowly be ever fewer rich people who become ever richer. But if you look at the richest people in the world that isn't the case.

Because the rich that arent losing their wealth are getting richer at ridiculous rates? And where is that money coming from?

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#42

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:21 AM UTC

amcoastal wrote: post #35

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact most Americans over-estimate the amount of economic mobility that we have Your link seems to say otherwise. If economic mobility were low then most rich families would not see their wealth meaningfully eroded for generations. This was the case in feudal Europe and many ancient empires like Rome. The fact that most families lose wealth in 3 generations due to mismanagement implies someone else is gaining tha…

You think the people gaining the wealth that some rich families are losing are people that need high economic mobility and not just other rich people?

I think they're losing to the middle class, yes. Folks like Bezos and Zuckerberg didn't start rich.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#43

Post by ivanmontillam » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:22 AM UTC

netizen-936824 wrote: post #33

ivanmontillam wrote: post #24

It's true that culture can make you poor, by the means of setting your mindset. I've seen people in the towns of South America (i.e. not the main cities) whose family traditions set them on a path of "wait to be given" instead of "go and get it" mentality. Of course, this never materializes, and the person lives their life impoverished. Money is such a taboo in these families, that you end up thinking it's dirty unti…

So what's the life meaning they should chase? Money? Human greed seems to center around money and causes tons of issues in society, maybe those families have the right sort of idea thinking of it as dirty

That's not what I said.

However, money as a tool should be well-balanced into your priorities as a human participating into this society. Not the 1st thing, but perhaps the 2nd or 3rd at the very least.

Money is the most liquid value exchange tool we have. It's not to be hoarded I agree, but to be effectively used towards one's benefits which in turn, by the forces of altruism also serves the society as a whole. Would you use barter, then?

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#44

Post by b9a2cab5 » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:22 AM UTC

amcoastal wrote: post #41

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the fact that 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth within 3 generations gel with wealth being lost to other rich people? That doesn't logically make sense. If that was the case then there would slowly be ever fewer rich people who become ever richer. But if you look at the richest people in the world that isn't the case.

Because the rich that arent losing their wealth are getting richer at ridiculous rates? And where is that money coming from?

If what you're saying is true we'd see the number of rich decrease exponentially. That is objectively not the case.

> Where is that money coming from?

Not sure what you mean by this?

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#45

Post by bobthepanda » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:23 AM UTC

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #25

bobthepanda wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would assume the free education people get is equivalent across income levels, which is a hard thing to do in the best of circumstances. Even independent of educational quality, there is a world of difference between a school's ability to teach a well fed, comfortable child and a child whose only meal of the day is the free school lunch. Similarly, a rich child can afford to do unpaid internships on summer break…

The idea that education (in terms of knowledge and skill acquisition) is zero sum is wrong. Educational equality starts with parents giving a shit about their kids' education. Why do you think Asians overachieve on every benchmark we have? Could it possibly be because there are cultural factors that motivate parents to care very strongly about their childrens' education? America spends the most in the world per capit…

...in technology. Unless we're seriously going to force everyone into tech jobs, we need an economic model that works for broadly most industries.

As an example, nearly all starting first-year internships in law are unpaid. People who don't take those will be competing with those that did do them the next year.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#46

Post by Jensson » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:23 AM UTC

netizen-936824 wrote: post #26

Jensson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much, the main problem is that the kids aren't getting basic education. Every kid in developed nations has access to free education and parents aren't allowed to make their kids work to feed the home instead of going to schools. In Nigeria kids often don't have access to free education, and even when they do parents often prefer having their kids work to bring home money over making them go to school.

What about kids in poverty in the US? Are you sure they're getting a good education? Are they hungry when they go to school? How hard is it to learn when you don't have good nutrition?

There are issues with poverty in the US, they just aren't very similar to the issues poor people face in Nigeria so this article doesn't say much about that issue.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#47

Post by somesortofthing » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:24 AM UTC

throwaway55421 wrote: post #3

"It is a sad and little-known reality that poverty tends to persist between generations". Is it? To me it's intuitively obvious and I can't think of any real person who would disagree? I can't even conceive of a different way this could work. Reducing the correlation to zero would require basically removing money's functional utility.

It's obvious but acknowledging it too loudly can be seen as denying people's agency, both in the abstract(It can be interpreted as devaluing the experiences of people who escaped generational poverty) and in particular(A poor person hearing you say it may interpret it as you saying that their efforts to escape poverty are for naught). I don't agree with these interpretations, but there certainly are people that will deploy them, for one reason or another.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#48

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:25 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #39

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're a teenage girl, depending on your culture, your family seems to be peer pressuring you to be a mother Ironically, societies that do not steer girls to parenthood are subject to extinction. I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's just the law of nature.

>Ironically, societies that do not steer girls to parenthood are subject to extinction. Which societies have gone extinct due to this?

I'm not aware of such societies: the whole idea of women not being destined for childbearing is relatively new.

Some countries are firmly on the course though: https://www.scb.se/en/About-us/news-and-press-releases/2020-...

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#49

Post by ivanmontillam » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:27 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #39

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're a teenage girl, depending on your culture, your family seems to be peer pressuring you to be a mother Ironically, societies that do not steer girls to parenthood are subject to extinction. I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's just the law of nature.

>Ironically, societies that do not steer girls to parenthood are subject to extinction. Which societies have gone extinct due to this?

I've not seen societies going down for this, but it's easy to see a well-positioned families have one child and financially poor families have 5 or more children.

Source: mere observation.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#50

Post by b9a2cab5 » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:27 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #45

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that education (in terms of knowledge and skill acquisition) is zero sum is wrong. Educational equality starts with parents giving a shit about their kids' education. Why do you think Asians overachieve on every benchmark we have? Could it possibly be because there are cultural factors that motivate parents to care very strongly about their childrens' education? America spends the most in the world per capit…

...in technology. Unless we're seriously going to force everyone into tech jobs, we need an economic model that works for broadly most industries. As an example, nearly all starting first-year internships in law are unpaid. People who don't take those will be competing with those that did do them the next year.

We don't need more art historians and event coordinators and other roles for which internships are unpaid. For every degree that actually results in positive return on investment (so, not most liberal arts degrees), internships are paid. Economics, biology, chemistry, business, statistics, law, these are all degrees that mostly have paid internships.

About the only place where you can reasonably say "we need more of these people" but is unpaid is legislative offices. And I agree, government should hire fewer but more highly paid and higher performing staff.