41–50 of 75 posts
It doesn't seem like there is much to say on this topic. Wealth accumulation is the outcome of many dice rolls, some that are weighted in ways that are within your control and some that are weighted in ways outside your control. The most you can do is to roll as many dice as you can and, to the best of your ability, choose those that are already optimally weighted.
One of the best predictors for financial success is your ZIP code. https://www.opportunityatlas.org/
What a dumb argument.
The failure rate for smart people who don't try and don't take risks is 100%.
That sounds weird, how can you fail if you don't try? What sounds better to me is that the success rate for those who don't try is 0%, which btw I don't see a counter argument for the article. Obviously if you don't try you don't even enter the lottery.
It's hardly "just chance". Wealth is a fitness landscape. The way to climb it is a function of talent, intelligence, perseverance, connections, leverage, charisma, mindshare, labor capital, financial capital, "right place, right time" (chance), and a multitude of other factors in an n-dimensional, m-agent game that is simultaneously cooperative and competitive. You can start at an advantage or disadvantage. You can m…
I don't understand why we have to ignore this reality, I'm not wealthier than someone else because of "charisma" or "talent". I was born into a family that could afford to take risks (lucky), embraced tech early (lucky), kept me healthy and without defects (lucky), I got great teachers growing up (lucky), met the right people who kept me from falling into the traps of drugs and abuse (lucky), the list goes on. I'm grateful for so much in my life, and very little of it has anything to do with some conscious entirely isolated choice of climbing this "fitness landscape of wealth".
So much of what we believe are active choices aren't really. They're a consequence of previous choices. You are limited based off those previous choices. I mean, if you believe in free will, which is hotly debated!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds weird, how can you fail if you don't try? What sounds better to me is that the success rate for those who don't try is 0%, which btw I don't see a counter argument for the article. Obviously if you don't try you don't even enter the lottery.
[deleted]
The conclusion rather trivially follow from the notion of "lucky events" baked into the model. That doesn't prove much.
This is the least credible genre of "study says" article. You can't make claims about the real world based on some of researcher's guesswork simulation of society.