Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s better to be born rich than gifted

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 202 posts

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#61

Post by AndrewKemendo »

Qworg wrote: post #13
dokein wrote: post #6

This isn’t going to be popular, but: Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost. For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer op…

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup who was looking to acquire our company.

Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism"

His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my friends do better and help each other out."

Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking about it it makes total sense. Why wouldn't you help your friends? I mean I help my friends all the time, but there seemed to be an artificial cutoff when it came to hiring and buying companies or otherwise giving them outward signs of "success."

Not sure I can make a rational case against Nepotism even though it feels wrong.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#62

Post by Qworg »

tomp wrote: post #52
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

I interpret meritocracy as being judged by the outcome of your doings . If someone has IQ 10000 but spends it to dominate WoW, then... I don't see why they should be paid a lot (some other people might disagree, though). Likewise, if someone leverages their genetics, family, wealth, skills, efforts, and luck towards great outcomes (e.g. Elon Musk), then they should be rewarded, as they're meritocratically the best .…

Power doesn't work like that - it accretes to those who are able to leverage it. You generate a permanent power disparity with a gloves off laissez-faire system like that.

I'd worry about your definition of "best society". Is the current system an existence proof in your mind?

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#63

Post by perfunctory »

mikekij wrote: post #57
perfunctory wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never really understood why lower tax is pro-wealth. What does it really mean? I am not trolling, I am really curious. Let's say I see some opportunity to grow my wealth, am I going to look at the current tax level and if it's above certain threshold I am just gonna say screw it, I am not taking it?

A rational investor is concerned with risk-adjust returns after taxes. The fact that capital gains rates are lower than income rates allows an investor to accept a higher level of risk than if the two tax rates were lower.

Ok, but this has only to do with relative tax rates - capital gains vs. income. It says nothing about absolute rates.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#64

Post by aaronblohowiak »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #61
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup who was looking to acquire our company. Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism" His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my friends do better and help each other out." Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking…

If you are directing other people’s money to your family it is a disservice to those other people. If it is your own money, go nuts. Nepotism vs family business, basically.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#65

Post by Qworg »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #61
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup who was looking to acquire our company. Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism" His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my friends do better and help each other out." Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking…

In the societal sense, it is maladaptive - your CIO friend assumes that his friends deliver the best outcome.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#66

Post by dieterrams »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #61
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup who was looking to acquire our company. Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism" His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my friends do better and help each other out." Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking…

Suppose it is clearly the wrong business choice for your friend's company to acquire your company.

Suppose a friend promoted you over someone else who was vastly more qualified, and worked much harder than you for that promotion.

Etc.

Now suppose you're the one getting screwed over instead of the friend benefiting.

It's not nepotism if friends benefiting is merely a side effect of making the best business (or whatever) decision. But if that decision process is subverted in order to benefit friends, negatively impacting other stakeholders that you have a responsibility to, creating a work environment which is deeply unfair and unmeritocratic, etc., then that is absolutely a problem. This should be pretty obvious.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#67

Post by BurningFrog »

why_only_15 wrote: post #53
BurningFrog wrote: post #11

I just skimmed the article, but one huge problem: Intelligence is known to be largely genetic, but we have almost no idea what genes, or combination of genes are responsible. So whatever genetic correlation this is based on is bound to be nearly meaningless.

It literally specifies all these things in the article. There are thousands of genes that are all in part responsible and the study was initially performed across 20,000 people and then was replicated in independent studies.

I'm sure they used all available knowledge.

My point is that right now we know very little.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#68

Post by iguy »

cthor wrote: post #40
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

I don't think meritocracy implies cosmic fairness. The way it's used by most hackers is to say that someone's work is judged only on its own merits, rather than the author's social status or how good they are at playing political games or anything else orthogonal to the work actually being valuable. At least, that's the ideal.

Judging people on their work is partly about fair play. But it's also justified by concern for the results. A system which rewards the people doing great work will produce much more of that than a system which rewards political connections.

I care quite a bit that the best cancer researchers should get hired, and the best ideas get the money -- their progress is likely to directly affect people close to me. And this is true but less obvious for almost every field... an economy where everyone was focused solely on zero-sum competitions would not grow very fast.

I don't quite know what cosmic fairness means. But perhaps cosmic unfairness involves people's talents not being identical. The goal of trying to get the fastest progress against cancer does not align with the goal of trying to remedy such unfairness.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#69

Post by elicash »

nostrademons wrote: post #54
elicash wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is what interest we have when designing our laws and culture in providing opportunities to people born with fewer of them. People who can provide tremendous value are being shut out because of inequality, and I want a talented person who could start a business and create tens of thousand of jobs to have that chance not just out of fairness (like you say) but because it's also good for all of us. So yeah,…

Are they actually being shut out because of laws and culture, though? Most of the instances I've heard of where talented but disadvantaged people are shut out of opportunities are actually because of implicit bias. Someone may be very good at a particular skill, but they don't "pattern match" as the type of person who would be successful, and so they get passed over by the folks who could give them opportunities. The…

> The thing is - this is self-correcting by market mechanisms.

Read the article. Clearly it is not.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#70

Post by tomp »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #61
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birt…

I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup who was looking to acquire our company. Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism" His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my friends do better and help each other out." Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking…

There's another good reason for nepotism - trust - the most valuable commodity in business, and one of the hardest to acquire/assess.
Post reply on HN