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

Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 197 posts

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#81

Post by Retric »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #78

In a meritocratic society, there is positive correlation between talent and success. But how steep should this relationship be? If the talent-success slope is very steep (i.e., a small talent difference causes a large capital gap), you might end up having a wide distribution of wealth (severe economic inequality). On the other hand, if the slope is quite flat (i.e., a big talent difference makes little difference in…

You assume the ability to gain capital has anything to do with the ability to invest well. A quick check of sports stars shows this is very far from the case.

Talent is not universal, being a great Doctor has little to do with being a great painter or investor.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#82

Post by Retric »

dsacco wrote: post #51
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really... I've known hard workers, they work hard, no success, they work hard, an unlucky event intervenes, they work hard, still no success, so on and so on and so they ask: what's the point in hard work? Can you blame them? Even to be a hard-worker implies that you've been lucky enough in life to see a correlation between hard-work and success.

What does "no success" mean in this context?

Let's go with homeless. Plenty of hard workers end up homeless.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#83

Post by ska »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #63
kaolti wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that "work hard and you'll succeed"is a lie.

With hard work you can be successful in the sense of being able to afford a basic living or being moderately middle class - which is enough for many people. The deception which looks like a lie to some is in implicating that one percenters got their wealth from hard work - most of them didn't. AFAIK, statistics show that in industrialized Western countries the wealthy people who are seemingly successful (because of t…

   "With hard work you can be successful in the sense of being able to afford a basic living or being moderately middle class"
There is plenty of empirical evidence that this is not really true. One of the pernicious things about the typical American narrative of success is that it often gets used in the contrapositive. This lets people feel good about discounting anyone viewed as "not successful" (whatever definition you want) as having been personally responsible for their own difficulties, so they can be safely ignored.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#84

Post by troupe »

joshuaheard wrote: post #65

Luck = Skill + Opportunity. That is, you must have the skill set to become successful, but also be in the right place at the right time to apply these skills.

Fortunately, you can increase your skill through training, reading, etc. You can increase your opportunity just by trying when you fail. Someone who only applies to a single job is less likely to be employed than someone who keeps on applying until they are hired.

But then that would mean that luck is greatly a matter of how hard you are willing to work and that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion these days.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#85

Post by kaolti »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #53
fullshark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you define as success. Hard work generally does lead to gainful employment and the ability to afford a home/car which used to be the canonical symbol of success in America. If you think success is "be as rich and respected as I desire to be" then that absolutely will not hold.

Depends on what you define as hard work. There's stories on Reddit's late stage capitalism subforum about a graduated biochemist entertaining customers at Starbucks with random facts; it was considered cute by the original poster, like, wow, a smart barista. While it was sad that he worked hard to get his papers but couldn't land a job.

I don't see how job opportunities in any field reflect on whether or not hard work is effective?

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#86

Post by troupe »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #40
troupe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see many people in the United States who are working hard and avoiding foolish decisions that cannot seem to provide for their needs and set money aside for the future?

Plenty. Some have kids. Others are in grad school. Some are even dealing with both.

> Plenty. Some have kids. Others are in grad school. Some are even dealing with both.

Yes people who go out and have kids without thinking through how they will provide for them usually have to work pretty hard at first. Still most of the people I've seen in this situation aren't really as bad off as they think. If you didn't plan for having kids, you likely aren't in very good control of your budget either and a small investment of time in learning how to manage and budget your finances can take off most of the financial strain.

(That isn't to say there aren't some people who are in really bad situations due to random events, but I still find it rare to see people who are struggling from things that are/were completely outside of their control.)

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#87

Post by Thiez »

sol_remmy wrote: post #58

Everyone in this thread directly supports inequality through their buying decisions and I'm callin' them out. Anytime you use Netflix, Google, HackerNews is supporting inequality. Every time you bought a Harry Potter book as a kid you supported inequality. You're giving more money to the winners. If you want to reduce inequality, then buy books from unpopular authors. Use unpopular OSes like TempleOS instead of givin…

I don't think your definition of inequality, which basically equals popularity, is a useful one. The article is about income inequality. While it is true that people always making the unpopular choice would reduce winner-takes-all effects, it's not worth it: it requires great personal sacrifice, and as an individual there is almost no gain: society is hardly going to benefit when you intentionally hamstring yourself by running TempleOS, or when you choose to eat at a bad restaurant instead of a good one.

Surely creating laws that try to limit income inequality makes much more sense, especially when looking at cost/benefit?

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#88

Post by ABCLAW »

fullshark wrote: post #21
newyankee wrote: post #2

One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed. This has grave implications on policy and really blinds people born with a silver spoon to the real problems in society as they have a 'i deserve it and they don't syndrome'. Contrast this with a poor society that is growing rapidly where you see islands of wealths with certain individuals, at least people over there…

Depends what you define as success. Hard work generally does lead to gainful employment and the ability to afford a home/car which used to be the canonical symbol of success in America. If you think success is "be as rich and respected as I desire to be" then that absolutely will not hold.

In many real estate markets in the west, gainful employment substantially above the median income is still not even close to enough to secure a reasonable sized 'home'.

Then there are places like Vancouver, where the average yearly income is less than the average yearly payments for residential properties.

But if you got in and leveraged yourself to the hilt starting in 2008, you could own a sizable equity stake in a growing stable of 30+ detached dwellings if your relationship with your local mortgage broker was on point.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#90

Post by monocasa »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #53
fullshark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you define as success. Hard work generally does lead to gainful employment and the ability to afford a home/car which used to be the canonical symbol of success in America. If you think success is "be as rich and respected as I desire to be" then that absolutely will not hold.

Depends on what you define as hard work. There's stories on Reddit's late stage capitalism subforum about a graduated biochemist entertaining customers at Starbucks with random facts; it was considered cute by the original poster, like, wow, a smart barista. While it was sad that he worked hard to get his papers but couldn't land a job.

I'll throw in a personal anecdote too.

The hardest worker I've ever met was the manager of the produce department at a grocery store I worked at as a teenager. He was here on political asylum from a South American country. His (and my) manager lied to the state department to get him deported because "Mexicans need to go back to where they belong". Afaik he's now rotting in a particularly shitty prison despite doing everything he should have and more.

Post reply on HN