It’s better to be born rich than gifted • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by LocalH » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

drngdds wrote: post #21

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…

The problem isn't that rich kids get stuff that helps them. It's that other kids don't, which puts them at a major disadvantage.

This. If society must be based on equity rather than equality, then I'd rather see it be done by boosting people up to the same level, rather than knocking everyone down to the same level. Otherwise, society could start looking a lot like Harrison Bergeron, and that's not a society I'd want anything to do with.

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

#82

Post by adventured » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 10:48 PM UTC

Qworg wrote: post #65

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not what the friend is assuming per the wording.

The friend seems to be plainly stating they don't care if the max outcome is what is occuring or not, insofar as they all at least do better. Helping their friends out is more important than maxing out the quality of the outcome.

Societally, reinforcing and protecting social trust systems may be dramatically more important than maxing out business success outcomes.

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

#83

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 10:50 PM UTC

1999 wrote: post #41

I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews: 1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm . I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place i…

[deleted]

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

#84

Post by SamReidHughes » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 10:55 PM UTC

anonymous5133 wrote: post #71

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?

Yup, exactly which is why the rates for capital gains are reduced. If you make the capital gains high enough the reward you get for taking the risk won't be high enough. I think it has a bigger deterrence effect with non-capital gains income. Once you start getting in the higher income tax brackets, it isn't really worth it to put in more hours for additional income when 50% of it is taken in income tax off the top.…

Capital gains tax is calculated from nominal gains instead of inflation-adjusted gains. That's one reason it's lower.

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

#85

Post by iguy » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 10:57 PM UTC

Thriptic wrote: post #80

anigbrowl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that's not a cultural norm you learned? Blanket pronunciations on human nature tell me more about you than anyone else.

I'm fully willing to admit that there may be functional cultures in the world which frown upon showing preference to friends or family at the expense of random people. I've yet to see any of them though.

Well this is certainly one axis along which they vary.

There's a line between "is it OK to start a start-up with your dorm-mate?" and "is it OK to spend 5% of the nation's budget buying submarines through your brother-in-law's banana company?"

You have information about your dorm-mate, and you aren't acting on behalf of others. But if the same norms applied to CEOs and judges, we could not have our civilisation.

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

#86

Post by AndrewKemendo » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 10:59 PM UTC

dieterrams wrote: post #66

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whateve…

The problem with that approach though is that it's never clear cut.

Maybe someone is "vastly more qualified" technically but doesn't have any business sense or some other quality that is unknown to the rest of the group. There were many times where I thought that the wrong person was promoted or hired, to find out later that they were actually a good fit. Were they the PERFECT fit? I don't know, but there is value in having history with someone to have a higher confidence they will meet the minimum standard.

There's always someone or some group that is "better" for a job or acquisition or whatever based on some metric.

It's a real problem in my mind for "market information." Generally people go for a product they know, that can fit the bill, over a product they don't know that might be better. Same goes for hiring and personnel etc...

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

#87

Post by Qworg » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 11:04 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #68

cthor wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem carries through time, not just at the moment you're making the decision to invest. What about the better potential cancer researcher who was left behind because their parents were poor? What about the one that decided to go learn programming because they couldn't get the exclusive internship due to lacking connections?

The position that states "remedying inequity costs more than simply giving it all to the current best" is a shortsighted one.

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

#88

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by Hydraulix989 » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

Kaveren wrote: post #55

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need an IQ of at least 140 probably even 150 to make $10 million (4+ stddev). You see people on the street every day with a 130 IQ, that's your average software engineer right there.

No you don't, where is this supposed to come from? 130 IQ on 15 SD is probably significantly too high as well to be the mean average.

Mean IQ world-wide (and also in America) is 100. Software engineers here in San Francisco are nowhere close to average intelligence across the US. Data shows differences across professions for IQ, and software engineering lands firmly on the 2 stddev (130 IQ) mark. Remember, populations aren't distributed evenly, and smarter people than average tend to end up in SF Bay. It's difficult to be well-calibrated if you haven't spend enough time outside the bubble here.

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

#90

Post by khawkins » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 11:10 PM UTC

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…

Honestly, I think that the boost provided by money is probably quite small. At a certain level, poverty is going to detract from a young person's ability to succeed, but money very rarely begets success.

What I think is far more likely the case is that parents who succeed in their lives are far better prepared to teach their children how to succeed as well. Further, that they're better at giving them a leg-up in networking and opening doors for them.

The fact that this study cites "academic success" as a measure for determining capability for business success shows that the author himself doesn't really understand how to make big money. Does he really think most entrepreneurs are genius level IQ?

I have a totally different interpretation. This study is evidence pointing towards the extreme failure of the public school system. The purpose of public schools is to provide talented, hard-working people with the tools to succeed. Schools haven't been preparing children for success, they've been largely focused on preparing them for college, and in turn for graduate school. They have not been teaching kids the values and skills which allow them to genuinely get ahead in life.