Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:08 PM UTC

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?

I believe this comment is going to trigger my rate-limit so apologies for not being able to give further context. But to one: how about being poor, working hard and then staying poor?

More importantly why should it matter how someone defines success? I think the false and self-perpetuating notion of meritocracy is massively benefitted by the lowered expectations of the lower class. If I'm born poor, making it to lower middle class could be a huge success for me, if I'm born rich that same outcome would be a massive failure. Even to acknowledge that that is true is admission of how massively tilted opportunity is. If the poor and the rich had the same visions of success, they dreamed the same dream, do you think we could still say with a straight face that, really, hard-work is the most important factor in success? I don't think so.

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

#92

Post by troupe » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

new_hackers wrote: post #62

sametmax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the Y-generation would agree it worked for them. The student loads have never been such a burden. The cost of housing skyrocketed. If they want to eat for the same price as their grand parents they need to eat junk food. I mean: my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma. But the flat screen prices are very cheap so they got that going…

There is truth to this, however there has also been major changes to how we live and the expectations. "my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma" Yes, but they probably couldn't buy a house anywhere in the world they wanted. The house size was probably much smaller than the sizes of today's suburban houses. I would argue that one could by a small,…

I think most people have no idea of what it was like living back in those time periods.

Yes, you could get a job back then without a diploma. You might be digging ditches or loading hay in 100-degree weather. I really haven't run across someone willing to work hard like that today who can't get a job somewhere.

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

#93

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

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…

>May be sometime in the future we would have a universal human rights charter that expands and decides what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide in exchange for basic responsibilities. This way life will not always be a rat race and the poorest and unlucky can at least have some dignity.

Life has always been a rat race. The only reason that it isn't for some people right now is that we are at a very unique time in human history where we have greatly increased our ability to produce food and, at the same time, have extremely low birth rates as a result of being poorly adapted for modern life.

This, too, shall pass.

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

#94

Post by DoreenMichele » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

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 really hate arguments like this. I saw this concept mocked in a book once. Among other things, it had pretty women intentionally making themselves less attractive.

We need to find ways to make smaller organizations more robust and less vulnerable to having their lunch eaten by large organizations. But this advice to not buy anything popular and only go with that which is unpopular is not the right way to do this.

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

#95

Post by dsacco » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:12 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #71

dsacco wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to respond to most of your comment, but this suggestion is pretty weird: > Use unpopular OSes like TempleOS instead of giving even more market share to Google/Apple/Microsoft ...Why? You could also just use Linux or BSD. TempleOS seems like a very odd suggestion for people looking to cut out non-free operating systems cold turkey. Edit: In case this isn't clear, I'm responding to the commenter's commerc…

The GP is about popularity not freedom.

No it isn't, it's clearly about commercialism. The commenter makes specific examples and includes the phrase "buying decisions".

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

#96

Post by kaolti » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #72

kaolti wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a lie? Do you disagree that hard work leads to success, within limits?

Hard work only increases the chance for opportunities, to a certain ceiling. It is not, however, the only factor. Or even the most important factor. Let's use a few sterotypes for examples: A hard working trucker will take years to set aside $10,000 in savings. An average programmer at a financial institution can do the same in months. A debutante able hire a stock broker to invest their slush fund can do the same in…

I understand and sympathise with that example. But surely you agree that not all lines of work can be equally compensated.

That doesn't mean that hard work is ineffective and a lie though?

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

#97

Post by Lewton » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:14 PM UTC

steaknsteak wrote: post #73

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never known a hard-working person who wasn't successful?

It's moreso that the inverse is true. Not working hard will almost certainly not lead to success (unless your family is rich enough to where you can just "buy" more success). Working hard will not necessarily lead to success, but it's a prerequisite. The amount of work required also depends on what obstacles you're born with and degree of success is desired

I’ve never worked hard in my life and I earn more than my (hard working) parents combined

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

#98

Post by sol_remmy » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

Thiez wrote: post #87

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…

> I don't think your definition of inequality, which basically equals popularity, is a useful one. The article is about income inequality.

My definition is perfect. High popularity -> high income -> inequality. If you bandwagon onto a popular author like J.K. Rowling, then you are further enriching her and causing inequality.

If you want to legislate away inequality for say, Twitch streamers, then pass a law that no Twitch streamer can have more than 500 views. Or authors who have sold >100,000 books can no longer sell books.

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

#99

Post by refurb » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #88

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.

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…

Why does success mean being able to afford a home in one of the most expensive real estate markets in North America?

If I were to say "I'm not successful because I only make $200K and can't afford a home in Manhattan", people would laugh in my face.

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

#100

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:18 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #85

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Presumably they worked hard to get that degree.