4 ms·

> This blames poor people for being poor. No it doesn't. A claim that most rich people are driven doesn't imply that most poor people are lazy. The portion you

by natrius 11y ago

> This blames poor people for being poor. No it doesn't. A claim that most rich people are driven doesn't imply that most poor people are lazy. The portion you quoted makes this distinction clear: "Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." If we found a way to give everyone the same opportunities, there'd still be economic inequality. Is inequality what we should attack? It's probably better to attack the undesirable causes directly. The essay made this point clearly.

totalrobe 11y ago
It does imply that, actually. This is a life or death topic for millions worldwide and he decided to trample all over by making an argument in a vacuum. There is a great deal of circumstance, nepotism, and luck that goes into success, and the essay read as very juvenile coming from someone as wealthy as he is.
giaour 11y ago
> A claim that most rich people are driven doesn't imply that most poor people are lazy. If it doesn't imply that poor people are lazy, then what does it imply? That the rich and poor are equally driven, and that something other than effort (luck, inherited wealth, etc) makes the rich rich and the poor poor?
- sirsar 11y ago
  I read it as claiming that there are lucky driven people, unlucky driven people, lucky undriven people, and unlucky undriven people. And then that most rich people fall into the first category. This is totally compatible with all poor people being in the second category, and no poor people being lazy (3rd and 4th categories). (I disagree with his essay, but for different reasons than this.)
  - giaour 11y ago
    I see what you mean, but wouldn't that make PG's point a tautology? If the difference is "productivity," and "productivity" is defined as the intersection of luck and drive that make people rich, then all PG is saying is that "the irreducible core of [economic inequality]" is having come into possession of wealth. It really seems like one can either read PG's essay as a Randian screed or as poorly argued cant. I saw it as the former, but I can understand reading it as the latter.
    - sirsar 11y ago
      > then all PG is saying is that "the irreducible core of [economic inequality]" is having come into possession of wealth. Not quite. He's saying (in my reading) that even if you legislate away all the other sources of inequality (even to the point of wiping out all assets and giving each citizen an equal amount of cash to start anew), inequality would still arise due to differences in personal productivity / drive. Seems true to me, although entirely irrelevant to the topic of real world inequality.
      - giaour 11y ago
        So then he's back to saying that inequality would arise because some people are "more driven" than others. Another way to phrase that would be to say that those with less money are simply less driven. Put in uncharitable terms, they would be poor because they were lazy. It really sounds like he believes this to be the cause of real world inequality, too: "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them. Suppose new policies make it hard to make a fortune in finance. Does it seem plausible that the people who currently go into finance to make their fortunes will continue to do so but be content to work for ordinary salaries? The reason they go into finance is not because they love finance but because they want to get rich. If the only way left to get rich is to start startups, they'll start startups. They'll do well at it too, because determination is the main factor in the success of a startup."
        sirsar 11y ago
- mattmcknight 11y ago
  You are missing the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. PG's argument is that being driven is necessary, not sufficient. You have to be driven to get rich doing a startup, but being driven on its own is not enough. Thus, you can be driven and poor. He then weakens his claim even further, as quoted in the parent: "Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality" such that he admits doing something really productive is not the only source of inequality. So, there is really nothing in there that implies either of things you suggest.
  - giaour 11y ago
    PG strongly implies that wealth can be created by anyone with enough drive and determination. Put another way, if you are not creating and amassing wealth, it's because you don't want it hard enough. To quote from his essay: "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them. Suppose new policies make it hard to make a fortune in finance. Does it seem plausible that the people who currently go into finance to make their fortunes will continue to do so but be content to work for ordinary salaries? The reason they go into finance is not because they love finance but because they want to get rich. If the only way left to get rich is to start startups, they'll start startups. They'll do well at it too, because determination is the main factor in the success of a startup."
    - mattmcknight 11y ago
      No, it doesn't imply that at all. It doesn't say anything about the people that aren't creating and amassing wealth. It simply says, of the people that are getting rich, most of them are driven. The thing you could get away with saying it implies is that you could have all of the other positive attributes and opportunities of those people, but not be driven and fail. It doesn't say anything the people without the opportunity or positive attributes to get rich, because being driven is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency ] From the perspective of that quote, the people getting rich in finance that would be switching into startups already have the combination of sufficient positive attributes and opportunities, including the necessary condition of drive/determination. If they lacked those things, they wouldn't be in that group of people that would have gotten rich in startups.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  All NBA centers are tall. This doesn't mean that all people who aren't NBA centers are short.
  - giaour 11y ago
    PG claims that if all other avenues to wealth are shut off, then the driven and determined will "do well" at starting startups. That is not at all the same as saying that all successful startup founders are driven.
    - xiaoma 11y ago
      If the game is more equitable the tall centers or the driven founders will do better. If bribing the ref/lawmakers is an option then this is less true.
      - giaour 11y ago
        I didn't get that from the essay. PG writes, "Some people still get rich by buying politicians. My point is that it's no longer a precondition."

by natrius 11y ago

totalrobe 11y ago

It does imply that, actually. This is a life or death topic for millions worldwide and he decided to trample all over by making an argument in a vacuum. There is a great deal of circumstance, nepotism, and luck that goes into success, and the essay read as very juvenile coming from someone as wealthy as he is.

giaour 11y ago

> A claim that most rich people are driven doesn't imply that most poor people are lazy. If it doesn't imply that poor people are lazy, then what does it imply? That the rich and poor are equally driven, and that something other than effort (luck, inherited wealth, etc) makes the rich rich and the poor poor?

sirsar 11y ago
I read it as claiming that there are lucky driven people, unlucky driven people, lucky undriven people, and unlucky undriven people. And then that most rich people fall into the first category. This is totally compatible with all poor people being in the second category, and no poor people being lazy (3rd and 4th categories). (I disagree with his essay, but for different reasons than this.)
- giaour 11y ago
  I see what you mean, but wouldn't that make PG's point a tautology? If the difference is "productivity," and "productivity" is defined as the intersection of luck and drive that make people rich, then all PG is saying is that "the irreducible core of [economic inequality]" is having come into possession of wealth. It really seems like one can either read PG's essay as a Randian screed or as poorly argued cant. I saw it as the former, but I can understand reading it as the latter.
  - sirsar 11y ago
    > then all PG is saying is that "the irreducible core of [economic inequality]" is having come into possession of wealth. Not quite. He's saying (in my reading) that even if you legislate away all the other sources of inequality (even to the point of wiping out all assets and giving each citizen an equal amount of cash to start anew), inequality would still arise due to differences in personal productivity / drive. Seems true to me, although entirely irrelevant to the topic of real world inequality.
    - giaour 11y ago
      So then he's back to saying that inequality would arise because some people are "more driven" than others. Another way to phrase that would be to say that those with less money are simply less driven. Put in uncharitable terms, they would be poor because they were lazy. It really sounds like he believes this to be the cause of real world inequality, too: "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them. Suppose new policies make it hard to make a fortune in finance. Does it seem plausible that the people who currently go into finance to make their fortunes will continue to do so but be content to work for ordinary salaries? The reason they go into finance is not because they love finance but because they want to get rich. If the only way left to get rich is to start startups, they'll start startups. They'll do well at it too, because determination is the main factor in the success of a startup."
      - sirsar 11y ago
mattmcknight 11y ago
You are missing the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. PG's argument is that being driven is necessary, not sufficient. You have to be driven to get rich doing a startup, but being driven on its own is not enough. Thus, you can be driven and poor. He then weakens his claim even further, as quoted in the parent: "Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality" such that he admits doing something really productive is not the only source of inequality. So, there is really nothing in there that implies either of things you suggest.
- giaour 11y ago
  PG strongly implies that wealth can be created by anyone with enough drive and determination. Put another way, if you are not creating and amassing wealth, it's because you don't want it hard enough. To quote from his essay: "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them. Suppose new policies make it hard to make a fortune in finance. Does it seem plausible that the people who currently go into finance to make their fortunes will continue to do so but be content to work for ordinary salaries? The reason they go into finance is not because they love finance but because they want to get rich. If the only way left to get rich is to start startups, they'll start startups. They'll do well at it too, because determination is the main factor in the success of a startup."
  - mattmcknight 11y ago
    No, it doesn't imply that at all. It doesn't say anything about the people that aren't creating and amassing wealth. It simply says, of the people that are getting rich, most of them are driven. The thing you could get away with saying it implies is that you could have all of the other positive attributes and opportunities of those people, but not be driven and fail. It doesn't say anything the people without the opportunity or positive attributes to get rich, because being driven is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency ] From the perspective of that quote, the people getting rich in finance that would be switching into startups already have the combination of sufficient positive attributes and opportunities, including the necessary condition of drive/determination. If they lacked those things, they wouldn't be in that group of people that would have gotten rich in startups.
xiaoma 11y ago
All NBA centers are tall. This doesn't mean that all people who aren't NBA centers are short.
- giaour 11y ago
  PG claims that if all other avenues to wealth are shut off, then the driven and determined will "do well" at starting startups. That is not at all the same as saying that all successful startup founders are driven.
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    If the game is more equitable the tall centers or the driven founders will do better. If bribing the ref/lawmakers is an option then this is less true.
    - giaour 11y ago
      I didn't get that from the essay. PG writes, "Some people still get rich by buying politicians. My point is that it's no longer a precondition."