4 ms·

Hoo boy the tone in this article is toxic. The truth is that, yes, there is luck involved but a lot of hard work, too. It is a rich spectrum. Lucky is buying

Hoo boy the tone in this article is toxic. The truth is that, yes, there is luck involved but a lot of hard work, too. It is a rich spectrum. Lucky is buying a winning lotto ticket. Luckier still is finding one on the street. The same is true for life. Someone works hard in school, gets very good at mathematics and finance, and takes the money from his father's successful life in the restaurant business to start a HFT firm just at the right time to take advantage of inefficiencies in the market while also having access to previously unavailable technological tools to put his ideas to work. He makes a billion dollars. There's a lot of luck there. But there's also a lot of hard work. Someone sitting at home watching Simpsons reruns is not going to get there. We shouldn't be so hostile to success but we should also recognize the places where luck can be mitigated and work to do that. In the example above, the person had a fairly wealthy father. That helped but how can we make that less necessary for the next talented hard working individual that comes along? He got a good education partly because his family could pay for it. Again, how can we make the luck of birth less of a factor? He was able to develop his talent because his mother was able to keep an eye on him and make sure he had a stimulating childhood. Same issue. We can work to level the playing field and make the rules fairer without tearing down the champions operating under legacy rules. We can acknowledge luck and work to put people in a position to be more lucky. People can learn from the success of others without waving away their hard earned accomplishments by chalking it up to mere luck. Luck is a description of circumstance not the circumstance itself.

vannevar 9y ago
Why do you believe that acknowledging the role of luck in success is 'toxic' and 'hostile'? If there were sound scientific studies to back up the assertion, would they also be considered toxic and hostile?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  You can acknowledge that luck has a role, and prove it with scientific studies. That's valid, and is neither toxic nor hostile. You can go on from there, and say "Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made." Or "The American dream is a myth, just like the London investment banker’s fantasy. Those who make money are often not very talented at all. They were just lucky at the right points in their lives." That is, the claim is not just that luck plays a role, but that luck plays the dominant role. That's a different claim. And where it goes from there is often toxic and hostile (whether or not this particular article crossed the line). It usually goes to "So give us our share of it, because you don't deserve it, because you're not actually successful, just lucky."
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    I think the benefit of this is that you must think at your own successes and wonder how much is because you are really good at that and can't possibly fail, and how much of that is because you got insanely lucky.
- clavalle 9y ago
  Acknowledging luck as a factor is good sense. Flatly attributing to luck is foolish. Tearing down the wealthy because they happened to be lucky in some way is hostile. Statements like 'Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made.' are hostile and toxic. Not just toxic but toxic along several axes. First, it obfuscates the real problems. The problem isn't inequality of income or assets -- it is when that inequality leads to monopolistic situations for the have's or desperation for the have nots. This is a much easier problem to solve than forced equality thus making a surmountable problem seem much more intractable than it is. Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. For the most part, in functioning societies where wealth is generated through voluntary exchanges of value, the wealthy are, generally speaking, doing a ton of good in the world. If we discourage people from taking that path by vilifying it, we are doing much more harm than good. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. If the wealthy are only wealthy because of luck, well, not generating wealth is as good as creating value for other people and generating wealth, right? Wrong. Luck is a factor in wealth generation, no doubt about it, but luck is a secondary characteristic. Focusing on it, especially while discounting all of the other factors of financial success, is a mistake that hurts everyone.
  - vannevar 9y ago
    Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. How? If someone wins the lottery, obviously it isn't vilifying them to say that it was predominantly luck. If someone by chance invests in a mining company that the very next day discovers a rich deposit in a mine though played out, is it vilifying the investor to praise their luck? The author believes that most great wealth is attributable to luck. You can argue that this is not true. But if it is true, it's certainly not vilifying anyone to make the suggestion. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. No, it allows people to feel good about not being rich. It also makes them less likely to blindly worship the wealthy. Human beings are, on the whole, naturally productive. They want to contribute, and feel needed. It's human nature. It's not like everyone will suddenly sit on their hands if we were to find out that becoming rich is mostly luck. Not getting cancer is mostly luck too, but that doesn't mean people don't take prudent measures to reduce their risk.
eru 9y ago
The article's tone and the general attitude in society echoed seems partially caused by a false dichotomy: Lots of people think first that success and wealth are zero sum games. And second, that we have to decide between extensive social safety nets and a dynamic economy. Just the opposite, of course. About the second: the trick to get over the apparent trade-off between welfare state and dynamic economy is to realize that we don't have to tax labour nor capital to provide. Taxing land values works just fine. More discussion on Georgism here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929 Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  About the second: You don't need to think about taxing land, or anything like it. You just have to realize that, if we don't have a dynamic economy, we can't afford the safety nets (at least not for long).
  - eru 9y ago
    Yes, that point is true as well. In general, most real world policies are far from the kind of efficiency frontier where trade-offs between growth and safety net have to be made. Eg the US could replace the subsidies for employer provided health care (with eg a budget neutral tax credit for everyone or more radically a budget neutral slim UB) and improve both efficiency and safety nets. But, of course, policy is seldom driven by efficiency frontiers amongst its ostensible goals. Politics is harder and more complicated. Though know I do wonder if a general programme to simplify taxes and close loopholes would have a better chance of passing step-by-step if every such bill came with a budget neutral per-head tax credit. The sound-bite "Senator Smith proposes to give YOU an extra $100 a year by closing obscure loophole exploited by a few corporations!" would certainly do well with the general public?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

vannevar 9y ago

Why do you believe that acknowledging the role of luck in success is 'toxic' and 'hostile'? If there were sound scientific studies to back up the assertion, would they also be considered toxic and hostile?

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
You can acknowledge that luck has a role, and prove it with scientific studies. That's valid, and is neither toxic nor hostile. You can go on from there, and say "Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made." Or "The American dream is a myth, just like the London investment banker’s fantasy. Those who make money are often not very talented at all. They were just lucky at the right points in their lives." That is, the claim is not just that luck plays a role, but that luck plays the dominant role. That's a different claim. And where it goes from there is often toxic and hostile (whether or not this particular article crossed the line). It usually goes to "So give us our share of it, because you don't deserve it, because you're not actually successful, just lucky."
- rbanffy 9y ago
  I think the benefit of this is that you must think at your own successes and wonder how much is because you are really good at that and can't possibly fail, and how much of that is because you got insanely lucky.
clavalle 9y ago
Acknowledging luck as a factor is good sense. Flatly attributing to luck is foolish. Tearing down the wealthy because they happened to be lucky in some way is hostile. Statements like 'Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made.' are hostile and toxic. Not just toxic but toxic along several axes. First, it obfuscates the real problems. The problem isn't inequality of income or assets -- it is when that inequality leads to monopolistic situations for the have's or desperation for the have nots. This is a much easier problem to solve than forced equality thus making a surmountable problem seem much more intractable than it is. Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. For the most part, in functioning societies where wealth is generated through voluntary exchanges of value, the wealthy are, generally speaking, doing a ton of good in the world. If we discourage people from taking that path by vilifying it, we are doing much more harm than good. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. If the wealthy are only wealthy because of luck, well, not generating wealth is as good as creating value for other people and generating wealth, right? Wrong. Luck is a factor in wealth generation, no doubt about it, but luck is a secondary characteristic. Focusing on it, especially while discounting all of the other factors of financial success, is a mistake that hurts everyone.
- vannevar 9y ago
  Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. How? If someone wins the lottery, obviously it isn't vilifying them to say that it was predominantly luck. If someone by chance invests in a mining company that the very next day discovers a rich deposit in a mine though played out, is it vilifying the investor to praise their luck? The author believes that most great wealth is attributable to luck. You can argue that this is not true. But if it is true, it's certainly not vilifying anyone to make the suggestion. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. No, it allows people to feel good about not being rich. It also makes them less likely to blindly worship the wealthy. Human beings are, on the whole, naturally productive. They want to contribute, and feel needed. It's human nature. It's not like everyone will suddenly sit on their hands if we were to find out that becoming rich is mostly luck. Not getting cancer is mostly luck too, but that doesn't mean people don't take prudent measures to reduce their risk.

eru 9y ago

The article's tone and the general attitude in society echoed seems partially caused by a false dichotomy: Lots of people think first that success and wealth are zero sum games. And second, that we have to decide between extensive social safety nets and a dynamic economy. Just the opposite, of course. About the second: the trick to get over the apparent trade-off between welfare state and dynamic economy is to realize that we don't have to tax labour nor capital to provide. Taxing land values works just fine. More discussion on Georgism here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929 Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
About the second: You don't need to think about taxing land, or anything like it. You just have to realize that, if we don't have a dynamic economy, we can't afford the safety nets (at least not for long).
- eru 9y ago
  Yes, that point is true as well. In general, most real world policies are far from the kind of efficiency frontier where trade-offs between growth and safety net have to be made. Eg the US could replace the subsidies for employer provided health care (with eg a budget neutral tax credit for everyone or more radically a budget neutral slim UB) and improve both efficiency and safety nets. But, of course, policy is seldom driven by efficiency frontiers amongst its ostensible goals. Politics is harder and more complicated. Though know I do wonder if a general programme to simplify taxes and close loopholes would have a better chance of passing step-by-step if every such bill came with a budget neutral per-head tax credit. The sound-bite "Senator Smith proposes to give YOU an extra $100 a year by closing obscure loophole exploited by a few corporations!" would certainly do well with the general public?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]