3 ms·

Rich people can take risks. Poor people can't.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
> Rich people may take risks. Poor people must. This seems more accurate and realistic about the source of the discrepancy: Rich people have the luxury to choose which risks they take and make calculated endeavors, but are never forced to take a risk and have great ability to manage their total exposure to risk. Poor people are inundated with being forced to take bad risks and manage the danger between them constantly, such that they can't properly gather resources to take on additional voluntary risks (even when they have an expected reward) because it poses too much systemic danger with the additional risk. That said, once you count in drug sales, the poorest 10% of people I know have a higher per capita entrepreneurship rate than the richest 10%. So in practice, poor people are actually taking on business risk at a higher rate as well, though it's again motivated by necessity. The biggest discrepancy is, of course, access to capital and explain the vast majority of the discrepancy in outcome.
- mc32 9y ago
  Anecdotally, I knew drug dealers in high school. It was not out of necessity, but greed. I'm sure some are out of necessity, but not all.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    I think you have the implication reversed: I'm not saying drug dealer -> poverty. I'm saying poverty -> necessity to try something to escape a slow death. (And for cultural reasons, the latter often appears as greed when successfully applied, rather than desperate necessity. Look at the motivation for the hustle, not the outcome. A fear of a very real death to poverty is usually the motivating factor.) This means that you end up with a lot of people having some kind of hustle, which the statistics also reflect once you remember that drug dealers (and other criminals) are a form of business. So you find an unusual amount of businesses per capita, again remembering to include drug operations and similar activities.
    - stefco_ 9y ago
      > (And for cultural reasons, the latter often appears as greed when successfully applied, rather than desperate necessity. Look at the motivation for the hustle, not the outcome. A fear of a very real death to poverty is usually the motivating factor.) Totally agree. Also depends where you go to school, though. There are drug dealers who are poor and do it because it's one of the more attractive (if risky) job options, and there are well-off student drug dealers who know that they can get away with being caught because of their socioeconomic status. In either case, it's not a totally unreasonable risk-reward evaluation, especially (as with everything) if the dealer knows how to execute (i.e. be careful). I knew several people in the latter camp, and I wouldn't necessarily call them "greedy". Though I suppose I generally dislike the term "greedy" because it's usually pejorative without giving any definition of what greed is or why it is bad.
fullshark 9y ago
In this vein I think Basic Income should be rebranded as Basic Capital. It's clear to me now that policy where people get paid "wages" for not doing anything will fail, but if it's positioned as a way to allow all people to participate in capital investment (or risky labor choices) it might be viable.

> Rich people may take risks. Poor people must. This seems more accurate and realistic about the source of the discrepancy: Rich people have the luxury to choose which risks they take and make calculated endeavors, but are never forced to take a risk and have great ability to manage their total exposure to risk. Poor people are inundated with being forced to take bad risks and manage the danger between them constantly, such that they can't properly gather resources to take on additional voluntary risks (even when they have an expected reward) because it poses too much systemic danger with the additional risk. That said, once you count in drug sales, the poorest 10% of people I know have a higher per capita entrepreneurship rate than the richest 10%. So in practice, poor people are actually taking on business risk at a higher rate as well, though it's again motivated by necessity. The biggest discrepancy is, of course, access to capital and explain the vast majority of the discrepancy in outcome.

mc32 9y ago
Anecdotally, I knew drug dealers in high school. It was not out of necessity, but greed. I'm sure some are out of necessity, but not all.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  I think you have the implication reversed: I'm not saying drug dealer -> poverty. I'm saying poverty -> necessity to try something to escape a slow death. (And for cultural reasons, the latter often appears as greed when successfully applied, rather than desperate necessity. Look at the motivation for the hustle, not the outcome. A fear of a very real death to poverty is usually the motivating factor.) This means that you end up with a lot of people having some kind of hustle, which the statistics also reflect once you remember that drug dealers (and other criminals) are a form of business. So you find an unusual amount of businesses per capita, again remembering to include drug operations and similar activities.
  - stefco_ 9y ago
    > (And for cultural reasons, the latter often appears as greed when successfully applied, rather than desperate necessity. Look at the motivation for the hustle, not the outcome. A fear of a very real death to poverty is usually the motivating factor.) Totally agree. Also depends where you go to school, though. There are drug dealers who are poor and do it because it's one of the more attractive (if risky) job options, and there are well-off student drug dealers who know that they can get away with being caught because of their socioeconomic status. In either case, it's not a totally unreasonable risk-reward evaluation, especially (as with everything) if the dealer knows how to execute (i.e. be careful). I knew several people in the latter camp, and I wouldn't necessarily call them "greedy". Though I suppose I generally dislike the term "greedy" because it's usually pejorative without giving any definition of what greed is or why it is bad.

fullshark 9y ago

In this vein I think Basic Income should be rebranded as Basic Capital. It's clear to me now that policy where people get paid "wages" for not doing anything will fail, but if it's positioned as a way to allow all people to participate in capital investment (or risky labor choices) it might be viable.