5 ms·

Some criticisms I have read about this paper include: 1) Their model assumes all persons start with the same initial wealth/capital, which is not true in real

Some criticisms I have read about this paper include: 1) Their model assumes all persons start with the same initial wealth/capital, which is not true in real life 2) The model also assumes people's talent/ability remains constant and does not increase as they get older In the end it is a model, and models are limited in how much they can match the real world. I do not believe the paper actually "proves" the hypothesis that "If you’re rich, you’re more lucky than smart" as the pbs.org title implies.

tnzn 8y ago
Starting with a higher capital is luck too though
- paulddraper 8y ago
  By that measure, is not intelligence based on luck too?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jweir 8y ago
As I have gotten older, I have made more money and gotten wealthier. My skills have increased, my knowledge has increased, and I am more valuable. Did the authors look at wealth as something that is static and to be distributed? Or did they look at it as something that can be created (or destroyed)? I reckon they have never actually ran a business or created any wealth themselves - but that is just a guess.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  It's trivial to find someone that has equal skills that have either more wealth, or less. In fact, longer term studies have shown that wealth is inherited, and it takes I believe four generations to change from the lowest to the highest economic quintile. All of this is easily quantified, and has been repeatedly studied. The results are just sociopolitically unacceptable mythbusting. Read the wikipedia article on socioeconomic mobility [0], or perhaps the article about the economist that setup identical real world experiments, and found success was random chance.[1] Anecdotally, the vast majority of the money I've come across in my life is pure luck. Skills, education, and not a sufficent (or even a necessary) condition of gaining wealth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... . [1] https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular-because-its-good-right https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular...

tnzn 8y ago

Starting with a higher capital is luck too though

paulddraper 8y ago
By that measure, is not intelligence based on luck too?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jweir 8y ago

As I have gotten older, I have made more money and gotten wealthier. My skills have increased, my knowledge has increased, and I am more valuable. Did the authors look at wealth as something that is static and to be distributed? Or did they look at it as something that can be created (or destroyed)? I reckon they have never actually ran a business or created any wealth themselves - but that is just a guess.

jonathankoren 8y ago
It's trivial to find someone that has equal skills that have either more wealth, or less. In fact, longer term studies have shown that wealth is inherited, and it takes I believe four generations to change from the lowest to the highest economic quintile. All of this is easily quantified, and has been repeatedly studied. The results are just sociopolitically unacceptable mythbusting. Read the wikipedia article on socioeconomic mobility [0], or perhaps the article about the economist that setup identical real world experiments, and found success was random chance.[1] Anecdotally, the vast majority of the money I've come across in my life is pure luck. Skills, education, and not a sufficent (or even a necessary) condition of gaining wealth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... . [1] https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular-because-its-good-right https://www.npr.org/2014/02/27/282939233/good-art-is-popular...