4 ms·

Wouldn't you agree that the harder someone works, the greater their chance of becoming rich? You seem to argue that the OP has absolutely no claim to the wealt

Wouldn't you agree that the harder someone works, the greater their chance of becoming rich? You seem to argue that the OP has absolutely no claim to the wealth that he has worked for and his preferable situation is due entirely to luck. This is of course preposterous and easily disproved, so I'm curious to know what your answer to this question is. Assuming your answer is, "no, not entirely" then my follow up question would be, do you believe that his situation is due _mostly_ to luck, and only marginally to his hard work? This is a more interesting question and one I would be interested in discussing assuming it's your take on the matter. Edit: a word

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>Wouldn't you agree that the harder someone works, the greater their chance of becoming rich? No. >You seem to argue that the OP has absolutely no claim to the wealth that he has worked for and his preferable situation is due entirely to luck. Well let's start from the base. Do you think someone has a claim to wealth that they earned entirely due to luck? >This is of course preposterous and easily disproved, so I'm curious to know what your answer to this question is. I'm not sure how it's easily disproved. Again from the base. It's easily seen that a one day old baby's station in life is entirely due to luck. Two days old, two months old, two years old, all the same, all luck. At some point though we begin taking luck, say being born to hard-working parents who helped you develop a hard-work ethic, and label it a personal achievement. In this way we successfully launder privilege into "merit." >Assuming your answer is, "no, not entirely" then my follow up question would be, do you believe that his situation is due _mostly_ to luck, and only marginally to his hard work? This is a more interesting question and one I would be interested in discussing assuming it's your take on the matter. I actually think his situation is due entirely to luck.
- morgancmartin 8y ago
  Well now I'm curious about what your views on free will are. > Do you think someone has a claim to wealth that they earned entirely due to luck? First off, this is a difficult question to answer because it seems yours and my definitions of "luck" are not the same. Or perhaps they are the same but we view the surrounding context and their individual manifestations as dissimilar. I would say it depends on the situation. For example, If I'm walking through the parking lot and by chance (luck) find a $20 bill on the ground, am I deserving of my new found wealth? On a good day, I might turn it in to the nearest department store and hope it finds its way back to its original owner. If I'm feeling more cynical (or, arguably, realistic) I would just keep it. Am I deserving of this wealth? I didn't really work for it, so I would argue, "no, not really." But then again I wouldn't really fault myself (or anyone else) for keeping it either. On the other hand, let us consider two farmers who live near one another. They are twin brothers and received the same upbringing. One of the farmers tends his lands diligently while the other is concerned with other aspects of life and only does the bare minimum to survive. As you might expect, over time the first farmer prospers due to the hard work he has put in to cultivate his lands while the second farmer stagnates because he has prioritized other matters. They both understood the benefits of tending to land diligently from their shared upbringing, but they made different decisions for whatever reason. Essentially, I'm asking you to consider these two farmers "in a vacuum" such that their wealth is due entirely to their own actions and not to any outside forces. Absolutely nothing left to chance, or "luck." By my definition of the word at least. So, is your definition of luck different from mine such that you would argue the first farmer's success is still due to luck, or am I missing something else? And thanks for the conversation, I find your views fascinating even if I don't share them.
  - throwaway413 8y ago
    But I think the whole point is that we don’t live in a vacuum. The farmers for example. Since the first farmer has healthy crops, insects would probably be more attracted to his lands, therefore a higher chance of his crops being tainted or destroyed. He could put all that work in and end up no better off than the second farmer due to circumstances entirely out of his control. Not to say he shouldn’t put that work in, but there is always an element of luck in anything that “works out” for you or me.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    I know this is three days later but I just saw your comment and wanted to leave a reply (though it may never be seen.) >Essentially, I'm asking you to consider these two farmers "in a vacuum" such that their wealth is due entirely to their own actions and not to any outside forces. Absolutely nothing left to chance, or "luck." By my definition of the word at least. I don't think it's enough to refute this by simply saying that 'people don't live in a vacuum' as others might. I think it's actually impossible to conceive of a person 'in a vacuum.' I reject this sort of individualistic view of a person in favor of a more communitarian view - which is to say a person is made up of their social attachments and environment as much as those social attachments and environments are made up of individuals. It's impossible to conceive of a person in a vacuum for the same reason it's impossible to conceive of a cat that's a dog. A 'person in a vacuum' just isn't a person. >They are twin brothers and received the same upbringing. One of the farmers tends his lands diligently while the other is concerned with other aspects of life and only does the bare minimum to survive. As you might expect, over time the first farmer prospers due to the hard work he has put in to cultivate his lands while the second farmer stagnates because he has prioritized other matters. They both understood the benefits of tending to land diligently from their shared upbringing, but they made different decisions for whatever reason. You seem to posit that they are exactly the same in upbringing and everything but then behave differently. What do you believe is the source of this differing behavior? If we traced it back far enough would we eventually reach a point where it becomes apparent that this difference originated in 'a thing' which the farmers had no control over? I believe so.
throwaway413 8y ago
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
- morgancmartin 8y ago
  I wasn't careful enough with my language. Yes, someone can work harder and see diminishing returns anyway. My dad installed carpet for the majority of his adult life. I would characterize that as more difficult work than most, but he never attained very much wealth. Still, in a (very particular) vacuum, I would argue that statement holds water, even if it doesn't in reality.
ff317 8y ago
There's a couple key points that I think help bridge the gap of understanding between these two points of view about Hard Work vs Luck (and I'll completely ignore things like existing advantages of birth/wealth, and coercion, as those points are really separate): 1) Hard Work is enabling factor for "luck", just like being born under the right circumstances is. Hard work does pay off, and thus it's valid to say "hard work helped me get here". What we're calling "luck" isn't a purely random roll of the dice. Working hard tilts the odds of good luck much further in your favor. 2) While Hard Work enables better statistical odds at the luck game, you have to be careful to understand that it's still just statistical odds in a luck game, and that structurally there can only be a small percentage of people who "win". If every single person worked equally (very) hard, the luck advantage of working hard would diminish to zero, and only luck (remember we're ignore other factors like wealth/coercion) would remain to differentiate the small percentage of winners. Because wealth is pretty much defined as having more than someone else (or else pricing/inflation will just readjust everyone back to the norm), not everyone can have more than the average. This is what blows a hole in the idea that anyone can work hard in order to achieve success. Anyone can work hard to increase their odds, but the odds are small without other advantages, and many may work hard and still fail.
- morgancmartin 8y ago
  I don't contest any of what you wrote. I was mostly arguing against the OP's very odd view that someone's position is due entirely to luck and not just partially. You and I seem to agree that it is a proportion, whether or not we agree what that proportion happens to be. But the OP seems to believe that nothing is due to free will and everything is due to luck.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>Wouldn't you agree that the harder someone works, the greater their chance of becoming rich? No. >You seem to argue that the OP has absolutely no claim to the wealth that he has worked for and his preferable situation is due entirely to luck. Well let's start from the base. Do you think someone has a claim to wealth that they earned entirely due to luck? >This is of course preposterous and easily disproved, so I'm curious to know what your answer to this question is. I'm not sure how it's easily disproved. Again from the base. It's easily seen that a one day old baby's station in life is entirely due to luck. Two days old, two months old, two years old, all the same, all luck. At some point though we begin taking luck, say being born to hard-working parents who helped you develop a hard-work ethic, and label it a personal achievement. In this way we successfully launder privilege into "merit." >Assuming your answer is, "no, not entirely" then my follow up question would be, do you believe that his situation is due _mostly_ to luck, and only marginally to his hard work? This is a more interesting question and one I would be interested in discussing assuming it's your take on the matter. I actually think his situation is due entirely to luck.

morgancmartin 8y ago
Well now I'm curious about what your views on free will are. > Do you think someone has a claim to wealth that they earned entirely due to luck? First off, this is a difficult question to answer because it seems yours and my definitions of "luck" are not the same. Or perhaps they are the same but we view the surrounding context and their individual manifestations as dissimilar. I would say it depends on the situation. For example, If I'm walking through the parking lot and by chance (luck) find a $20 bill on the ground, am I deserving of my new found wealth? On a good day, I might turn it in to the nearest department store and hope it finds its way back to its original owner. If I'm feeling more cynical (or, arguably, realistic) I would just keep it. Am I deserving of this wealth? I didn't really work for it, so I would argue, "no, not really." But then again I wouldn't really fault myself (or anyone else) for keeping it either. On the other hand, let us consider two farmers who live near one another. They are twin brothers and received the same upbringing. One of the farmers tends his lands diligently while the other is concerned with other aspects of life and only does the bare minimum to survive. As you might expect, over time the first farmer prospers due to the hard work he has put in to cultivate his lands while the second farmer stagnates because he has prioritized other matters. They both understood the benefits of tending to land diligently from their shared upbringing, but they made different decisions for whatever reason. Essentially, I'm asking you to consider these two farmers "in a vacuum" such that their wealth is due entirely to their own actions and not to any outside forces. Absolutely nothing left to chance, or "luck." By my definition of the word at least. So, is your definition of luck different from mine such that you would argue the first farmer's success is still due to luck, or am I missing something else? And thanks for the conversation, I find your views fascinating even if I don't share them.
- throwaway413 8y ago
  But I think the whole point is that we don’t live in a vacuum. The farmers for example. Since the first farmer has healthy crops, insects would probably be more attracted to his lands, therefore a higher chance of his crops being tainted or destroyed. He could put all that work in and end up no better off than the second farmer due to circumstances entirely out of his control. Not to say he shouldn’t put that work in, but there is always an element of luck in anything that “works out” for you or me.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  I know this is three days later but I just saw your comment and wanted to leave a reply (though it may never be seen.) >Essentially, I'm asking you to consider these two farmers "in a vacuum" such that their wealth is due entirely to their own actions and not to any outside forces. Absolutely nothing left to chance, or "luck." By my definition of the word at least. I don't think it's enough to refute this by simply saying that 'people don't live in a vacuum' as others might. I think it's actually impossible to conceive of a person 'in a vacuum.' I reject this sort of individualistic view of a person in favor of a more communitarian view - which is to say a person is made up of their social attachments and environment as much as those social attachments and environments are made up of individuals. It's impossible to conceive of a person in a vacuum for the same reason it's impossible to conceive of a cat that's a dog. A 'person in a vacuum' just isn't a person. >They are twin brothers and received the same upbringing. One of the farmers tends his lands diligently while the other is concerned with other aspects of life and only does the bare minimum to survive. As you might expect, over time the first farmer prospers due to the hard work he has put in to cultivate his lands while the second farmer stagnates because he has prioritized other matters. They both understood the benefits of tending to land diligently from their shared upbringing, but they made different decisions for whatever reason. You seem to posit that they are exactly the same in upbringing and everything but then behave differently. What do you believe is the source of this differing behavior? If we traced it back far enough would we eventually reach a point where it becomes apparent that this difference originated in 'a thing' which the farmers had no control over? I believe so.

throwaway413 8y ago

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

morgancmartin 8y ago
I wasn't careful enough with my language. Yes, someone can work harder and see diminishing returns anyway. My dad installed carpet for the majority of his adult life. I would characterize that as more difficult work than most, but he never attained very much wealth. Still, in a (very particular) vacuum, I would argue that statement holds water, even if it doesn't in reality.

ff317 8y ago

There's a couple key points that I think help bridge the gap of understanding between these two points of view about Hard Work vs Luck (and I'll completely ignore things like existing advantages of birth/wealth, and coercion, as those points are really separate): 1) Hard Work is enabling factor for "luck", just like being born under the right circumstances is. Hard work does pay off, and thus it's valid to say "hard work helped me get here". What we're calling "luck" isn't a purely random roll of the dice. Working hard tilts the odds of good luck much further in your favor. 2) While Hard Work enables better statistical odds at the luck game, you have to be careful to understand that it's still just statistical odds in a luck game, and that structurally there can only be a small percentage of people who "win". If every single person worked equally (very) hard, the luck advantage of working hard would diminish to zero, and only luck (remember we're ignore other factors like wealth/coercion) would remain to differentiate the small percentage of winners. Because wealth is pretty much defined as having more than someone else (or else pricing/inflation will just readjust everyone back to the norm), not everyone can have more than the average. This is what blows a hole in the idea that anyone can work hard in order to achieve success. Anyone can work hard to increase their odds, but the odds are small without other advantages, and many may work hard and still fail.

morgancmartin 8y ago
I don't contest any of what you wrote. I was mostly arguing against the OP's very odd view that someone's position is due entirely to luck and not just partially. You and I seem to agree that it is a proportion, whether or not we agree what that proportion happens to be. But the OP seems to believe that nothing is due to free will and everything is due to luck.