5 ms·

...and that's why he also said on Monday: "If you took someone and asked them, without them knowing whether they'd be born boy or girl, black or white, with or

...and that's why he also said on Monday: "If you took someone and asked them, without them knowing whether they'd be born boy or girl, black or white, with or without any relevant talent, or to rich or poor parents, and asked them when and where they'd like to be born. They'd answer, 'The US, in modern times'. There is no place on Earth, and no time in history, that a person can make the most of their talents, as today in the US. As hard as it is to be in the bottom 10% here and now, it would have been much worse any time in the past." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rm13iUUgE

nicbou 7y ago
Modern times, sure. The United States not so much. If you aren't sure about any other factor, you might want to be born in a society that provides most of its population with the tools they need.
ryanwaggoner 7y ago
There’s a subtle issue with that quote: one of the predicates is “with or without any relevant talent”, but the answer of the modern US seems to assume talent that one can make the most of. Why not pick a modern country with a better social safety net, lower inequality, and greater economic and class mobility?
- koheripbal 7y ago
  > Why not pick a modern country with a better social safety net, lower inequality, and greater economic and class mobility? If you have no talent or ambition, that definitely makes sense. You are better off in Sweden, Germany, or France.
lonelappde 7y ago
The problem with the that quote is that "it's better now than before" is used my large political movements to justify cancelling the effort that got us here, and letting us backslide.
- RookyNumbas 7y ago
  Will Durant has an interesting quote that has stuck with me, something along the lines of: Out of every 100 new ideas, 99 of them will be bad, and inferior to what was replaced. My impression is that "It's better now than before" is used to protect the effort that got us here, not cancel it. It's used to protect us against the 99 bad ideas.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  I've never seen anyone on consequence suggest we cancel any major social program or civil right. That sounds more like irrational fear on your part.
yaitsyaboi 7y ago
That sounds like a very mid 20th century POV. Which I totally get for Buffett. Most rankings of social mobility put the US outside the top 20. The highs are higher here, but the path to get there, especially from the bottom 10%, is more difficult than almost any country we consider a peer.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I would be interested in how the US mobility fared if the metric was not %, put purchasing parity. I imagine it is better to go from the bottom 10% to 20% in the US than bottom 10 to top 10 in many counties. After all, an income of 15k (ppp) puts someone in the top 10% globally and 30k is the top 1%
- koheripbal 7y ago
  I don't think that's accurate. Economic mobility in the US has been so high for so long, that it stands to reason that most families in the US have already achieved their potential. What is probably a more telling indicator is the degree to which poor IMMIGRANTS are able to move up - an indicator that the US dominates. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/1/20942642/study-paper-american-dream-economic-mobility-immigrant-income-boustan-abramitzky-jacome-perez https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/1/20942642/s...
  - yaitsyaboi 7y ago
    I don't think that stands to reason at all. That sounds laughable, especially in the context of the heinous things American society did to purposefully black families from "achieving their potential". While immigrant families' ancestors were in their home countries accruing assets, educational opportunities, and (relatively more) equal access to what their country had to offer, black people here were held back from their white peers. Home equity, educational opportunities, freedom from police harassment, the ability to organize politically without facing literal terrorism.
ausbah 7y ago
Economic mobility is down in most wealthy nations, especially in the US. Not to mention the demonstrable differences in outcome people have based on familial wealth, race, location, etc.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Innate potential as well.
thecureforzits 7y ago
Another classic: "I think that actually people in my situation should be paying more tax." - Warren Buffett
- koheripbal 7y ago
  ...and almost everyone agrees with him. The problem is that any time a Bill is put forward to raise taxes on "the rich", it also happens to include the upper-middle class, not the rich.
mardifoufs 7y ago
I see how it could sound weird to the eyes of an American, but the only place where I think his statement would be incorrect is Western Europe. A part from that I'm confident that a majority of people around the world would very much like to either have been born in the US or give their children the opportunity to live there. At least where I'm originally from, emigration to the US is seen as an an incredibly desirable outcome even more so than to europe. Though personally I'm glad I've ended up in canada! Funnily enough, my parents first choice was still the US and they only tried for Canada when they didn't get picked in the Us Visa lottery.
- unreal37 7y ago
  I don't think there is as much business opportunity in Western Europe due to taxes and regulations. This is why the US has given birth to the majority of big businesses in the world in the last 20 years. A lot of startups that started elsewhere, moved to the US to continue their growth. Europe might have some quality of life elements such as health care, vacation time, and regulations to protect citizens and workers... but being able to start a business in the US is what Warren Buffett refers to as opportunity.
  - ric2b 7y ago
    But in his thought experiment what you're trying to avoid is being massively disadvantaged by where you were born. If you're born in Scandinavia you'll have very good education and healthcare no matter what family you're born into. Maybe starting a business is harder, so what? You can move to the US later in life if that's your goal, you'll still be better off by having no student debt.
    - to11mtm 7y ago
      In the past this was a murkier trade-off as the cost of immigration vs the cost of student loans was much closer. Nowadays, however, I'd say that it's possibly the better route to take from a debt standpoint, but there is still the reality that being able to move to the US (or most other countries) is not a guarantee normally.

nicbou 7y ago

Modern times, sure. The United States not so much. If you aren't sure about any other factor, you might want to be born in a society that provides most of its population with the tools they need.

ryanwaggoner 7y ago

There’s a subtle issue with that quote: one of the predicates is “with or without any relevant talent”, but the answer of the modern US seems to assume talent that one can make the most of. Why not pick a modern country with a better social safety net, lower inequality, and greater economic and class mobility?

koheripbal 7y ago
> Why not pick a modern country with a better social safety net, lower inequality, and greater economic and class mobility? If you have no talent or ambition, that definitely makes sense. You are better off in Sweden, Germany, or France.

lonelappde 7y ago

The problem with the that quote is that "it's better now than before" is used my large political movements to justify cancelling the effort that got us here, and letting us backslide.

RookyNumbas 7y ago
Will Durant has an interesting quote that has stuck with me, something along the lines of: Out of every 100 new ideas, 99 of them will be bad, and inferior to what was replaced. My impression is that "It's better now than before" is used to protect the effort that got us here, not cancel it. It's used to protect us against the 99 bad ideas.
koheripbal 7y ago
I've never seen anyone on consequence suggest we cancel any major social program or civil right. That sounds more like irrational fear on your part.

yaitsyaboi 7y ago

That sounds like a very mid 20th century POV. Which I totally get for Buffett. Most rankings of social mobility put the US outside the top 20. The highs are higher here, but the path to get there, especially from the bottom 10%, is more difficult than almost any country we consider a peer.

s1artibartfast 7y ago
I would be interested in how the US mobility fared if the metric was not %, put purchasing parity. I imagine it is better to go from the bottom 10% to 20% in the US than bottom 10 to top 10 in many counties. After all, an income of 15k (ppp) puts someone in the top 10% globally and 30k is the top 1%
koheripbal 7y ago
I don't think that's accurate. Economic mobility in the US has been so high for so long, that it stands to reason that most families in the US have already achieved their potential. What is probably a more telling indicator is the degree to which poor IMMIGRANTS are able to move up - an indicator that the US dominates. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/1/20942642/study-paper-american-dream-economic-mobility-immigrant-income-boustan-abramitzky-jacome-perez https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/1/20942642/s...
- yaitsyaboi 7y ago
  I don't think that stands to reason at all. That sounds laughable, especially in the context of the heinous things American society did to purposefully black families from "achieving their potential". While immigrant families' ancestors were in their home countries accruing assets, educational opportunities, and (relatively more) equal access to what their country had to offer, black people here were held back from their white peers. Home equity, educational opportunities, freedom from police harassment, the ability to organize politically without facing literal terrorism.

ausbah 7y ago

Economic mobility is down in most wealthy nations, especially in the US. Not to mention the demonstrable differences in outcome people have based on familial wealth, race, location, etc.

koheripbal 7y ago
Innate potential as well.

thecureforzits 7y ago

Another classic: "I think that actually people in my situation should be paying more tax." - Warren Buffett

koheripbal 7y ago
...and almost everyone agrees with him. The problem is that any time a Bill is put forward to raise taxes on "the rich", it also happens to include the upper-middle class, not the rich.

mardifoufs 7y ago

I see how it could sound weird to the eyes of an American, but the only place where I think his statement would be incorrect is Western Europe. A part from that I'm confident that a majority of people around the world would very much like to either have been born in the US or give their children the opportunity to live there. At least where I'm originally from, emigration to the US is seen as an an incredibly desirable outcome even more so than to europe. Though personally I'm glad I've ended up in canada! Funnily enough, my parents first choice was still the US and they only tried for Canada when they didn't get picked in the Us Visa lottery.

unreal37 7y ago
I don't think there is as much business opportunity in Western Europe due to taxes and regulations. This is why the US has given birth to the majority of big businesses in the world in the last 20 years. A lot of startups that started elsewhere, moved to the US to continue their growth. Europe might have some quality of life elements such as health care, vacation time, and regulations to protect citizens and workers... but being able to start a business in the US is what Warren Buffett refers to as opportunity.
- ric2b 7y ago
  But in his thought experiment what you're trying to avoid is being massively disadvantaged by where you were born. If you're born in Scandinavia you'll have very good education and healthcare no matter what family you're born into. Maybe starting a business is harder, so what? You can move to the US later in life if that's your goal, you'll still be better off by having no student debt.
  - to11mtm 7y ago
    In the past this was a murkier trade-off as the cost of immigration vs the cost of student loans was much closer. Nowadays, however, I'd say that it's possibly the better route to take from a debt standpoint, but there is still the reality that being able to move to the US (or most other countries) is not a guarantee normally.