4 ms·

My grandfather owned rice plantations as a young man... up until the bank which held the mortgages on the properties decided that it wanted to sell the land to

My grandfather owned rice plantations as a young man... up until the bank which held the mortgages on the properties decided that it wanted to sell the land to a refinery. He then went to work for Shell for the next 25 years. My godfather worked for Shell for 30 years. So did my father. And when my dad ended his career there, they were about to start dismantling the global data warehousing implementation team, so he offered up his own job to receive severance. He received 2 years of pay, all 16 weeks of accrued vacation time, and of course got to keep his pension and his 401K. I think that one of the reasons that the area is so patriarchal and right-wing is because that's the career experience of a lot of people over there. They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs, and are generally well taken care of. This deludes people into believing that it's how it is for everyone: that you can simply roll out of bed after high school and get a life-long career which will afford you a middle class lifestyle.

lisper 4y ago
It's called "survivorship bias", and it's not just for people who "roll out of bed and get a life-long career." It applies equally well to pretty much everyone, including ultra-successful company founders. "Hey, if I can do it, anyone can do it, and the ones who don't are obviously just not willing to work hard enough or take enough risks."
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  It's not called "survivorship bias." That's a term for looking at, e.g. mutual funds' 5-year records, where the only ones you see are the ones who've been around for 5 years, and not the ones that failed. Company "loyalty" is sometimes a valid concept, but the probability goes down the bigger the company gets.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jewayne 4y ago
    Umm...I'm sorry, but it very much is a form of survivorship bias. "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not." "I worked hard, my employer treated me well, and I retired early. It's not that hard!" Does not take into the account the workers that worked hard and in return were abused by their employers.
  - lisper 4y ago
    As described, it is literally survivorship bias: > They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs [emphasis added]
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      > it is literally survivorship bias I think you need to look the term up if you want to use it correctly. It's about statistical sampling, not about generalizing from one or two examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias it does not merely refer to people who've survived at something.
      - msrenee 4y ago
        >Whether it be movie stars, athletes, musicians, or CEOs of multibillion-dollar corporations who dropped out of school, popular media often tells the story of the determined individual who pursues their dreams and beats the odds. There is much less focus on the many people that may be similarly skilled and determined but fail to ever find success because of factors beyond their control or other (seemingly) random events.[16] This creates a false public perception that anyone can achieve great things if they have the ability and make the effort. The overwhelming majority of failures are not visible to the public eye, and only those who survive the selective pressures of their competitive environment are seen regularly. From your link.
        AlbertCory 4y ago
        The fact remains that "survivorship bias" is a term from statistics, and OP is expanding it inappropriately. However, if you insist on having the last word, go ahead.
        lisper 4y ago
        Language is malleable and dynamic. Words and phrases originating in one place are often conscripted to do extra duty someplace else. There is nothing inappropriate about that. It is a Thing That Happens. However, in this case the thing I described really is survivorship bias in the original sense of the word. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data." In this case, the selection process is not getting laid off.

lisper 4y ago

It's called "survivorship bias", and it's not just for people who "roll out of bed and get a life-long career." It applies equally well to pretty much everyone, including ultra-successful company founders. "Hey, if I can do it, anyone can do it, and the ones who don't are obviously just not willing to work hard enough or take enough risks."

AlbertCory 4y ago
It's not called "survivorship bias." That's a term for looking at, e.g. mutual funds' 5-year records, where the only ones you see are the ones who've been around for 5 years, and not the ones that failed. Company "loyalty" is sometimes a valid concept, but the probability goes down the bigger the company gets.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jewayne 4y ago
  Umm...I'm sorry, but it very much is a form of survivorship bias. "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not." "I worked hard, my employer treated me well, and I retired early. It's not that hard!" Does not take into the account the workers that worked hard and in return were abused by their employers.
- lisper 4y ago
  As described, it is literally survivorship bias: > They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs [emphasis added]
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > it is literally survivorship bias I think you need to look the term up if you want to use it correctly. It's about statistical sampling, not about generalizing from one or two examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias it does not merely refer to people who've survived at something.
    - msrenee 4y ago
      >Whether it be movie stars, athletes, musicians, or CEOs of multibillion-dollar corporations who dropped out of school, popular media often tells the story of the determined individual who pursues their dreams and beats the odds. There is much less focus on the many people that may be similarly skilled and determined but fail to ever find success because of factors beyond their control or other (seemingly) random events.[16] This creates a false public perception that anyone can achieve great things if they have the ability and make the effort. The overwhelming majority of failures are not visible to the public eye, and only those who survive the selective pressures of their competitive environment are seen regularly. From your link.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        The fact remains that "survivorship bias" is a term from statistics, and OP is expanding it inappropriately. However, if you insist on having the last word, go ahead.
        lisper 4y ago
        Language is malleable and dynamic. Words and phrases originating in one place are often conscripted to do extra duty someplace else. There is nothing inappropriate about that. It is a Thing That Happens. However, in this case the thing I described really is survivorship bias in the original sense of the word. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data." In this case, the selection process is not getting laid off.