9 ms·
Economic inequality cannot be explained by individual bad choices, study finds
- jasmer 3y ago[dead]
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago[flagged]
- meepmorp 3y ago[flagged]
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago[flagged]
- meepmorp 3y ago[flagged]
- justinsaything 3y ago[flagged]
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago[flagged]
- renewiltord 3y ago> Our research does not reject the notion that individual behavior and decision-making may directly relate to upward economic mobility. Instead, we narrowly conclude that biased decision-making does not alone explain a significant proportion of population-level economic inequality Interesting. It's not cognitive biases of some innate sort. It seems important to me that society should apply boosts to people who can demonstrate ability through some trainable measure that is advantaged by intelligence until they hit some threshold.
- freen 3y agoPerhaps some sort of action that affirmatively supports systemically oppressed folks. Huh, wonder what we could call it?
- everfree 3y ago> It seems important to me that society should apply boosts to people who can demonstrate ability through some trainable measure that is advantaged by intelligence until they hit some threshold. In theory, this is what merit-based college scholarships are for. In practice, arguably not so much.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoBecause real boosts in this society are not puny scholarships. Its graduating with a good job already lined up, no debt, and and a heap of cash. This is basically how a lot of my wealthy friends I met in college ended up. Parents would even give them like 100k cash or even more as a graduation present. They’d also throw down on their down payments for new car or housing. Meanwhile their peers who are also getting a scrap of paper that graduation day are perhaps in debt by that amount.
- learn-forever 3y agoPretty irresponsible to have a headline that is contradicted by the text
- germinalphrase 3y agoWe would need to improve academic assessment.
- nradov 3y agoIs intelligence what we should focus on? The smartest people often make the worst decisions due to hubris.
- josh_today 3y ago[dead]
- wunderland 3y agoPiketty loves to make fun of this sort of research because the hypothesis they’re disproving has been disproven a hundred times in very simple, empirical ways. But we have to pretend we’re diligently narrowing down the culprit at the heart of wealth inequality, knocking off potential causes one by one. Must be maddening working on a paper like this. Wealth equality is a necessary feature of our economic system yet very serious people pretend like labor can somehow pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
- prox 3y agoIsn’t that how science works? Or do you mean the political implications of these papers?
- wredue 3y ago[flagged]
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago[flagged]
- _2z1p 3y ago> Wealth equality is a necessary feature of our economic system yet very serious people pretend like labor can somehow pull themselves up by their bootstraps. How is wealth equality a necessary feature of capitalism when there has never been wealth equality in the history of human existence? Also, labor has pulled them themselves up by their bootstraps many times. It is possible, just simply not likely or common. Exhibit A: Andrew Carnegie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie Exhibit B: J.K. Rowling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling
- mplewis 3y agoPaying your mortgage by winning th lottery is also possible, just simply not likely or common.
- readthenotes1 3y agoInteresting they seem to lump all poor and rich together. The poor people I personally know (relatives) are definitely there by bad choices. Perhaps there are too many contexts to apply a simple answer to explain all?
- kjkjadksj 3y agoIt doesn’t help that financial education is nonexistent in this country, and the laws around investment advice make it so schools can’t really teach it. I took a budget class in college in effort to get more financially savvy, but they basically said they can’t really legally give advice for things like tax or investment or retirement planning, only really gave basic budget rules of thumbs that full time college students can’t really follow anyhow for lack of income. The rich kids on the other hand, just ask mom or dad what to do and they are well informed by their own family financial planner.
- christkv 3y agoIn every country
- foogazi 3y agoThere are people born today that are poor before they make their first choice
- readthenotes1 3y agoTrue, however, apparently the success sequence says that most poor people can rise out of poverty if they do 3 things in a right order
- onos 3y agoI have similar extended family. They are very entitled and lazy. When they are given things, they don’t take care of them and they basically go to shit. They aren’t mean spirited but somehow lack all drive to take care of themselves. Without our social safety net, they’d either live off of family or simply die. This is true on both sides of my family. Somehow my parents both are hard workers and have thrived, relatively speaking.
- MarkusQ 3y agoThe title is very misleading. What they actually show is that a certain set of cognative biases (_not_ the same as "bad choices") that are pretty much universal can't explain differences in outcome because...well, they're pretty much universal. Also, I suspect that lack of the ability to photosynthesis, multiply twelve digit numbers in your head, or see gamma rays with your eyebrows will turn out to not explain a significant proportion of population-level economic inequality.
- 0xParlay 3y agoIt turns out cognitive bias cannot explain why I’m fat. My ability to count calories is on par with top athletes. So what’s the big deal I think deep down we all know the truth. Obesity is a capitalist invention to sell more gyms.
- nickdothutton 3y agoReminder: If you have an economy with opportunity, you will have inequality. It’s a feature not a bug. Even if everyone in the world got free entry to Harvard (no jokes please) then there are some people who wouldn’t remember to set their alarm, or listen to the lectures, or apply the knowledge, or who just wouldn’t be interested.
- lapcat 3y ago> Even if everyone in the world got free entry to Harvard (no jokes please) It's not a joke, because some students do get "free" entry to Harvard, due to their parents paying for it.
- nostrebored 3y agoAnd some get free entry to Harvard because they got admitted and have full need-based scholarships.
- lapcat 3y agoYou're missing the point, which is that kids who "chose" the right parents get vastly more opportunities than those with less luck at birth, and the lucky ones don't have to work as hard or have as much talent as the unlucky.
- onos 3y agoDo you think the world would be better off if this effect were eliminated, ie that people could not preferentially help their own children? Or are you simply pointing out that life is not fair?
- lapcat 3y ago> Do you think the world would be better off if this effect were eliminated I don't know. I do think the world would be better off if we eliminated homelessness, hunger, student loan debt, medical debt, and political campaign financing. These are some of the worst consequences of economic inequality in society. > Or are you simply pointing out that life is not fair? Well, I personally don't think that so-called "meritocracy" is fair or ideal. I was born with some advantages over the majority of people, and my academic talents started to show at a relatively young age (with no "hard work" — it was easy work!), but I don't think I "deserved" to be born that way, nor do I think that I "deserve" more money than other people as a result of my advantages. I understand capitalistic supply and demand, and that may be a decent economic system. It's not an inherently ethical system, however.
- marcusverus 3y agoThe application of the term 'science' to the social 'sciences' was a terrible mistake. How does the author justify this statement: > "A global study ... finds that economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich." ...when their article quotes the first author as saying: "Our research does not reject the notion that individual behavior and decision-making may directly relate to upward economic mobility... *we narrowly conclude that biased decision-making does not alone explain a significant proportion of population-level economic inequality.*" ?? How do they bring themselves to make the statement: > "Poor decisions were the same across all income groups, including for people who have overcome poverty." ... when the study didn't look at any real-world decisions whatsoever, but merely at performance on a battery of academic tests, (whose relationship with real-world decision-making we're expected to take on faith)?
- sirspacey 3y ago“Why you arguing with what science says?” Every time I hear this I respond “Science says nothing. Only scientist.” What I find amusing is that people arguing for something want to metabolize sweeping generalizations. If social science teaches you anything, it’s that sweeping generalizations are a poor framework for understanding anything.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vacuity 3y ago> “Science says nothing. Only scientist.” That's a great way of putting it. I'm ashamed that I only recently realized it during a discussion about science and religion with my friends. I defined science along the lines of "best-effort iteration on making a hypothesis, collecting data, and evaluating the hypothesis". And that's without considering the human factor, whether it's confirmation bias, thirst for fame, or some other weakness. That's not to say that science is worthless; on the contrary, it embodies our capability to rationalize our universe. It's unfortunate that so many people think that understanding science means listening to the mainstream consensus of scientists, without critically evaluating their own values, assumptions, and the limitations or outright flaws of the studies. Nuance shouldn't be overlooked and mistaken conclusions should be addressed.
- darth_avocado 3y ago> Economic inequality cannot be explained by individual bad choices A more appropriate hypothesis would be that economic inequality cannot be explained by individual bad choices *alone*. Plenty of examples of poor decision making can lead to catastrophic permanent poverty. Drug/alcohol abuse, having children without the right finances, skipping school etc. are just some of the decisions that can directly explain economic inequality.
- lapcat 3y ago> Drug/alcohol abuse Tons of rich and famous people are or were notorious drug/alcohol abusers. > skipping school College dropouts: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison...
- paulddraper 3y agoAnd almost without exception plainly harmful.
- lapcat 3y agoPersonally harmful? Yes. Financially harmful? Not so much.
- gruez 3y ago>Financially harmful? Not so much. Having to spend $100k on drug rehab is objectively more financially harmful to someone than not having to. It's probably more accurate to say it's not financially ruinous.
- convolvatron 3y agoits more about losing the ability to show up and make a living than the cost of rehab
- lapcat 3y ago> Having to spend $100k on drug rehab is objectively more financially harmful to someone than not having to. What's $100K to someone like (randomly chosen) Eric Clapton? That's like 10 minutes of work for him. ;-)
- tangjurine 3y agoEven if people can make the "right choice" in a controlled setting with no stakes involved, that doesn't mean they can or want to make choices in the same manner when things are important, or it's their own life, or there are strong emotions, etc... So how does the study address that?
- vacuity 3y agoSeems like the only option is to observe the subjects' lives in detail, then. That's the best indicator of real-life performance, after all.
- h2odragon 3y agoOften said: "Them as has, gets"
- foogazi 3y agoMan can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. - Arthur Schopenhauer
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- holoduke 3y agoHow difficult is it to understand that the ability of making the right choices depends on how you are raised. Where you grew up etc. People who say success is a choice are conpletely wrong.
- no1groyp 3y ago[dead]
- frankreyes 3y agoWhy Nations Fail is a great book that everyone has to read. Says that economic inequality is because of political institutions. Specifically, "inclusive" institutions where everyone can become part of the economic system. Anyone can be a government supplier under the same terms, everyone can start their own business under the same terms, everyone can get financing under the same terms, and everyone get the same protection to their own private property. There's a nice Economic effect called "Hume-Cantillon Effect": > Furthermore, he posited that the original recipients of new money enjoy higher standards of living at the expense of later recipients. The concept of relative inflation, or a disproportionate rise in prices among different goods in an economy, is now known as the Cantillon Effect. > ... the rate of interest was determined by the supply and demand on the loanable funds market—an insight usually attributed to Scottish philosopher David Hume. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#Monetary_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#Monetary_t...
- crtified 3y agoIf we accept that it is possible to raise two similar children from birth with a view to creating vastly different outcomes, regardless of what those children think or will, then we must also accept that the great diversities of the natural world make that dynamic a reality. It's no different than taking two dogs of the same breed, and raising one as a farm working dog, and the other as a family pet. The outcomes will seem different, but that's not because one or the other specimen is inherently special or superior. Inherent, individual qualities do exist, sure, and do play a part in the nuance - but ultimately, as individuals, existence has a lot more effect upon us than we do upon it. How could it possibly be otherwise??
- throwaway22032 3y agoMy lived experience is simply that most people don't actually care about finances _that_ much. If you went to the gym you would find that 90%+ of people are not trying to deadlift 510kg for a world record and accept that as fact. But somehow when it comes to money it's assumed that everyone's #1 priority above all else is to stack cash, and it's just not, and that cannot be characterised as a "bad decision".
- arh5451 3y agoHot take: 1. Income Inequality is directly related to financial education. If you taught people how to save in schools and make good choices things would be very different. 2. The Fed Reserve has made it impossible for a generation of people to save for the past 2.5 decades. Creating the largest wealth disparity in human history.