7 ms·

What if you're born in a poor country? Just keep trying?

by oefnak 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago
[flagged]
- chefandy 3y ago
  Where you are born is a matter of luck, and not just in governance. You can directly correlate success in the US to the zip code you were born into. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/learning/how-much-has-your-zip-code-determined-your-opportunities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/learning/how-much-has-you...
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Fortunately, you can move to whatever zip code you like.
    - Niksko 3y ago
      Unfortunately, that's not how it works. a) no you can't just decide to go and live in any postcode you want, you need to be able to afford the cost of living there, and b) the study is about where you're born, not just where you end up.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > no you can't just decide to go and live in any postcode you want, Yeah, you can. > you need to be able to afford the cost of living there More affluent places hire maids, gardeners, handymen, drivers, etc. The even wealthier ones have places for them to live on the premises. In Seattle, of course, they just pitch a tent on the street or live in their cars. This thread reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
        acdha 3y ago
        > More affluent places hire maids, gardeners, handymen, drivers, etc. The even wealthier ones have places for them to live on the premises. I’m trying to tell whether this is a serious argument. Yes, the very wealthiest might allow their most trusted servants to live on their estates but that’s like saying that anyone can go to the moon or win an Olympic gold medal because some humans have done it. Most rich people do not do that and those positions are not widely available: for example, the most common would be live-in nannies which often require things like college degrees and the “right” background. The far more common outcome is that most workers commute to those exclusive places and they often have very strong rules (the last time I drive through an expensive area outside of San Diego, it was noticeable how often the roads were blocked by landscapers’ trucks because they weren’t even allowed to park in the dozen car driveways every estate has). It’s not even uncommon to have things like shuttles so they can park where it’s cheaper and not have to drive all of the way in.
    - chefandy 3y ago
      Like many people with a libertarian outlook, you don't seem to understand that laws aren't the most limiting factor in most people's lives. Simple economic realities prevent most people from moving to "whatever zip code they want." Every disadvantage seems trivial if you ignore the actual barriers they impart.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        An unwillingness to do whatever is necessary to improve one's station in life correlates with a lack of success in said life, I am afraid. Another easy thing to do to improve your "luck" is vote pro-free-market, pro-business and pro-competition policies in your area. Sadly there is a high correlation (at least where I live) between how poor people are and how leftist they vote...
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        chefandy 3y ago
        > An unwillingness to do whatever is necessary to improve one's station in life correlates with a lack of success in said life, I am afraid. An unwillingness to recognize that willpower isn't enough to overcome many, if not most blocks to social mobility in the US correlates with blind support for lazzais fair free market evangelism, I'm afraid.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        > isn't enough Yes. I listed upthread what was necessary.
        anon4242 3y ago
        This is ignoring the fact that most people commenting here already won big time in the lottery of life: the family you were born into. If you were born in a family in the wealthiest 10% of the world you have a lot of advantage over the person born in the least wealthy 10%. It's a lot more profound than that you got a game console for X-mas every other year. For instance, does drowning while crossing the Mediterranean sea on a substandard boat not constitute a willingness to do whatever is necessary to improve one's station in life in your view?
    - borski 3y ago
      Not if you don’t have the money or time because you’re working three jobs. Or you have kids from a previous divorce and can’t leave the state or you never see them again.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > Not if you don’t have the money The homeless in Seattle are largely not from Seattle. Somehow they managed to get here. So do the people who come by the millions, walking across the continent to get into the US. In fact, America was populated by poor people coming from Europe. The Titanic's money maker wasn't the first class section, it was steerage. Maybe check out Ellis Island. Chicago was populated by poor people looking for work. The American West was settled with people with no money. > Or you have kids from a previous divorce and can’t leave the state That's the result of choices the person made. I wonder what the schools teach about American history :-/
        borski 3y ago
        I wonder what the schools teach about economics :-/ Please don’t attempt to educate me on the idea that “poor people can move.” My parents were poor immigrants and moved twice, across two continents, with nothing in their pockets, to try and make a better life. That does not mean they could do that today. The economy has changed. Cost of living has gone up dramatically. There is no more “western frontier” where one can luck out and find gold. It is much much harder to move now than ever before. And that’s before you get to the fact that my parents were here illegally for almost 30 years, but had SSNs, paid taxes, handled all their debt, did not take government handouts/subsidies, never got in trouble, and so on. They were able to do that because paperwork back then was … paper, and they could find people to make it work. Today they’d be deported. With all due respect, your point of view is marred by the fact that you’ve had success. Spend some time actually talking to some poor people, before you start to tell them why they are poor. As for “That's the result of choices the person made,” this is a dumb argument. Condoms break. Abortion is illegal in many states. Divorces happen because of things that are not entirely in someone’s control, even after years of happy marriage (i.e. someone cheats). Full custody is something only courts can grant, not your own choices. If you can’t get it, you can’t leave the state, or you don’t get to see your kid again. That has nothing to do with your choice to get married to the love of your life and have a child with them. The logical conclusion of your argument is “well you can choose to leave your kid behind” which is nonsense. Please consider that your perspective may be biased by not having actually spoken to anyone in the situations you purport to know so much about.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  What examples of "democratic socialist" countries do you have in mind that would be likely to achieve significantly greater economic wealth/material standard of living just by voting differently?
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Britain, for example. For others, there are the former Soviet bloc countries. The ones that voted for more free markets have done significantly better than the ones that clung to socialism. Chile is another one that prospers and declines based on them vacillating between socialism and free markets.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      Pretty sure Britain's economic woes have not been tied to an excess of socialism on account of its governments, at least in the last few decades. At any rate, both the UK and USA (and arguably most other modern wealthy countries) are essentially social democracies - it's largely a matter of degree (and to what extent it's prevalent at a federal vs state vs local level). But from the perspective of an Australian, the economy of the USA looks for all the world like one I want to avoid ours becoming at all costs. To be clear, I'm very much envious of the opportunities US-based technology workers have, and if there were a way to achieve that level of entrepreneurship and sheer variety of industrial success stories here while still maintaining a cohesive society not beset by destabilizing levels of inequality* I'd be all for it. (*) on the inequality front, perhaps what puts me off the most is seeing the degree to which relatively few mega-corporations appear to dominate much of the social fabric. Which is a problem in Australia too but to a lesser extreme.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        If you vote for less inequality, be prepared for a lower standard of living. No country has ever managed to raise the standard of living of its citizens by preventing people from getting rich and/or confiscating their wealth and/or murdering them (see Pol Pot).
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 3y ago
  Your worldview is amusing. Everything is simple and consistent. Simple concepts, simple explanations, simple recipes. You have to be a complete idiot or very lazy not to succeed in the world as you see it.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    If you're convinced you can't succeed in America, you certainly won't.
    - ahf8Aithaex7Nai 3y ago
      If you don't play the lottery, you can't win. That's obvious. But the vast majority of people in America will not succeed even if they are convinced that success is possible.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        The vast majority of people in America has already succeeded: being "poor" there is better than being "average" in most countries on Earth.
        chefandy 3y ago
        You're changing the topic. This conversation is not about the quality of life among lower-income people-- It is about the opportunity to become a very successful entrepreneur. And 'better than most countries' isn't a very high bar for the richest country on earth. The Economist ranked the US 30th in food availability, and 28th in food affordability among 112 countries. Not exactly a slam dunk.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        And yet we're the fattest country in the world, and throw away 40% of the food we buy.

What if you're born in a poor country? Just keep trying?

by oefnak 3y ago

What if you're born in a poor country? Just keep trying?

WalterBright 3y ago

[flagged]

chefandy 3y ago
Where you are born is a matter of luck, and not just in governance. You can directly correlate success in the US to the zip code you were born into. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/learning/how-much-has-your-zip-code-determined-your-opportunities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/learning/how-much-has-you...
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Fortunately, you can move to whatever zip code you like.
  - Niksko 3y ago
    Unfortunately, that's not how it works. a) no you can't just decide to go and live in any postcode you want, you need to be able to afford the cost of living there, and b) the study is about where you're born, not just where you end up.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > no you can't just decide to go and live in any postcode you want, Yeah, you can. > you need to be able to afford the cost of living there More affluent places hire maids, gardeners, handymen, drivers, etc. The even wealthier ones have places for them to live on the premises. In Seattle, of course, they just pitch a tent on the street or live in their cars. This thread reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
      - acdha 3y ago
        > More affluent places hire maids, gardeners, handymen, drivers, etc. The even wealthier ones have places for them to live on the premises. I’m trying to tell whether this is a serious argument. Yes, the very wealthiest might allow their most trusted servants to live on their estates but that’s like saying that anyone can go to the moon or win an Olympic gold medal because some humans have done it. Most rich people do not do that and those positions are not widely available: for example, the most common would be live-in nannies which often require things like college degrees and the “right” background. The far more common outcome is that most workers commute to those exclusive places and they often have very strong rules (the last time I drive through an expensive area outside of San Diego, it was noticeable how often the roads were blocked by landscapers’ trucks because they weren’t even allowed to park in the dozen car driveways every estate has). It’s not even uncommon to have things like shuttles so they can park where it’s cheaper and not have to drive all of the way in.
  - chefandy 3y ago
    Like many people with a libertarian outlook, you don't seem to understand that laws aren't the most limiting factor in most people's lives. Simple economic realities prevent most people from moving to "whatever zip code they want." Every disadvantage seems trivial if you ignore the actual barriers they impart.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      An unwillingness to do whatever is necessary to improve one's station in life correlates with a lack of success in said life, I am afraid. Another easy thing to do to improve your "luck" is vote pro-free-market, pro-business and pro-competition policies in your area. Sadly there is a high correlation (at least where I live) between how poor people are and how leftist they vote...
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - chefandy 3y ago
        > An unwillingness to do whatever is necessary to improve one's station in life correlates with a lack of success in said life, I am afraid. An unwillingness to recognize that willpower isn't enough to overcome many, if not most blocks to social mobility in the US correlates with blind support for lazzais fair free market evangelism, I'm afraid.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        > isn't enough Yes. I listed upthread what was necessary.
      - anon4242 3y ago
        This is ignoring the fact that most people commenting here already won big time in the lottery of life: the family you were born into. If you were born in a family in the wealthiest 10% of the world you have a lot of advantage over the person born in the least wealthy 10%. It's a lot more profound than that you got a game console for X-mas every other year. For instance, does drowning while crossing the Mediterranean sea on a substandard boat not constitute a willingness to do whatever is necessary to improve one's station in life in your view?
  - borski 3y ago
    Not if you don’t have the money or time because you’re working three jobs. Or you have kids from a previous divorce and can’t leave the state or you never see them again.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > Not if you don’t have the money The homeless in Seattle are largely not from Seattle. Somehow they managed to get here. So do the people who come by the millions, walking across the continent to get into the US. In fact, America was populated by poor people coming from Europe. The Titanic's money maker wasn't the first class section, it was steerage. Maybe check out Ellis Island. Chicago was populated by poor people looking for work. The American West was settled with people with no money. > Or you have kids from a previous divorce and can’t leave the state That's the result of choices the person made. I wonder what the schools teach about American history :-/
      - borski 3y ago
        I wonder what the schools teach about economics :-/ Please don’t attempt to educate me on the idea that “poor people can move.” My parents were poor immigrants and moved twice, across two continents, with nothing in their pockets, to try and make a better life. That does not mean they could do that today. The economy has changed. Cost of living has gone up dramatically. There is no more “western frontier” where one can luck out and find gold. It is much much harder to move now than ever before. And that’s before you get to the fact that my parents were here illegally for almost 30 years, but had SSNs, paid taxes, handled all their debt, did not take government handouts/subsidies, never got in trouble, and so on. They were able to do that because paperwork back then was … paper, and they could find people to make it work. Today they’d be deported. With all due respect, your point of view is marred by the fact that you’ve had success. Spend some time actually talking to some poor people, before you start to tell them why they are poor. As for “That's the result of choices the person made,” this is a dumb argument. Condoms break. Abortion is illegal in many states. Divorces happen because of things that are not entirely in someone’s control, even after years of happy marriage (i.e. someone cheats). Full custody is something only courts can grant, not your own choices. If you can’t get it, you can’t leave the state, or you don’t get to see your kid again. That has nothing to do with your choice to get married to the love of your life and have a child with them. The logical conclusion of your argument is “well you can choose to leave your kid behind” which is nonsense. Please consider that your perspective may be biased by not having actually spoken to anyone in the situations you purport to know so much about.
wizofaus 3y ago
What examples of "democratic socialist" countries do you have in mind that would be likely to achieve significantly greater economic wealth/material standard of living just by voting differently?
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Britain, for example. For others, there are the former Soviet bloc countries. The ones that voted for more free markets have done significantly better than the ones that clung to socialism. Chile is another one that prospers and declines based on them vacillating between socialism and free markets.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    Pretty sure Britain's economic woes have not been tied to an excess of socialism on account of its governments, at least in the last few decades. At any rate, both the UK and USA (and arguably most other modern wealthy countries) are essentially social democracies - it's largely a matter of degree (and to what extent it's prevalent at a federal vs state vs local level). But from the perspective of an Australian, the economy of the USA looks for all the world like one I want to avoid ours becoming at all costs. To be clear, I'm very much envious of the opportunities US-based technology workers have, and if there were a way to achieve that level of entrepreneurship and sheer variety of industrial success stories here while still maintaining a cohesive society not beset by destabilizing levels of inequality* I'd be all for it. (*) on the inequality front, perhaps what puts me off the most is seeing the degree to which relatively few mega-corporations appear to dominate much of the social fabric. Which is a problem in Australia too but to a lesser extreme.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      If you vote for less inequality, be prepared for a lower standard of living. No country has ever managed to raise the standard of living of its citizens by preventing people from getting rich and/or confiscating their wealth and/or murdering them (see Pol Pot).
ahf8Aithaex7Nai 3y ago
Your worldview is amusing. Everything is simple and consistent. Simple concepts, simple explanations, simple recipes. You have to be a complete idiot or very lazy not to succeed in the world as you see it.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  If you're convinced you can't succeed in America, you certainly won't.
  - ahf8Aithaex7Nai 3y ago
    If you don't play the lottery, you can't win. That's obvious. But the vast majority of people in America will not succeed even if they are convinced that success is possible.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      The vast majority of people in America has already succeeded: being "poor" there is better than being "average" in most countries on Earth.
      - chefandy 3y ago
        You're changing the topic. This conversation is not about the quality of life among lower-income people-- It is about the opportunity to become a very successful entrepreneur. And 'better than most countries' isn't a very high bar for the richest country on earth. The Economist ranked the US 30th in food availability, and 28th in food affordability among 112 countries. Not exactly a slam dunk.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        And yet we're the fattest country in the world, and throw away 40% of the food we buy.