4 ms·

There are so many who would argue that the wealthly earned their success all on their on that it is frightening (Even on HN). I've gotten into this discussion

There are so many who would argue that the wealthly earned their success all on their on that it is frightening (Even on HN). I've gotten into this discussion multiple times here and it amazes me how often people will fail to acknowledge that the 'birth lottery', as Warren Buffett describes it, is a huge factor in the vast majority of success stories. This sort of thing may be the primary reason that there will likely be some sort of very uncomfortable upheaval in the next couple of decades.

refurb 13y ago
I always find it interesting when the argument of why people are poor comes up. Usually it looks like this... "People are poor because they make bad life decisions" - usually comes from the right of the political spectrum "People are poor because the system is stacked against them, it's not their fault" - usually from the left of the political spectrum. Like most arguments, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  Agreed. If someone is professing either of those things or something similar they may be missing the point. People are not poor BECAUSE the system is stacked against them. But if they are poor (by birth, by screwing up royally, what have you), they have much less of a chance to become not poor, because the system is stacked against them.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > People are not poor BECAUSE the system is stacked against them. Yes, they (often) are. > But if they are poor (by birth, by screwing up royally, what have you), they have much less of a chance to become not poor, because the system is stacked against them. But then that means that there children are very often poor by birth because the system is stacked against them; specifically, the same features by which the system which made it more difficult for X's ancestor(s) to escape poverty by circumstance mean that the system is stacked against X in a way which produced X's poverty.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      I think we're saying basically the same thing. My point was more that a given person is not poor because they are lazy (necessarily), because even if they are not lazy, if the system is totally stacked against them, they are screwed. The cycle continues forever and in that sense yes the system being stacked against them made them poor.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        I read your post as saying -- or at least, suggesting -- that the system maintained but did not originally produce poverty for particular individuals, I was pointing out that maintaining poverty for particular individuals in one generation implies causing poverty for particular individuals in the next generation. I didn't see it as a fundamental disagreement so much as highlighting an implication which seemed to be downplayed in your post.
        ZenoArrow 13y ago
        The point ITendToDisagree was making is that the causality between starting poor and ending poor is not direct, i.e. starting poor = ending poor is too simplistic. The truth is there are a myriad of factors at play, but what we can say is that starting poor ends up being a big disadvantage to overcoming poverty in our current system. It's not about downplaying this factor, it's about recognising there are other factors at play, including factors that can tip the odds in someone's favour, the main one being education (and an enriching social life, but that's harder to mandate). Look at countries like India, they still have huge issues with poverty, but it's also clear that the focus on education has been instrumental in their growth in personal income. The issue with countries like the US is coupling poverty with a system that does not have the same broad level of commitment to education. The situation will continue to get worse, but it doesn't have to, that's the real tragedy.
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        ...it's also clear that the focus on education has been instrumental in their growth in personal income... Is it clear? The general opinion I see over here is that most education (beyond primary school) is useless, but you can't get hired without it anyway. I'm also not sure why you'd characterize India as having a "commitment to education" greater than the US - education is far more available and far more common in the US. For example, while I'm harshly critical of the lack of accountability surrounding teaching in the US, teachers are at least required to show up to work. As far as I'm aware, the general economic consensus about India is that economic liberalization is what has led the growth in income.
- kamaal 13y ago
  Indeed. Of the things that I see especially the poor is how their belief becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Most poor people I know, some of them close friends of mind. Even a few middle class people, and I see this among my cousins. There is a tendency to resign to one's fate. Its like they don't even want to try because it's just not going to work. There are a few people who do try and break out of those shackles. But they are by and large considered to be lucky.

refurb 13y ago

I always find it interesting when the argument of why people are poor comes up. Usually it looks like this... "People are poor because they make bad life decisions" - usually comes from the right of the political spectrum "People are poor because the system is stacked against them, it's not their fault" - usually from the left of the political spectrum. Like most arguments, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Agreed. If someone is professing either of those things or something similar they may be missing the point. People are not poor BECAUSE the system is stacked against them. But if they are poor (by birth, by screwing up royally, what have you), they have much less of a chance to become not poor, because the system is stacked against them.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > People are not poor BECAUSE the system is stacked against them. Yes, they (often) are. > But if they are poor (by birth, by screwing up royally, what have you), they have much less of a chance to become not poor, because the system is stacked against them. But then that means that there children are very often poor by birth because the system is stacked against them; specifically, the same features by which the system which made it more difficult for X's ancestor(s) to escape poverty by circumstance mean that the system is stacked against X in a way which produced X's poverty.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    I think we're saying basically the same thing. My point was more that a given person is not poor because they are lazy (necessarily), because even if they are not lazy, if the system is totally stacked against them, they are screwed. The cycle continues forever and in that sense yes the system being stacked against them made them poor.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      I read your post as saying -- or at least, suggesting -- that the system maintained but did not originally produce poverty for particular individuals, I was pointing out that maintaining poverty for particular individuals in one generation implies causing poverty for particular individuals in the next generation. I didn't see it as a fundamental disagreement so much as highlighting an implication which seemed to be downplayed in your post.
      - ZenoArrow 13y ago
        The point ITendToDisagree was making is that the causality between starting poor and ending poor is not direct, i.e. starting poor = ending poor is too simplistic. The truth is there are a myriad of factors at play, but what we can say is that starting poor ends up being a big disadvantage to overcoming poverty in our current system. It's not about downplaying this factor, it's about recognising there are other factors at play, including factors that can tip the odds in someone's favour, the main one being education (and an enriching social life, but that's harder to mandate). Look at countries like India, they still have huge issues with poverty, but it's also clear that the focus on education has been instrumental in their growth in personal income. The issue with countries like the US is coupling poverty with a system that does not have the same broad level of commitment to education. The situation will continue to get worse, but it doesn't have to, that's the real tragedy.
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        ...it's also clear that the focus on education has been instrumental in their growth in personal income... Is it clear? The general opinion I see over here is that most education (beyond primary school) is useless, but you can't get hired without it anyway. I'm also not sure why you'd characterize India as having a "commitment to education" greater than the US - education is far more available and far more common in the US. For example, while I'm harshly critical of the lack of accountability surrounding teaching in the US, teachers are at least required to show up to work. As far as I'm aware, the general economic consensus about India is that economic liberalization is what has led the growth in income.
kamaal 13y ago
Indeed. Of the things that I see especially the poor is how their belief becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Most poor people I know, some of them close friends of mind. Even a few middle class people, and I see this among my cousins. There is a tendency to resign to one's fate. Its like they don't even want to try because it's just not going to work. There are a few people who do try and break out of those shackles. But they are by and large considered to be lucky.