4 ms·

This would be more convincing if we all started out on a level playing field -- as opposed to, say, getting into Harvard because of daddy's connections, failing

by cstross 17y ago

This would be more convincing if we all started out on a level playing field -- as opposed to, say, getting into Harvard because of daddy's connections, failing upwards to the limits of temporal power, then abolishing the inheritance tax that (horrors!) might hold our buddies back. Hint: America isn't classless -- it has a hereditary aristocracy. They just don't put titles like "Lord" or "Baroness" in front of their names.

cwan 17y ago
This argument I'd concede partially to - that there are social advantages some of us have. This needn't however be an argument about income mobility - which I think is a separate issue (and I do believe exists), but even those who get there because of social advantage does not mean that to stay there one does not need to be creative and at least have a valuable work product. This isn't to say that all rich people (particularly if it was inherited) are creative, but I would argue on average, most high income earners must be because of the value that others are willing to pay for.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > but even those who get there because of social advantage does not mean that to stay there one does not need to be creative and at least have a valuable work product. Nor does it mean that because they're there they're somehow more creative than people who didn't have those opportunities and couldn't get there. > but I would argue on average, most high income earners must be because of the value that others are willing to pay for. Just because people are willing to pay for something, doesn't mean producing it is creative. Being creative is certainly "a" path to wealth, but it's hardly the only one, and having wealth does not in imply that you are creative or any more creative than the average person. Now of you restrict the "rich" people you're talking about to the subset that were self made, from rags to riches, then yes, I'd agree that they are very likely much more creative than the average person; but you haven't done that.
  - cwan 17y ago
    > Nor does it mean that because they're there they're somehow more creative than people who didn't have those opportunities and couldn't get there. The original question was why "rich people are so uncreative?". With reference to the subset of high income earners, I'm not saying that they would be more or less creative than others in those positions who had better opportunities. I am however saying that the nature of their jobs - as high income earners - suggests that they need to provide something relatively unique as a function of their job that reflects value on average at least equal to their income (unless you're saying that most have somehow lucked into "high income" and on average the people who pay them are irrational/stupid). Again this isn't to say that someone else in that position couldn't be more or less creative - it is however to say that the nature of their job based on the attribute of high income requires more creativity. I never said that being creative was the only path to wealth - however, innovation does require creativity and innovation is how wealth is created where rule of law exists. Wealth is a reflection that society appreciates a given idea/innovation. I'd even argue that seeing arbitrage also requires a certain level of creativity though as noted, I would concede that inheritance does not. Nor would I restrict it to the self made rich people as the reality is even those born into wealth would need to exercise a certain level of creativity to maintain/grow it (even if others might be more effective at doing so).
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      What I'm saying is the correlation between wealth and talent (creativity) is much weaker than the correlation between wealth and who you know or who your family is and what opportunities those connections got you. I don't believe rich people are more creative, they're just much better connected and able to apply what creativity they have than unconnected people.
      - cwan 17y ago
        Let me ask you this - who would you consider to be more creative? (a) a person who could be more creative doing piece work at a factory (b) a person who may be less creative performing some form of art Both these individuals may have arrived at their respective current jobs in life but I'm not saying that opportunities had nothing to do with it. With respect to rich people, I am saying that high income earners have to maintain a higher output of creativity on average to maintain that income as a function of their job. I'm not saying that luck doesn't have a lot to do with it, or that geography or ancestry doesn't have to do with it.

by cstross 17y ago

cwan 17y ago

This argument I'd concede partially to - that there are social advantages some of us have. This needn't however be an argument about income mobility - which I think is a separate issue (and I do believe exists), but even those who get there because of social advantage does not mean that to stay there one does not need to be creative and at least have a valuable work product. This isn't to say that all rich people (particularly if it was inherited) are creative, but I would argue on average, most high income earners must be because of the value that others are willing to pay for.

gnaritas 17y ago
> but even those who get there because of social advantage does not mean that to stay there one does not need to be creative and at least have a valuable work product. Nor does it mean that because they're there they're somehow more creative than people who didn't have those opportunities and couldn't get there. > but I would argue on average, most high income earners must be because of the value that others are willing to pay for. Just because people are willing to pay for something, doesn't mean producing it is creative. Being creative is certainly "a" path to wealth, but it's hardly the only one, and having wealth does not in imply that you are creative or any more creative than the average person. Now of you restrict the "rich" people you're talking about to the subset that were self made, from rags to riches, then yes, I'd agree that they are very likely much more creative than the average person; but you haven't done that.
- cwan 17y ago
  > Nor does it mean that because they're there they're somehow more creative than people who didn't have those opportunities and couldn't get there. The original question was why "rich people are so uncreative?". With reference to the subset of high income earners, I'm not saying that they would be more or less creative than others in those positions who had better opportunities. I am however saying that the nature of their jobs - as high income earners - suggests that they need to provide something relatively unique as a function of their job that reflects value on average at least equal to their income (unless you're saying that most have somehow lucked into "high income" and on average the people who pay them are irrational/stupid). Again this isn't to say that someone else in that position couldn't be more or less creative - it is however to say that the nature of their job based on the attribute of high income requires more creativity. I never said that being creative was the only path to wealth - however, innovation does require creativity and innovation is how wealth is created where rule of law exists. Wealth is a reflection that society appreciates a given idea/innovation. I'd even argue that seeing arbitrage also requires a certain level of creativity though as noted, I would concede that inheritance does not. Nor would I restrict it to the self made rich people as the reality is even those born into wealth would need to exercise a certain level of creativity to maintain/grow it (even if others might be more effective at doing so).
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    What I'm saying is the correlation between wealth and talent (creativity) is much weaker than the correlation between wealth and who you know or who your family is and what opportunities those connections got you. I don't believe rich people are more creative, they're just much better connected and able to apply what creativity they have than unconnected people.
    - cwan 17y ago
      Let me ask you this - who would you consider to be more creative? (a) a person who could be more creative doing piece work at a factory (b) a person who may be less creative performing some form of art Both these individuals may have arrived at their respective current jobs in life but I'm not saying that opportunities had nothing to do with it. With respect to rich people, I am saying that high income earners have to maintain a higher output of creativity on average to maintain that income as a function of their job. I'm not saying that luck doesn't have a lot to do with it, or that geography or ancestry doesn't have to do with it.