3 ms·

I like how in four days we went from "probably determined" ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9031814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9031814 to "a

• NPMaxwell 12y ago
  Yes. This headline is sad. To show that my lifetime earnings are "decided" in the first 10 years of my career, you would have to show a predictive model with an R-squared value of 1. That is not the case. If R-squared were very close to 1, you might say, that lifetime earnings are "highly influenced by" the first 10 years. The article does not even seem to indicate that. Instead, lifetime earnings appear to be "related to" income in the first 10 years. What is sad is that the mistake in the headline is off topic. Determination doesn't appear to be the point of the article. The point of the article appears to be that advantages that are visible in higher incomes at 25 play out, on average, as even larger income differences at 55. The point appears to be not that the system is determined, but that there are unequal advantages, one of which may be more disposable income.
• dang 12y ago
  We didn't. I've added a question mark to make that point. Thanks for the link to the not-entirely-obvious dupe.