While the carrot problem is real, it alone doesn't explain the shittiness of rich people's advice on becoming rich. So much opportunity is either created or destroyed by external circumstances that we don't perceive, let alone control. Since we all subconsciously write our own creation myths, it's not easy to discover and attribute forces that we aren't aware of when looking back on our life paths. The perennial bullshit self-explanation is hard work. How hard they work is one thing that they can control, and they know they worked hard, so they assume it had more of an effect than it did... and in turn, others that worked less hard didn't succeed. For example, they might assume that their uncle was willing to set up that meeting with their first big client because they worked hard enough to be worthy of it, rather than realizing that others who worked as hard or harder lacked a connected uncle.
Very few business success stories credit luck with being a root cause.
But in real life luck (or "chance" , if you prefer) plays a part, sometimes a significant part.
It was lucky that John and Paul went to school together. It was lucky they got on together and became good friends. Thanks to that luck ee got the Beatles.
Of course it (usually) takes -more- than just luck, but dig deep enough and its there.
> But in real life luck (or "chance" , if you prefer) plays a part, sometimes a significant part.
This reminds me of a story I heard nearly 20 years ago. (Told by a UCLA staff member.)
In the early 2000's, a UCLA professor invited a successful entrepreneur to give a guest lecture on one of their business courses. During the lecture he was asked what made him the success and the fortune - and the answer was distilled to less than seven words: "Get lucky. Then stack the deck." He went on to explain that the best way to maintain a competitive edge was to make it as hard as possible for anyone else to try to follow his steps or to circumvent his position. But first you had to get lucky enough to afford it.
He was not invited again. Too honest and demoralising for the students.
It may not be sabotage necessarily. I’ve talked to MIT professors and they said one of the things they do at Sloan is emphasize gaining and holding a monopoly. Patents, trade secrets, etc. It’s the ‘moat’ that Warren Buffet and value investors look for in investments. If you do the work figuring out supports, methods, regulatory compliance, you’re not under any obligation to provide that information to anyone else. That could be construed as ‘stacking the deck’. I had a coworker that ran a firearms training company on the side and he had to let go one of his administrators because he was talking with his competition and casually telling them what sort of insurance they carried, what small business programs they had applied for, unexpected regulations they found that they had to comply with. All these things are publicly available but took a lot of time to research and money on lawyers etc. No point in helping your completion start on first or second base.
The tricky side of that is how to distinguish between luck and opportunity. Loads of people might be friends at school with someone with a great complementary talent, or have a connected uncle, or happen to start a business in a sector that about to really take off. They may even think about the opportunity and how to take advantage of it, but for whatever reason they don’t.
So there are multiple factors. Some initial lucky opportunity, the insight to spot it, the willingness to take a risk on it, and hard work to see it through.
Someone doesn’t listen to How I Built This. One of Guy’s questions at the end of each interview is what percentage of their success was luck and pretty much all of them from Michael Dell to Drew Houston and everyone in between put luck at a far greater percentage than any other attribute.
Being the right person in the right place at the right time can’t be taught.
Yet, IMO, that’s the primary factor to being wildly successful.
Knowing that you’re the right person in the right place at the right time ranks second.
Taking advantage of the opportunity presented as the right person in the right place at the right time is third.
Personality is fourth.
Skill is somewhere below that.
Ultimately, luck always sets the maxima.
Though, this only applies if you’re measuring success by the amount of excess you can accumulate.
You can live an incredibly fulfilling and happy life without any of the above if you set your own criteria for success to fall within the constraints of your particular circumstance.
I recommend reading a biography of the Beatles. Don't overlook the many years they spent playing dive bars day and night, honing their skills as a band.
Brian Epstein, a nobody, recognized opportunity when he met the Beatles.
The Beatles kind of sucked at the beginning of their career. That they became as good as they did was a shot in the dark— not the ability to divide which ones would become great. The are so many incredibly talented musicians in the world— if anybody could consistently choose the winners, record company finances would be way different. Of the bands that get signed to record labels, the percentage that become the "it" acts is microscopic.
People always say this about the Beatles but it’s fucking ridiculous. I’m a musician and have spent a lot of my life around musicians including very very famous ones and including ones who are very famous now but were not when I met them.
I’ve also met hundreds of musicians who practice and try for years and are basically the same at the end as when they start.
The difference between being OK and quite good indeed can be bridged with practice.
The difference between being a quite good and polished songwriter and being Paul McCartney involves being fucking born Paul McCartney.
Also “they sucked at the beginning bf their career?” What in the the fuck are you talking about? They had a hit with Love Me Do when their ages ranged from 20-23 years old. That’s not fast enough for you?
Paul Simon had his first hit single as a teenager. Robert Plant was 19 when he recorded Zeppelin I.
No amount of practice alone is going to to get you to that level of talent.
Anyone implying otherwise 1) is trying to sell you books and 2) has spent zero actual time as a musician and around musicians and songwriters.
> The are so many incredibly talented musicians in the world
If there are so many, then they aren't incredible.
It takes a lot more than talent to be successful in music. More than musical talent, too. One has to also be able to create catchy tunes, play them, fit in with your band, pick the right look for the band, the right name, packaging, etc. etc. etc. I recommend reading up on what Brian Epstein did for them.
The songs of the Beatles (and Michael Jackson) are consistently better than the songs of their contemporaries.
> the percentage that become the "it" acts is microscopic
Are the 99% simply not that good? I enjoy music from all kinds of bands, but the quantity and consistent high quality of the Beatles' and Jackson's work are standouts.
No. The music industry in the US has never been a meritocracy. There are tons of artists who record labels deem worthy enough to sign but they never promote. A whole lot of it comes down to luck.
It seems like a lot of your viewpoint is based on am assumed consistency that doesn't exist.
(apologies for the small tangential rant; it's a topic I care about :)
I have seen this view towards luck a few times — some variant of "make your own luck" or "put yourself in situations where you're more likely to be lucky", and similar.
I don't object to it by itself, but there's a subtlety that is often missed: it only applies to yourself, not other people. Or perhaps more accurately: it only applies to your choice of action, not evaluating others' results.
The reason I have misgivings is because I have seen it used as a cudgel; someone fails, and a person with this mindset is more prone to rationalize it, saying "oh, they didn't try hard enough" or "it was their own fault, they should be smarter about it."
No.
No matter how hard a person tries, they can still fail, and it may not be their fault at all. At least when it's your own self, you have more information to know if you could have done better. When it's directed at others, it's extremely dicey to make those judgements.
Someone more in tune with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune might be more inclined to actually help that person, rather than blaming them for things outside of their control.
It's tricky, because the "try harder next time" whip is useful, to be sure, but it also can be an enemy of empathy.
Many successful people I know failed multiple times.
> "it was their own fault, they should be smarter about it."
The successful people I know who failed multiple times and eventually succeeded all blamed themselves for the failures, with "I should have been smarter about it".
The great thing about taking responsibility for one's failures is it is empowering - it means you can succeed by learning why one failed and doing it better next time.
You could consider it like airliners. Crashes are not attributed to "bad luck". The cause is always searched for, and once found, it gets fixed. Over time, this has resulted in incredibly safe airliners.
Do you really expect to successfully ride a bike the first time you swing your leg over the seat? Nope. You fall off, get back on, fall off, get back on, fall off, get back on, hey! I'm riding!
I learnt to ride with extra wheels attached to the side of the bicycle, and as a result, I almost never fell during that learning process.
Translating the analogy back, what you describe is the entrepreneurial fail-until-you-win method. The alternative method of progression is that of apprenticeship or gradual promotion, which in my country is associated with traditionally middle-class professions like finance, medicine and law. In such a conventional career, success is almost guaranteed, as the number of people entering the profession is very close to the number retiring out of it, and the assumption is that, because the endeavour has always been profitable, it will be for you too.
Ideally, the profession as a whole gradually improves under this system, but no individual member of it has to engage in any more than an average level of risk to be personally successful.
Said someone who has never grown up in poverty. rolls eyes
Been in both situations; grew up impoverished, now doing well.
Living paycheck to paycheck is never a lifestyle choice; there are choices that come out of that because even poor people don’t want to feel poor, but given the option, not a single one in most cases would prefer to be paycheck to paycheck.
I grew up under the utter misery of communism. Even my illiterate grandmother working the earth knew to always have a valuable or two put aside to bribe the party representatives in case one of us got sick or in trouble.
I also lived in the US. My roommate with half my salary had a car twice as expensive as mine. He had house payments while I was renting. Restaurants and bar outings while I stayed home reading. No wonder he was always broke on salary day...
So for you I guess lazy people don't exist? People who refuse to learn, change and adapt? People who just wanna smoke weed, play xbox, jerk off to pornhub and eat Nachos (not necessarily in that order)? People who'd rather make a quick buck doing some border-line illegal "deals" than have a regular honest job? People who would rather play the popularity game in high school than study? People who would rather slack off around the watercooler at work than do what "the boss" asks? People who prefer to coast although their field is changing under them?
It must be nice to live in a world without such people...
Of course they exist. They are a minority, though, and the trope of representing people in poverty as lazy is tired and old, in addition to inaccurate.
I’m not sure what any of that has to do with the topic at hand? My parents also fled communism.
It’s not that poor people don’t want to save and invest; it’s that because cost of living in most places has far outpaced salaries, there literally is no money to save.
Most Americans live under mountains of debt. My mother had thousands and thousands of dollars in credit card bills because she had to, in order to survive and support a family of four. And we lived in the projects in Brooklyn.
She never told me about it until I was in my twenties, because she never wanted to worry me with it, and moreover, she never wanted me to know we were poor. Pride is a real thing.
Context matters. If they moved to those other countries and continents, which have lower costs of living, they’d be fine. But: moving costs money and time they don’t have (since they’ve gotta work 3 jobs to put food on the table), those other countries and continents have even less opportunity to build a business, and so on.
It doesn’t really matter that you think “poor people” aren’t really that poor. They are, and risk is much harder to stomach when it means becoming actually homeless. Denying that is sticking your head in the sand.
This assumes one can afford multiple failures. Being born rich buys you a lot of swings of the bat. Otherwise you can't swing big, and opportunities to connect will be fewer--if any.
Rich kids can afford 'responsibility' because they have money to pay for their mistakes. Poor kids don't.
Best way to be prepared for success? Be born to a rich and well connected family.
I know several very successful entrepreneurs and I know quite a few people with rich parents. I don't see much of a correlation.
In my perception many of the rich kids lack the drive to work as hard as you need to, to become a successful entrepreneur, instead opting for a safer route. Granted, if you are from a really poor background and live in the US without much of a social safety net, I could see how that could hamper your prospects, but that's hardly a problem where I'm from.
Most people are lazy, rich kids already don't have to work. So if they happen to be driven enough to try they can take on many more risks and start more businesses.
If you're surrounded by entrepreneurs (such as SV) it's not a representative sample. Even being born "middle class" is a narrow slice of humanity today, much less everyone ever born.
As of 2019, to be in the financial top 10%, you needed a HOUSEHOLD income of just over 155k. I think that many around here are so utterly out-of-touch with the lives of most people in the US that they can't even reason about the blocks they have to advancement.
Depends on your circle. So probably not a representative sample. If you live in SoCal there's probably some clustering of survivorship bias.
Of all the people rich today -- or ever -- how many started middle or lower class?
How many came to America with nothing and died, barely survived, went to jail, got deported, peaked at lower middle class, etc.?
If I know a lot of plane crash survivors I still would not recommend getting on an unsafe plane. (I actually only know one crash survivor and would not get on a small plane unless it's a life or death emergency.)
This seems like something that’s changed in recent decades, as would be predicted of course. Most of the older rich people I know were not from upper class homes. Younger rich people (born after 1990) seem to come predominantly from upper middle class and higher. Anecdotal but I’d wager roughly consistent with national trends.
Nearly 100% of the rich people I know had family money. Living expenses now take up a very different amount of people's income than they did before. The skills you need to get a leg up now are very different than they used to be, even in recent history. Anecdata is useless.
I think in many cases when you trace it back, it comes down to ... luck (:
Which is funny, since now the descendants of some lucky people get the opportunity to take lots of chances and say "look how hard work pays off — I made my own luck!"
Though that's a pretty simplistic take; I feel like hard work really does pay off, broadly speaking, but also luck plays a (much) bigger role than most give it credit.
Given the number of possible alternative realities they could have been born into it, I'd strongly suggest luck has already found such people.
It's even possible had they not been born into such an easy existence they might have ultimately done better for themselves ("possible", not likely).
I think you miss the point. I believe the point is if you don't try then luck won't help you. Or in other words you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.
I think you missed my point. All of the trying in the world isn't going to replace the luck that's required for most people to succeed-- be it being born white and in a middle-class or better household in a middle-class-or-better town, not being sidled with familial or health obligations, or even being born with a cognitive profile that has workplace utility. Being comfortable enough to live with a parent and be lazy is already a privilege that a giant chunk of the US population doesn't have. Nobody is arguing that people born into opportune circumstances can succeed without doing anything. They just have the opportunity to make that effort turn into significant results when many others don't.
Tickets are expensive, most people cannot afford more than one. Many are born into debt they have little hope of escaping, much less buying tickets.
Those born wealthy can often buy so many tickets it's virtually guaranteed they'll stumble into something that works, at least once.
No one is saying people don't have to at least lift a finger to try. Just that birth luck affords so many other opportunities that the advice of outliers and the born comfortable isn't transferable.
I was pointing out the circular logic in these explanations. Saying someone is rich because their parents were rich (ad-infinitum) is like saying someone is lucky because they are lucky. It is not a useful explanation because you can't use this to do anything. In fact if you use this explanation to decide public policy, like say socialism, then the converse is also true, you make everybody poor, then their descendants will be poor. But obviously in our history on average, we've all been getting richer in the long run.
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.
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 :-/
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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...
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?
Yes-- and beyond that, to be in the top 10% as of 2019, you needed a HOUSEHOLD income of $154,589. I'll bet many, if not most of the people on HN make or beat that with one household salary. I imagine that it's gotta be close to 200k by now, but a household with the income of a public school teacher and a construction laborer would undoubtedly get you into the top 25%.
Yeah, well, my family was lower middle class. The same for many wealthy people I know.
I noted also that my comments were referring to America, which is (still) a free market country that provides a great deal of opportunity. That's why millions of poor people try to get here.
> Another easy thing to do to improve your "luck" is vote pro-free-market, pro-business and pro-competition policies in your area.
Even granting the ideological premise, this is nonsense. Your vote has a minuscule chance of determining who gets elected or what policies they enact.
> Sadly there is a high correlation (at least where I live) between how poor people are and how leftist they vote...
What idiots, preferring the side that at least claims to care about them and is somewhat more likely to help them afford their next meal and their medical bills, rather than the side that blames them for their poverty and offers them 'economic freedom' without the resources that would make it meaningful.
America is not full of people who can't afford their next meal. America is full of middle class fat people. Americans throw away what, 40% of the food they buy?
The vast majority of Americans are also healthy and able-bodied, they are not dependent on life sustaining medical help. The bulk of a person's medical bills are heavily skewed towards aged people. And there's Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.
> without the resources
Every American child is offered free K-12 education (with free lunches), and easy loans for college.
> Every American child is offered free K-12 education (with free lunches)
Spend some time in the south. Parents don’t let kids go to public schools and send them to parochial schools that teach creationism as science, and deride anything that disagrees with God’s word as false. That’s the schooling many kids get in the south.
Go read up a bit on A Beka books and the Bob Jones curriculum.
Those kids didn’t get a choice as to which parents to be born to. It was luck. That’s the point.
> and easy loans for college.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yes, “easy loans,” that depending on the job market you graduate into, you may never pay back.
Those students didn’t get the choice as to when they would be born and, thus, when they would graduate school. Entering the job market in 2003 and in 2008 was wildly different, and those that entered in 2008 were stunted not just for one year but many, as those that entered in 2006 or 2007 had more experience, fewer unexplained gaps, etc., all because of when they happened to be born.
Speak to people who don’t have money. Listen to what they say. Based on your responses, I can pretty much guarantee you’ve never done that.
I don't think this conversation is just about the US; an earlier comment in the chain said "for those in democratic socialist countries, stop voting for socialism".
But if the parent commenter was talking about America, 'leftist' presumably means Democrat. Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare were all introduced by Democrats and signed into law by Democratic presidents.
Until quite recently it was Republican policy to repeal Obamacare, and in 2017 a partial repeal (including big cuts to Medicaid) would have gone through if not for a small number who voted against the party line.
Actually, this should be expected: an inability to see beyond populist promises and to reason about the world and its immutable laws should often be correlated with staying poor.
The same mentality is pushing people to play the lottery, join pyramidal schemes and vote representatives pretending to solve their problems for them.
> 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.
Yes, I am a libertarian. Libertarianism is often derided as "simplistic" and "naive". The irony is it's anything but simplistic and naive. It's difficult to understand how order can arrive from chaos. It's difficult to understand how greed and selfishness produces great prosperity for a population.
Simplistic is the Star Trek world, which is ruled by an all-wise, incorruptible, benign dictator. It's the progressive vision of Utopia. The idea is that with enough laws (backed up by force) and enough propaganda, people will behave selflessly and will cooperate for the common good. Why this fails constantly baffles people, and they just reach for more laws and more force.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
I never said anything about preventing people getting rich. But a slightly lower material standard of living on average seems a reasonable price to pay for avoiding the least desirable outcomes from excessive inequality.
How slightly? Do you have a number? Because in certain places lowering the standard may very well people losing access to healthcare and education.
I am afraid that "but inequality!" is today used as an ideological rallying cry used to inflame spirits and create hate against a class of population. It's an old communist tactic, quite effective during the beginning of the Cold War but less now as people have seen the failed societies with their best and brightest massacred under this cry.
I'm purely comparing Australia and the US. As a personal preference if we were given a choice to achieve an average material standard of living equivalent to the US, but the price was its measurably less egalitarian wealth and power distribution I wouldn't take it, even though I'd likely personally financially benefit from it. And yes it's an ideological position, but I don't see why that's a bad thing. If there were persuasive evidence that less equal economies/societies were better functioning and provided more fulfilling life experiences for the population as a whole I'd abandon it.
As it is, statistically the US seems to be somewhat of an outlier in having both a very high GDP per capita and a relatively high GINI coefficient, so there's little reason to suspect Australia would benefit at all from higher inequality.
Geez are you really arguing that the US is somehow a model for access to health care and that it's because of the free-market? Is that why the more economically free (according to the heritage institute) Switzerland has better health care outcomes than the US at a lower cost? If so, how does that explain the access to health care in the dramatically less economically free Cuba? Maybe it's because they both have universal health care? Why does the US has an avoidable mortality rate closer to poor eastern bloc countries than the rest of Europe?
US health care is not a free market, it's heavily regulated.
As a person living in the Eastern Block right now, I'd invite you to use the medical facilities in my town but I am not that cruel.
Luckily free private health care is becoming increasingly good so soon the state-provided horror show will become a distant memory like the communist era that spawned it.
As a non-Swiss-resident who has to use the Swiss health-care system for anything less urgent than emergency services I can report that the private health-care in Switzerland is quite developed and quite expensive.
Not sure how, but I will say statistically there's little evidence that in general higher inequality leads to greater overall wealth anyway: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gini-coefficient-vs-gdp-p... - if anything that tends to indicate the US is something of an outlier.
This is such a bizarrely extreme non-sequitur. From the UK, which is neck-and-neck with the US on the Heritage Institute's economic freedom rankings, to Pol Pot. Good lord.
You touched on a general topic, and I was speaking to that, more than your specific words.
> successful people ... blamed themselves for the failures
I'm sure that's true. But I'm trying to draw a thin, wiggly line between awareness of room for improvement (usually more on a rational level), and blame/judgement (usually more on an emotional level). The former is great, the latter not so much.
I'd wager that there are also a whole lot of un-successful people who blamed themselves for their failures, even if they could do no better.
People who hate themselves. People who are unhappy. My commentary is more directed at those people and those who would care about them, than the ones you mention.
> taking responsibility ... you can succeed by learning
This definitely straddles the wiggly line (:
One one side is "taking responsibility," and on the other is "it's your fault."
Certainly one should internalize the lesson. But hopefully not the shame/blame. Perhaps neither you nor your successful acquaintences suffer from this affliction, but in my experience many do.
I realize that some people are lazy and looking for excuses to escape responsibility, so perhaps you see my viewpoint as somehow enabling or encouraging that bad behavior. I just want to point out that there are downsides in the other direction too, if taken to puritanical extremes. And I daresay the "being lazy is bad" side of the argument gets a whole lot more headspace in our culture than the "it's okay, there's nothing wrong with you" side. Hence my attempt to bring some balance.
> You could consider it like airliners ...
> ride a bike the first time ...
The thing about airlines is that they operate in a very carefully crafted environment. Planes stay away from each other, are generally aware of each other (notwithstanding that friggin' biplane without a radio that cut me off on downwind... grr), have high maintenance standards, etc. etc. Real life can be much more dense/messy/fast-moving/full of unknowns, I find. You do not always get the luxury of knowing the variables involved.
But the problem with both of your examples is that they assume you can learn and try again. And that's not always the case.
What if you're a passenger on one of those airliners that crashes? What should you have done better, personally?
Born in a poor country? Sorry, no re-try.
Born with a damaged brain or body? Sorry, no re-try.
Have abusive parents? Maybe a few can pull themselves out (probably mostly by luck or the help of others), but it will have lifelong effects.
You get the idea. And those examples are extreme; there are myriad other "softer" struggles people have, with varying levels of control. Depression comes to mind.
So, in conclusion, my whole long-winded reply is just trying to say: sometimes people (like you) express the "you have nobody to blame but yourself" attitude, with good intentions, directed at the sort of enabled people you were talking about, but it gets applied to other people, with heart-wrenching effects.
> The thing about airlines is that they operate in a very carefully crafted environment.
They do now, as the consequence of many crashes.
> And that's not always the case
I liken this as "humans have two legs" and the riposte is "not all humans have two legs". Notice the requirement to insert a missing word, "all". I hope you'll forgive me, because I am rather testy about this sort of waste of time. If I mean "always" or "all" or "100%" I would use those qualifiers. Those qualifiers exist for a reason.
> Born with a damaged brain or body?
Oh criminy. I shouldn't have to add that if you're mentally deranged none of this applies. In fact, I believe I even wrote somewhere here "of sound mind and body" because I know somebody would pipe up with "not everybody likes ice cream".
I think I am talking past you in some way; sorry about that.
I am not trying to play word games or pull "gotchas" on your phrasing. I think I have a straightforward underlying message; I hope you can hear it through my imprecise miasma of words.
Maybe you already heard it, but are only replying to the remaining small tidbits you object to; I'm unsure.
In truth, I have a similar frustration, where I feel the fragmentary quotations of mine you reply to do not give justice to the larger context in which they were written. But I don't hold it against you; I know that struggle.
Anyway, one more attempt:
You presented some simple advice ("It's not about working hard. It's about working smart."), and as mentioned I don't disagree with it per se.
But in my life, I have seen that advice used "for evil", if you will. (I do not mean to imply that you intend it that way, of course).
And in particular, I do find that people giving and following that advice are often either willfully or ignorantly (more often the latter) blind to the downsides that can go along with it — vis-a-vis empathy towards others, for instance. Of course, I do not mean to imply that you are blind to it. I don't know you.
So, I hoped to give some voice to that other perspective, is all. I find it to be under-represented, in discussions like these. Hugely so.
----
Re: humans having two legs: I truly am not sure if you are messing with me, or if I really failed to deliver my idea so totally. I swear I don't mind if it's the former, though I feel it is the latter (: Help me improve my communications protocol?
I thought our sequence went something like this:
you: work hard and learn from your mistakes
me: agreed. but also, beware of assigning blame for misfortune
you: here are some examples of how learning from mistakes is useful/empowering [airliners, bikes]
me: yes, and here are some examples of misfortune that's not blame-worthy [unlucky birth, etc.]
you: my examples were not meant to be all-encompassing [humans have two legs]
me: ???
Actually, writing it out maybe makes it more clear. Perhaps you feel I was disagreeing with your initial advice, and trying to counter it somehow. But rather, I am trying to add something to it; draw a bigger circle around everything on the Venn diagram, so to speak. Not cross yours out.
"Are Greg and Emily More Employable Than Lakisha And Jamal"
5000 job applications with evenly weighted resumes randomly paired with names more commonly given to white children and names more commonly given to Black children. The "White" applicants were FIFTY PERCENT more likely to get a callback.
Here's an article from the fed discussing a study that shows the average white family has just under 5x more assets than your average Black family, and crucially, that intergenerational wealth doesn't play a big role in that:
There is so much more empirical proof that the US simply is not a meritocracy. You must be deliberately shielding yourself from it or astonishingly naive to think otherwise.
The business I started in the 1980s was mail order and nobody knew my name, color, background, religion, sex, etc.
Today, with the internet, nobody needs to know anything about you for you to run a successful business.
You seem to require that I must be born wealthy. I was born on an Air Force base and spent many years living in base housing. If you're from a military family, you know that ain't wealthy and ain't the path to wealth.
My father grew up in the Depression, and his father apologized profusely to him for asking for a portion of the money my father made collecting scrap so he could buy food. My mother lost everything (and I mean everything) in WW2.
I've posted before about wealthy friends who came to America with a suitcase.
The idea you must be born into wealth in order to be successful in America is simply false. I know too many wealthy people (including Blacks and women) who demonstrate otherwise.
Here's a recipe to move from poverty to the middle class:
1. don't do drugs
2. don't do crimes
3. stay in school
4. learn what the school provides
5. get a loan for college
6. go to college, pick a major that pays well, learn the material rather than cheat
It's a pretty good default strategy. It doesn't take any miracles or unusual effort.
> astonishingly naive to think otherwise
Maybe you should tell that to the millions of poor people attempting to get into the US.
A big caveat is #4 should read "be willing and able to take risks". If you're not living in country with a social safety net or have the resources to self-support failure, risk taking is simply not an option.
It's much easier to do prep work when you have a social safety net to keep you clothed, housed and fed while you're prepping.
It's much easier to place yourself in a situation where the opportunity can find you if you know that if opportunity doesn't find you, you'll be ok.
It's much easier to take a gamble that a bunch of hard work will lead to a fantastic opportunity if the cost of it not leading to an opportunity is very low.
Probably nearly all of them over 30 of sound mind and body, that live in America, avoided the lure of alcohol, drugs, and crime, got themselves educated in a useful skill, and avoided the tar pits of victimhood and grievances.
Buying the right lottery ticket is the closest chance to this being accurate. If you look at the percentages in social strata and honestly evaluate the logistical and cultural paths most people would have to access billionaire-level opportunity, it's apparent that American meritocracy at the upper echelons is a fucking joke.
Leveraging everything you had and bought MSFT when it went public. Or AMZN. Or Bitcoin. Or Apple. As the value of the stock increased, buy more on margin.
Of course, this is risky. Note I mentioned a willingness to take risks.
Look at the median incomes throughout the us, then look at the living expenses, and honestly consider whether speculative investing would be even remotely feasible, or even a morally defensible financial strategy with other people relying on you? Not being put into a position where other people rely on you— elderly parents, relative's children, etc— is pretty lucky in most socio-economic sections in our country.
Do you know how absurdly low the federal poverty level is compared to actual living expenses, anywhere? Do you honestly think $ > FPL = able to speculatively invest? Lots of basic needs assistance programs start tapering once you hit 133% of the regionally-adjusted federal poverty level and many don't disqualify until you until you hit multiples... And we still have a lot of food insecurity, housing insecurity, and lack of access to medical care among people who don't qualify.
58% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Throwing money into some Robinhood investment when you're living paycheck to paycheck, especially if you're responsible for other people, as many people in lower socio-economic brackets are, is completely irresponsible.
> 58% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck
That's one of the most misleading statistics ever. Lots and lots of people live paycheck to paycheck because they see money they spend money. I know people who live in McMansions with new cars, spiffy threads, and expensive furniture who spend every dime. Every time they get a raise, they ramp up the spending. When I worked at Boeing, payday was every other Thursday. People would leave the building and run to their cars. This is because they'd already spent the money and needed to get the paycheck deposited ASAP.
They're not poor people. What they are are fiscally irresponsible.
A corollary is the percentage of people with less than $500 in the bank. Well, I have less than $500 in the bank. It's not because I'm poor, it's because I put every dime to work for me in investments.
BTW, what do you think of those millions of people dressing up like Barbie and going to see Taylor Swift concerts, spending a thousand bucks and more on travel, tickets, costumes, etc.? Me, it shows Americans are not mired in poverty.
With only $100 you're basically going to have to win the lottery: get the right symbol (most won't be) at an ideal buy time, and sell at an ideal selling point. Be sure not to go bankrupt or homeless while buying those tickets and waiting for that perfect timing.
LOL. Every investment program starts with a first step. AMZN opened at $35 a share. Buying 3 shares would be worth what, today? North of $100,000. Not bad, eh?
Are you suggesting that if 100 times as many people bought those stocks at the right time, we'd have 100 times as many billionaires? What exactly would be generating all that extra wealth?
Yes, that was kind of my point. I'm not really seeing how many more people could have possibly become mega-rich just by having bought more of the shares that happened to make the few people that actually did mega-rich, which seemed to be what you were suggesting - apologies if I misinterpreted.
How many more did the same, but only managed to yield spectacular failure? Such lottery wins are not repeatable, and relying on them is horrible advice.
I don't name names for privacy reasons, not because I'm making things up.
The Seattle Times reported in the 1990s that there were over 10,000 Microsoft millionaires living in the Seattle area, excluding housing. And that was when a million dollars was real money.
Ten thousand.
There's probably a similar figure for Amazon employees.
The carrot problem in TFA describes when there is an incentive to lie - what you're describing is something else entirely. It's not usually in the interest of someone with wealth to lie about how they got there.
There's a big difference between being wrong/full of shit and outright lying because to tell the truth would harm your ability to make money. The former is just being an idiot, the latter is being a market manipulator/con /artist/grifter/etc.
The one I see constantly is people selling courses on how to make money. They talk about how they made money as a consultant and decided out of the kindness of their hearts to teach others.
What's clear is that the money the majority of them made wasn't from "doing the thing" but rather from the course that they're teaching.
Then someone takes the course and copies + puts their own spin on it. Rinse and repeat.
This! Timing, opportunity and location matter (wealthy parents are a good start too). Pick your choice of billionaire and look at their beginning. You can rarely see something truly jaw dropping.
If you think a white kid growing up in that house in SV had comparable opportunity to most people in the US, your understanding of most people's circumstances is not even in the ballpark with reality.
"Mansions" is hard to quantify; whether a given house was a mansion will be subjective, and doesn't correlate super well with the amount of financial support they gave their child. But if you want to really dig into the details:
> Gates
His father was a high powered lawyer in Seattle; his mother was a member on a number of corporate and philanthropic boards, including one that gave her direct access to the Chairman of IBM at the precise moment that Microsoft was attempting to sell software to IBM.
> Bezos
His parents loaned him a quarter million dollars to start Amazon in the mid 90s.
> Ballmer
His father was a "manager" at Ford, which could mean a wide range of things; he grew up in a very wealthy area.
> Allen
He seems to have come from genuinely middle class roots - his parents were a librarian and an elementary school teacher.
> Musk
This one is pretty complicated; his father owned an emerald mine and seems to have been quite wealthy, though Elon disputes his father's claim that he invested money in Elon's first company.
> Page
Both parents were academics in computer science.
> Brin
Both parents were academics, immigrating from the USSR to the US - his father ended up teaching math at the University of Maryland, his mother doing research at NASA.
So that's two (Gates and Bezos) where their parents were significantly wealthy and influential in useful ways; two where it's unclear how much they got real benefit from their parents' wealth, but they certainly didn't grow up poor (Ballmer and Musk); two where the parents weren't rich but academically involved (Page and Brin); and one where they were genuinely just middle class folks (Allen).
I've got a friend who's sometimes used as an example of breaking out of impoverished surroundings. They note that he grew up in public housing in the burned out South Bronx Regan famously toured on TV, and after graduating Harvard Summa Cum Laude, went on to become a successful and well-known frontrunner in his field. He's smart as hell, a great guy, and add hard of a worker as any. So was his father, a construction worker who played an instrumental part in mentoring his son. That's the ideal, right?
He gets irritated as hell when people use him as a token success story because he knows none of it would have happened if he— among many others just like him— didn't win the lottery at an elite prep school close enough for him to logistically manage attending despite no family resources. The hard work, character, and intelligence were the base line that would likely have meant modest incremental gains— like his smart, capable, hardworking father made— without winning that hat draw. The connections he made in prep school— not even at Harvard— got him where he is in his career. When you're living on the edge of financial solubility, you just don't get the opportunity to invest in the future because 100% or more of your output goes into funding your present, and there are a hell of a lot more smart people out there than lottery spots in elite prep schools. The difficulties that his childhood friends faced progressing through public high school in that environment sink a lot of people with a lot of potential-- the graduation rate of his local high school is currently 26%, and how many of them do you think attend Harvard, where 46% of white students were admitted with the help of legacy status, proficiency in almost exclusively white sports not available in public schools like fencing, squash, and crew, or being the child of faculty? If you think people who get that start in life have equal opportunity to make something of themselves, you're delusional.
I gather Musk did. But I'd agree the argument that the easiest way to become a billionaire, at least in the tech industry, is to be born to exceptionally rich parents probably doesn't hold water. Still, I don't think any of them grew up dirt poor either.
Regardless of whether her parents were even able to feed properly her as a child?
I'd actually be quite curious about her own views on the degree to which government-provided assistance made it possible for her to get where she is today, though she seems to have avoided voicing them publicly.
What goalposts are you talking about? At any rate, plenty of other countries have their own rags-to-riches stories (India being the first to come to mind). I don't think such isolated/exceptional cases tell us much about what sorts of economic systems produce the best overall results, and to link back to the original post, many of them probably have their own "carrot stories" behind them too.
Oh and the school lunch program is still socialism, btw!
These people need to believe they’re exceptional and therefore deserve it. In reality they (sometimes) worked very hard in order to have a chance to be lucky.
Totally agree. A good buddy of mine worked really hard for this. Because of all this he was able to get some major funding for his startup and has been majorly successful. And it helps his uncle too because he can reap the rewards of such a big seed round.
It's a loaded dice called loaded parents, you can roll and rerolled until you are lucky. It's still hard work, but if you can continue to play even the talentless are to strike gold.
>*on becoming rich. So much opportunity is either created or destroyed by external circumstances that we don't perceive, let alone control.*
Holy F!
this is in words the problem that I have had for over a decade as a consultant ;
I was a consultant who was not aware of the leverage against me by consultancies for whom I executed billion $ projects and they just squirted me out after they got their fill.
I cant articulate a clear picture in words at the moment - but your comment snippet really triggered the way my emotions are to those I worked for in the past and how robbed I feel. (I have my own self fulfillment - I am just recognizing how much I was truly being taken advantage of...
