Comment by sokoloff

Comment by sokoloff 8 months ago

Pick any of those 8 billion. Have them work half as hard. Have them have half as much talent. Do their outcomes remain the same , get better, or get worse?

You’re arguing that there are other factors that also influence outcomes (and that those other factors are stronger forces).

I agree with that point, but that’s not a refutation to the notion that the coefficients on talent and hard work are positive, nor a convincing argument that success is unrelated to those two factors.

siavosh 8 months ago

Can anyone benefit from working 10% harder or smarter? Undoubtedly. But success isn’t linear. It’s clear from the zeitgeist that the ultra-rich and powerful—past or present—aren’t working a million percent harder or smarter; their positions are more accurately explained by structural advantages. The first million might be 95% hard work and talent. The next million, probably a bit less so.

Reply View 8 replies

Jensson 8 months ago

> It’s clear from the zeitgeist that the ultra-rich and powerful—past or present—aren’t working a million percent harder or smarter; their positions are more accurately explained by structural advantages.
Millions of people had an equal or better starting condition than Mark Zuckerberg so we aren't really lacking privileged people, but vanishingly few of those do become ultra wealthy.

Reply View | 7 replies
- siavosh 8 months ago
  
  I'm not going to get into the role of luck, but more curious -- how many ultra-rich individuals do you think can exist on the planet earth?
  
  Reply View | 5 replies
  
  Jensson 8 months ago
  
  Point is that wealth is a pretty minor part here compared to luck and skill, as otherwise people born wealthy would dominate the startup world. Instead its people born to upper-middle class families that dominates it.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
- BobbyTables2 8 months ago
  
  It’s not just about starting condition but also the level of psychotic desire to profit at any cost.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

Throw9444 8 months ago

I imagine first you’d have to define success in a way others might agree with. And talent, for that matter—most notable talents can’t be easily exploited by capital.

But, I do know for sure that being wealthy is correlated to neither skill nor hard work, but savvy leverage of the skill and hard work of others. That shit has to end. You should make proportional to the work you put in. Shareholders and investors are even worse.

But whatever. I do not expect the world to improve at this point. We’re just stuck in a shitty place (as humanity) and asked to be grateful for the insight of the rich.

Reply View 1 reply

Ray20 8 months ago

>You should make proportional to the work you put in.
Throughout the 20th century we have seen what such a social structure leads to: millions of deaths from hunger. And always, without exception: the transition to work-based economy - and in the next decade the population becomes many times poorer and a huge percentage of the population dies of starvation.
So no thanks. Between shareholders and investors, and starvation, I choose shareholders and investors.

Reply View | 0 replies

3np 8 months ago

Saying it's literally 0 implies a belief that free will doesn't exist (predeterminism), right? If so, who are you trying to convince here? :p

It's complex.

Reply View 3 replies

Arisaka1 8 months ago

To play devil's advocate: Free will not existing doesn't mean that your environment doesn't affect your outcomes. On the contrary, in fact. So convincing you means that I am the environment that affects you.

Reply View | 2 replies
- 3np 8 months ago
  
  I don't see how that complicates things?
  This is the thread GP was supposed to be a reply to:
  > > Does anyone actually believe that hard work and talent are either zero or negatively correlated to success?
  > I do.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- MichaelZuo 8 months ago
  
  But then what convinced you to do the convincing?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

varelse 8 months ago

[dead]

Reply View 0 replies