Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the fair-play dept.

Hard work is often touted as the key American virtue that leads to success and opportunity. And there's lots of evidence to suggest that workers buy into the belief: For example, a recent study found that Americans work 25 percent more hours than Europeans, and that U.S. workers tend to take fewer vacation days and retire later in life. But for many, simply working hard doesn't actually lead to a better life.

In the past, economists have acknowledged that citing hard work as the path to prosperity is overly simplistic and optimistic. Ultimately, whether hard work alone can lift people into better economic conditions is a more complex question. The formula only works if an individual's efforts are met with opportunities for a better life. According to research, it's getting harder and harder for Americans to move up the income ladder.

A new poll from the Strong, Prosperous and Resilient Communities Challenge (SPARCC), an initiative to bolster local economies, found that Americans are quite skeptical of the narrative connecting wealth with personal agency. SPARCC found that 74 percent of those surveyed believed that most poor people work hard, but aren't able to work their way out of poverty due to the lack of economic opportunities. In the U.S., 19 percent of income inequality is attributed to predetermined circumstances such as a person's race, gender, and parental income. The SPARCC report also points to past research showing that economic mobility and health outcomes are greatly affected by geography as evidence that individual hard work won't ensure success because opportunities aren't evenly distributed.

The hard-work argument also plays into the policy discussion around inequality. As Katharine Bradbury and Robert Triest, both economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, write:

Increased inequality may result from increased risk taking and entrepreneurship in an environment of rapid technological change, with some entrepreneurs producing better, or just luckier, innovations than others, and reaping greater rewards. It may also result from increased disparities in work effort, with more industrious individuals earning higher incomes as a result of their greater effort. In both these cases, one could argue convincingly that the increase in inequality is justified and that no remedial changes in public policy are needed. On the other hand, if the increase in inequality results mostly from factors largely beyond the ability of individuals to control or counteract, then a strong case can be made for a public policy response.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:05PM (#492719)

    "The way it works is hard work may or may not pay off but the lack of it is pretty much guaranteed to not pay off."
    That's because it's an and function. Effort && In a useful direction.

    Consider an enthusiastic idiot. This shows that 'help' is sometimes negative no matter how much hard work is done.
    Another failure mode is to work for a company that squanders your work with a plan that doesn't work out.
    This is where luck comes in.
    Capitalism guarantees the later because letting the market decide means the market will decide not to buy many things.
    (A case of the worst possible plan, except for all the alternatives.)

    The non-PC question here is: If a person was offered Civility and STEM education in school and ignored it and as a result later does not get ahead, is this a problem with the social contract?
    How about if the person gets an MBA and causes the squandering of other folks work?
    How about if the person's upbringing led him to ignore what was offered?
    Where should things switch from society's responsibility to personal responsibility?

    The economist's answer is when the person is able to compete fairly with others of the same skill, it's ok.
    If everybody is working hard, then working hard is table stakes and it may not pay off.