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: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:31PM (24 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:31PM (#492730) Homepage Journal

    Care has nothing to do with it. I will not allow you, under any circumstance, to steal from me. My life is not their problem and their life is not my fault. If you want to blame and steal from someone for the poverty of children born less than rich, blame those actually at fault; blame their parents. They are legitimately at fault. They chose to have a child while not rich. I had absolutely no say in the decision and will not accept blame or consequences for it having been made.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:36PM (4 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:36PM (#492734)

    I think the point is that if everyone puts into the pot, everyone's life improves drastically. E.g. if everyone contributes to a highway then everyone has drastic improvement in quality of life from being able to get from A to B.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:59PM (3 children)

      by slinches (5049) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:59PM (#492832)

      That works with highways because they enable greater productivity through reduced transportation costs. When you make earning a zero sum game (by definition, "income equality" does this), then there have to be people who are hurt to benefit others.

      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:02PM (1 child)

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:02PM (#492886)

        Fair point.

        I interpreted TFA as saying that income does not reflect productivity,

        But on second reading this is not quite the argument. It is closer to say that productivity is dominated by geographic and other factors. It would be better if productivity was dominated by ability and effort.

        • (Score: 1) by Chrontius on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:29AM

          by Chrontius (5246) on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:29AM (#493251)

          That's fine - income doesn't reflect productivity. American productivity has gone up much faster than the minimum wage. To quote a study from 2013, "Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity" [huffingtonpost.com]

          So - compared to 1968, productivity has gone up three times faster than the minimum wage? Apparently, Americans are working harder and/or smarter than ever, and being paid less for their work that at any time in the last fifty years. Am I reading that right? I think I am, and I'm … not even mad. I'm just disappointed.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:05PM (#492953)

        It also works with education because that enables greater productivity through reduced employee adaptation costs.

        It also works with medicine because it enables greater productivity through reduced healthcare costs.

        It also works with politics because it enables greater transparency through increased bullshitting costs.

        It also works with parenting because that enables greater social cohesion through reduced household stress.

        Your point being?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by moondoctor on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:04PM

    by moondoctor (2963) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:04PM (#492751)

    >My life is not their problem

    You keep telling yourself that.

    The fact that you don't recognise the benefits you receive by living in a society doesn't make what you say true. It's all connected whether you like it or not.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:11PM

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:11PM (#492752) Journal

    :-) I'm going with Poe's law on all this...

    One consideration to make is that humans go through great conscious effort to obstruct other humans. And the real problem is subservience, an apparently very successful survival trait, but it is slowing down progress. We obviously have the means to live like kings, and with much less effort than it takes to maintain the walls we put up

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:49PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:49PM (#492784)

    They chose to have a child while not rich.

    Well, I suppose 95% of the population choosing not to reproduce would solve the overpopulation problem...

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:50PM (#492822)

    It appears you have no desire to be part of society. Don't let the door hit your behind on the way out.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:57PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:57PM (#492945) Journal

    I will not allow you, under any circumstance, to steal from me.

    Good thing we live in a Democratic Republic, whose constitution explicitly grants the right to levy taxes, then, eh? Makes the stealing bit unnecessary.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:34PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:34PM (#492971) Journal

    They chose to have a child while not rich. I had absolutely no say in the decision...

    Voting for anti-abortion politicians is having a say in the decision.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by julian on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:14PM

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:14PM (#493035)

    I'm brought a great measure of happiness knowing you have to pay taxes and pitch in to help improve civilization whether you like it or not :)

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:09PM (11 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:09PM (#493343) Journal

    Just be careful that your death is not their salvation lest the last words you hear be "life isn't fair!".

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:06PM (10 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:06PM (#493377) Homepage Journal

      Stolen money is never anyone's salvation. Just the opposite, in fact. No society has ever benefited from having a large and growing population of thieves.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:06PM (9 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:06PM (#493423) Journal

        Given that we have more than enough resources out there to allow everyone to live a middle class lifestyle, but some people have gold toilets and some are living in poverty, I wonder who the thieves are?

        Let's apply some logic to a scenario. Two people. One has an empty house with no car and the other has a house filled with 2 TVs, 2 dining room tables, 2 cars, etc, etc. Which one is most likely to be a thief?

        BTW, growing wealth inequality is generally a symptom of a failing state.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:24PM (8 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:24PM (#493440) Homepage Journal

          I wonder who the thieves are?

          No, you do not. You know who they are and do not want to admit it. A thief is someone who takes something not freely given. Period.

          Wealth inequality is a fallacy. Fiat currency based economics is not a zero-sum game. Someone having more does not mean what you have is reduced.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:12PM (7 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:12PM (#493464) Journal

            Yes, for example the fruits of one's labor. Paying less than enough to live on for full time employment is an example of stealing the fruits of someone else's labor.

            Coercion takes many forms.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:31PM (6 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:31PM (#493638) Homepage Journal

              No, sweety. Employment is a contract. If you dislike the terms, either argue for better terms or take your business elsewhere. Once you accept the terms, you have agreed that what the employer is offering you is what you deserve. There is no moral component to pay rates.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:56PM (5 children)

                by sjames (2882) on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:56PM (#493656) Journal

                Sorry, but there certainly is, as long as the potential employee is bent over a barrel by the need for income. One day, perhaps you can complete remedial kindergarten and you'll understand.

                Many people understand that law and ethics is considerably more complex than Bartertown.