SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @04:35PM (2 children)
I think risk is always one of the biggest players for those not born rich. In my case my wife and I moved half way around the world (having never once left the US before) with $8k in my pocket on a one way trip. It all worked out and I was able to dramatically cut my living expenses and finally get to work on pursuing my dreams (independent software development) while my wife pursued hers of teaching. Most people thought we were borderline insane for doing it. Now that it's clear that things have worked out for us while they're struggling to get that 401k filled enough to enjoy life one of these years assuming they can hold onto their jobs - they're mostly just bitter towards us.
And of course it's entirely possible things could have failed, but ultimately I think people who spend their lives waiting for "their turn" will discover that that turn - that opportunity - never really comes. Especially as you get older and the years start to fly by - you make your opportunity or you'll wake up one day, when it's already too late, realizing that's it's never going to come. And in any case I don't understand why failure is so grave. It adds a few grey hairs to your head, but you can rebuild and retry. In the end you only get a blink of time on this planet, may as well make it exciting.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:31PM (1 child)
The problem is that failure CAN be so grave. I'm glad it worked out for you, but it could easily have been a very different story with your family destitute and living with relatives as you get back on your feet. Not everyone has a family safety net, not everyone can even have $8k in savings to try out a new life. You have a very good point, live life without too much fear and take some risks; however such changes aren't workable for everyone. Moving is not always an option, risking an entire savings account is rarely an option, etc. etc.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:05PM
The problem is that failure CAN be so grave. I'm glad it worked out for you, but it could easily have been a very different story with your family destitute and living with relatives as you get back on your feet. Not everyone has a family safety net, not everyone can even have $8k in savings to try out a new life. You have a very good point, live life without too much fear and take some risks; however such changes aren't workable for everyone. Moving is not always an option, risking an entire savings account is rarely an option, etc. etc.
Which is an excellent argument for a strong safety net. If you know that your family won't starve on the street if the entrepreneurial risk you take fails, then you're much more likely to take such risks.
However, since watching your kids starve in the street is a possibility, given the poor excuse for a safety net in the US, many are unwilling to take that risk even if the reward is substantial.
This is perpetuated by those who already have substantial resources. They don't want the competition, so that can't be allowed.
Despite the fact that it would be a great boon for both the economy and society.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr