SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
MIT Tech Review reports on a new study which used computer model to analyze wealth distribution in society. It concludes that the majority of riches do not result from talent, intelligence or hard work - but luck. Those who succeed most in modern society are born well and experience several 'lucky events' which they exploit, but are of mediocre talent. The study's abstract states that the model has potential for encouraging investment in the genuinely gifted, and summarizes:
"...if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals. As to our knowledge, this counterintuitive result - although implicitly suggested between the lines in a vast literature - is quantified here for the first time."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by idiot_king on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:04AM (42 children)
This is precisely the problem the socialism and Marxism attempt to solve. Luck is NOT A SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT! The fact that these numbskulls think that someone who happens to be both the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and also happens to have several friends and relatives also in high positions just magically runs into "lucky" situations means that they completely don't understand what they're investigating.
This was solved well over 150 years ago!
Come on people! The answer is simple! Socialism, Marxism, Communism... take your pick!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:40AM (9 children)
The answer is simple -- be Jewish.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by west on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:44AM (5 children)
no, no.
asians and jews are the top two "groups" in terms of wealth in the west.
this clearly means that those two stacked their RPG stats into luck.
int = 5
str = 5
stam = 5
mana = 5
luck = 999
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:30AM (3 children)
Nope, WIS. With a good WIS score, even abysmal luck can be planned for and mitigated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:48AM (2 children)
High CHA + Gender:Female
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:38AM (1 child)
#MeToo!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:25PM
Look, we're going to need pictures if you want us to poundYouToo. That or an assurance that you'll supply the necessary amount of alcohol.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @03:39PM
"asians and jews are the top two "groups" in terms of wealth in the west."
What about 'everywhere'? What groups are the most wealthy everywhere?
It is the Jews. The Jews are wealthy no matter where they are. They get into business that always makes them money and they never do anything involving labor -- not honorable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @07:15AM (2 children)
http://jppi.org.il/new/en/article/english-haredi-poverty/ [jppi.org.il]
http://blogs.reuters.com/events/2013/06/07/jewish-poverty/ [reuters.com]
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Hasidic-Jews-in-Williamsburg-Brooklyn-so-poor [quora.com]
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/65713/kiryas-joel [tabletmag.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/21/nyregion/religion-and-welfare-shape-economics-for-the-hasidim.html [nytimes.com]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1503484/Welfare-cuts-drive-Israels-pampered-Haredi-Jews-below-the-poverty-line.html [telegraph.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @03:43PM (1 child)
Those poor, poor jews could start working like the rest of us and then they'd no longer be below the poverty line.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @08:16PM
Same AC here. You won't get any argument about that from me.
But that does rather give the lie to eth's casual anti-semitism.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by julian on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:48AM (27 children)
"Luck" is just our word for favorable outcomes of systems too complicated to model effectively. The universe doesn't include a concept of "fairness" as a primitive, but human society can reach levels of sophistication, efficiency, and pleasure if we invent such a concept and notice how it modifies our lives.
A Marxist pursuit of equality is pathological, and deadly. But that doesn't mean Marx was totally wrong about the contradictions of capitalism. A society ruled by unregulated capitalism is a nightmare of inequality. A rigidly equal society is a hellscape as well. These ideas are tools, and like tools for building a house can be used appropriately or inappropriately. An understanding of Marx without an appreciation for Adam Smith is like trying to build a house with only a reciprocal saw. Restricting yourself to a single ideology is needlessly stifling, and robs you of the contributions of many intelligent thinkers who took different paths.
The most useful mental model I've come across is not equality, but sufficiency. Everyone should be able to access sufficient resources to develop their own personal potential. That personal potential will definitely be unequal when measured person to person. But no one should be punished for being born merely below average. Society should be more like a sport, and less like a war. When two baseball teams play a game, one always wins. But the winning team doesn't beat the losing team to death with baseball bats. The losing team isn't enslaved to the winning team. They aren't driven into debt for losing. Everyone wants to win, but losing isn't a punishment.
Modern civilization is rich enough that we can afford to treat success like a game. I still want to win that game, but I also want to know that even the losers will be taken care of--and partially because I might be one of them, by "luck."
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 04 2018, @01:12AM (5 children)
So you believe that the Universe is deterministic? In other words, you were pre-destined to write your post? The Universe deterimined that you would write it and you really had no choice?
(Score: 2) by julian on Sunday March 04 2018, @01:18AM (4 children)
At bottom it seems to be probabilistic, but we don't choose the outcomes of those random values either
(Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday March 04 2018, @01:51AM (3 children)
Chaotic.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:05AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:08AM (1 child)
Anemic.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:30PM
This thread is converging towards the next Daft Punk hit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @01:21AM (5 children)
Nonsense. Most definitions of success involve power over others; which is essentially a nicer name for being able to inflict suffering at will. To imagine such ability not to be abused, is to imagine a sentient species that is totally not human.
(Score: 2) by julian on Sunday March 04 2018, @01:24AM (1 child)
Great contribution, Nietzsche. Thankfully, very few people believe your bullshit or ever did.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:35AM
That's actually one of the main points of 1984 that almost everyone misses. Near the end when O'Brien is talking to Winston he asks 'How do you know when you have power over someone?' and Winston has an epiphany and correctly answers 'by making him suffer'. Unless he is suffering, how do you know it is your power, not his choice.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:38AM (2 children)
Mine is to be able to go fishing whenever I want. Oh, and a nap after lunch. Often at the same time (bells on the ends of my catfish rods). I fit the Gen-X lack of ambition stereotype to a T.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @11:30PM (1 child)
O Mighty Buzzard, thou art living the dream. Verily, I say unto thee.
It's almost Biblical in its simplicity.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 04 2018, @11:39PM
It's damned sure pretty nice. At least when it's not raining.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:59AM (13 children)
Actually, nobody has any evidence of what a real Marxist society would be like. My guess is that it couldn't get off the ground, but if it did, nobody knows what it would look like. Communist is less Marxist than Roman Catholic is Christian.
FWIW, it's my suspicion that a Marxist society of any size wouldn't work for a week, but nobody can point to an experimental test. And you've got to specify objective tests for how to measure success or failure before you start the experiment, and justify them from Marx's writings. (Not, for example, Lenin's radical reinterpretation of them.)
Socialism is too vague a term. It covers an entire range from the current US to religious communes to....well, any society that takes care of its members. Nothing that vague can be an answer to much of anything. (FWIW, it's an observed fact that societies that historically see themselves as more genetically related tend to care for their less able members to a greater extent. Which may explain the US, but also predicts a European change as population migrations happen. Japan, however, is a good counterexample to this statement.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:00PM (1 child)
The Commune de Paris was history's first Marxist nation.
However they didn't look after their own self-defense.
Sucked to be them
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 05 2018, @06:08AM
Well, according to Wikipedia they inspired Marx, but that hardly makes them Marxist.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:04PM (2 children)
A study found that the mentally ill tend to do better in the developing world than in industrialized nations
Someone suggested to me that this is because they are more likely to be cared for by their families
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday March 04 2018, @10:27PM (1 child)
Reference (pubmed, if you have it)?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday March 05 2018, @02:36AM
However I will try to dig it up
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday March 05 2018, @04:22AM (4 children)
If you count "primitive communism" (and Marx did) then communism was how humans organized their societies for the vast majority of human existence--but not for the vast majority of human individuals who have ever existed. Hunter gatherer societies were classless, egalitarian, and had no concept of private property (remember that communists distinguish between private property and personal property). They worked for far more than a week.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 05 2018, @06:12AM
I count that as communist, but not as Marxist. The two are distinct in many ways, though it's possible that a Marxist society would be "primitive communist". That's not really the way to bet, though. My guess is that a Marxist society wouldn't even scale as well as did primitive communism of the religious variety.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 05 2018, @05:36PM (2 children)
Did they now? And you would know this how exactly? It certainly wasn't true of the indians in North America. They took care of the tribe, yes, but they were most definitely hierarchical with the hierarchy being largely based on merit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:11PM (1 child)
It is sure amazing how you can blather on with stupid generalizations and ignore very simple facts, but you turn around and demand all sorts of proof for the tiniest of things.
The parent is 100% correct, with tribe members sharing their bounty and rotating through roles. The only semi-common hierarchy was the chief and the medicine man/woman. These were simply specialized roles and often elected by village elders.
As I've said many times, and what makes sense in your "retirement" days, go back to school you ignoramus! You can't trust your "self taught" approach as you will just select a bunch of garbage that leaves you worse off than before.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 06 2018, @01:51AM
There is so much wrong with that comment I can't even decide where to begin. So I won't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 06 2018, @04:57AM (2 children)
Marxism can't work because of human nature. If humans were angelic enough for Marxism to work, complete and utter laissez-faire capitalism would ALSO work. In fact, if humans were so angelic, ANY economic system would work.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 06 2018, @12:03PM (1 child)
Well I'll be damned... That's a quality bit of rational thinking. Now if I can just get you to grok that capitalism is by nature voluntary while anything approaching Marxism (even a progressive tax plan) is based on being forced upon people under threat of violence, maybe we can get if not on the same page then at least in the same chapter.
Now my ideals are "utter laissez-faire capitalism" but I'm also smart enough to recognize that this is not practical when human beings are involved. Much like government and the laws thereof though, I think we should move only as far from pure individual liberty in our economic system as absolutely necessary to account for the worst of the abuses.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:43PM
Admit it, you're the "violently-imposed monopoly" guy, aren't you? You said basically the same thing he says.
Do you truly think capitalism is voluntary? Ask the slaves. Ask the Indians who were genocided. Ask all the people whose lives went to hell when their steel mill or mining town's central work source dried up. Your problem is a complete inability, or maybe unwillingness, to consider the externalities, knock-on effects, and emergent phenomema of your beliefs.
Here's a hint for you: "work for slave wages or die" is not a free choice. That is coercion. Learn the fucking difference before you post again. "Free to suffer, wither, and die" is not a free choice.
If I were to corner your wife in an alley at gunpoint and rape her with a strapon, on pain of death if she didn't cooperate, would anyone truly believe she had a "free choice" in the matter? Would anyone really say she consented to what I was doing to her? No. She was in fear for her life. Just because kicking the economic bottom out from under people doesn't kill them as immediately as shooting them doesn't mean it doesn't amount to the same thing.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @11:36AM
Actually Marx was totally right about capitalism. He argued that the goal of the working classes (proletariat) under capitalism was to aspire to the middle classes (bourgeoisie) because the daily existence of the middle classes, with regard to food, work and housing, was not precarious. He then argued that capitalism would eventually eat itself; as the working class all became middle class, the goalposts would shift, to the extent that the daily existence of the middle classes would become just as precarious.
Now visit any city like London, San Francisco etc. where professional people can no longer afford acceptable housing, and where qualified people can no longer find appropriate employment.
Unfortunately Marx was only right about the problem. He was totally wrong about the solution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @03:07AM
Come on people! The answer is simple! Socialism, Marxism, Communism... take your pick!
Sure if you like massive deaths. Those systems only work while the money is still around. Once it runs out the guns come out and the dictators show up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:53AM
Come on, people! It worked out so well for Venezuela!
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 04 2018, @08:55PM (1 child)
... then why does the Sun shine?
The Sun isn't hot enough for hydrogen nuclei to get close enough to fuse
That the Sun does shine is the result of quantum tunneling. And that's just luck
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:16PM
No, quantum tunneling is probabilistic, similar to nuclear decay. Whether luck is a real thing or simply a confluence of larger circumstances hardly matters to us tiny humans. We can describe the physics and biology behind procreation, but in the end the person born to rich parents is "lucky".
Now if you needed a specific atom to decay/tunnel in a narrow timeframe, then you might call it luck. However there still might be deterministic forces we simply do not yet understand.