Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-my-luck dept.

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."


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:38AM (2 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:38AM (#647496)

    That's a good point; it's also the case that wealthy families lose their wealth within a couple generations too. The same 70% in fact.

    "70% of Rich Families Lose Their Wealth by the Second Generation"
    http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ [time.com]

    That's why I didn't go so far as to claim the 'vast majority' would do any better than Trump. I only disputed that trump was in any way very exceptional. He's in the 30% that held onto it. Ok, so I concede he did better than the majority would; and I guess that's an achievement... but it's really not much of one.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 04 2018, @03:10PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @03:10PM (#647629) Journal
    I'll note that two generations is longer than five years.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Sunday March 04 2018, @07:32PM

      by vux984 (5045) on Sunday March 04 2018, @07:32PM (#647701)

      And you'd be right to do so. I suspect that the people who actually earned it will have setup enough wealth management infrastructure and taught their offspring enough to take care of things for a while, and it takes a full generation for that to fall apart. vs lottery winners who have no wealth management and no skills so they mostly fall apart immediately.