Im not sure if you really think that. But it seems a pretty ****ty reprsentation of what MB or I actually think

Working hard will get you a bigger share of the pie than you would get by not working hard.

i missed the whole conversation so i don't know what i am talking about. but white people make more money than other races. doesn't that mean that either A) white people have some kind of advantage, or B) white people are better at making money?

You seem think that some people just 'get lucky' or something.

And some people are '****ed over' because they draw a short lot in life or something.

I disagree completely, but neither one of us will change the other's mind, so we should probably not discuss it any further.

...so shut the f up and get back down the mine.

If that's what the guy chose to do in life, then yeah, get back down the mine.

If he chose to work at 7-11, but he wants to get out, he's probably going to get out of 7-11 faster by showing up on time and working hard than he would by being just another dumb XX year old who thinks he's too good to work at 7-11.

I don't think it's correct to make this a dichotomy between thinking hard work is valuable or necessary and thinking it's not

I think hard work is extremely valuable, and I think I work pretty hard (too hard lately!), but I also think it's entirely reasonable to look at the world and see that hard work is neither necessary nor sufficient for success in all cases

are you really claiming that in this world, no people get lucky and no people get unlucky?

every person who has ever lived has had the same opportunities?

that can't be what you mean so wtf are you saying?

STFU and get back down the mine.

No one is saying that life starts out equal. However there is ALWAYS more that you can be doing to make yourself successful instead of settling at "man this sucks, whatever ill just hope someone bails me out"

Not saying that at all.

I'm saying even the 'unlucky' in life will benefit more from working hard than not.

Even the people who are the 'lucky' ones still need to work hard to become successful, it doesn't just happen magically for them.

Almost no one becomes successful solely because they're just the luckiest ****er on the ace of the planet. Aside from being born into some wealthy family or something along those lines, everyone has to work hard to succeed 'lucky' and 'not lucky', alike.

This, pretty much.

I really don't think anyone would disagree itt.

It seems like MB is saying that if you're not born lucky, you ain't going anywhere, hard work or not.

I think perhaps then there is some communicating past each other's points

I don't think anyone who is advocating for economic policy to consider the possibility that there is more to success then hard work and talent denies that hard work improves your chances in most if not all cases. Rather the point is that the fact that environmental factors that are unpredictable play a large role might justify making decisions about how to structure economic and social policy that would not be justified if that were not the case

If I advocate for the existence of some kind of social safety net it's not that I do so in lieu of telling people to work hard. I think people should work, and I think programs or systems that try to help people should do what they can to avoid perverse incentives. But I also think that for some level (greater than 0) of "fraud" or perverse incentives or freeloader problems, such programs are still worth having

I'm not like, the greatest fan of MB posts, but even I don't think he ever said that at all

I think he's saying that the top top number of wealthy people probably had a FAIR amount of luck (being in the right place at the right time with the right skills), and a FAIR headstart in life (being born into the right family, able to afford to go to Ivy League etc). That's not to say they didn't also work hard (they definitely did), just that they had help that isn't stemmed entirely from how hard they chose to work.

That depends what you mean by anywhere. Are you seriously saying thr majority of people that arr born in terrible urban areas who go to the worst public schools and live in terrible poverty have a chance to be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? Or arr you implying that thr majority of people in this situation can improve their lot in life and make just enough to live a decent lower middle class life living paycheck to paycheck? if you're talking about the latter im all on board. If youre talking about the former you are dilusional

ugh

I know a few people who in high school made the "career choice" to have children and live off benefits for the rest of their lives. It's actually even more profitable for them *not* to live with the father of the child, even if he is around and visiting. Like, wat?

Now, looking at it without the WTF angle, they weren't going to college, or university, and prolly not going anywhere in the world other than minimum wage, and if they get more money that way then they're making the best decision?

So stupid though

exactly

it generally takes hard work and luck to be successful

asking whether success is based on luck or working hard is a false dichotomy

I'm pretty sure I didn't go to the party the woman of my dreams was at

one of the things I think you have to consider with some people is you shouldn't be comparing the actual outcome with some standard whereby they are model citizens with college degrees who are greatly successful pillars of the community

The guy who decided his best possible path in life was welfare was probably not going that route if not for the welfare program. It may be the case that from a purely economic perspective, despite the injustice of it all, it still actually works out to be better on the whole

Or perhaps not, all I'm really saying is I don't think the theoretical argument from the injustice of people abusing the system is strong enough by itself to damn any such program. My goal wouldn't be too absolutely remove all abuse, I think that's an impossible goal in general. I think there has to be a consideration of costs and benefits in the aggregate, and as much as there is an abstract moral argument about how much it cheeses me off to see some deadbeat abusing the system, there's a pretty equally strong moral argument about doing nothing to help people who legitimately are innocent victims of circumstance. I would rather resolve the question about what to do or not to do by trying to look at real data as far as possible and not just anecdotes intended to appeal to emotional reactions either way

There are different, and sometimes competing, ideas of fairness: there's 'I deserve to keep the product of my effort', there's 'I deserve as much chance of getting ahead as the next guy', and there are no doubt others. When they clash, it's a question of somehow finding a balance which best works for society at large at that point in time.

I think there should be social programs to help people out, but I think they shouldn't be set up in a way that gives people an incentive to not try to improve their situation or get off the program

for example, in many cases people in low-income housing have no incentive to make more money since their rent would increase by the same amount

I was wondering, central banks act as 'lender of last resort' - the original idea was that they will lend to you (against collateral) if you need cash and can't get any elsewhere, but at a rate that is otherwise not very attractive. Is there a reason why the government could not be a similar 'employer of last resort' rather than give out unemployment benefits? So offer work at a wage that is less attractive than other work, but that you can do if you cannot find work elsewhere. Obviously doesn't work for the incapacitated, but are there any reasons why it's not considered (other than Hitler doing something similar iirc)?

i like this post.

I would also say at the extremes luck overtakes hard work. I'm pretty sure the kids of the mega rich would have to really, really **** up and be really unlucky to not end up a fairly wealthy adult. If you're born in an inner city to a couple of poor crack heads you're probably going to need to get very lucky to get even to the upper lower or lower middle class.

Not to mention whatever potential you had at birth is unlikely to be realized. I'm not sure most people realize how much decent parenting and a decent public education gets you in life. Even the people that make it out of the ****tiest of situations are probably more lucky then they are to be hard workers then their peers. Maybe some random combination of life events happened in one specific way that inspired/motivated them to change their life. Okay this is getting away from me