Hacker News Reader

Comment by Inityx | Hacker News Reader

You could also, idk, try to improve the system so that luck isn't so heavily weighted.

That would require the US becoming more like Europe, in which the right-tail is thinner but the middle is fatter. Americans like the idea that they can join the right-side of the tail even if the odds are low. Germany has lower wages and higher taxes but more stability and security. It's a trade-off.

There are other ways to reduce the influence of luck other than the European safety model.

For example, reduce regulation, improve education, enforce anti-trust laws (which I see as a different thing than general regulation that is regressive toward small business), increase access to capital, reduce legal and administrative costs of business, etc. Reduce the influence of crony capitalism.

Don't think that'll be doable. Luck plays a huge role, even the birth lottery - not just your parents, but your location. Which country you're born into can largely decide your fate as Immigration has been getting harder by the years.

Of course it can’t be solved, but it can be improved dramatically.

E.g. guaranteed levels of healthcare, education, and shelter.

It helps the poor be less poor but it doesn't help the poor become rich. Plenty of countries does those things and the poor still mostly remains poor, albeit with a better standard of living. A reason could be that when poverty hurts like it does in USA it motivates people to work hard to get a better job, while in countries where poverty isn't a big deal people can just choose to live the simple and easy life without much consequences.

I know I do it, I live in such a country and choose to live on much less than the least paid workers gets. I don't need more, and the low spending lets me work almost nothing and still get by. I don't feel I lack anything, and neither do any of the poor people I see here. College was free, healthcare is free, entertainment is super cheap with free public parks with sports areas and cheap internet, transportation is cheap with public transit and most stuff you need is within walking distance anyway.

If instead I was an American citizen I'd work a lot harder to avoid all the shit that can happen to you when you lack money there. I'd be richer on paper, but in practice I think I'd be worse off.

This is really not about getting a particular outcome (which is too subjective/relative to even have a meaningful conversation). This is about the reality and perception that there is some correlation between effort and outcome. You clearly feel that there is a correlation — whether you “utilize” it is your decision to make, as you explain, but you believe it is there. Many Americans dispute the existence of the correlation itself.

Effective taxes, socialized health and welfare and safer communities. Collective bargaining at work. Those things should level a lot of the big bumps out.

Even beyond which country, when you were born is huge.

Most of us are lucky to be around now instead of 100 (or 1000) years ago.

For some reason people like to ignore temporal luck and temporal inequality, but for actual human outcomes they are massive influences.

Note the parent didn't claim we should eliminate luck as a component of success, but rather adjust society, bit by bit, over time, so that luck is less of an effector.

Those who can, do. Those who can't try to change the system to favor them.

Entirely logical.

My only problem with those engaging in such behavior comes from the subset of them who have much more privilege than vast majority of Americans - like say upper middle class and wealthy minorities. They often tilt the system even more in their favor over other poor, struggling Americans of whatever color or creed.

Many highly educated, wealthy female Brahmin Indian-Americans (2nd+ gen) are particularly adept at manipulating the system in this way to benefit them as "POCs" who grew up in exclusive neighborhoods with wealthy parents, and end up at Ivies. And yet constantly leverage their "oppression".

Everyone tries to change the system to favor them. Those who succeed try to distract from this by, for example, promulgating catchy aphorisms like the one above.

I think it's important not to get too cynical about this. It's simply not true that everybody is out there trying to adapt the world to their narrow personal interests. I can think of all kinds of policy issues for which I support a position that is unlikely to benefit me directly.

Sure. There is a form of argument that I call "proof by aphorism" or proof-by-catchy-slogan. One of the best and ultimately most effective examples of this was Johnny Chochran's "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" during the OJ Simpson trial. That argument was more effective because it rhymed despite the fact that this is clearly a logical fallacy.

"Those who can do..." is similar. It's catchy, and because it's catchy people are more likely to believe it, particularly those who are fortunate enough to enjoy the survivorship bias of success. But like Cochran's slogan, it is not true.

But proof-by-aphorism is hard to counter with actual logic. I mean, look at the argument I am presenting right now. Don't you think it's starting to get a little tedious? Do you not find yourself tempted to tune out? Don't you think a lot of people probably already have?

The sad fact of the matter is that the most effective counter to proof-by-aphorism is often another aphorism. If the counter-aphorism is not entirely true, well, that is just part of the point. And the other sad fact of the matter is that many people achieve success not by "doing" but by gaming the system. Not all, but a lot. So I think it's very disingenuous of anyone to get up on a high horse about less successful people trying to similarly tilt the odds in their favor.

And here I am, trying to change the system to favor others despite my wild success in a lucrative industry. Social equity is not just jealousy.

Not everyone is as selfish as you are

"Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change themselves."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com