Hacker News Reader

Comment by weinzierl | Hacker News Reader

It's more that abundance in formative years spoils you for life.

Debateable. The reason rich kids turn into such pieces of shit isn't material abundance (since, after all, anyone born before ~1990 in the middle class also experienced material abundance) but the unearned high social status and the impunity that comes with it.

Deprivation and poverty, on the other hand, fuck people up severely--often, through no fault of their own--and there's tons of empirical evidence showing this.

Yeah and like rich kids have impunity, poor kids have excess punishment meted out against them. Scapegoated a lot of the time.

Huh? Social status is relative, that is, defined by some kind of difference in a characteristic over which there is some competition (like wealth, looks, connections, fame, etc.). So how do you get that rich kid status without reference to material abundance?

Remember, most people are comparatively poor: the wealth histogram is heavily skewed toward zero and with a wide tail toward infinity.

It's impossible for everyone to be relatively wealthy and relatively high status. It is possible for everyone to have absolute wealth (or at least income) beyond a fixed absolute level, yet still widely disparate status.

Is there a "material abundance" difference between a new Benz and a 25 year old Camry? I wouldn't think so, they both fulfill the same basic role and are composed of approximately the same materials, but getting dropped off at school in one will get you unearned social clout and the other might get you unearned social derision.

Unless you're claiming violent seizure, then the Benz had a good probability of being earned by someone, thus meriting some social clout by those who value those contributions. I have a pickup over a decade old and with a noisy muffler, and write comments on forums like this instead of, apparently, providing value sufficient to afford more. It's not meritorious, and I receive and deserve some derision. Well at least I don't genuflect before the God of egalitarianism, so I'll accept credit for that.

In almost all situations, a high school student being dropped off by parents in a fancy car did nothing to help the parents earn the fancy car. In fact, generally kids at that stage are a net negative on parents finances.

The key is that the wealth used to buy the car was earned (unless evidence to the contrary is convincing). The parents elected to buy an expensive car, and maybe they bought their kid more expensive clothing. But can't you see, that having one's child lack want is (one) motivation for making the efforts to earn wealth? Suppose those parents were otherwise identical (in terms of their privileges), but, like you, decided that such differential wealth displays were to be shunned. Not needing those displays caused them in part to lose motivation to obtain wealth, and thus lose motivation to perform the efforts that would lead to that. So they produce less. Great, now the people who can produce the most are encouraged to produce less. Try selling that to the people who will now be more poor as a consequence.

Instead of clipping the knees of the productive, realize that envy can encourage the unproductive to imitate the habits of the productive to themselves become productive. We all benefit indirectly thereby.

I never claimed the wealth was unearned - I said it was unearned by the high school student who is gaining clout from it.

> but, like you, decided that such differential wealth displays were to be shunned. Not needing those displays caused them in part to lose motivation to obtain wealth

I don't think you'll find any evidence to support this. No one decides that since they don't need a Benz to show off, that they would like to live in a hovel and work until they are 75.

> Instead of clipping the knees of the productive, realize that envy can encourage the unproductive to imitate the habits of the productive to themselves become productive

An equally plausible scenario is that the envy leads unproductive people to spend every last penny they can earn on the displays, leaving them in a much worse financial position than someone who eschews the displays and invests their money in productive enterprises.

edit: just realized I posted this from my phone which has a different account signed on...opsec fail, just a heads up googlryas=oh_sigh

Extreme are often bad. Having either not enough, or excessively much early on, lead to various irrational or otherwise maladaptive behaviors later. Humans perform best in a happy middle range along many axes.

This is so true. The middle is the best for most things in life. Too much pleasure can also mean pain

The "for life" remark is interesting in relation to generation Z.

Materially, the most spoiled generation ever, through no fault of their own. Material abundance, cheap goods, instant gratification and very liberal parenting. Mediocre work ethic, a something for nothing attitude, if I may exaggerate a little. Peak individualism.

...until they move out and meet actual life. The contrast is quite cruel, so I wonder if "for life" always applies.

Not everyone, I grew up in abundance but became a total cheapo in adulthood. It has been kind of a problem actually. I don't spend on some things that I really should spend on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com