
Is a Hard Life Inherited? - plg
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-is-a-hard-life-inherited.html?ref=opinion
======
ivoras
I'm not sure if most of the commentators here are joking or just being too
subtly sarcastic, but truly the best _predictor_ of a person's success is the
success of his parents during his formative years. It's not a hard-coded rule,
but it's statistics: if, given two persons of equal age, gender and health,
you would have to bet how they turn out, your best bet would be to look at
their parents and assume the same will happen to them, and _not_ to give them
an IQ test and draw a conclusion from there (on average, everyone has an
average IQ).

So, yes, while there are always exceptions, poor families will mostly yield
people who will _not_ move away from poverty.

It is as unreasonable to say to those people "move out and get a better job"
as to say to a clinically depressed person "oh cheer up, it's all in your
head": no, such problems are actually not the problems of attitude and
positive thinking, but have external causes and factors (i.e. external to the
mind).

One example of such a factor _could_ be poor work habits learned from their
parents - but still it's a trait derived from those particular parents. Unless
the person sees or learns about "better" work habits somehow, he will in all
probability not conclude that is one of his problems all by himself.

~~~
zo1
But at what point do we draw the line of responsibility? There are many
examples of poor/struggling people that made the best of what they had and
made sure that their children had a good start in life.

Yes, my parents were poor and struggling. But they pushed through, made
sacrifices and made sure that me and my sister had a good start in life. Free
from the burdens that they bore.

To me, the line of responsibility does not cross over a generational boundary.
All these individuals that have rough and tough childhoods, are responsible
for their own actions. And they're also responsible for not ruining an
innocent's or unborn's future by bringing them into this world, and then
abandoning them by not doing their best to break the cycle of violence,
poverty and lack of education.

~~~
rdam
You were lucky enough to have parents who pushed through and made sacrifices.
Not everyone is so lucky. That is exactly the point the article is making.
You're blaming the children for having inadequate parents.

~~~
zo1
> _" You're blaming the children for having inadequate parents."_

Of course not. I'm blaming the children for having inadequate parents _and
forcing_ the same on to their own children! Quite a big difference.

------
norswap
From an European (Belgian, if you're interested) perspective, it's borderline
shocking that these questions are so hotly debated.

When I contrast the image I get by consuming American media and what I witness
here, the contrast is astonishing. Social mobility seems to be much more
prevalent here than in the states. Of course, the gap between "poors" and
"rich" is much smaller. But I can legitimately say that everyone here has a
chance to make it. It might be harder for some, but it's rare to really have
your head under the water, as I've heard happens often to poor people in the
states (too many accounts, both from traditional and social media, too
discount as pure fancy).

It's shocking that education is not a right. Here, it costs less than half a
month salary to get tuition for a year; and the level is good besides (w.r.t.
the states, not saying it couldn't be better).

And in the end? The quality of life is I believe the same here as in most well
off places in the states. But the people at the bottom suffer less. That's a
win in my book.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
These are all good points, but it's also important to realize that American
and European populations are very different in regards to constituency (you
touched on this a bit with your point about the rich-poor gap). So a simple
drop-in-place European substitute isn't likely to be as effective as it might
seem.

That's not to say that things don't need to change or that they have to be
this way, but I think it will require more than simply copying Europe.

------
forrestthewoods
I'm going to post a recent Onion article. It shares some of my thoughts on the
subject matter far more eloquently than my own words ever could.

"White Male Privilege Squandered On Job At Best Buy

HAMILTON, OH—Despite being the beneficiary of numerous societal advantages and
having faced little to no major adversity throughout his life, local man
Travis Benton has spent the last four years squandering his white male
privilege on a sales floor job at Best Buy, sources confirmed Tuesday. “You
can get by with a regular HDMI cable, but if you’re looking at a length longer
than 10 feet, I’d go with a gold-tipped one,” said the man dressed in a bright
blue polo shirt and pin-on name tag as he continued to fritter away such
innate life advantages as greater access to higher education, leniency from
the justice system, and favorable treatment from other white males who lead
and make hiring decisions at a disproportionately high number of American
companies. “The AudioQuest gold-tip is actually the cable I use in my own home
entertainment center and it provides excellent audio and video clarity, plus
it comes with a full five-year warranty, unlike the 90-day warranty of a
bargain brand. For your money, you’re not going to find a better cable.” At
press time, the man born into the world’s most affluent and privileged
socioeconomic group was spending his 15-minute break silently consuming a
sleeve of Donettes purchased out of a vending machine."

[http://www.theonion.com/articles/white-male-privilege-
squand...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/white-male-privilege-squandered-
on-job-at-best-buy,35835/)

~~~
NAFV_P
> _I 'm going to post a recent Onion article. It shares some of my thoughts on
> the subject matter far more eloquently than my own words ever could._

Eloquent or not, I thought that the supplied article was irresponsible and
lacked substance.

I sincerely hope that the given name "Travis Benton", is a pseudonym (and that
photograph is not of him). If a potential employer has perused this article,
it could effect his chances of gaining more suitable or substantial
employment.

The article has possibly put "Mr. Benton" at a serious disadvantage in life.
If a similar article was published about me I would call up the editor and
shoot hell-fire down the phone.

~~~
evilduck
The Onion is a satire site...

~~~
NAFV_P
I wasn't aware of that, cheers.

EDIT: This indicates that the original comment [0] is quite opaque.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8160323](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8160323)

------
avz
Many successful people will resent contributing to the welfare of the not-so-
successful regardless of who is to blame for the misfortune of the latter.
It's yet another instance of the tribal mentality dividing people into "us"
and "them". We generally find it easier to empathize with those who are like
us and perceived to belong to the same group.

I used to think tribal divisions are characteristic of the earlier stages of
human development. I don't think that's actually true. Humans everywhere live
in tribes. In the developed countries people have simply found other
characteristics than ethnicity to peek at in our tribal membership
classifiers.

~~~
zo1
" _Many successful people will resent contributing to the welfare of the not-
so-successful regardless of who is to blame for the misfortune of the latter.
It 's yet another instance of the tribal mentality dividing people into "us"
and "them"._"

Yes, but you should take care to not attribute their definitions of "us" and
"them", with the ones _you_ imagine they do. It's all too-popular to assume
that they mean "us, wealthy" and "them, lazy entitled leeches".

It could just as well mean something a little more genuine such as "us,
hardworking" and "them, mooching off the state/our hardwork".

I'm not saying it's either. But I find that people regularly attribute very
mean, hateful and prejudiced motivations to the rich, privileged or those they
don't like. Most of the time, it's simply implied in the comments.

~~~
qu4z-2
I like that the "them" in both cases is "lazy". The "us" group, on the other
hand, nicely changes from "wealthy" to, essentially, "deservedly wealthy". I'm
fairly certain they believe the latter, but is it so surprising that from the
outside people see the former?

Your point stands, though. I seriously doubt anyone's being deliberately mean
or hateful. They just genuinely believe that they succeeded on their own
merits.

I also think that most definitions of "us" and "them" are usually after-the-
fact justifications for including/excluding people from a group. The groups
form, then the criteria arise, not vice versa. But I have nothing to back that
up. It's just something worth considering when seeing the categorisations
people discriminate based on.

------
teddyh
I am again reminded of this article:

 _4 Things Politicians Will Never Understand About Poor People_

[http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-
never-...](http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-
understand-about-poor-people/)

(When I posted the same link before, it generated a large number of responses:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6383275](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6383275))

------
jqm
Having the right connections helps as well. No matter what your skill set is,
if you know people who know people through your school, social group, church
etc. it makes opportunities easier to come by.

In addition, if you look, think and talk like the people who can help you get
ahead you are more likely to be given the opportunity. On the other hand, if
you look, think and talk like people disliked by those who can help you get
ahead... well, you have your work cut out for you.

Sure, in a perfect world it is all about hard work and skills. And certainly
some find ways around the system or beat the odds. But for the most part, I
don't think it is disputable that a hard life is largely heritable. What
can/should we do to change this? I don't know that we can and maybe we should
but I'm not sure about that. Sometimes there are cultural reasons those who
are ahead are ahead. We certainly don't want to lower everything to the lowest
common denominator (see the public school system for an example of how not to
do things.....).

------
spindritf
_ONE delusion common among America’s successful people is that they triumphed
just because of hard work and intelligence._

The ability to work hard (conscientiousness) and intelligence are also
heritable to a significant degree. The central supposed conflict between
inherited privilege and innate qualities simply doesn't exist because our
qualities are inherited[1].

This always surprises me when I read about privilege and related subjects, the
fixation on race, sex and, as in this case, class. I can name at least five
factors that matter much more for your life outcomes:

1\. conscientiousness,

2\. being born in or able to move to the first world,

3\. intelligence,

4\. conscientiousness again,

5\. and looks (face symmetry, height).

OK, I cheated a little but conscientiousness really matters a lot. I highly
doubt music classes, or library card would crack the top 100. Maybe as a
correlate for educated (ie. likely intelligent) parents.

Those used to be heavily influenced by class due to widespread malnutrition
but this is now gone from the western world. Which is why we see diminishing
returns from investments in education, or any intervention, really.

Let's take truancy and suspension as an example since it was mentioned in the
story. Is suspension responsible for kids' later poor educational outcomes?
Unlikely[2]:

 _while suspension is strongly associated with educational outcomes, the
relationship is unlikely to be causal, but rather stems from differences in
the characteristics of those suspended compared to those not suspended.
Moreover, there is no evidence that suspension is associated with larger
educational penalties for young people from disadvantaged family backgrounds
compared to those from more advantaged family backgrounds_

Even in the west you can simply be unlucky but as a society we're bumping
against the limits of who we are. I'm not saying that the usual "get married,
stay married, take care of your kids, don't inject H, crime doesn't pay" is
not a good advice but let's not forget that we're just a bunch of clever apes
and perhaps should ease up on the hubris that somehow we should be able to
better manage never before seen levels of complexity ("Hey, here are a few
steps I came up with!").

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880)

[2] [http://ftp.iza.org/dp7794.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp7794.pdf)

~~~
Mz
FWIW: I have intelligence and conscientiousness. What I don't have is physical
stamina and mental focus. I was one of the trop three students of my
graduating high school class. I have yet to have a successful paid career (I
was a homemaker for a long time and full time mom and I was successful at
those things but I am now divorced).

One of the things that middle and upper class kids get is good medical care,
good nutrition, early intervention for speech problems and endless other
things which make it possible for them do sustained work of the sort that pays
money. I actually grew up with a lot of advantages. My misfortune is largely
being born with the wrong genes as I have a serious genetic disorder. Because
I am smart, hard working, and have a long list of other "virtues"/resources,
my situation is gradually improving. But it has definitely been a very long
haul and an uphill climb -- made all the harder by the fact that many people
who are already successful do not take me very seriously. This has helped to
keep doors closed for me in ways which I find enormously frustrating.

~~~
gretful
Hang in there! I'd say you've had a successful 1st career as a mom - and
that's no easy task!

------
frogpelt
The message I get from these articles is if you have failed at life it wasn't
because of your own decisions.

What motivation is there to do any better?

Because to me the real issue is if a person finds themselves in a less than
ideal situation that they look for ways to improve rather than waiting on all
of us to figure out how to change the system.

~~~
qu4z-2
Sometimes you're so busy looking for ways to survive that improvement doesn't
really even enter into it. Also, I'd imagine the whole "being poor sucks"
would provide motivation to do better. Finally your embedded assumption that
somehow being "motivated to do better" will fix the problem (ie it's their
fault).

------
avz
> Yet many are oblivious of their own advantages, and of other people’s
> disadvantages. The result is [...] partly explaining the hostility to state
> expansion of Medicaid, to long-term unemployment benefits, or to raising the
> minimum wage to keep up with inflation.

I don't think hostility to the expansion of social welfare programs depends
much on one's stance in the debate about the relative importance of different
factors of success in life.

The causation runs the other way. It's convenient and pleasant for the
successful to think their success is of their own making. It's convenient and
extenuating for the less successful to attribute their failures to external
factors. We internalize success and externalize failure.

Both arguments are self-serving simplifications of a surely more complex
reality.

~~~
leot
It's not just convenient and pleasant: just like everyone, those who are
successful recognize the impact of their own decisions and behavior on a
moment to moment basis. They succeed when they try hard, forego immediate
pleasure for delayed gratification, and in a disciplined way execute on a
particular plan.

When the wealthy and successful criticize others for not behaving similarly,
they are externalizing their own personal internal heuristic/narrative that
they use to compel _themselves_ to take responsibility for the way they spend
their time.

In other words, it's not just _convenient_ to take responsibility for one's
own success: it's extremely helpful to one's own psychology to do so.

------
_greim_
> But the essential starting point is empathy.

This is great, but even if it's not true, you can approach the issue from a
completely selfish, cold-hearted point of view and still arrive at similar
conclusions. Poverty is a drain on every aspect of society. If we (the
privileged) can figure out how to minimize it, think how much better a place
the world would be for ourselves and our children. How much safer would the
streets be, how much less tax money would be sucked into prisons, law
enforcement, medicare, or various other forms of welfare, how many fewer
broken families and unwanted children there would be to contend with.

------
mparr4
I am reminded of PG's essay on income inequality. Worth reading if you
haven't:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html)

~~~
norswap
I haven't read this particular essay, but I've read those on wealth and income
inequality from Hackers & Painters, and those seems rather similar from what
I've skimmed.

PG makes a good point when he says that inequality is not intrinsically bad.
It's not bad if the quality of life of both the poor and the rich increase.
The fact is that it has been shown that the quality of life of the poor has in
fact decreased. In this context, the rise of inequality doesn't seem
agreeable.

Especially when you consider the source of this inequality: entrepreneurs are
not out to eat the poor people's lunch; but if the crisis has shown anything,
it's that greed at multiple strategic points in the system (esp. the banking
system) had very bad consequences for the people ground by the wheels of said
system.

I think it's useful to keep in mind the time at which those essays were
written (first half of the 2000s), when such opinion may have been easier to
form. I'm curious to know if PG would write the same today.

------
ASneakyFox
What about the middle class thing where EVERYONE thinks they're middle class?
If you ask some one who makes 30k they'll say they're middle class. If you ask
some one who makes 130k they'll say the same thing.

------
_random_
Well, the country with an alternative social order has been destroyed. No need
to worry about the working class now.

------
sbussard
Raise the minimum wage to increase inflation.. Stupid

------
applecore
Isn't success in the United States better explained by hard work and
intelligence?

You can lower the cost of being _unsuccessful_ by expanding the availability
of health care for the poor, increasing long-term unemployment benefits or
raising the minimum wage, but the middle class doesn't rely on these programs
for its success.

~~~
lsc
>You can lower the cost of being unsuccessful by expanding the availability of
health care for the poor, increasing long-term unemployment benefits or
raising the minimum wage, but the middle class doesn't rely on these programs
for their success.

If you are trying to pitch a safety net as a tool to help people create
private-sector success, the angle that you would take is that without a safety
net, a single failure can take a long time to recover from. Like being able to
crash in mom's basement. If you have a place to sleep, shower, and get career
advice and/or interview leads, your periods of unemployment are going to be
easier to recover from.

I know after 2001, I made a bad choice; I quit a job when so many of my
compatriots were getting fired. I ended up crashing at my parent's place for a
while, and pretty quickly got an interview (and a job) through one of my dad's
contacts. Imagine how much longer it would have taken me to get back on my
feet if instead I became homeless.

Of course, I don't have any good ideas on how the government could replicate
that sort of thing for people with parents that are unable or unwilling to
contribute spare bedrooms and industry contacts- I'm just giving an example of
how a safety net can contribute to long-term success and not just make failure
less painful.

Health care, I think, is actually easier to sell on these grounds. It's going
to be way more difficult to be successful if you are sick, and especially if
you have only an average earning potential, a big medical bill early on can
pretty easily take that average income and, say, prevent you from buying a
house or otherwise throw up a big obstacle to living your average life.

------
megaman821
I hate the argument that boils down success to just being lucky. A person's
success in life is due to many things like environment, opportunity,
intelligence, and work ethic. Positive increases in those things are going to
increase the odds of success, so I do agree with the rest of the author's
arguments that the poor are at a disadvantage usually coming from a bad
environment and an area that lacks much opportunity. Unfortunately the US
government seems to be geared to taking care of the old rather than enriching
the lives of the young.

~~~
mjfl
I agree. There are hundreds of millions of people born into the American
middle class. There are tens of millions of people born into the "global 1%".
On average, the richer are going to better, because you average out all other
factors, like work ethic. So if I'm "floating" through life, putting in the
average work into everything I do, I think it's pretty obvious that I'm going
to benefit from having rich parents to save me from the random pitfalls that I
may fall into.

However, the huge problem that I have with these arguments is that so many
successful people are statistical outliers, in terms of hard work, natural
talent, ect. They aren't going to follow the average behavior. Lionel Messi is
not a good soccer player just because he got lucky. There were millions of
people brought up with the same means, but through whatever personal work
ethic he has, he's become one of the biggest statistical outliers in soccer.
Sure, you could make the case that for "soft skill jobs" like CEO, luck comes
into play quite a bit, but for someone like Mark Zuckerberg, he simply would
not have gotten lucky if he didn't lock himself in his room and code for 6
hours a day at Phillips Exeter (which is something he actually did, he was
very asocial, at least at Exeter). In the end, I think for the same reason
OKCupid's match percentage is nearly useless in terms of finding a "soulmate",
I think you can't really attribute average statistics to explain why someone
was successful, they are both going to be outliers, "black swan events" to
borrow from Nassim Taleb.

~~~
leot
It is certainly true that productively developing a valuable skill set will
set you apart from the vast majority. With a few helpful insights, the right
attitude, and an ability to quickly overcome obstacles, you will be an
exceptional person, without a doubt. If you assign credit for success to a
person's attitude and perseverance, then certainly "luck" had little to do
with it.

Where things get dicey is when you ask the next set of "whys". I.e., "why does
this person have such a helpful attitude? why do they have such
perseverance?". To what do we attribute _these_ qualities? If it's genes, then
it's luck (you can't take credit for your genes). If it's parenting, then it's
luck (you can't take credit for your parenting).

Perhaps it's neither genes, nor parenting, but instead "spirit" or "will". So,
whence these qualities? The person's "soul"? Something immaterial? Anyone who
provides these kinds of answers is necessarily endorsing brain-mind dualism,
which (near as anyone can tell) is almost surely false.

Does this mean that everyone can disclaim personal responsibility for their
actions? Surely not. Choosing to believe in one's own agency in turn empowers
one's own agency. But everyone's believing in a fiction, no matter how
necessary or adaptive this fiction happens to be, doesn't render it true.

~~~
megaman821
You are taking the concept of luck to a place where it has no meaning.
Everyone alive is lucky Earth exists, that it did not get wiped out by an
asteroid, that the climate is habitable, etc. In a world where everything is
determined by just luck, the countries with the most people would have the
most successful people. We can clearly see that is not true, the world's
richest list is not dominated by the Chinese and Indians even though they
contain a vast amount of the world's population.

