
People no longer believe working hard will lead to a better life, survey shows - rahuldottech
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2020-edelman-trust-barometer-shows-growing-sense-of-inequality/11883788
======
badpun
It's crucial to work hard, but FOR YOU, not for your employeer. I have a
family member who worked very hard at her dead-end job (was very loyal to the
company) and became bitter after they fired her (made redundant because of
computerization). If she spent part of that energy on strategising on how to
get ahead in her career, she'd be in much better position.

~~~
tempsy
I think the point is if you reach a certain level of wealth your money starts
working for you, and you really don’t have to do anything to get increasingly
wealthier.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Not true other wise why would lottery winners and sports starts lose money to
scammers etc Boxers in particular are prone to ending up in poverty.

~~~
tempsy
Because they are terrible with money?

Rich people are rich because they see money as capital to create more
opportunities with by investing it.

Poor people are poor because they see money as something to be spent buying
more things.

That mentality doesn’t necessarily change just because you suddenly come into
money.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
This is an _extremely_ reductive view of rich-vs.-poor. By "reductive" I don't
mean _wrong,_ per se -- just that there can be an awful lot more to how much
wealth one has than one's beliefs about What To Do With Money.

For years of my life I was, if not precisely "poor," simply not making enough
to save a material amount of money. I was nearly 30 before I got the first job
that paid me $25K a year. I was not, IIRC, in serious debt then, but savings
had never been an option before then -- and what I used those newfound riches
to do was move out of the apartment I'd been living in, in an area of Tampa
known as "Suitcase City" due to its transient population. (It was also known
for high levels of crime.) I still wasn't able to _save_ until that same job's
salary was "readjusted for the market" to a whopping $36K.

There are things I didn't know then, sure; the company I was at had a 401(k)
plan and I contributed to it, but I wasn't contributing at any higher level
than the company matched. When my salary hit (gasp) $50K, that was almost
certainly a mistake, but I didn't know that. When I was laid off I had maybe
$10K in savings and another ~$15K in investment. By some standards I was still
poor, but it was not because I "saw money as something to be spent buying more
things" \-- it was in part because I didn't know much about the best ways to
save for retirement, but in part because _I just wasn 't making a whole lot of
money._ Rich people certainly "see money as capital to create more
opportunities with," but heartwarming anecdotes about grocery baggers who
became multimillionaires notwithstanding, statistically speaking, rich people
also tend to hit relatively high incomes pretty quickly in life. (They also
are likely to come from similarly rich families, which matters more than we
often like to admit.)

~~~
hello_moto
His "reductive view" of rich vs poor is an answer to a very specific statement
regarding Lottery winner and Sports Athletes which has been discussed many
times with the same conclusion: they're just not good at managing money.

~~~
umvi
Right, and how can you expect them to be? If you throw a bunch of money into a
poor person's lap, it's not like they magically have the knowledge and know
how to invest it.

This is one argument against UBI - money increase alone isn't enough, the
knowledge increase needs to come from somewhere as well, and that's not
something you can get in the mail.

~~~
UnFleshedOne
That's actually argument _for_ UBI -- knowledge at managing money comes from
having any money to manage. (Unless you teach that in school, but that would
be way too sensible)

~~~
umvi
There is a certain amount of knowledge that comes from the experience of
managing money, yes. But also, the financial world has a lot of jargon and
pitfalls that are aren't exactly easy to learn, especially as a high school
dropout with no math background and no educated parents to turn to for help.

The _truth_ about UBI is that a lot of poor people's UBI is going to get
completely eaten by predatory opportunists and then they will be in the same
situation they are in. What they lack is mentorship. Without mentorship from
people good at managing money, UBI (I predict) will not help the poor as much
as you think - it will mainly help the educated middle class.

For example, there is a (poor, uneducated) lady in my church receiving the
equivalent of UBI from the state of Maryland. However, despite "having money
to manage" she has not spontaneously gained knowledge in managing money. I sat
down with her once to help see if there was something more she could be doing
to stop being in crisis mode all the time, and it was insane how many "bills"
she was paying that weren't even real bills. There's this dark network of
predators out there that send out mail with a red stamp that says "Payment Due
by 1/22/2020". It looks like a bill. But if you read closely, it's actually
not a bill but some home security service they are trying to trick you into
buying. An educated person tears it up and throws it away. An uneducated
person thinks it's a bill to pay and loses a fraction of their UBI. Another
fraction of her UBI was going toward utilities she wasn't even using. One bill
was nearly $70 from Comcast for cable TV, but I pointed out that she didn't
even own a TV. We freed up nearly $200/month that day just by cancelling
services she wasn't using and throwing away fake bills.

> Unless you teach that in school, but that would be way too sensible

Schools didn't used to have to teach you every basic skill needed to thrive in
society. You could pick those up on your own if you are motivated, or through
your parents.

~~~
UnFleshedOne
But I expect a lot will not, and if a certain percentage of people in your
network have a not horrible money management skill, chances you can find
somebody to help. Or even just hear casual mentions of some of the things you
did for that lady. Eventually most of the people will be ok.

That lady was lucky she knew you. But what should have happened is her sister,
or friend, or neighbor, or grocery store cashier, should have been able to
smack some sense into her long ago.

Some protections will be necessary for sure. I think there are some anti-
gouging laws on the books already, and that fake bill should be classified as
fraud if it is not already. Bigger potential money stream for organised crime
will motivate enforcement, I'm sure.

Schools teach about traffic lights and using microsoft word. Somewhere between
those some budgeting and compound interest lessons would fit right in. Society
change and will keep changing, schools might as well keep up.

------
majos
I'm confused, the headline and start of this article claim "people no longer
believe working hard will lead to a better life", but I can't find the
supporting data anywhere in the article or the survey itself [1]? The survey
does suggest that people in some places are pessimistic about their economic
or social futures (divides pretty neatly as "you're optimistic if and only if
you live in a developing country") but I don't know where the "working hard"
bit is coming from.

[1]
[https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-0...](https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-01/2020%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report_LIVE.pdf)

~~~
smallgovt
I agree.

Based on my reading of the study, the more accurate claim is: People no longer
trust that their employers will take care of their long-term interests.

There's little doubt in my mind that this claim is true.

~~~
wayoutthere
I agree and I think this brings up an interesting point: given the liquidity
in the public stock market, employees are often more invested in the long-term
success of the company than shareholders. For this reason, I think it's
essential that employees are represented in a company's ownership structure if
we want to ensure the long-term health of our economy.

------
kneel
The best way to get ahead is to inherit wealth.

The next best thing is financial services where you help people with their
wealth management.

After that you have to actually start working. Intelligence is key and must be
applied to a STEM field or a niche trade/business.

If you don't fall into any of the above things are looking grim. Careers that
don't result in high yield profit are looked down upon.

~~~
djrogers
> The best way to get ahead is to inherit wealth.

I think you need to define ‘best’ here. 80% of American millionaires today are
first generation wealth, so if by ‘best’ you meant ‘most likely’, you’d be
wrong.

[1] [https://www.investopedia.com/financial-
edge/0810/7-millionai...](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-
edge/0810/7-millionaire-myths.aspx)

~~~
imesh
I don't think of most millionaires as being particularly wealthy. Most
millionaires are simply people who can retire at 60.

~~~
devcpp
Funny, because you'd be wrong about billionaires too, 69% of them are first
generation [https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-
billionaires-m...](https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-billionaires-
made-it-themselves.html)

So which is it?

~~~
viklove
Right, but how many of those billionaires started as millionaires (or were
born into a millionaire family)? When you have generational wealth, it's much
easier to take risks.

------
foxyv
Hard work always has to be accompanied by being aware of reality around you.
Working for UPS I saw all the ways my job could be automated and I knew it was
a temporary thing.

I think the hardest thing about our forthcoming economy is that the only jobs
that are going to be left are going to be ones a lot of people can't even do
because they don't have the talent or smarts. But at the same time a lot of
very important jobs are being left undone because we don't value them. For
instance: social work, psychiatric health and childcare.

------
idclip
I was forced to work less hard by my employer who was paying by the ticket,
and that stumped my creativity badly, and the seniors basically told me
they're just planning to retire on a slow burner career.

Success these days is mostly about bowing down and impressing the executive
branch, which will reward your achiever attitude, according to their
standards.

That said, im kind of fresh to work, and those guys got kids.

I think hard work is something reserved for hard things, and maybe what we
consider hard work is just misidentification with a job, we on the cost of
spiritual growth?

I think were just confused, since what was hard is these days no longer that,
and we’re experiencing a sort of midway shift.

~~~
closetohome
> Success these days

Success has _always_ been about sucking up to the right people.

~~~
idclip
Unless youre someone like ghengis khan, or richard feynman, or elon musk/co.

I think there are different hierarchies to climb in different ways, and
hirarchies seem to be distributed in such a way that ass-kissing climbup one
makes the majority of the total, still isnt the only one tho, or way.

Wanna hear something funny? I saw a youtube/national geo. Video about chimps,
actually about the ass-kissing hiera.

There was a young imp who was helping the aging alpha, he wasnt the strongest,
but he was still made alpha by the old alpha, and the grooming kept happening
after said appointmment. Funny thin is, the strongest chimp wasnt chosen, and
was second in command! He could beat both in single combat, but not while both
teamed up.

So i guess the ass kissing stuff has a role, i guess it selects for team
players ... but damn man fo they Get toxic and abusive. It sorts of gives the
impression that were not worth keeping around ... but then i see someone save
a dog and my heart melts for our species.

~~~
Psyladine
The Khan may have stepped on the necks of Kings and raped queens on a whim,
but you can bet he still took care of his own and placated the right people to
give him that power to ravage the world outside his Mongols.

~~~
idclip
I wonder if its all cuttroat sun tzu ... it gets old here tbh.

------
anonu
The growth rate of capital has exceeded the growth rate of wages for many many
decades now.

So you have two choices:

1\. Invest in yourself

2\. Invest in the market

The first would mean you go to school, work hard, etc to earn a high salary.
You hope that the payoffs of this will grow year over year. Turns out the
long-term growth rate of wages is south of 4%.

The second path you can take is invest your capital in the SPX. I did a quick
calculation: SPX level in 1990: 334, today 3273. (3273/334)^(1/30) = 7.9%
annualized growth.

So basically the rich, the people with capital, earn almost twice on their
investment doing nothing versus someone who invests in their career with hopes
of earning more money.

~~~
tempsy
Don’t talk about the market on HN. Every time I bring it up there’s a dozen
people who insist that the stock market is a scam and no one should consider
an appreciating asset as a contributor to their net worth.

~~~
falcolas
The thing about stocks is, to me, that their value is completely divorced from
anything other than “what someone may pay for it”. Company posts losses, stock
can go up. Company posts profits above projections, the stock can go down.

It’s solely based on human behavior, which is completely opaque and illogical
to me.

EDIT: Disagree if you want, but it's quite demonstrably true. The stock market
keep going up only because we humans have put in protections to ensure that it
can't crash. We will literally stop trading entirely to ensure that the
overall trend is upwards. However, this is unsustainable; permanent growth
(that outpaces inflation) is impossible.

Yet we keep (to me illogically) thinking that it will continue this way
forever - to quote a sibling thread here "it's the only reliable way to
generate wealth," as if it is permanently incapable of also generating
poverty.

~~~
tempsy
one person wants to sell to another person an asset. They agree on a price and
then sell it.

what’s illogical about that

~~~
falcolas
The asset has virtually intrinsic value. It either pays no dividends or pays
dividends which would take decades to match the purchase price.

The purchase "agreement" is also incredible arcane and nonsensical, as it can
take one of a dozen different forms that have little in common with a standard
transaction between individuals.

For example making money when the asset's price goes down (which also
frequently involves psychological manipulation to make the price go down), or
a third party purchasing and reselling the asset in the milliseconds between
your "agreement" with someone else.

~~~
deanmoriarty
“Would take decades to match the purchase price”: That’s typically because
such stock is on a very good growth trajectory, so you paying a high multiple
is part of the risk you are taking.

Or, are you genuinely thinking that a business like Facebook should be valued
at a 5X multiple just like your small one-person SaaS project would likely be
valued if you were to put it on the market? The risk with Facebook is much
lower, hence it commands a much higher multiple.

------
rwnspace
The dangers of a free Internet people, the proles are becoming self-aware!

------
axilmar
Success requires 3 things:

1) talent. 2) luck. 3) hard work.

Talent allows one to have that idea that will provide a large client base when
implemented.

Luck allows the ideas to catch on because it is the right time for those
ideas.

Hard work allows the ideas to become products and services.

Hard work alone is not enough for success.

~~~
Ididntdothis
I would add 4): favorable conditions. This can mean being at the right place
at the right time, being born into the right family or meeting the right
people. Or you could put this under luck.

~~~
bhandziuk
That's the same as luck

------
ptah
> frequent consumers of news - remain far more trusting of every institution
> than the mass population.

propaganda works

~~~
theothermkn
Pithy, perhaps, but not entirely justified. For example, the implied causation
might actually be reversed, that people who naturally trust institutions
consume more news. The causal relationship could also be external to both:
some other factor, like financial stability, causes people to believe in
institutions _and_ to consume more news. Or, the cause could even be direct,
but much less cynical: The news may accurately inspire justified confidence in
institutions. (Conversely, people who prefer to make up justifications or
excuses might blame institutions _and_ prefer to not expose themselves to news
that discomforts that worldview.)

------
ranprieur
What people call "hard work" is two different things.

One is the puritan work ethic, forcing yourself to do shit you don't feel like
doing, day after day, to achieve some goal. That may or may not lead to a
better life, but it always leads to burnout.

The other thing is obsession. You are intrinsically motivated to put in a ton
of hours on something, and you get really good at it.

The problem is, society is veering farther from human nature, so that there is
less and less overlap between what we're obsessed with, and what society
considers useful.

~~~
maps7
Does this scenario match what you are saying?

A person who is a talented musician but got a generic office job that has
early starts and late evenings. They work hard but never really progress past
a certain point. After work they're exhausted so they just watch Netflix. At
weekends they socialize with their friends and family.

Instead if that person had worked hard to dedicate themselves to becoming a
successful musician their hard work would have paid off more.

~~~
mettamage
Counter example: I knew a guitarist who was just amazing. This guy could play
any solo, any chord, and improvize. He was quick, and had crazy exercises
(besides his normal one). One exercise he had: 30 minutes per day, just strum
to build up strength.

Unfortunately, playing music was his only gift. He lived alone on welfare. At
least he lived in a country that gave him welfare. But I can easily imagine
many musicians who focus on their craft and need to scour for food. Heck,
that's to some extent even in my country the case, because if you're only good
at music and horrible with money, you won't survive on welfare (I've seen that
too, just not with this talented musician).

So IMO it's more complicated than that.

------
user5383
Giant third world country (one of BRICS) citizen here. Only rich people
believe that.

------
stopads
I come from a very rough rural town in Kansas, I've personally known dozens of
people who worked super hard their whole lives and still died in poverty and
despair.

I'm not sure what the correlation is between hard work and success, but it's
much weaker than at least ten other factors.

~~~
remmargorp64
It's not about working hard. It's about working "smart" _and_ hard. You can
work crazy hard to dig a hole in the middle of a field, but unless you are
actually trying to accomplish a goal, the effort is wasted and leads nowhere.

In much the same way, you can bust your ass working as a cart fetcher at a
grocery store, but unless you are intentional about how you are going to use
that hard work to leverage yourself into a better position, you are just going
to maintain.

Hard work should _always_ be balanced by some amount of self education and
intention, or else you run the risk of treading water and getting nowhere.

The reality is that learning is an uncomfortable process. A lot of people find
a comfortable rut and they seem to prefer just staying in it. This is why
public education is so important. It forces people to give themselves at least
a bare minimum amount of education. Just imagine how dumb and poor everyone
would end up if parents weren't legally required to educate their kids.

~~~
stopads
Nobody in Kansas is wasting their time trying to dig a pointless hole to
China, they are all pinching every penny and coming up with every hack,
innovation, and shortcut they can to get by.

The fact that you think people who failed must be stupid or slow learners says
a lot about your worldview.

~~~
remmargorp64
If they are so smart but still barely scraping by, why don't they move
somewhere else where there is more opportunity?

I mean... it's not rocket science.

~~~
stopads
Not everyone is a young male with minimal obligations to take care of other
humans.

~~~
remmargorp64
I grew up in a large family, and we moved over 10 times during my childhood.
My parents moved our family every time we needed (like when my dad was laid
off and couldn't find work).

It's a complete cop-out to say that only young men with no obligations can do
such a thing. My parents had tons of obligations and responsibilities, and
they found a way to move when necessary.

People get way too attached to the idea of staying in one place their whole
lives. The world is a big place.

------
bostonvaulter2
> Despite strong economic performance, a majority of respondents in every
> developed market do not believe they will be better off in five years' time.

This is because the economy is no longer working for the average/median
American. Unemployment may be at record lows, but this is missing the point
and is NOT the right number to be focusing on. This number does not capture
all those people who have given up on working altogether and instead filed for
disability and have given up hope. One way that we know this is that the
suicide rate is at a record high and the average life expectancy for America
is actually declining (which is very uncommon for a developed country)

------
kp98
>>> "he is pure symbol: less a person than a shell company for a diversified
portfolio of anxieties about the future"

As someone who closely follows & respects Thiel and for his clarity of thought
+ entrepreneurial ability, how do these outlets get away with writing stuff
like this while still maintaining an audience

------
qmmmur
Pretty easy conclusion to come to given the observably lazy people who are
incredibly successful and don't have to worry about food/rent.

------
m3kw9
Is not a right question to ask, everyone’s “hard” and “a good life” is
different from another. It’s wildly inaccurate and a sensational headline

------
RickJWagner
Houses are nicer than they used to be. Cars, too. We are living longer, and
are more active into old age. Smart phones provide communications,
information, and entertainment we could only dream of 15 years ago.

People in general are more prosperous than we used to be. Maybe not in some
aspects, but most certainly overall.

------
thrwaway69
I don't even have opportunity to work hard so it's just pointless, though I am
from an extremely rural part of a third world.

~~~
mikelyons
I think it says a lot about the current state of the world that someone from
extremely rural 3rd world is literate and has access to hacker news...!

~~~
thrwaway69
It probably doesn't as much because I am most likely an outlier where I live
(and a recent high school drop out).

Ignoring me though, there is something to be said about internet access. You
may want to read up on jio and its impact.

[https://yourstory.com/2019/10/reliance-jio-quarterly-net-
pro...](https://yourstory.com/2019/10/reliance-jio-quarterly-net-profit-
subscribers-mukesh-ambani)

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
I’m always reminded of professional athletes. To be in the top 1% you pretty
much need the genetics (inherit it). But that doesn’t mean you won’t get
healthy by working out.

You will probably never be a professional athlete, but if you want to be
healthy you must be disciplined with what you eat and work out, and you will
become healthy.

You will probably never be 1% rich, but you still must be disciplined with how
you spend your money and your time, and you can become wealthy.

~~~
stanferder
You're underestimating luck. A better analogy would be a process that selects
for the top 2% of athletes through competition, then enters them into a
lottery.

------
AzzieElbab
that is what happens in debt driven world when progress stops and statistics
lie. the "wealth" is created by printing money and acquired by those with
better access, inflation indices do not account for things that actually
matter - housing, education, healthcare

~~~
thunderbird120
Inflation indices almost always account for housing, education, and
healthcare.

[https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-
answers.htm#Question_1...](https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-
answers.htm#Question_10)

~~~
AzzieElbab
You are right I will have to look at the guidelines book at some point. My
feeling they cannot possibly be right because observed wage stagnation
combined with observed costs should never converge to low inflation. Do they
even consider mortgages maturity length and interests when looking at monthly
payments?

------
naveen99
S/better/easier Hard is the opposite of easy... Math checks out.

------
halbritt
"Despite strong economic performance, a majority of respondents in every
developed market do not believe they will be better off in five years' time."

"Fifty-six per cent of the surveyed global population said capitalism in its
current form does more harm than good in the world."

Developed markets represent a tiny portion of the "global population".

By and large globalism has caused significant income inequality in developed
markets and declining social mobility. This seems problematic until one
discovers that in the same 40 years billions of people have been raised out of
extreme poverty by globalism and have access to education and health resources
that didn't previously.

Source is the book Factfulness or the site:
[https://www.gapminder.org](https://www.gapminder.org)

This article is woefully misleading.

~~~
allovernow
>This seems problematic until one discovers that in the same 40 years billions
of people have been raised out of extreme poverty by globalism and have access
to education and health resources that didn't previously

I really think wealth inequality is a terrible metric for overall social
wellbeing because it does not consider that the baseline has risen. It just
comes off as a greedy attitude to be salivating over your neighbor's plate
simply because it is larger, even though yours is quite full.

~~~
halbritt
> I really think wealth inequality is a terrible metric for overall social
> wellbeing because it does not consider that the baseline has risen. It just
> comes off as a greedy attitude to be salivating over your neighbor's plate
> simply because it is larger, even though yours is quite full.

Rationally, I'd say that you were correct, but that does nothing to address
the feelings of the folks missing the "American Dream".

------
omani
what do you mean "no longer"?

working hard never lead to a better life.

the only thing this survey shows is that people are waking up.

------
Mr_JK
Good thread!

------
tom-thistime
Parts of this are commonplace: "Fifty-seven percent of respondents worry about
losing the respect and dignity they once enjoyed in their country."

Sure. Decisions are made top-down, expertise is discounted, etc. The culture
has drifted.

But then this frightening (to me) non-sequitur (to me): "Fifty-six per cent of
the surveyed global population said capitalism in its current form does more
harm than good in the world."

Based on available data, abandoning capitalism makes all these problems much
worse, plus overshadows them with questions of basic survival.

~~~
thomascgalvin
It would be more accurate to say _unfettered_ capitalism does more harm than
good.

I don't think most people want to grow a gnarly beard, take up hammer and
sickle, and overthrow the bourgeois. People generally like the fact that Apple
releases a new iPhone with a better camera every year, and that Gmail reminds
them of that doctor's appointment they scheduled six months ago.

What they don't like is that the benefits of automation and increased
productivity are going almost exclusively to the one percent. What they don't
like is that a college degree is now minimal criteria for jobs that logically
should not require one, and that the cost of that degree consumes the supposed
salary benefits of having one. What they don't like is the fact that we're
watching our ecosystem collapse in real time, and massive polluters tell us
that it's our fault for using plastic straws.

People aren't calling for a switch to Soviet-style communism, they're asking
for their agency back. They want to be paid wages that are fair, wages that
allow them to pay the rent and put food on the table. They want to be able to
retire, and they don't want to have to become Wall Street savants in order to
achieve that goal. They want to be able to have their health needs taken care
of without bankrupting themselves and their family.

Capitalism has made great contributions to our way of life. But unfettered
capitalism, or worse, capitalism where the incumbents are protected by
legislation, are syphoning off all of the value in our economy, leaving
nothing for the everyday person. That cannot continue.

~~~
tsycho
I understand your intent, but what people "want" reads like an utopian
wishlist. It's not clear that any strategy sustainably can take us there.

All regulations are tweaks to free market capitalism, and more are definitely
needed. But do you think that the masses that are rallying up behind
authoritarian governments around the world are taking a view as nuanced as
yours? I fear they are not.

~~~
thomascgalvin
Fair wages, health care, and stable retirement are a utopian wishlist now?

------
rayiner
The article's choice of conclusion to run with is a great example of
journalists cherry-picking data to support narratives prevailing among the
journalistic set.

If you look at the underlying survey, you have to look very carefully for the
data that supports the headline:
[https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-0...](https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-01/2020%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report_LIVE.pdf).

If you look at Slide 73, "my hard work will be rewarded" is one of the three
questions that feeds into the "lack of hope" dimension. If you look at Slide
12, "lack of hope" is actually the _least prevalent dimension of the
analysis._ Just 26% of people cited "lack of hope" as being "true for them."

There are many clearer conclusions that could've been made from the data. For
example, almost everyone in the world sees businesses as more competent and
trustworthy than governments. If you look at Slides 39-40, trust in business
is 58% globally, versus 49% for government. People trust business even more
than the media, which is the same as government at 49%. (Slide 42.)

Slide 52 shows that 52% of people list governments as "corrupt and biased"
versus 38% for businesses. Slides 55-56 show that businesses in most countries
are rated as at least competent, and in many are rated as ethical. Whereas
government is listed as both incompetent and unethical in most countries.
(Again, businesses outperform the media, slide 57.)

As to the data about "capitalism"\--generally, the polls on that question look
very different when you use a question that explains what "capitalism" means:
[https://reason.com/2014/07/10/64-of-millennials-favor-a-
free...](https://reason.com/2014/07/10/64-of-millennials-favor-a-free-market-
ov). In the U.S., for example, millennials prefer "free markets" to "a
government-managed economy" 2:1. See also:
[https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/05/23/grea...](https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/05/23/great-
news-even-socialists-love-free-market-poll)

> The poll shows that Americans trust the “free market” to be in charge of
> nearly every facet of society, including “the distribution of wealth” (by 40
> percentage points), wages (27 points), and “the economy overall” (29
> points).

Internationally, overwhelming majorities of people in emerging and developing
countries "agree" with the statement: "most people are better off in a free
market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor."
[https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4hP0Ux5fnuZfwOvqn7SnjS-
oZac=...](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4hP0Ux5fnuZfwOvqn7SnjS-
oZac=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale\(\)/cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3665018/Inequality-01.png)

------
tempsy
Yeah...I mean I’ve made $25K in the stock market already this year for doing
absolutely nothing

~~~
foogazi
This is a bit disingenuous.

If you haven’t sold you have not made anything - it’s just that the market
values the asset you hold higher than what you paid for it.

If you did sell you made 25k for storing your previous savings in the stock
market

It is a choice you made about what to do with your money

~~~
tempsy
Would you say the same to someone who has been holding Amazon stock for 10
years? Or Apple? Or has a home in SF?

Unrealized gains are gains. Of course it can go down but no one should
subtract that number from their wealth. Appreciating assets are what make most
people wealthy.

~~~
foogazi
It can go up or down - OP is taking a risk and being rewarded for it

------
rblion
No, it won't. Working smart will though. Designing your life so passion,
mission, and connection are overlapping. It is very possible to be fulfilled
by your work while earning a good living and making a difference in the lives
of others.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Even having the time to work at aligning these goals is a privilege many do
not have.

------
alpineidyll3
Working hard without thinking hard doesn't work. Working hard without taking
risks doesn't work.

Working hard while thinking hard and taking risks has made me wealthy. YMMV

~~~
cntainer
> Working hard while thinking hard and taking risks has made me wealthy

I'm sure there are plenty of people who did the same and failed.

There are always many factors to consider but I would say the key one is luck.
With a bit of luck you can easily miss one of the others (working hard for
example) and still become successful.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
This is where statistics are important to consider. If you do a task with a 20
percent chance of success but you do it 10 times, your chance of succeeding at
least once becomes close to 100 percent. Many people balk at their first or
second failure and stop trying, when the key is to keep trying over and over,
learning and improving the entire way.

~~~
cramey
How many people do you think can afford to fail 10 times?

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
For a multi-million dollar potential unicorn? Almost nobody even gets one
chance. But for a small business started on the side and slowly grown? Anyone
middle-class can in the US IMO. You don't need investors or massive loans to
start a small business in your free time, just customers that can be earned
through word-of-mouth when starting out. Capital grows exponentially, so even
small profits can compound into something significant if reinvested.

~~~
jfk13
You do need enough free time to start said small business, though, as well as
enough capital (even if not "massive loans"). For many people those
requirements are pretty tough.

~~~
caconym_
And don’t forget how many people have clauses in their employment agreements
saying that any IP they develop on or off the clock belongs to the company.

