
Why wealth and patience appear to go hand in hand - RickJWagner
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2019/0729/Why-wealth-and-patience-appear-to-go-hand-in-hand
======
twoquestions
It's looking more like wealth leads to increased patience, not the other way
around. Intuitively this makes sense to me, as if you're food-insecure waiting
for a better deal that probably won't come is irrational.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...](https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-
test/561779/)

The paper referenced in the article:
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761876166...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618761661)

~~~
gwern
Er, the paper cited shows that intelligence (and proxies thereof, like family
background, as intelligence/SES are heritable) is prior to the marshmallow
test and also predicts patience/success in the marshmallow test. Kids aren't
wealthy or not, so that can't possibly be the causal mechanism...

~~~
godelski
Family income shows different tends in the marshmallow test. Kids from rich
families often do much better. To my knowledge, no one thinks this is because
rich kids come from better genetic stock (you'd be amazed how many experiments
and studies change when you control for income levels). This supports the gp's
hypothesis of the causality stack being flipped upside-down. Having more money
leads to less stress, because you have less want. If you're a child of wealth
you may not directly have the money, but you sure have the benefits of it.

~~~
Bartweiss
I'm not surprised if it's true, but is there data showing that kids from rich
families do better on the marshmallow test? I can't find it, and I'd be pretty
interested to see the size of the effect.

The 2018 replication just added a single control for a whole battery of
environmental factors. Family income was included (and correlates like
parent's education), but it also lumped in biological factors (e.g. birth
weight) and child-psychological factors (e.g. cognitive performance one year
earlier). Given that, it's really hard to understand how much impact each
specific element had.

~~~
godelski
Here's a study [0]. From my understanding every behavioral economist would not
be surprised by the results. You'll notice the mention of the 2/3 due to "the
presence of controls for family background, early cognitive ability, and the
home environment." That's family income.

[0]
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761876166...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618761661)

~~~
Bartweiss
That's the same study I was referring to, though. They didn't provide the
impact of any individual control variable, just an aggregate of about eight
different factors that are both social and biological. Also, they didn't show
that their control corresponds to marshmallow wait time specifically, but
instead that it's at least as good a predictor of academic outcomes. (Which
means the control and wait time must be broadly correlated, but not
necessarily that their 'errors' are aligned.)

What I'm hoping for is something that specifically breaks out the relationship
of family income to "marshmallow score", even without a long-term followup. I
certainly believe that they correlate, but I'd like to see how strongly, and
how it varies across what range of incomes. Even among people who agree that
wealth drives marshmallow patience, explanations range from "wealthier
families can consistently fulfill long-term commitments" to "food insecurity
makes kids take food now". An obvious way to differentiate those theories is
to see whether a wealth/time correlation remains strong past the point of food
insecurity. (Since the original study was limited to relatively wealthy
families, I expect it does.)

I agree that behavioral economists wouldn't be surprised by this result, but
I'm not sure they're sold on "it's just wealth", either. While news stories
are calling this a failed replication, I'm seeing economists argue that this
was a successful replication of the test's predictive power, and only indicts
some specific casual theories proposed to explain it. In particular, several
of the control variables in the replication _are_ measures of child academic
performance, so without an individual-factor breakdown, there's a risk that
this is effectively controlling for the variable being tested. I think the
"patience makes you successful in life" narratives are laughably wrong, but I
wish we had some clearer data on what the actual correlations are.

------
opencl
I think it's important to note that the measure of "patience" is this survey
question:

"Please consider the following: Would you rather receive 100 Euro today or x
Euro in 12 months?"

posed with x varying between 103 and 212. Seems a hell of a lot more
meaningful than the "marshmallow experiment" that I was afraid the article
would be about but also like it would very obviously skew towards labeling
rich people as more patient.

The linked article is pretty devoid of meaningful content but the survey is
relatively interesting.

~~~
rlpb
Since my savings are well in excess of 100 Euro, and I don't expect them to
dip below 100 Euro in the next twelve months, I don't need 100 Euro right now.
Therefore my calculation is simple and unemotional: is the interest I'll get
from saving what I could receive now higher or lower than the additional
amount you're offering me in twelve months if I wait?

For those who aren't lucky enough to not need 100 Euro right now, the
calculation is entirely different. Do you want to be hungry, or not?

This makes the question so skewed I don't think it's any valid measure of
"patience" at all. I don't need to be patient to wait.

~~~
ovi256
>is the interest I'll get from saving

That's good, but you also must consider counterparty risk. Will these people
offering me x euros in 12 months still realistically be around then ? If the
counterparty risk is very low, their offer must be considered at face value.
If the risk is higher, the present value of the future x euros must be
discounted.

~~~
hellisothers
The other point (I assume) the OP is making is that they don’t need the money,
at all, so if they can get it then go ahead and take the risk. A poorer person
_needs_ that money, so it’s less a patience thing and more a calculated risk
tolerance thing. But the wealthy do like having it reinforced that they earned
their wealth because they’re better...

------
pflenker
As someone who has been very poor for quite some time, and is now doing quite
well, I can tell you first-hand that my patience has improved a lot. The most
obvious reason is that I am now at the liberty to not do certain things, not
accept certain deals and so on.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
I have a theory that one major but hard to quantify benefit of a Universal
Basic Income would be that more people would gain the sort of patience you
describe.

Based on your own experience, would you think that, say, $1000/month as is
being proposed in the States these days would make a difference in that
direction?

~~~
pflenker
That's hard to answer, because it depends on the prices in the area where you
are. The number needs to be high enough so that if you have paid for rent,
food, clothes and so on, you still have a tiny amount left over to save for
emergencies. It's the complete lack of any savings that can make you very
nervous and impatient.

For example, if my washing machine breaks down, I have the resources to call a
mechanic, use a laundromat or even buy a new one. When I was poor, a broken
washing machine meant dirty clothes and having to not buy something else until
I can afford the mechanic.

You can probably guess that under these circumstances it would be very hard to
stay patient with the mechanic if he does a poor job, or if he can't fix it
for some reason.

------
pnutjam
Economics is pseudo-science at best. There are no perfect markets, and thus no
ability to test theories. It's no surprise that "studies" continue to prove
how much better the wealthy are, or how the middle class worked hard, and
people with money deserve it. Economists have to get paid too.

~~~
49531
I think the fact that business school exists at all should be our first clue
that Economics is mostly pseudo-science. It has little material value aside
from propagandizing the ideas of the wealthy.

~~~
Ambele
I disagree. I hold an unusual opinion that all congress members should be
required to take an economics class before assuming office because they
literally are the ones running our economy. Learning economics helps your
thought process in many ways and makes you a better decision maker when it
comes to deciding on micro and macroeconomic policies. Weighing benefits,
negative externalities, and costs when making investments or policies is
exactly what economics trains you best for. Our brains are not designed for
decision making involving large numbers of people or large sums of money and
by default we fall back on making emotional decisions based on anecdotal
experiences. The teaching of Economics helps keep your logic side front and
center and allows you to make better, more efficient, and more impactful
decisions at lower social and economic costs than would be arrived at by
default. Are you able to understand the implications and effects of taxes and
government spending when there are 2 trillion dollar deficits instead of 2
billion dollar deficits?

Economics-style thinking is very valuable. If you weren't blessed to have had
a great economics professor in your high-school and college years, I recommend
reading Freakonomics by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. It was a required
reading for my AP economics course and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it cover-
to-cover.

~~~
pnutjam
Economics is good to learn, just like other theories. My problem is when it's
used to "prove" things.

------
gshdg
This seems to suggest that the correlation means hat patience causes wealth;
but why assume the causation isn’t in the other direction?

~~~
goodJobWalrus
There certainly is causality here. If you are patient and invest your money
long-term instead of spending it all, you will literally be wealthier than if
you spent it all.

Of course, there is causality the other way round as well, that is, a basic
level of stability and wealth allows you to save.

~~~
pessimizer
The more wealth you have, 1) the more likely you have absolutely no desire to
spend it all right now and 2), the more likely you're spending money on things
that are just as likely to appreciate as depreciate; that can't be called
patience.

Spending on disposable goods doesn't scale linearly with wealth. That's why
consumption taxes are regressive.

------
jbb123
I think the correlation likely works both ways.

Being wealthy makes it more easier to be patient. But also being patient helps
generate wealth.

~~~
x86_64Ubuntu
You can't be patient when basic needs aren't being met, and opportunities to
meet them are rare and fleeting.

~~~
mruts
I live in a poor African country, and even here, people choose to buy things
instead of their basic needa being met. Meat instead of beans, alcohol, weed,
cigarettes, etc. They rather go hungry and get drunk than have a lot of bland
food.

There are some people who might be close to starving, but they’re a small
minority.

In the US these people are virtually non-existant. Even homeless people manage
to hustle over $100/day. And they don’t spend that money on food, either.

~~~
pnutjam
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-panhandlers-
make-50-an-...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-panhandlers-make-50-an-
hour/)

~~~
umvi
You don't have to make $50/hr to make $100/day. $10/hr for 10 hours is $100 as
well.

~~~
pnutjam
panhandlers usually get chased off after afew hours, but go ahead, believe
what you will.

~~~
mruts
I used to run with a sketchy group of homeless people that did heroin together
in NYC. Most of them were making over $100 panhandling/hustling/scamming per
day. It’s probably lower in other places, though.

------
cylinder
Pretty sure it's the other way around when we want to talk causality here.
Wealth allows you to think long term because your short term needs are met and
your children are safe.

------
stevens32
Patience is measured here by the question "Would you rather receive 100 Euros
today or x Euros in 12 months" [0] -- when I was broke, I definitely would've
said 100 today at just about any x value. Now, going through the tree I guess
my patience has gone up significantly

[0] Link under Table I in
[https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/4/1645/5025666#1368...](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/4/1645/5025666#136862141)

------
sunstone
I'm definitely surprised not to see Japan amongst the most patient.

