[newyankee]

One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed. This has grave implications on policy and really blinds people born with a silver spoon to the real problems in society as they have a 'i deserve it and they don't syndrome'. Contrast this with a poor society that is growing rapidly where you see islands of wealths with certain individuals, at least people over there do not harbor illusions of meritocracy.

In general the more educated and developed a society is, it is much more meritocratic than others, however i still feel it is not enough especially for those who have everything stacked against them.

May be sometime in the future we would have a universal human rights charter that expands and decides what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide in exchange for basic responsibilities. This way life will not always be a rat race and the poorest and unlucky can at least have some dignity.

[fullshark]

Depends what you define as success. Hard work generally does lead to gainful employment and the ability to afford a home/car which used to be the canonical symbol of success in America.

If you think success is "be as rich and respected as I desire to be" then that absolutely will not hold.

[FranzFerdiNaN]

Yes, if the baseline for the richest country in the world is "has a roof" then hard work mostly is enough to succeed. But there are too many people who work extremely hard, sometimes at two or three jobs, who barely can afford to eat and need government assistance. So no, hard work is not a good terminology.

There simply isn't a link between "working hard" and any measure of success above the lowest baseline. Some people succeed because of a small one million dollar loan from their parents without having to ever work hard.

[aaron-lebo]

The difference is where you start. If you start lower middle class or working class, odds are working hard will get you at best stable employment and the ability for your children to do something. Start upper middle class or upper class and you're going to the best high schools, best colleges, and have a shot at politics or being worth 70 billion dollars.

I've met too many poor and undereducated people who are as capable as my coworkers who went to Harvard, but the poor and uneducated have to work extremely hard, be extremely lucky, and do things others can't imagine to succeed.

The system is rigged against them, and it's hard for the well-off to admit that they got a 30-yard head start or for them to begin to understand it. Maybe that's why the system remains as it is, with the same millionaires and billionaires telling people who make 30k a year how they should live.

[malvosenior]

I don’t think it’s realistic for everybody to “have a shot at politics or being worth 70 billion dollars.”

It used to be well known that it takes generations to move up the class hierarchy but that concept seems to be lost to time. Now we see a lot of complaining that literally everyone doesn’t have access to an upper class lifestyle. I’m not sure how that would even be possible or why it would be desirable.

Not everyone will be successful. I’m highly skeptical of any philosophy that doesn’t factor that concept in.

[ABCLAW]

In many real estate markets in the west, gainful employment substantially above the median income is still not even close to enough to secure a reasonable sized 'home'.

Then there are places like Vancouver, where the average yearly income is less than the average yearly payments for residential properties.

But if you got in and leveraged yourself to the hilt starting in 2008, you could own a sizable equity stake in a growing stable of 30+ detached dwellings if your relationship with your local mortgage broker was on point.

[refurb]

Why does success mean being able to afford a home in one of the most expensive real estate markets in North America?

If I were to say "I'm not successful because I only make $200K and can't afford a home in Manhattan", people would laugh in my face.

[ABCLAW]

I think we're radically changing the goal posts of success if a wide swath of educated, hard working young professionals can't afford to lay down roots in the cities they grew up in because of the current absurd asset bubble's effect on home prices.

Additionally, your example is kinda silly. on an income of $200k, you can afford a high end luxury apartment with approximately half of your income - as a bachelor.

[refurb]

I don't disagree that real estate is inflated due to cheap money, but I would challenge the idea that just because you were born in a city you have the right to expect to be able to own a home there.

As for the $200K comment, I meant own a home, not rent an apartment.

[antisthenes]

No, but if you work in a city, you should be able to afford a home there. And that's increasingly not the case anymore.

Are you saying extreme length commutes should be the norm?

[ABCLAW]

200k annual income is enough to service the mortgage on a luxury apartment on Manhattan proper without straining the budget too much. This is about owning, not renting.

If you meant 'detached house' by home that's another thing entirely.

[malvosenior]

I think you have it backwards. It’s not that there is an asset bubble, it’s that labor is feeling the effects of globalization. The lifestyle that people in the US have come to expect (urban home ownership for instance) was a historical anomaly based on the United States unique position as the leading super power post two world wars that decimated the rest of the globe but pre labor globalization.

The reality is most people will never attain the 20th century consumer lifestyle and I think a lot of people would argue that’s a good thing.

[Cthulhu_]

Depends on what you define as hard work. There's stories on Reddit's late stage capitalism subforum about a graduated biochemist entertaining customers at Starbucks with random facts; it was considered cute by the original poster, like, wow, a smart barista. While it was sad that he worked hard to get his papers but couldn't land a job.

[Rescis]

Simply because they worked hard to get the degree doesn't mean that the degree is useful, or benefits society.

If there is currently an over saturation of bio-chemists in relation to the amount of jobs open, he cannot add anything to the greater food. From that, there is no reason that his degree/hard work should grant him personal benefits, as he would be taking more than he is giving. Very few people would argue that someone who does a bunch of worthless hard work (something like digging ditches and refilling them) deserves stuff, simply because it required a lot of effort, as what they are doing adds no value to society. Therefore, if the biochemist has a degree that took him a lot of time and work, but isn't needed, there is no reason he should get benefits just because he did work.

I believe the issue is people saying "hard work leads to success" fail to add on that "hard work leads to success, given that you are doing something valuable".

[alexashka]

Maybe it should be a little more clear what is considered 'valuable', before people spend years of their life's efforts and a great deal of money on education.

[malvosenior]

The data is readily available to make an informed decision. It’s the responsibility of the person getting in debt to do the research.

[s73v3r_]

Except that can change within the 4-5 year lag time between entering school and graduating.

[alexashka]

Forgive my ignorance - where is this data?

[kaolti]

I don't see how job opportunities in any field reflect on whether or not hard work is effective?

[FranzFerdiNaN]

It proves that hard work had nothing to do with succeeding. Getting a biochemistry degree is hard work yet it gave the owner nothing more than a job a high schooler can do.

[s73v3r_]

Presumably they worked hard to get that degree.

[monocasa]

I'll throw in a personal anecdote too.

The hardest worker I've ever met was the manager of the produce department at a grocery store I worked at as a teenager. He was here on political asylum from a South American country. His (and my) manager lied to the state department to get him deported because "Mexicans need to go back to where they belong". Afaik he's now rotting in a particularly shitty prison despite doing everything he should have and more.

[newyankee]

basic necessities of life, healthcare, and no worry with emergency destroying you completely

[frgtpsswrdlame]

Not really... I've known hard workers, they work hard, no success, they work hard, an unlucky event intervenes, they work hard, still no success, so on and so on and so they ask: what's the point in hard work? Can you blame them? Even to be a hard-worker implies that you've been lucky enough in life to see a correlation between hard-work and success.

[dsacco]

What does "no success" mean in this context?

[frgtpsswrdlame]

I believe this comment is going to trigger my rate-limit so apologies for not being able to give further context. But to one: how about being poor, working hard and then staying poor?

More importantly why should it matter how someone defines success? I think the false and self-perpetuating notion of meritocracy is massively benefitted by the lowered expectations of the lower class. If I'm born poor, making it to lower middle class could be a huge success for me, if I'm born rich that same outcome would be a massive failure. Even to acknowledge that that is true is admission of how massively tilted opportunity is. If the poor and the rich had the same visions of success, they dreamed the same dream, do you think we could still say with a straight face that, really, hard-work is the most important factor in success? I don't think so.

[Retric]

Let's go with homeless. Plenty of hard workers end up homeless.

[rb808]

Chris Dillow is my favorite economics blogger. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com

One of his quotes from memory is "Meritocracy is the myth that justifies inequality", which explains a lot of the current world.

[k__]

Some parties here in Germany actively pushing this.

They talk about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes.

But what can you do?

You're phenotype is mostly determined by stuff you can't control.

If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f*cked and you can't control this either.

Even if you're high on openness and have a average to high IQ, you're still playing a high risk game.

[Cthulhu_]

I do agree to equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome; those people with low IQ won't end up in the high tiers of e.g. the scientific world, simply because they can't.

Equality of opportunity does not rule out a proper socialist system. You give everyone the same opportunities at life and work by e.g. affordable health care and insurances for everyone, but also scholarships for everyone so they can follow what they want to do instead of be restricted by e.g. what their parents earn. And if you can't work because of whatever reason, you don't have to end up on the streets.

Equality of opportunity gives everyone the chance to graduate university; equality of outcome gives everyone a university degree regardless. I'm probably misinterpreting it.

But give everyone the opportunity, and there will be enough social mobility so that people now born in poverty can grow up to become e.g. software developers, and pay that little equal opportunity was paid for them during their education back tenfold within just a couple years of working in that industry.

That's my experience anyway, my dad was a not-greatly-paid metalworker with a high interest mortgage (as was the times back then) and three kids, I'm a college graduate and my first job paid almost as much as his.

[k__]

I don't really think this is the problem here.

Sure, you shouldn't give any idiot a degree without doing something for it and yes, you shouldn't make it harder for intelligent people to get degrees, just because their parents are poor or something.

But if you have low conscientiousness and low IQ, that was also given to you without asking. It's playing on the same level as poor parents.

With your proposed change (which is already done in countries like Germany, we have almost free healthcare and education) you still have 50% of the population that has a IQ below 100.

[AstralStorm]

This is only bad because of what, job market preferring to hire geniuses if not at least above average people making 50% of population or so unviable? In addition setting relatively insane filters on the other half limiting them too.

Often for quite dumb jobs too.

Sounds like a systemic problem.

[k__]

Why would the military filter if below average people could do meaningful work today?

Okay they don't filter 50%, only 15% but that's still many people

[CompelTechnic]

>If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f-cked and you can't control this either.

The point about IQ is definitely worth worrying about. But the idea of moralizing a person with low conscientiousness as particularly f-cked (implying that they have gotten an injust dessert) seems odd to me. I have seen several sociological studies linking high conscientiousness with high income and other good economic/ health outcomes. To me it seems that not having the characteristic trait of "wishing to do what is right, especially to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly" would have predictable bad outcomes, and there is nothing other than changing your approach that would result in anything otherwise. There is no injust dessert; there is only reality here.

Even with government/charitable intervention that is both well-intentioned and well-designed, those who are not conscientious will lag behind.

Edit: this particular comment has led me to a fair bit of introspection. Perhaps a Utilitarian formulation would be a good way to state the problem. Let's build a hypothetical world with two (otherwise equal) groups. A Utilitarian might explain the two populations (the conscientious and the unconscientious) as follows: a group that has a high utility associated with (aka highly values) good outcomes, and a group that has a low utility associated with (aka does not highly value) good outcomes. This definition is of course viewed through the lens of what we define as a good outcome.

If we let the two groups act out their personalities over time, one could say that the resulting outcomes are simply the two groups expressing their preferences. When the unconscientious group sees that the conscientious group has built better outcomes for themselves, how do we express the morality of this situation?

[k__]

This hypothetical example doesn't help.

If you are open and smart (openness+high IQ) you are creative and can do things people without these traits can not.

Such people can have low conscientiousness.

But even if they don't show up at 9 o clock, they could still be helpful to society.

[rb808]

To add to this - yes he's not the only one who talks about it, the idea is even on the wikipedia page for meritocracy.

Its worth following Chris, much of what he talks about is outside the world of regular media ideas, and usually has lots of interesting references.

On this topic - he often says that social mobility is not a great goal to aim for, helping working & middle classes achieve interesting & rewarding work with security is better goal.

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli... http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...

[ZeroGravitas]

See also, the "Just-World Hypothesis", which investigates why people feel this need to blame victims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

[simonebrunozzi]

Please, it's not the West: it's the anglo-saxon West (US, UK), or in general countries with a strong calvinist influence. Mediterranean countries (Italy, Spain, to some extent France) don't share that same mindset.

[pygy_]

> One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed.

Even if it were strictly true, this ignores the fact that the ability to work hard is mostly determined by one's genes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2762790/

The main merit there is to have the right genes.

[stcredzero]

One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed.

How is this a lie? There is no guarantee, just good odds.

at least people over there do not harbor illusions of meritocracy.

[Citation Needed]

May be sometime in the future we would have a universal human rights charter that expands and decides what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide in exchange for basic responsibilities.

There was already a Declaration of Universal Human Rights from a commission headed by Eleanor Roosevelt.

[toasterlovin]

>May be sometime in the future we would have a universal human rights charter that expands and decides what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide in exchange for basic responsibilities. This way life will not always be a rat race and the poorest and unlucky can at least have some dignity.

Life has always been a rat race. The only reason that it isn't for some people right now is that we are at a very unique time in human history where we have greatly increased our ability to produce food and, at the same time, have extremely low birth rates as a result of being poorly adapted for modern life.

This, too, shall pass.

[chmln]

> One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed

I think this used to be true decades ago when you could without much effort get a well-paying manufacturing job with just a high school diploma.

It would be foolish these days to rely on just "working hard". Not everyone "works hard" equally - it is important to work hard in the right direction.

To work as say a Starbucks barista even full-time and expect a house, a car, and a luxurious lifestyle, then after failing to achieve that exclaim "meritocracy doesn't work" is narrow-minded at best.

[hliyan]

What if the problem is that the results of merit accumulate geometrically, so that beyond a certain threshold, some people just start rapidly pulling ahead of the pack?

[rectang]

That's a choice that society has made, through laws and institutions which benefit the wealthy -- such as treating corporations as people. It doesn't have to be that way.

[cookiecaper]

There's a natural power law distribution to many things. Economics is a natural force. We can't change it just by dictating that we'd like some things to change, just like we can't change other natural elements by fiat.

There's a process, a technology, a science that has to be applied to shape and command natural forces. Human psychology is no exception. Things must be done within workable, realistic parameters. We can't just say "everyone will share and be happy and nice now" and expect it to work like that.

"Corporations as people" is a massive politically-charged misnomer that doesn't mean anything by itself. The entire point of incorporation is to create a separate, independent legal entity divorced from its principals. This is what is meant when "legal personhood" is discussed. You have to be specific about what you'd like changed.

[pintxo]

We can absolutely change economics. We - our societies by the means of our governments - have set rules for the economy for centuries. Think taxes and regulations.

[cookiecaper]

Right, let me be clear. I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't attempt to change anything about our economy. I'm just saying that we can't do this by dictum, because an economy is a natural force that emerges based on extant factors, like weather.

There are rules and laws, like taxes and regulations. These are meant to effect the underlying economy; they are not the underlying economy itself. The economy naturally emerges as people make trades based on what they believe their local optima.

We can (and probably should) do things to try to change peoples' perceptions of their local optima to better align with what we believe to better approximate global optima, but people won't simply accept the dictation of a new optimum if it doesn't align or compute internally. It has to make sense to them or they won't make the trades we want to incentivize.

The tax code is such a complex disaster for precisely this reason. It's the most direct way the government has to bias or influence the economy toward certain trades and away from others, so they adjust the tax system to try to affect the calculation of one's local optimum for a given trade.

The debate over which rules, regulations, incentives, and disincentives work best, as well as the holistic systemic approaches that tend to result in the best overall outcomes, is an entire field of academic study called "economics".

Economies cannot be trivially changed by fiat any more than the weather can. Yes, we have governmental standards around meteorology, but making a law that all thermometers must now read 74 degrees F does not magically modify the underlying system. It does not change the actual factors that occurring in the physical world. It just creates a credibility-destroying facade.

The same is true in economics. Pretending otherwise is simple naivete.

[pintxo]

Agreed. Thx for the clarification.

[rectang]

> Economics is a natural force.

The extent to which "natural" inequality is amplified by institutions varies. Dictatorship is a very "natural" way to distribute rewards.

We don't have to accept dictatorship as our destiny just because it is "natural", nor do we have to accept current levels of economic inequality as immutable.

[cookiecaper]

First, dictatorships are anything but "natural". They require a massive amount of effort and savagery to maintain and enforce effectively.

Second, I'm not saying that we should treat economic inequality as something that's static or immutable any more than any other natural force. I'm saying that we have to recognize that natural forces dictate behavior and economics, and that you can't change natural forces by decree alone (e.g., passing a law that says "everyone now must share"). We have to really appreciate and understand the processes and motivations that drive the behaviors if we want to address them in a meaningful way.

We have to be honest about how changeable certain things are. For example, we have not, as yet, found a way to control the weather explicitly, but we have coping mechanisms like air conditioning that mitigate some of the negative effects. This didn't happen by saying "It shall always be 74 degrees indoors at all times" and then laying down stringent ideological enforcement to ensure that everyone accepted and believed that it was always 74 degrees. It happened by experimentation, tinkering, and respect for the constraints of the reality that allowed us to discover a non-ideal but workable solution that mostly handled the problem of uncomfortable heat.

There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable. American free-market enterprise may not be perfect, and I'm not saying that there are no systemic issues or that things aren't worsening, but our economic system is historically workable and reasonably well-tuned. It has proven much better than many competing systems. We have to be honest about where we are and what's possible.

We can't simply change "the rules" and expect a good outcome, as the comment I replied to implied. There is no magic wand and no overnight perfection.

[rectang]

> There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable.

This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.

[dasil003]

The problem is the people who really understand how it works are largely the ones that benefitted from the current system and thus have no incentive to change it.

[WalterSear]

The meritoriously choosing the right parents?

[kaolti]

Why is it a lie? Do you disagree that hard work leads to success, within limits?

[falcolas]

Hard work only increases the chance for opportunities, to a certain ceiling. It is not, however, the only factor. Or even the most important factor.

Let's use a few sterotypes for examples: A hard working trucker will take years to set aside $10,000 in savings. An average programmer at a financial institution can do the same in months. A debutante able hire a stock broker to invest their slush fund can do the same in hours.

The trucker, in terms of advancement and opportunities, will probably max out at running their own owner-operator business. Maybe they'll get really lucky and be able to employ other drivers as well.

The programmer can probably keep raising their pay by hopping jobs every few years, until they can retire by playing the financial market with his savings.

The debutante just keeps being a debutante.

We could call the trucker the successful one - they ended up with their own business. And there's a cost, too. All of that long haul driving and manual labor moving freight has left them with severe, if managable, back pain. However in terms of capital, in terms of being able to pay for a loved one's fight against cancer, the truck driver isn't even a blip on the radar.

[kaolti]

I understand and sympathise with that example. But surely you agree that not all lines of work can be equally compensated.

That doesn't mean that hard work is ineffective and a lie though?

[s73v3r_]

It kinda does. If the "types" of work that get compensated well enough for success are arbitrarily chosen, then that indicates that hard work itself is a lie.

[aantix]

What evidence do you cite that they are arbitrarily chosen?

[s73v3r_]

I think you need to provide evidence that they are not. But for my evidence, I would put forth important positions, like teachers, being grossly underpaid as evidence that they are arbitrarily chosen.

[andrei_says_]

Positing that hard work guarantees anything is the lie. It is a narrative that has been perpetuated by all those who benefit by exploiting hard work.

Smart work ought to be more beneficial than hard work but the narrative focuses on “hard work” with connotations of pushing oneself beyond one’s comfort zone and limits, which implies increased exploit-ability.

It is an immoral statement which left without investigation causes suffering and inequality for many.

Hard work depletes the worker and is therefore ineffective as it creates an imbalance which that person, their family etc. need to pick up. This balance is not reflected by the accounting of the employer so economically it is hard to detect.

[falcolas]

Well, no, I'd say that it means that the line of work matters much more than the amount of work put into it.

Between two salesmen in the B2B industry, the amount of work put forward will create a difference in their overall pay. But both salesmen will make more than the hardest working waiter or waitress.

[FranzFerdiNaN]

Of course they can. It's a political choice not to.

[castlecrasher2]

I recently read Stealing the Corner Office which gives great insight into this. The premise is that incompetent high-level executives exist, so the answer isn't simply hard work.

The author doesn't specifically state it but the problem, at least in my case, is one's definition of work; I don't think I'm alone when I used to think my code spoke for itself and that's that. There are a few problems with that but essentially the issue is many of us myopically ignore other seemingly unimportant work-related tasks such as building relationships, personal marketing (I know that sounds like a buzzword phrase but it's true), among other examples.

Basically, at its core I believe that hard work does lead to success but our definition of work gets in the way.

[andrei_says_]

I would also like to question the definition of “hard”. What does that mean?

Is it like the hard work of someone driven by enthusiasm and intrinsic motivation, in the state of flow? IN my experience that’s the most productive I can ever be. But it doesn’t feel hard at all.

Who and what defines the line where work becomes “hard work” and what is that extra unit worth?

I think it has a lot with the worker pushing beyond what is reasonable and sacrificing other important life aspects and needs they have in order to produce more units of work.

I find this immoral in any structure based on exploitation, which is most structures.

[mistermann]

As an absolute, binary statement, yes, because it is not always true, not even close.

Hard work is only one component of success. Physical attractiveness and charisma are often at least as important, even though logically they seem irrelevant. Dealing successfully with humans is often not terribly intuitive.

[kaolti]

I don't think anyone is saying they are irrelevant, nothing is black and white. For practical purposes however, hard work does lead to success.

[alain94040]

I can think of plenty of people who work way harder than me, and have clearly no path to ever being successful (financially).

[frgtpsswrdlame]

You've never known a hard-working person who wasn't successful?

[steaknsteak]

It's moreso that the inverse is true. Not working hard will almost certainly not lead to success (unless your family is rich enough to where you can just "buy" more success). Working hard will not necessarily lead to success, but it's a prerequisite. The amount of work required also depends on what obstacles you're born with and degree of success is desired

[Lewton]

I’ve never worked hard in my life and I earn more than my (hard working) parents combined

[kaolti]

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say lol.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't any other factors or that this justifies not helping less fortunate people.

[mistermann]

Except for when it doesn't, which is the point.

[rectang]

It depends on who you are. If there are structural factors arrayed against you, less success and more failure will come your way for the same amount of work.

[kaolti]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that "work hard and you'll succeed"is a lie.

[reggieband]

I think that the weak claim: "Hard work contributes to success" is supportable but the strong claim "Hard work guarantees success" is not supportable.

Maybe I'm overly logical and can't shake the whole "Necessary and sufficient" aspects of causality [1]. The charitable argument is that working hard can contribute to success but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary_and_suffic...

[psyc]

It’s a half truth at best, which many regard as a kind of lie. Hard work, even smart hard work, is often necessary for success. It’s often not sufficient by itself.

[jonathanstrange]

With hard work you can be successful in the sense of being able to afford a basic living or being moderately middle class - which is enough for many people. The deception which looks like a lie to some is in implicating that one percenters got their wealth from hard work - most of them didn't.

AFAIK, statistics show that in industrialized Western countries the wealthy people who are seemingly successful (because of their wealth) have inherited most of their wealth or at least benefited extremely from improved conditions provided by already rich parents. In contrast to this, vertical social mobility remains fairly low and the overall gap between poor & middle class and the richest has been increasing in almost all capitalist Western countries since WW2.

So it's not literally a lie, it's just sometimes kind of dishonest and misleading. In most professions it's practically impossible to get rich from hard work.

[ska]

   "With hard work you can be successful in the sense of being able to afford a basic living or being moderately middle class"

There is plenty of empirical evidence that this is not really true. One of the pernicious things about the typical American narrative of success is that it often gets used in the contrapositive. This lets people feel good about discounting anyone viewed as "not successful" (whatever definition you want) as having been personally responsible for their own difficulties, so they can be safely ignored.

[rectang]

If you take the fairness out, that phrase is worse than meaningless. It applies to slaves: those who work harder are rewarded to some extent. Does that mean a slave society fulfills the ideals of meritocracy?

[yulaow]

If you keep it as it is, it is an absolute statement as in "I can guarantee that every single time any random person works hard, he will be successful after time X" which is clearly empirically false because ignores all the (extremely numerous) boundary conditions.

The problem is exactly that, there are people who think that it is an absolute statement so poor people, unhealthy people, people in bad life conditions, etc are so just because they didn't work hard so they do not deserve any help.

[WalterSear]

Same reason that a phd isn't really a path to being a tenured professor.

Yes, it is the only way to get a tenured position, but the vast majority of people trying don't get one. And not because they didn't work hard or even because they aren't qualified.

[aantix]

Whatever rules in life get laid out, whether it's scoring soccer goals or everyone gets X amount of food per month, someone always becomes good at "optimizing" those rules.

We are humans born with different abilities with different tastes and strive for different things. Equalizing the outcomes of all by artificially holding some back suppresses the very creative life force in each one of us, ends in misery and progress is hampered.

[pintxo]

Talking about the extremes, I agree.

Talking about defining sensible rules to allow a wider range of people to be successful than only those being a member of the local Golf Club, I disagree.

There should be no question that we need rules, and at the same time there should be intense discussions - if not intellectual fights - about which rules we need and how to implement and enforce them.

[aantix]

>allow a wider range of people to be successful

But what does "successful" mean in practice?

E.g. If there are 100 software security companies, 50% of those are below average in performance (and will probably get chosen less).

Do we no longer choose let the consumers choose? All of these software companies should now receive a percentage of business, regardless of performance/trust/expertise?

Or should the top performing companies be disallowed the following year to market or do sales in order to give the underperforming companies a chance to catch up?

What is "sensible" and who decides?

[pintxo]

For me, this is about ensuring that all 100 companies play along the same rules. If, while following the same rule book, 10 are significantly more successful than the others, fine. If another 20 are significantly less successful, also fine.

What is no fine, is having some companies be exceptionally successful by breaking some rules. Think insider trading, it's a highly profitable business for those risking it, but has a long term negative impact on the market. Therefore we, as a society, via our proxy, the government, decided to enforce rules forbidding insider trading.

The above answers who. This leaves the question of sensibility, I am afraid there will hardly every be consensus on what is sensible or not within a diverse enough group of people. If you'd ask a bunch of investment bankers about sensible rules for banking regulation, I'd assume you'd get quite a different answer than by asking a bunch of consumer rights activists. Our current solution to this problem of finally arriving at a single "sensible" rule is the democratic process / parliament. I guess most would agree this process seems to be sub-optimal, but it seems there are not too many other options on the table.

[Tade0]

> Contrast this with a poor society that is growing rapidly where you see islands of wealths with certain individuals, at least people over there do not harbor illusions of meritocracy.

Actually(speaking from experience) these islands of wealth only reinforce such illusions in poor countries.

The logic is as following: apparently that person is exceptional and the fact that they've managed to get wealthy within one generation is proof.

[aantix]

Isn't it the striving, the need to move from one circumstance to the next, is what propels us forward?

People don't make progress in spite of their struggle, progress is made because of the struggle.

[troupe]

This is a very good point. Regardless of talent or luck, the person who is willing to keep trying dramatically increases their chances of success. Someone who only applies for one job and stops if they don't get it, is much less likely to get a job than someone who is willing to apply for 100 jobs until they get hired.

[mapcars]

>what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide

Earning a living should not be a problem in the modern world with basically any kind of job. One of the big problems is people want the latest iphone, the best car, the most luxurious home, holidays, etc.

The expectation of life had been set too high to make it happen even for a small part of the population. What is actually needed is way, way different from what is being promoted by media and society.

[decebalus1]

> Earning a living should not be a problem in the modern world with basically any kind of job. One of the big problems is people want the latest iphone, the best car, the most luxurious home, holidays, etc.

Hmm.. I don't believe that the countless Walmart and Amazon warehouse employees on food stamps are at the edge of poverty because they bought the latest iphone, best car and most luxurious home.

[rainbowmverse]

What do you base this on? I know plenty of people working multiple jobs and saving every dollar they can who still barely get by.

[troupe]

You see many people in the United States who are working hard and avoiding foolish decisions that cannot seem to provide for their needs and set money aside for the future?

[rm_-rf_slash]

Plenty. Some have kids. Others are in grad school. Some are even dealing with both.

[troupe]

> Plenty. Some have kids. Others are in grad school. Some are even dealing with both.

Yes people who go out and have kids without thinking through how they will provide for them usually have to work pretty hard at first. Still most of the people I've seen in this situation aren't really as bad off as they think. If you didn't plan for having kids, you likely aren't in very good control of your budget either and a small investment of time in learning how to manage and budget your finances can take off most of the financial strain.

(That isn't to say there aren't some people who are in really bad situations due to random events, but I still find it rare to see people who are struggling from things that are/were completely outside of their control.)

[s73v3r_]

Then you're just not looking hard enough, or your moving your goalposts of what you count. You're also falling into the trap of believing that all children are planned. Pregnancy happens even if you take precautions to have safe sex, and in many parts of the country, a person's options for dealing with that are extremely limited.

[k__]

"Earning a living should not be a problem in the modern world"

But it is.

15% of the population have an IQ of less than 85, that's about 48 million people in the US alone.

Not even the military thinks they can do anything reasonable with them (if you under 83 they don't want you so it's probably 1 in 10 people, I guess) and they try to get as many people as they can.

[0xFACEFEED]

That is just not true. While there may be people out there with a pathological obsession with having the "best", it isn't the norm. Unless your sample consists entirely of urban teenagers :P

Most people I meet (across all classes mind you) are scrappy and pretty selective about what they buy.

[denzil_correa]

> Earning a living should not be a problem in the modern world with basically any kind of job.

It would be interesting to see the thought process and methodology that brought you to this conclusion.

[s73v3r_]

I mean, I personally do agree with that. If you have a full time job, you should be earning enough to where you can provide for yourself and your family without having to resort to food stamps or welfare or anything like that. Unfortunately, Amazon, Walmart, et al disagree.