It’s better to be born rich than gifted

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/09/its-better-be-born-rich-than-talented/

by joeyespo • 8 years ago

220 188 8 years ago

cortesoft• 8 years ago

Depends on how 'better' is defined. It looks like they are defining 'better' in this study as 'graduating from college'. That seems like an awfully narrow view of better.

goldfeld2• 8 years ago

If you're born to wealth but not particularly bright, you might have some any degree and live a lifetime of silenced frustration through easy habits; if you're gifted and poor, you'll struggle and it might take you decades longer but there's still a decent shot at finding deep fulfillment. Gifted talent, pursued, provides a deeper feeling of gratitude in the long run than any means.

majormajor• 8 years ago

Is "deep fulfillment" really linked to accomplishments from being gifted, vs social/family/personal accomplishments?

twblalock• 8 years ago

Graduating from college is correlated with better life outcomes in a lot of areas, including income, health[1], and life expectancy[2][3].

The causal effect of college graduation on those aspects of life varies, but the correlation is so strong that it makes sense to use it as a proxy for "better".

[1] https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ [3]: https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education

tomp5• 8 years ago

Just if wealth is correlated with graduation, and graduation is correlated with success, doesn't mean that wealth is correlated with success.

If anything, the article could be interpreted to apply the opposite - those skilled poor people that do graduate have climbed so high so fast compared to unskilled rich graduates that they're very likely to climb even farther further in life.

Rjevski• 8 years ago

No-bullshit link: https://archive.is/Yp12Q

Also, I feel like it's necessary to point out just how scummy this site really is. They advertise a more expensive, no-tracking subscription, but say "By subscribing, you agree to the use by us and our third-party partners of technologies such as cookies to personalize content and perform analytics" on the subscription page.

bko2• 8 years ago

Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the genetic index, but are born to high-income fathers, graduate from college.

Is this "genetic index" real and scientifically accepted? It sounds vaguely like eugenics.

And their work has limitations, in addition to being limited to white people for now.

I guess you can use the idea of "genetic scoring" as long as you side step race, but the idea has a long dark history and strikes me as un-scientific.

paulpauper3• 8 years ago

It has nothing to do with eugenics. One can also create a genetic index/profile for heart disease risk or anything else.

bko2• 8 years ago

Pre-disposition to illness is fine. But that's not what the researchers are talking about when they talk about a superior "genetic score".

why_only_152• 8 years ago

They talk about these things in the article. Somebody did a study on retirees, and 20,000 of them gave DNA samples as well. They used the DNA samples and did a broad test (i.e. not 1 gene but 1,000,000) and were able to correlate the genetic test at a significant level with educational attainment. The article says it explains 11% of the difference. It also mentions that it only explains these things for white people because most gene tests are on white people and attempting to correlate things in other ways can come up with bizarre findings. The test has reportedly been independently verified.

MisterOctober• 8 years ago

Reminds me of the original "Ocean's 11" -- after silver-spoon punk Jimmy Foster [Lawford] is done needling his gangster soon-to-be stepdad Duke Santos [Romero], Santos launches in to a story about growing up tough in the streets and how it prepared him to "always fight" [and thereby become wealthy], but at a cost of years and health.

After a beat, Foster says "Just goes to show : My way's better."

Santos [incredulous] : "What way is that?"

Foster : "Choose rich parents."

Santos : "Ha! You can bet your boots it is."

dokein• 8 years ago

This isn’t going to be popular, but:

Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost.

For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer opportunities or early business exposure, tutoring, and other extracurriculars, and their child grows as a result of that, I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level (spurring more growth at earlier ages).

The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no nuance — just a brute “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.

balt_s• 8 years ago

Should parents be allowed

To paraphrase: "the question is not who will let them, but who will stop them?"

Qworg4• 8 years ago

It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups.

This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birth, in support and growth, in opportunities) plays such an overwhelming role?

lend000• 8 years ago

Unless you're a strong believer in free will, someone who is lazy, sleazy, unintelligent, etc. (has little "merit") did not 'choose' to be born that way, or even if they say they did, they did not choose to have the nature/nurture that caused them to be the kind of person to make that 'choice.' No more than a bird chooses to eat a worm or a salmon chooses to swim upstream, anyway. We can build productive societies based on incentive structures we put around merit, such as capitalist market systems. But in reality, nothing is fair and simultaneously everything is fair. Fairness is undefinable outside of a closed system. It's just how it is. Heuristics to define merit are just forms of evolution for human society that allow more productive people to command more responsibility.

cthor• 8 years ago

I don't think meritocracy implies cosmic fairness.

The way it's used by most hackers is to say that someone's work is judged only on its own merits, rather than the author's social status or how good they are at playing political games or anything else orthogonal to the work actually being valuable.

At least, that's the ideal.

tomp5• 8 years ago

I interpret meritocracy as being judged by the outcome of your doings. If someone has IQ 10000 but spends it to dominate WoW, then... I don't see why they should be paid a lot (some other people might disagree, though). Likewise, if someone leverages their genetics, family, wealth, skills, efforts, and luck towards great outcomes (e.g. Elon Musk), then they should be rewarded, as they're meritocratically the best.

To all "proponents" of "the luck argument": there are thousands of people far more lucky than Elon and Steve (born to wealthier families, smarter, better connected, etc) that didn't achieve what they have. So... luck obviously isn't the answer.

Having said that, even if luck were the answer, I'd still support meritocracy, because it results in the best outcome. It's not about fairness, fundamentally - it's about creating the best society. If the only people who can do that are "the wealthy" (or whichever category you choose - most likely "the intelligent" these days), then so be it - it's best for all the rest of us if they "rule", meritocratically.

AndrewKemendo3• 8 years ago

I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup who was looking to acquire our company.

Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism"

His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my friends do better and help each other out."

Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking about it it makes total sense. Why wouldn't you help your friends? I mean I help my friends all the time, but there seemed to be an artificial cutoff when it came to hiring and buying companies or otherwise giving them outward signs of "success."

Not sure I can make a rational case against Nepotism even though it feels wrong.

perfunctory7• 8 years ago

However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups.

This is too broad. Is it really so? I believe that we don't want to disadvantage ourselves relative to other groups. But that we want to gain advantage at somebody's else expense - not sure.

mcguire4• 8 years ago

There was an article posted here recently about the originator of the term "meritocracy". He wasn't entirely positive about it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18179583

From one of my comments: That's the weird part: “I.Q. + effort = merit” sounds pretty positive, right?

But,

"A system of class filtered by meritocracy would, in his view, still be a system of class: it would involve a hierarchy of social respect, granting dignity to those at the top, but denying respect and self-respect to those who did not inherit the talents and the capacity for effort that, combined with proper education, would give them access to the most highly remunerated occupations."

The intended result doesn't sound very appealing. Then there was this quote:

"Young’s vision was decidedly dystopian. As wealth increasingly reflects the innate distribution of natural talent, and the wealthy increasingly marry one another, society sorts into two main classes, in which everyone accepts that they have more or less what they deserve. He imagined a country in which “the eminent know that success is a just reward for their own capacity, their own efforts,” and in which the lower orders know that they have failed every chance they were given. “They are tested again and again…. If they have been labeled ‘dunce’ repeatedly they cannot any longer pretend; their image of themselves is more nearly a true, unflattering reflection.”"

That sounds familiar.

"But one immediate difficulty was that, as Young’s narrator concedes, “nearly all parents are going to try to gain unfair advantages for their offspring.” And when you have inequalities of income, one thing people can do with extra money is to pursue that goal. If the financial status of your parents helped determine your economic rewards, you would no longer be living by the formula that “I.Q. + effort = merit.”"

And so does that.

skookumchuck4• 8 years ago

legacy admissions

Parents who donate a lot of money to a college will expect preferential admissions treatment for their offspring. Colleges certainly know this, and they want the money.

drngdds2• 8 years ago

Obviously, but that's not how it should be because it's ridiculously unfair.

drngdds2• 8 years ago

The problem isn't that rich kids get stuff that helps them. It's that other kids don't, which puts them at a major disadvantage.

LocalH• 8 years ago

This. If society must be based on equity rather than equality, then I'd rather see it be done by boosting people up to the same level, rather than knocking everyone down to the same level. Otherwise, society could start looking a lot like Harrison Bergeron, and that's not a society I'd want anything to do with.

gamechangr• 8 years ago

This isn't going to be popular, but the "general idea" of what could be fair and "the specific application" will never be on the same side.

Why? On one hand - I love the general idea that everyone should start on the same playing field.

On the other hand - My work ethic should infact give my children a major advantage.

I know it's not PC to say that, but most fathers would like to "give an advantage" to their children. It's baked in to our basic psychology.

Maybe the question is "who decides" and then "who enforces" fair?

jeffdavis• 8 years ago

Equality can be considered as many different things:

* Equal treatment under the law

* Equal treatment by kinda-public things like corporations and universities

* Equivalent opportunities in general

* Equivalent results

elicash2• 8 years ago

The question is what interest we have when designing our laws and culture in providing opportunities to people born with fewer of them. People who can provide tremendous value are being shut out because of inequality, and I want a talented person who could start a business and create tens of thousand of jobs to have that chance not just out of fairness (like you say) but because it's also good for all of us.

So yeah, people can inherit wealth but it seems obvious there is tons of opportunity to unlock a lot of potential that's being thrown away due to people being blind to the costs of income inequality.

nostrademons• 8 years ago

Are they actually being shut out because of laws and culture, though?

Most of the instances I've heard of where talented but disadvantaged people are shut out of opportunities are actually because of implicit bias. Someone may be very good at a particular skill, but they don't "pattern match" as the type of person who would be successful, and so they get passed over by the folks who could give them opportunities.

The thing is - this is self-correcting by market mechanisms. It's profitable to spend a little more time overcoming your unconscious biases and learning to evaluate candidates on their own merits, because by doing so, you can get a talented employee who others are not extending offers to, likely for less money. And then once people realize this, either they'll do it or they'll be outcompeted by people who do it, and wages will go up for disadvantaged groups.

We don't need collective action or societal change, we just need more greedy bastards who want to fuck over their competition by being smarter than them. There's a market opportunity here for people willing to get over their prejudices.

nraynaud• 8 years ago

well it's always the conflict between what are our instincts and what we renounce in the name of civilization. The dramatic illustration is just that powerful people can just use violence to get food from other people, it's natural, but we have created laws against it.

Do we want meritocracy because it is an enlightened value or do we want to follow the instinct of having our genes spread as far and wide as possible. That's the kind of societal dialog politics is made for.

dahart4• 8 years ago

Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?

Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life?

Nobody’s suggesting that parents shouldn’t use whatever resources they have. The question is what we should do as a society with all the potential we’re wasting. If every dollar we spent on boosting smart poor children yielded two dollars back to the economy, why shouldn’t we do that?

if the parent is able to provide ... I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level

The argument that those with private wealth helping their children is making society better is the opposite of what is normally called “progressive”. It’s trickle-down economics. When people say “progressive” they are talking about policies that benefit everyone, not policies that say if the rich do well, then surely we’ll all benefit from the margins and leftovers.

The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no nuance — just a brunt “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.

Life is extremely unfair, and very biased toward the rich. It’s not a surprise, we already knew it. This article just highlights some papers that confirm scientifically one of the many ways life is unfair. There might be some nuance, and of course there usually is when the press covers scientific research, but are you suspecting some specific nuance?

ageek1232• 8 years ago

Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life? Nobody’s suggesting that parent’s shouldn’t use whatever resources they have.

But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. The way you boost smart poor children is by taking money from non-poor parents. So you really are suggesting that non-poor parents "shouldn't use whatever resources they have." I don't think anyone fundamentally opposes this, but there is a legitimate philosophical question about how much redistribution is appropriate, and what criteria go into defining "appropriate."

ashelmire• 8 years ago

Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life?

I think the idea is that it benefits society for the best to rise and spread their genes. Additionally, it helps to pacify society and prevent revolutions and other violence if poor people have a realistic path to wealth.

An unequal society is an unstable one. I hope we don't have to relearn that lesson in the US when we can see it around the globe.

khawkins• 8 years ago

Honestly, I think that the boost provided by money is probably quite small. At a certain level, poverty is going to detract from a young person's ability to succeed, but money very rarely begets success.

What I think is far more likely the case is that parents who succeed in their lives are far better prepared to teach their children how to succeed as well. Further, that they're better at giving them a leg-up in networking and opening doors for them.

The fact that this study cites "academic success" as a measure for determining capability for business success shows that the author himself doesn't really understand how to make big money. Does he really think most entrepreneurs are genius level IQ?

I have a totally different interpretation. This study is evidence pointing towards the extreme failure of the public school system. The purpose of public schools is to provide talented, hard-working people with the tools to succeed. Schools haven't been preparing children for success, they've been largely focused on preparing them for college, and in turn for graduate school. They have not been teaching kids the values and skills which allow them to genuinely get ahead in life.

Nasrudith2• 8 years ago

The thing about money is that you don't need to be successful if you have enough of it. The job of a heir(ess) is to live long enough to inherit and not get disowned.

Granted there are a few cases where even money can't save someone. A severe schizophrenic for instance could have poor quality of life even if they receive top quality care and have a trust fund. Technically they are better off than if they were poor and had it but the good is greatly reduced.

RestlessMind• 8 years ago

Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?

Like many things in social contract, the answer is - okay to a reasonable degree, but extremes should be discouraged / forbidden.

Some concrete examples: annual limits on gift taxes, inheritance tax beyond a certain estate size etc. Policies which will level the playing field between rich and poor kids:

- very high rate of inheritance tax beyond $1M estate (some reasonable adjustment for inflation)

- no legacy based admissions for any university benefitting from govt money

- funding schools strictly at state level; not allowing local district to fund extra school activities in any way (because that is prone to gaming)

- CA specific: disallowing inheriting tax basis for inherited homes (one of the most stupid aspects of Prop 13 and CA housing policies)

jesssse5• 8 years ago

I am confused about taxes. When a person gives their family member a gift, why do you feel entitled to a portion of this private exchange of wealth?

arkh• 8 years ago

If people really wanted a level playing field the only solution would be to remove children from their parents at birth and implement a state controled education system from that point to your active life.

But most socialists are ok to take from other to give until it touch their family.

spyckie2• 8 years ago

What theories of economics tell us is that favoring one party over the other for reasons that aren't utility or value derived is being inefficient with your allocation of resources, compared to a market only allocates based on how much utility is derived (a free competitive market or globally scoped decision making, I'm not sure if "free market" is even how economists view the market anymore). So the argument is that Nepotism, Nationalism, or anything that favors parties for reasons other than value / merit is seen as inefficient.

To understand this, consider this - if you're bill gates, would you rather live in a society where your just your kids are well educated, smart contributors to making the life of all humanity better, or a society where EVERYONE that has potential is well educated and smart contributors to society. If you have $100 bucks, you'd think - my limited resources is not able to do the latter, even though its better both for me and humanity as a whole to invest in everyone, so let me stick to the former. But a rational actor with infinite resources who cares about their own well being will realize that their society is only as good as everyone in it, and would push for the latter kind of resource distribution.

Of course, your goal doesn't have to be acting efficiently in a global market. It's not morally wrong to act inefficiently (although some would have you think it is).

jwatte4• 8 years ago

Could society benefit if more people had these opportunities?

badrabbit2• 8 years ago

Of course they should be allowed,the only line I would draw is to not let the boosting cripple your child. You would rob the child perseverance and many life lessons if you don't let him/het fight for their share of the figurative pie.

justinator• 8 years ago

Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?

I'm pretty happy to have been brought up poor. I had to figure things out for myself, and if things went wrong, it was my fault. Emerson's "Self Reliance" became my guiding star. To be "indefatigable" is not something easy to teach if you have options for exits.

As Dylan put it, "helpless, like a rich man's son"

It doesn't make me rich; but it certainly doesn't make me think of wealth as the end all, be all, in life.

EdgarVerona• 8 years ago

To me, it's not so much that they shouldn't be allowed to do that - it's just that we need to recognize the advantage it gives.

These statistics should give a person pause when they talk about "bootstraps" or when they hold a Calvinist perspective that a person not being successful somehow "deserved it." It doesn't mean that we need to have some sort of totally even playing field: but it does mean that we shouldn't pretend the field is even - even if the actionable result is just to treat poor and/or unsuccessful people with more empathy and compassion than we might have previously. And perhaps a measurement more of self-examination when we decide (consciously or unconsciously) that we are "better" than others due to our success.

zouhair• 8 years ago

Good old meritocracy[0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT2iU9pAI_Y

cmurf• 8 years ago

Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?

If society really believed and committed in meritocracy, no. But this is always the trap of meritocracies: people lower ladders for friends and family. And that is what always corrupts meritocracy in a free society.

DoreenMichele2• 8 years ago

Completing college and getting a well paid job is not the absolute measure of a person, nor the highest attainment of success.

Ghandi.

Joan of Arc.

Jesus of Nazareth.

Dr. Martin Luther King.

William Wallace.

Einstein.

Etc.

Freedom, human dignity, compassion, knowing how to live right. These all tend to fall outside the scope of corporate aspiration.

The article is talking about "success" by essentially a single metric. Humankind does not live by bread alone.

curuinor• 8 years ago

born rich (his dad was a provincial minister)

poor

poor (middle-class, if you think a carpenter is that way, maybe)

middle-class

rich (born a landed knight)

rich (although his father's engineering firm went bust but restarted and did well in the second time and they had money worries at times)

about 0.5-5% of people are rich by most definitions

humankind does not live by bread alone, but put a human in a box and don't feed them and see what happens

DoreenMichele2• 8 years ago

Put all humans in a mental box that suggests that how much money they make and how much profit they turn are all that matter and see what happens. That isn't pretty either. We are seeing some of the gruesome outcomes of that currently, for example:

https://medium.com/@joycebowen/murder-by-medicine-dfe9d23207...

yumraj• 8 years ago

"Gandhi" (गांधी), not "Ghandi"

jogjayr• 8 years ago

Mohandas aka Mahatma Gandhi (not "Ghandi", please) went to law school in England and had a successful law practice in Apartheid-era South Africa. He was considered a pillar of the Indian community in SA, one of its major civic leaders. It's hard to believe he would've attained such respectability and influence within the community without achieving "conventional" success first.

And his successes against the racist colonial government in SA were what built his reputation and gave him instant credibility when he returned to India.

BurningFrog2• 8 years ago

I just skimmed the article, but one huge problem:

Intelligence is known to be largely genetic, but we have almost no idea what genes, or combination of genes are responsible. So whatever genetic correlation this is based on is bound to be nearly meaningless.

pjscott• 8 years ago

We've identified over a thousand genetic loci that predict educational attainment [1], though each one has only a very small effect. That's far from being all of them, of course.

[1] https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2018-lee.pdf

why_only_152• 8 years ago

It literally specifies all these things in the article. There are thousands of genes that are all in part responsible and the study was initially performed across 20,000 people and then was replicated in independent studies.

BurningFrog2• 8 years ago

I'm sure they used all available knowledge.

My point is that right now we know very little.

sonabinu• 8 years ago

Rich always have the advantage of better nutrition, information and resources (if parents don't have time, they hire tutors). Is it truly a genetic advantage or a socio-economic advantage? Is there a good way to hold all other variables as a constant in this study?

skookumchuck4• 8 years ago

Rich parents also are more likely to show their kids how to handle money and get rich. See the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Kiyosaki.

Edit: Teaching kids how to manage money, the time value of money, the basics of running a business, how markets work, etc., is painfully neglected by the schools. Young adults often have little knowledge of this, and it definitely puts them at a serious disadvantage.

mercer2• 8 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiyosaki#Criticism_and_...

kasperni• 8 years ago

Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents who are university professors, doctors or succesfull entrepreneurs than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the others.

I don't think it is just the money. You also have someone (your parents) to mentor you everyday about how to be "succesfull". They probably have a network you can tap into, someone who knows someone. You wanna start your own business, great let us call X,Y,Z and set up a holding company. Also here is some bootstrap cash.

You most likely also live somewhere nice and have resourceful friends growing up. Hey let us start a business together. You are not going to settle for working at a supermarket because you would have no chance of keeping of the standard of living you had growing up. And those friends, they are dining at the Fat Duck again, while you go to McDonalds.

Almost all of my "succesfull" friends have "succesfull" parents. Even though I lot more friends with parents who have ordinary jobs.

asaph• 8 years ago

Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents who are university professors, doctors or succesfull (sic) entrepreneurs than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the others.

Do you have any data to back this up?

askafriend• 8 years ago

I'm also curious. Strong claims like that require strong evidence.

I'm not just going to take that comment at face value and neither should anyone else.

pedrosorio• 8 years ago

The article repeats several times something along the lines of "money trumps genes" at the beginning, but it does mention what you're saying later on when talking about why IQ tests were deceiving:

"Such tests can’t be administered at conception, birth or infancy — before high-income parents have given their young children a head start by feeding them well, reading to them at higher rates and enrolling them in more activities.

“Two people who are genetically similar can have strikingly different IQ test scores because the richer ones have invested more in their kids,” Papageorge said. When you look at the raw genetic potential of the two people, though, “you see they’re actually quite similar.”"

paulpauper3• 8 years ago

Jordan Peterson says it's the opposite. I guess it also depends on how one defines 'rich'. If you're the only child of a multi-millionaire family, then you're in a much better financial position than being one of 3-5 children of a family that is only upper-middle class. But one cannot underestimate the power of having a high IQ though in terms of making wealth. You look at at all these successful people in STEM and start-ups, many from middle-class families and 2nd gen. immigrant families, and they tend to all have high IQs. Just a few days ago someone solved the 310 bitcoin challenge and made a cool $2 million. The person who solved it probably has a high IQ. Same for ppl who invested in bitcoin early. Again and again, with the possible exception of some actor and athletes, you find that with wealth, a high IQ is not far behind.

Hydraulix9896• 8 years ago

If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth.

Having a high IQ still requires you to rely on luck by rolling the dice at investing (knowing to buy bitcoin is more gambling than intelligence), squeaking past super selective all-or-nothing societal gateways like Ivy League admissions, FAANG interviews, YCombinator, etc. against very stacked odds, tenacity whenever life randomly and inevitably decides to punch you in the gut, and tremendous sacrifices in terms of hard work, time, MORALITY (screwing people over and fighting hard to prevent others who are actively working against you from doing the same to you), and personal health.

I think the fact that you can solve puzzles really well on a test doesn't really lend itself well to money making at all. There's FAR too much of a chance/luck component to making money to attribute it to IQ alone. Any time I've ever made money, I came back thinking wow, I was very lucky -- even though everyone is still biased towards themselves in terms of their own personal attributes or qualities (intelligence, hard work, savviness, hustling, etc.) when they make money, I can still recognize that yes, buying and selling crypto at the right time was almost entirely luck -- so was teaching myself how to code when I was 8 years old growing up in a rural area where everyone else thought it was a waste of time. Hard work is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make money -- same applies to IQ. Often you'll find people who had the exact same amount of "talent" or worked just as hard doing exactly the same things as someone who has a lot of money but don't have anything to show for it. Right place, right time.

Meanwhile, having money handed to you on a silver plate by virtue of your birth family means being able to accomplish all of the above without doing or sacrificing anything at all, and you even still have a free pass from society to still have an ego about it. Even worse, many people somehow see having money as a moral characteristic while selectively ignoring the very often immoral cost of acquisition.

paulpauper3• 8 years ago

If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth.

It depends how one defines wealth. If the choice is framed as choosing between $10 million lump sum with no taxes or any conditions vs. an IQ of 130, then maybe the $10 million and an IQ of 100 is the better bet. However, these studies define 'wealthy' (assuming they even quantify it at all) to be merely upper-middle class, which is much less, and this this wealth is further diluted by number of siblings and other factors.

. Hard work is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make money -- same applies to IQ.

That's my point and I agree. But many of these articles downplay or ignore the role of IQ. IQ is still necessary but it may not be sufficient.

ccnafr• 8 years ago

The understatement of the century

19994• 8 years ago

I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews:

1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm . I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place in society is the tradition of somewhere but I don't think it is America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination .

2. That going to college is not a direct product of wealth. Spending 4 years of adulthood doing something other than work could itself be used as a measurement of wealth. It feels to me like they are comparing two slightly different measurements of wealth and acting like it is something else.

Almost everyone in the study population would have gone to college before 1990, so their choices aren't based on the current situation, they are based on the situation 30 years ago as well.

The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.

perfunctory7• 8 years ago

I never really understood why lower tax is pro-wealth. What does it really mean? I am not trolling, I am really curious. Let's say I see some opportunity to grow my wealth, am I going to look at the current tax level and if it's above certain threshold I am just gonna say screw it, I am not taking it?

mikekij• 8 years ago

A rational investor is concerned with risk-adjust returns after taxes. The fact that capital gains rates are lower than income rates allows an investor to accept a higher level of risk than if the two tax rates were lower.

anonymous5133• 8 years ago

Yup, exactly which is why the rates for capital gains are reduced. If you make the capital gains high enough the reward you get for taking the risk won't be high enough.

I think it has a bigger deterrence effect with non-capital gains income. Once you start getting in the higher income tax brackets, it isn't really worth it to put in more hours for additional income when 50% of it is taken in income tax off the top. That's how I look at it at least.

19994• 8 years ago

I'm not really considering incentives. I think most people will basically spend their whole lives working, even if you take half their money and throw it down a hole -- maybe especially even if you do that.

To increase wealth the lower tax will have to mean more money under the control of the individual. It doesn't guarantee savings and investment but it makes it possible. For the portion that is taxed, you don't control consumption versus savings, you're locked into the same outcome as everyone else.

conanbatt6• 8 years ago

Yes, in microeconomic modeling you find that when your income increases, two competing forces go into effect: that you want to work more because you make more money for each unit you provide, and the "consumption" of leisure goes up because it is now affordable.

Which one wins is something to figure out empirically, but look at the fact that europe has more leisure than the US does, even at the same level of income.

TheDong3• 8 years ago

The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.

I think a valid take away would also be "we should break this relationship such that everyone gets education, regardless of wealth and background".

That seems easier to educate more people than to make more people wealthy.

maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax

I value education very much. I want to see a significantly higher tax-rate because I think it improves the quality of education for those worse off.

I don't think this article changes my view in the least. Our public school system is disgustingly bad in poor neighbourhoods, and I would argue that no small part of wealthy kids going to college is because their parents put them into better schools, either by living in more affluent areas with better public school systems, or by paying for private school.

I would much rather see higher tax-rates with that money allocated to the public school system to reduce the disparity between the public schools in poor and rich areas.

19994• 8 years ago

One project I think is interesting is LeBron James' school. When I looked at what the biggest changes are between his school and a normal school, it all looks to me like surrogate parenting -- like he is moving elements from the parenting column into the school column: meals, clothing, transportation, scholarships, literally helping the parents find jobs. My vision for what creates academic and financial success is similar to LeBron James, but I don't support expanding the education system to include more daycare and parenting elements, and I think the government is uniquely horrible at delivering those elements at scale.

In my view the educational component is fine, access to information is better than ever, the major difference is the negative effects of the poverty environment, which can't be resolved through the education system.

Another thing that has to be identified is the components that are zero-sum versus non-zero-sum. In a zero-sum competitive process if educational attainment is based on resource consumption, the wealthy will always win.

I think we basically have an opposite view of the causal relationship. I think education is a product of prosperity, and I think you view prosperity as a product of education. It could be resolved by a randomized controlled trial like drugs are tested, but unfortunately it would be unethical since we'd have to randomly deny people education, or destroy their prosperity.

sokoloff3• 8 years ago

My observations are that the problems with the public schools in poor neighborhoods are much more neighborhood and family related than money-for-schools related. Sure, more money might help some, but you’re not going to turn a currently terrible school district into a model one with school money alone.

Parents have at least 3x as much time and probably a greater ratio of impact on education than the school does.

lazyjones2• 8 years ago

So we measure „better“ in life using academic success now? Is academic success the ultimate goal in life, the key to happiness? Or is the WP just pushing typical political propaganda using fake science these days?

geocar2• 8 years ago

"Academic success" as a useful proxy because of how it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3].

I'm not sure whether "fake science" in the absence of obvious, easy-to-google evidence is mere intellectual laziness, or if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable. In either case, here you go.

[1] https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/

[3] https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education

lazyjones2• 8 years ago

it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3].

We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor?

if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable.

Straw man.

It's not a valid (scientific) conclusion to apply the result of correlation studies on a large mixed group to selected subgroups and assume it will apply equally. IOW, rich people with college degree might not live longer than those without just because the general population does.

But my point was something else: a better life is neither measured by wealth nor academic success or life expectancy at 25. It's entirely subjective and such click-baity titles are misleading. It should read "it's better for academic success to be born rich than gifted", but then it would't be sensationalist enough.

sdinsn• 8 years ago

It's better to be born rich than gifted, if you think that college graduation rates are the number one most important thing in the world.

sunstone• 8 years ago

It's much more likely for a gifted person to become rich than it is for a rich person to become gifted.

jimnotgym• 8 years ago

This should be the tag line for politicians in the UK!

WhitneyLand• 8 years ago

The article fails to adequately emphasize a huge point.

Even if wealth gives better odds, it’s not like it’s 10:1. Being gifted, educated, and having a modest but healthy environment are massive advantages.

It would be difficult to calculate the fundamental contributions to society of people in the latter category.

jstewartmobile• 8 years ago

For every silver spoon who flies through higher-ed to the gilded cage at the end of the rainbow, there are several more left back home--still living under daddy's shadow--duking it out with the others for a bigger share of the corpse.

Sometimes, we need adversity. Not so much for our bank accounts as for our souls.

badrabbit2• 8 years ago

You know what's better than both? Perseverance. Learned or by birth,those who can persevere succeed. The world is full of gifted losers. Even those born rich might not amount to more than what they were born with.

If a child grows up to be a decent human being,a functional member of society ,a responsible spouse,parent,child and can hold down a decent job is that person not doing better than a rich and gifted person that can't function well in society and does not treat others well?

All I'm saying is 'better' should mean across the board better. Not just financially , career wise or contributions to society.

starchild_3001• 8 years ago

Lot's of nonsense here.

Rich vs gifted? Yeah, right, as if you can control for all the other factors and compare the two.

Rich correlates with so many other things (genetics, support network, exposure to the right kind of things).

Gifted is also impossible to ascertain (e.g. exam scores aren't a perfect indicator of gifteness as ability, perseverance, hard working ethic etc all drive success in life).

What's discussed here cannot be science. Take it for what it is.

richard___• 8 years ago

How the hell is this study seen in a negative light? Genes, how fast your brain processes information, CANNOT be changed. That's just biology. Money, education, knowledge - these CAN be changed.

It’s better to be born rich than gifted

Related Stories