This thread is permanently archived
The richest people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a computer model of wealth confirms
| The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.
When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies.
| “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.
That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it.
| “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.
So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.
The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers.
| “It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones,” they say. “And the less successful individuals are also the unluckiest ones.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/
| It's not a big suprise. The bad thing is that many people won't accept it, even if it's proven for the 5000th time. I mean a lot of people play lottery, even thought the chance to win is minimal...
| The other sad thing is, if the worst comes to the worst, people rather kill each other in the name of racist/nationalist/relgious lies instead changing (even just reforming) the system. I mean, look at the world: Global capitalism is about 15 years in a permanent mode of crisis, and masses follow clowns speaking about "<'your' country> first", "socialist/feminist/jewish/nigger/muslim/hippie conspiracies" and other Bullshit.
| And what is the difference between talent and luck? By this measure no one deserves anything because they just got lucky to be born handsome or intelligent. This news isn't even fake, it is just boring and a way for losers to pretend they are just unlucky.
| >>299842
In the end it doesn't matter if it's talent, luck or hard work. What matters is what people actually do with it. I mean, if I have the talent, luck or do hard work to become a dictator who just harms people it's not the question if i "deserved" it. It's more a question how in which way people have a talent, luck or do hard work or how they they use it. Shouldn't people be rewarded by society for making a contribute to it? Is it really the regular case?
| >>299842
The funny thing is, that all the empty phrases, slogans and image care of modern neoliberal rich enterpreneurs, who are economically successful remind me horribly about old personae cult propaganda from some "socialist" estates. As if one person changes the world on his own. And so is the distribution of wealth - as if a couple of persons does the whole work while the rest are just stupid drones who have to thankfully shutup and do the work they ordered to.
| >>300033
You forget that those "exploited workers" entered into a voluntary contract with the evil capitalist to trade their labour for a fixed rate of pay. They don't deserve the fruits of entrepreneurial risk because that was never part of the agreement. You sound like a closeted Marxist trying to appeal to non-Marxists.
| >>300231
>voluntary
freedom is an illusion
>to trade their labour for a fixed rate of pay
since they have no capital, they HAVE NO CHOICE but to "trade their labour" to those who have capital
>They don't deserve the fruits of entrepreneurial risk because that was never part of the agreement.
In reality they are the first ones who take "the entrepreneurial risk", because they got fired or have to "rescue" banks and companies which are "system relevant".
| >>300231
>You sound like a closeted Marxist trying to appeal to non-Marxists.
And you sound like stuck in the cold war, seeing evil marxists everywhere in a World which is with no doubt dominated by capitalism. You talk about freedom ("voluntary") but basically you mean just the freedom of the rich to rule over the poor. On the long term you'll have either to accept critique on capitalism and at least agree on reforms/regulations or you'll ally with neurotic far-right antimarxists.
| You should all just calm your tits, ladies, 'cause people are dumb and there can be no man-made system that wouldn't fall to greed.
| >>300400
I don't want live in a system which is based on dumbness and greed, just because some dumb and greedy people try to tell the rest that their dumbness and greed is a normal and desired behaviour. I'm not like that and I don't want to be like that, which is hard in a society where it is somehow an undesired behaviour. I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel the same.
| >>300255
Freedom is up to you to take.
No one is forced to work. They can go on welfare, which is the safety net against "exploitation". You seem to think people should not have to work to survive, super childish view of life. If your parents left you no capital then yeah, you only have one choice to trade labour for some capital (or welfare). I don't see the problem here.
| >>300677
>they can go on welfare, which is the safety net against
This "safety net" is continuously reducing, facing globalization with competitors with economically successful autoritarian surveillance and control regimes like china. Also this "safety net" does not exist at most places where natural and essential resources are available, which need hard work to gain. This is NOT by coincidence nor because of cultural/religious or even "racial" reasons. It's by design.
| >If your parents left you no capital then yeah, you only have one choice to trade labour for some capital (or welfare). I don't see the problem here.
The problem is the contradiction between this reality and the promise of pro-capitalist/neoliberal/conservative ideologues, that people get what they deserve as a result of their own work. People who inherit capital did not deserve it based on their own individual effort. We're speaking of amounts that are a serious threat to society.
| >>300762
So the promise "everyone can make it" is a significant underspecification, which gives us the wrong impression how things really are. It's also "not everyone will make it" and "some don't need to make it, as they are already born into it"
We're not talking about grandmas house as legacy, we're talking about pretty much capital. I was once as a guest on a private elite-school, where the children of rich people were raised to rule over the children lower born ppl.
| >>300778
I found it interesting, that this young elitarian people were pretty liberal and "open-minded" about culture, religion and nationality. But they're not liberal about social hierarchy. They have a very big class consciousness: they are the highborn, destined to rule.
That's something which is horribly missing in the working and middle class. They rather lick the feet of their rich masters or run after religious, nationalist or racist lies, if the worst comes to the worst.
| >>300762
>People who inherit capital did not deserve it based on their own individual effort.
Their parents gave it to them, just as some parents decide to smoke and drink during pregnancy some parents decide to leave wealth to their children. It is absolutely insane of you to suggest this should not be allowed as you are then trying to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own property.
| >>301145
Life is not fair and never will be. Some people get better genes from their parents, should we be genetically engineering babies to not be smarter or stronger than the rest, just so they don't have an unfair advantage?
| >>301146
Read Brave New World. That is the kind of retardo clown world that results from your brand of flawed thinking.
| >>301146
In germany there is a saying which applies to family dynasties, let it be feudal or bourgeois ones:
>The father creates it,
>The son maintains it,
>The grandson ruins it.
This happened over and over again. Genetics play a minor role in what people are interested in and how skilled they are. (Social) circumstances play a big role. My parents are not dumb, but they never had a real chance to get education in their country. They had to work hard and make sacrifices to sup me.
| >>301215
When i was a child I had to help them a lot. Not much time for thinking about god and the world, abstract stuff and so on. I had a long and hard way up, always having rich parent kids around me who can't even imagine what fundamental existential worries are. They always had everything and had to to nothing for it. They also had no idea how demotivating this sometimes was for me. I made my way, have a good income and stuff, but somehow no real childhood.
| >>301221
I also feel pretty uncomfortable having people around me, which had it always much easier. For them everything is easy-peasy and a big fun. It always hurts, when they speak with high nose up about lower-class workers, like my parents were, as if they are their slaves or something. The higher you climb on the social pyramid, the more you are confronted with a strong class consciousness, something which is not present on the lower classes.
| >>301230
So what is your point, your feelings are hurt that you grew up less rich than other people so we need to fundamentally change society and not allowed children to inherit familial wealth? How did you arrive there?
| >>301339
I actually think it would be more fair (and also effective) to distribute money of rich people when they die to all children, not just their own. Even a pro-capitalist should be critical on neo-feudalism. Remember what happened to the King of France or the Tzars. No one, who can be taken serious, misses them.
| >>301390
Actually a lot of people miss the Tsars, especially after the hell that was communist russia. You are still trying to tell people what to do with their own property. Why don't we redistribute your wealth right now instead if we are in the business of stealing from people?
| >>301409
Thats funny, because "a lot of people" also miss stalin, while stalinism was really the worst phase of "communist russia". No one who is right in mind would say that tsarist russia was heaven on earth. There is a reason why people started a revolution you know? Germans and the French were stuck in a pointless slaughtering.
>Why don't we redistribute your wealth right now
I have no real wealth. Everything what comes in goes out. Just like the most people.
| >>301461
You have internet access, a computing device and the free time to spend spouting highly feminine opinions. You have plenty of wealth to redistribute, don't be absurd.
If you look at all into the causes of the Russian revolution you will start to see it was not at all a popular one. Heaven on earth doesnt exist anywhere, all countries have problems.
| >>301549
This.
On topic, I completely agree that luck is the foremost necessity for everything good in life. But the only thing reliable about computer models of macroscopic systems is that they'll eventually be proven insufficient.
| Are people still trying to defend the rich as having earned their status? You guys are peasants, you wouldn't understand what a different level the upper class is on unless you spent some time in their shoes yourself. Needless to say, they did not get where they are through labor.
| >>301549
>You have internet access, a computing device and the free time to spend spouting highly feminine opinions. You have plenty of wealth to redistribute, don't be absurd.
You have the wrong perception of what "wealth" is. Nearly everyone in the 1st World has internet access, and a computing device (mine is pretty old btw). There really was a time, when the ownership of a computer really was a chance to do it by urself. But thanks to people like bill g. and steve j. it's over.
| >>301549
>highly feminine opinions
And I really hope you're just joking here. Else it'll hard for you to become friends or more with women, who are not just after your money. I'm concerned you have it hard to make friends in general with your "eat or get eaten" attitude.
| fuck the rich, socialist revolution when?
| >>302067
Unfortunately after world war three. There are too much class traitors in the working class, that want to die for god, nation and race instead doing class struggle. Until then comrade, just try everything to survive. Don't let them turn you down, because the future is ours!
| >>302069 go to war right now, commie. Do your class struggle so more normal people are left on this planet.
| >>302074 if by normal you mean people who aren't class conscious, it's better to educate them instead to go war against. Workers of the world should be united against exploitative capitalists.
| >>302074 >>302076
There were times when it was "normal" to fight for socialism/communism.
Unfortunately capitalists succeed in destroying any socialist approach systematically with brute force and nationalist, religious and racist lies destroying class consciousness of lower classes. They played with nazists, fascists, religious fundamentalists and even fucking pseudo-communists to eradicate anything which they suspected for "socialism". This is why todays world is a shithole.
| >>302076
>it's better to educate them instead to go war against. Workers of the world should be united against exploitative capitalists.
It's probably too late. 3rd world is dominated by religious lunatics, dictators and corrupt marionettes of western capitalists, while in the west there is a neoliberal-conservative hegemony only "opposed" by far-right idiots of the same kind. And in the former "socialist" estates there's almost autocracy left with nationalism and religious cucks.
| >>302017
No, you playing the "I'm poor" card while living in the first world is extremely disrespectful to those who struggle to even eat on a daily basis. Fuck off, you are bourgeoisie to many people on planet earth.
| >>302021
I think you will have problems becoming anything but friends with women, given how much you glorify weakness.
| And?
| >>302281 what the fuck is glorifying weakness, you live in the 1st world there's no competition for survival or some bullshit
| >>302280
After all poor people in the 3rd world can't eat my respect, so don't bullshit me with "uh show respect to the poor"
And I'm not really part of the bourgeoisie. Not economically nor socially. I don't like them, they don't like me and despite the fact that I can live from my income I've always to watch out not getting fucked by them.
| >>302281
I'm not interested in "weak" women that need as "strong" man. But I also wouldn't say I'm a weak person, I just prefer equal relationships over hierarchical. I don't want slaves and feet lickers under me but also no masters, bosses and other "powerful" over me. I like it to share my love, skills and (really small) property with equal people, and I'm ok just having a roof over my head and enough to eat. But this is unfortunately not how our (human-made) society works.
| >>302770
It's true, there is no competition for physically survival, but there is much competition about social status and (economical) power, which is pretty bad when people are dependend on each other due to the necessary division of labour.
You can't trust anyone, as anyone is looking for his own profit, because the system is based on this. I've lost my faith in the mechanisms of "free" market long ago. Such a thing simply doesn't exist. It's an ideology, a religion to fool ppl.
| >>302810
Trust me, to an African woman who struggles every day for clean water and not getting raped you are bourgeoisie. You don't seem aware of your own privilege, how very typical.
>>302813
That is why you are feminine right here. Marxism is for weaklings who cry about how life isn't fair instead of going out to get your piece of the pie. No one will ever hand it to you.
| >>303306 fuck of with your fascist obsession with strength and weaknesses. You seem sexist as well using "femine" as something bad. Marxist recognises that life is unfair and tries to make it better, as K. Marx said "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it"
| >>303321 That's a very shitty quote from Marx to be honest. Analysis on economical change for instance demonstrates that an innovation can come in the form of a new discovery which is first rejected but over time becomes mainstream and the new form. An endless cycle of building up knowledge. Finding new things in its own right allows us to make new things.
That's also why I don't see how Marx's class conception is applicable in the 21st century. Newer ideas explain it better.
| I haven't read the thread yet, but I assume it's filled with ethical, philosophical and political bullshit as usual. Nevertheless, I feel the need to say that while luck definitely factors in, there's something I don't believe these studies factor in: the ability to make connections. Over the years, I've come to realise after observing people do business, those who are well-versed in the social game of the area have more strings they can pull to attract, leaving others in the dust.
| I want to hear commies opinion on the great leap forward under Mao.
This thread is permanently archived
| The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms.
The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.