The Atlantic: Why Luck Matters More Than You Might Think

There's even a built-in contradiction:

Suppose that everyone is born with equal potential, in talent and environment. Then some "losers" end up becoming construction workers and some "winners" become derivative traders. . . . Shouldn't the "winners" be thanking the "losers" for--despite their equal potential--choosing to build buildings for the "winners" to eat caviar in? Where are the "winners" gonna win without the buildings and roads made by their equals, the construction workers? The "winners" should thank their equals, the "losers," for selflessly building the roads, parking garages, etc, that allow them to play with their Maseratis and Lambos.

Or, alternatively, people are not born equal, the losers are really losers and the winners are really winners, and the winners simply exploit the weakness of the losers.

We should clarify that the winners rely on anti-violence laws and police forces to avoid getting the **** kicked out of them by the laboring masses, because the winners are usually defined financially, not in terms of strength. E.g. I could kick the living **** out of Donald Trump, and in that way he would be a loser (literally dead). But we don't define winning and losing this way.

In short, it's all selfishness

 

It matters a lot, but you can create your own luck too.

 

Let's allow another 10 million illegal immigrants into this country so that we can berate poor people even more with cries of "if an illegal immigrant can do it..." Only this time we'll allow in non-laberers - doctors, engineers, programmers, etc. and what we can't fill with illegal immigrants we will offshore.

Then let's see what people think has lead to their success: luck or hard work.

 

America is as much the land of bureaucracy as it is opportunity; pretty much every career has a well-defined path and pipeline, so if you align your efforts with your abilities, plan early enough and sufficiently compartmentalize your social and recreational indulgences then you'll reach your goal or something near it.

 

so...like having a dynamic, flexible labour system but with more skilled people?

Sign America up--TN visa agreements should be across the board, not just two random nations.

 

As for actually being on-topic, while I think luck is a huge part of success especially in how and where you're born, it isn't the only part, and you can have consecutive successes that go beyond the margin of error to suggest other significant parts of success. One I've observed is just pure perseverance under impossibly unfavorable odds.

I do think that in industries and places where there is more nepotism (i.e banking, politics, chummy parts of tech etc.) there is less interest to develop the latter--which often means talented people are underfitting their potential.

 

This is an interesting post but I do not think it is true for inner city kids and rural kids. The economic inequality just is not being resolved through regular institutions. **WARNING**WARNING**

 

if your goal was economic, and you were white, you were basically playing on easy mode for all of post-war America to the 90s thanks to non-redlined house values that didn't collapse being one of the main drivers of economic growth. Unfortunately, that may or may not be a once in a millennia sort of thing (or once in a hell of a large infrastructure upgrade thing).

 

I've read this before.


It doesn't prove that "luck matters more than you think."

It just says that people who feel lucky/fortunate are more generous

 

You have to define successful. Not everyone think financial success is being successful. But since that's the general take, I will assume that here.

Sometime it all luck (lottery winners).

Most of time, you need to have both. Luck/chances/opportunity itself without the right makeup (skills, mental, physical, etc) = likely a waste of luck/chance/opportunity. Any makeup itself without luck / chances / opportunity = someone that haven't been successful.

Take Microsoft. There is absolutely more than one Bill Gates, but there is only one Microsoft ever.

But, randomness would seem to said... everyone, given the same starting point, would have the same chances. Thus, makeup is what push you ahead. You can't control your initial starting point. You can only alter your makeup. The things to recognize here seem to be, of course hard work count. And of course, not everyone was given the same starting point. Individual should solely focus on their own makeup, while society can play a part in helping those less fortunate, whether that's due to nature or human doing.

 

I think both luck and hard work matter, but I think it's hard to be successful without working hard

 

Spoiler

 

And to anyone who has reservations or grievances: f them?

 

what fact-based grievances? illegal immigrants currently have no observed significant effect on wages--immigrants as a whole are statistically twice as likely to found a company as a native (in fact, 40% of the Fortune 500 were founded by first or second gen immigrants), and immigrants commit equal or less crime than natives. so I'm curious what grievances there are.

The only thing I can think of is the need to balance certain economic transitions, which requires a strong welfare state and basic income-- and it's not exactly immigrants fighting against that.

The current economic underperformance Americans are undergoing can be more squarely blamed to financial trickery, the consequences of open trade of goods on certain sectors, and technology rather than labour inflows and outflows.

All problems that can be mitigated with a healthy, dynamic and entrepreneurial taxbase thanks to imported skilled labour.

How do I know that works? Well, Silicon Valley is basically more or less a hive of quasi-legal immigrants doing the same.

"I don't know--I have a feeling in a few years people are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks--they will be blaming poor people and immigrants."

 

Agreed. Thought this article was a nice enough read, but I'm not sure how the OP says this "explains a lot of the conflict between conservatives and liberals".

 

In the article, Conservatives will say the parent prepared the son by planning, coaching, teaching and guiding their kids. Hard work between the parent and the kid had everything to do with the kid's success. Luck has very little to do with the kid's success.

Liberals will say, the son was lucky because he was born to rich parents. Hard work had very little to do with this.