That's one big paradox.
Coming from poverty, I work with plenty of talented people, but nowhere as talented as the people I've studied in shitty schools.
Now most of those people from my poverty times continue to be poor, because of many problems poverty brought to them. I can clearly see that, and that I was the lucky one to find a way up many times.
Yet, my new social circle believe that I'm talented because of my DNA and efforts, and blame others for their poverty.
But I know that those people making "poor" decisions in the view of riches are actually just trying to survive. With themselves, with the baggage they carry, and to the fact that they weren't as lucky as me.
Talent, intelligence is literally everywhere. People that are awesome and ambitious is abundant.
Nobody is really much better than others, but America post-ww2 managed to sell this idea to everyone, including many really smart and talented folks, that think they are gifted.
To sum up, nobody chooses to be poor and humanity could progress faster if we focused instead in eliminating poverty, creating more possibilities for everyone...
Than believing almost trillionaries will guide us to where we need it.
Some people are indeed much better. Anyone who played sports as a kid understands this. Huge differences are immediately apparent in small children. But generally, I agree that, for most life tasks, the differences between people are not enormous. Humanity could do a much better job eliminating poverty. In the future, we may view enormous disparities in wealth as evil as we do racism today.
Better at sports .. but I bet there's a fairly even distribution between people who have money and don't.
A lot of people already do.
And a lot of people would be very wrong. There’s a floor to survivability, below which you can’t keep yourself alive, but there is no ceiling. If everyone is above the floor, there’s no reason for concern about those looking for the ceiling.
In the future we’ll pull people up to the floor, but that doesn’t require attaching a ceiling. The will never be a successful society that substantially punishes achievement above a certain point.
Depends how much the people at the top (money-wise) are playing zero-sum games. If they are, to a large extent, engaging in asset acquisitions and passive growth of eg real estate, or monopolistic protectionism, then there’s plenty of room for others to engage in activities with positive externalities instead.
There’s no question a lot of people don’t get the opportunity to pursue their niche passions and drives, based on a bad birth lottery ticket. There’s a lot of wasted potential in countries that reduce aperture of the early success funnels.
The issue is, a lot of the people at the top engage in business practices that actively disenfranchise people at the bottom.
Their wealth actually comes from those people who have so little.
Stop peddling this absolute fabrication that there's unlimited wealth and the super rich should be left get richer still.
You're going to need to do a lot of work to demonstrate that wealth is zero-sum, as it doesn't comport with any well-respected economic model I'm aware of.
But even granting that, a government that creates a "survival floor" would protect against wealth-seeking in a world where it was zero-sum. The floor only needs to be high enough to allow people not to be held to the floor should they desire to participate in the accumulation of wealth and its ensuing benefits.
The whole point is to incentivize value creation.
Edit: You really won't like what this paper [0] has to say:
[0] https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/...
If the people who ran that study were really as smart as they pretend to be, as they are from Harvard, they would understand how even their own thoughts, the language they speak and so on, all happened because they were lucky.
Let me repeat to you, as you seem unable to read and comprehend what I have previously written, it can be reading comprehension issue, so I won't judge you negatively like Harvard, an elitist school would, here it is:
Talent is everywhere. It's abundant. There is an immense amount of hard-working people that even if they don't believe in "zero-sum", get nowhere. They still wake up every day early, work much harder than you ever will in your life, but are still in a shithole and this situation will stay as it is until they perish.
That study was done by one of the most well-known universities, full of privilege in a country that managed to have its reigns on the world for so long, an empire.
Let's think together. It would be strange if either the study or the University would conclude that people work really hard. And are as talented as the people able to attend Harvard, but because they were unlucky and that the world is unfair, they couldn't.
That would be a big counterargument to Harvard's selection process, it wouldn't feel it's a really deserving university, nor that the creator of the study is as good as he believes to be. Why would anybody want to pay for its overpriced curriculum that are literally books you could buy it at Amazon? I'm not saying it is all fake, but you can understand how much reputation is bought, not acquired.
You aren't special, nor the thought of zero-sum thinking is what creates poverty. People are drawn into those ideas, not because of stupidity, but lack of luck.
Stop pretending you have so much control of yourself and your thoughts, read more science and you'll see how all those conclusions you believe to be true are really naive.
A sad fact about the world is that one can work hard and end up accomplishing very little for their effort. "Working hard" may be a necessary condition for pulling oneself out of poverty (or very near to one, at any rate), but it's not even close to being sufficient.
I would even argue that "working hard" is dying, if not already dead, as a means of escaping poverty in developed nations.
What matters substantially more is working "intelligently," which is even harder for those in poverty, given their lack of education.
I grant you all of this (for argument's sake). However, none of it actually addresses the merits of the "zero-sum" claim about capitalism or the claim that economic disparity will in the future be regarded in the same way as racism.
Also maybe I'm blind, but I don't think we've interacted before.
I'm sorry. I consider you either very sheltered from poverty, delusional or both.
I just gave you a long answer, now you have no excuse to complain, but I agree with lwhi. You can only be either of those, or both.
Why would anyone give heed to such a vague, unsupported claim? Would you care if an Internet stranger simply declared you, "sheltered from poverty or delusional" without offering any explanation at all?
Both activities happen in the same economy. Zero-sum or negative-sum activities are plenty. Asset speculation is one such area where the first, second and third order effects are all completely useless to society as a whole, and lack meaningful externalities. Yet people invent the most far-fetched fairy tales to explain why golden handcuffing the brightest math and physics phds to work for hedgies/hfts is a critical piece of human progress.
The truth is markets work great for some things and terrible for other things. When you make a means a goal you always end up with absurdity, in any system.
That's not true; speculation is the absorption of risk, an immensely useful financial tool. For example, farmers require speculators to secure guaranteed revenue from crops. Landlords create (yes, they create) housing for people who can't afford to purchase homes by ensuring capital flow into housing construction, among other things.
Investors take on risk in exchange for additional reward. The upside is the people who can't afford the risk have safe ways to protect themselves.
In an ideal world, we could first ban those practices, and only resort to punitive wealth/income taxes [1] if/when those measures fail to resolve the problem. The problem is regulatory/legislative capture by the wealthy. But I have doubts wealth caps would solve that - organizations such as WIPO or the BSA don't need multi-billionaire members to lobby effectively. A wealth cap would just multiply the number of shareholders.
[1] In the sense that they are intended to prevent ultra-richness, instead of merely filling government budget shortfalls from the pockets of those who can most afford it.
You're wrong.
Fundamentally it requires redistribution and a complete change of mindset.
A shallow dismissal is less valuable than an excellent critical comment. Please share with me (and others) what's wrong with my thinking. I'm trying to be transparent about my reasoning in child comments, so hopefully, you will have enough to work with.
An excellent critical comment is wasted on a shallow argument… your thinking assumes that reaching beyond the metaphorical ceiling doesn’t require standing atop those still struggling to reach the metaphorical floor… it absolutely and necessarily does. Worse, you seem to think that reaching for means that vastly outstrip your need is somehow noble. It isn’t… it’s pathetic.
If Jimmy turns a piece of wood and some graphite into a pencil, he has created value. That didn't require exploiting the lumberjack or the miner. Jimmy did not steal value from either. He created value by inventing a new way for their raw materials to be useful to other people. Jimmy didn't need to "stand atop" anyone to do this.
What's "pathetic" are the ad hominems and insults the people in this thread have to resort to when they can't argue like adults. You're not right because you're angry, and you weaken your advocacy by trying to use your frustration as leverage over people giving reasoned arguments.
If Jimmy only ever prototyped the pencil by collecting and working the wood and graphite himself then, sure, he didn’t exploit anyone… as soon as he went into business employing others to manufacture those pencils he started to. The moment he concentrated the means of pencil production in his own hands he started to exploit both his raw suppliers — that graphite miner’s health woes are the fruit of Jimmy’s demand — and his employees. In the end it was the people actually turning the raw materials into pencils that made the value; the invention added nothing until someone’s labour was exploited.
Jimmy didn't do any of those things. The claim was that Jimmy can't produce value, but he did.
And even so, the work the people making the pencils for Jimmy would not exist without Jimmy. Jimmy, in yet another way, provides value. Jimmy figured out to put the wood with the graphite, not them. Who actually does it is irrelevant; or are you suggesting that if Jimmy kept his operation entirely mechanical, that'd be better?
Apart from this example being overly reductive and not rooted in reality, the hypothetical Jimmy would eventually be replaced by someone else who would invent this pencil.
There is no truth that needs a single person to be uncovered. There are infinitely many people able to invent the pencil given enough tries and time. This also makes the argument of original thought not being original.
We are made and influenced by our surroundings and thus the ideas we form must necessarily be a product of those surroundings.
So, even if Jimmy had the idea to "invent" the pencil, he will not be the first one who did. He might be the first one with enough capital to execute (as in buy machines and factories, hire workers and exploit them for their labor and scale the business to planet-scale) and this is where it gets ugly.
You don't need to resort to extremely basic non-real world examples to show how capitalism works out when we live in a world full of capitalism.
Just because something seems like it _should_ be possible, doesn't mean that other worse consequences won't manifest.
This is absolutely not where most of billionaires' wealth comes from. You are being naive if you think this is how they make money.
It absolutely does, right up until the exact future moment when EVERYONE is pulled up above (well above) the (bottom) floor. In other words no one should be at liberty to seek the ceiling until EVERYONE is out of the basement.
There has never been a successful society that hasn’t.
Again, you rely on the utterly false notion of a "zero-sum" economy, when in fact it may only be possible to pull everyone out of poverty if we allow people to be proportionately rewarded for their contributions.
That _may_ be true (though the fact that we _have long_ allowed them such rewards and they certainly have not pulled everyone out of poverty seems to auger against that hypothesis) until you prove that conclusively, however, we should continue to proportionally tax them on their earnings.
"Prove conclusively" is not how any of this works.
Can you explain your reasoning?
As I do hold degrees in the field studying this very question, may I kindly ask for your sources? Or, not being greedy here, reasons...?
I would bet entire dollars you'll hate this source, but here's one: "The Magnificent Progress Achieved By Capitalism: Is the Evidence Incontrovertible?" [0]
Here's a less insane one: "Comparative Economic Systems: Capitalism and Socialism in the 21st Century" [1]
Another one: "Economic Systems and Economic Growth" [2]
It's not really controversial in your field to claim that rewarding effort is a superior model to spreading out value evenly. The question is more of "to what extent" or even "what is achievement."
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/41560252
[1] https://www.bu.edu/eci/files/2021/08/Comparative-Economic-Sy...
[2] https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/87244/1/MPRA_paper_87244.pdf
What's un-controversial is claims like "There will never be..." are bullshit.
Quality contribution; thanks for commenting.
Same vibe here.
The ceiling is there because without it, a minority of people eventually acquire enough wealth and political power than comes from it, that it dominates entire society, to its detriment. Just look at Mexico or Ukraine as examples of what happens when there's no reasonable ceiling.
What ceiling are you talking about? AFAICT there is no earnings or wealth ceiling in the Western world, and there certainly isn't one in the United States.
I'm not really sure that "it's okay if the billionares have space palaces so long as the poor aren't literally dying" is the optimal economic philosophy.
Yeah seriously, it's pretty much standard at this point.
Anyone with a little bit of nutritional knowledge knows that having a nutritious diet is a major part of athletic competitiveness. Poverty limits or eliminates the ability of a parent to provide nutritious meals.
There's certainly going to be a level of natural talent that exists, but everyone who comes from poverty are playing with major handicaps.
Poverty makes small children.
Genetics probably play the biggest role when it comes to natural abilities. Height, strength, explosiveness, body proportions, endurance.
This is inconsistent with the fact that average height has increased significantly over the last two centuries[1]. Our genes have not had time to change in that span, but our environment, including access to nutrients, has changed radically.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
Taller than average people are most successful in certain sport. Basketball, volleyball, etc
Shorter than average are very rare in most sports except for some niche positions.
gymnastics and olympic weightlifting actually both favor shorter statures.
Lots of top athletes come from either poor countries or from poverty within non-poor countries.
NFL teams are full of players who grew up in poverty and ate fast food and processed junk during the formative years of their lives.
There are a bunch of studies around the impact of poverty on athletics. Take this article with a bunch of them [1].
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Just because you can show that "hey, some poor people are awesome athletes" doesn't negate the fact that by and large you can predict who is even participating in sports based on their household income.
I'd also like to challenge you to provide numbers. What percentage of top athletes came from poverty? Not poverty nations, or cities, but actual poverty.
[1] https://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/fulltext/2021/09000/dispa...
I can also tell you I was homeless as a child and went to college on an athletic scholarship.
there's some truth here but it's being overblown.
the parents bear responsibility too, they are the ones responsible for feeding their kids. Poverty gets in the way, but poor parental choices and neglect share the blame. (I know personal responsibility is too passé these days, so sorry to bring up the topic).
And the time of the year you're born, too! Holy shiiit this fucked me up as a kid.
I always thought I was just "bad at sports," but I was born in August, so I was playing against a lot of kids who had up to like 11 months of development on me. That's _huge_ when you're a little kid.
A lot of those kids were "indeed much better." Because they were nearly a full year older!
At what? I consider myself a quick thinker and generally high IQ. But my sister has a way of connecting with children that I will never be able to replicate.
So who is "much better"? And at what?
High IQ. I don’t believe in IQ but the commenters above are discussing inherent talents that our society chooses to reward.
Ps, I personally don’t find “I’m smarter than you but at least you can do X” to be a super comforting thing. I’m sure that comment makes sense in your context with your sister, but I definitely bristle whenever I read it. Smacks of prideful engineers & scientists trying to appear nice while still affirming their base insecurities about being superior to others.
But maybe all that’s just pedantic
I think the comment you're replying to has the same sentiment, ie who is to say what "talent" is better than any other
You just said it yourself, you are much better at abstract thinking, while your sister is much better at connecting with children.
I don’t think the OP was saying that most people are the same, he was saying that most people have talent. In your sports analogy think about the kid who might be good at wrestling but terrible at track. And vice versa. The worry is that more affluent people sub-consciously see themselves as “better” in a universal way. That is not too different then European aristocracies used to see themselves.
I don't believe there is a special part of your brain that allows you to be good at say chess, but leaves you with no potential in football (soccer). Of course some people are naturally faster than others or have a higher endurance peak but anything that involves working with your mind comes down to working memory (incredibly important), long term memory and spatial reasoning. That's why you will often see people talented at one thing change careers and still be successful. A good example is a Norwegian grandmaster who was also a national team football player: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simen_Agdestein
Also having good grades in math predicts having good grades across the board, including English.
My limited anecdata does not support this. The kids who are the best on my children's sport teams are the ones who play club sports in addition to the regular season, who go to sport camps and are on multiple teams. It's clear why they are better. They spend all their time not in class, playing or practicing.
Financially, we are at least peers to all these families that spend so much time on sports but we don't prioritize it the same way so my kids are mid level players.
Obviously genetic differences do account for some variability especially at the extremes. A 190cm sophomore is going to have an easier time on the basketball court than a 165cm kid.
I don’t think it is obvious how much is talent, and how much is sort of… path dependent or something. We enjoy doing things we’re good at in general, so we do them more, and get more practice as a result.
Huge differences among small children could be something as arbitrary as “this kid is just under a year older, and as a result 10% more mature,” or “this kid has played a similar sport.”
The correlation of IQ with income is 0.30[0]. Educational attainment is 0.32. So if you are intelligent (talented) or educated then you are statistically likely to have above average income. If you have both even more so.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... (https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.02....) page 5 table 1.
I didn't read the paper, but are we sure that A (wealth/education) follows B (IQ) and not vice versa?
We are almost sure that genetics (and perhaps nutrition) are the main determinants of IQ. We won't have a complete answer until most of the genes that affect intelligence are found. With regard to your specific question of if educational attainment is the main factor in causing IQ to increase, that would mean that everyone at high-school would have the same IQ because they all have the same educational attainment (inasmuch as what "educational attainment" means in this paper). Wealth of one's parents is a harder problem. I believe that it is not a significant contributing factor beyond not being malnourished. This is based on the fact that the average IQ of some poor countries is higher than the average IQ of some richer countries. But like I said a complete solution to this problem, or – more boldly – an answer that blank-slatists would have no choice but to accept, would involve a more complete understanding of the genetic component including most genes as well as relevant ncDNA sequences.
Genetics account for roughly half of the variation of intelligence between individuals.
That leaves a ton of room for other factors, such as nutrition, health, and education, to create significant disparities.
Do you have a source for that claim? Might you be misquoting a different popular statistic that g accounts for roughly have of intelligence between individuals? Or perhaps the figure that intelligence is about 50% heritable?[0] It is important to note that heritability of a trait and the extent to which a trait is genetically caused are not the same. It is possible for a trait to be eg. 80% caused by genetics and only 60% heritable, even on the average. This can be the case where the trait is defined by multiple genes (and non-coding DNA) where the proportion of the different genes matters and where specific combinations of genes are necessary. Also heritability of intelligence has been reported as higher than 75%.
[0] Eg. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01027-y#Sec8
I pulled that number from this article and I am pretty sure I paraphrased it correctly: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-h...
The article may be conflating genetics with other types of biological hereditability, (such as epigenetics?) however I think that is generally pretty common and fine in every lay conversations.
My subjective impression from the correlation studies that I have seen is that the remainder largely is a long list of purely negative factors - i.e. in the "nurture" stage there are many ways to screw up the development of children with a large impact, but limited ways to meaningfully improve it over the genetic 'baseline'.
I.e. the correlation of nutrition in IQ is mostly driven by malnutrition, not by differences between great nutrition and mediocre nutrition; the impact of parenting is heavily driven by the outlier cases of severe abuse or deprivation, not the differences between great parenting and mediocre parenting, the impact of peer groups is largely set by the minority of cases that result in severe addiction or gang membership, not the difference between lousy friends and great friends, etc - that's the pattern that I seem to see there.
Even if genetics is the "main determinant" what does that mean? Is it the the plurality of determinants? 51% correlation? 99%? Depending on the number, there's lots of room there for other factors.
I think you're oversimplifying with your example regarding educational attainment. The results say it's not a 1:1, so not all high school students would be marked the same, but it would mean that if you finished your post doc you're likely to score higher than someone who didn't complete grade 9. Would we argue that graduating high school or going on to do graduate work is simply as a matter of intelligence and not a more complex web of economic, social, and cultural factors?
I think you missed my point re. educational attainment. My point is that if education attainment only exists as a difference after high-school (for the most part). Therefore if "IQ follows educational attainment" IQ would be the same until after high-school. I do think wealth, nutrition and education have some effect on IQ. I do not know to what extent. You had asked if we are sure that IQ follows those other factors. To answer completely, IQ follows genetics as well as other factors, mainly genetics. I truly believe that this is a scientific question that can be answered with observation. I think in twenty years or less we will have cataloged most of the genes that affect intelligence and the nature vs. nurture argument will have a direct answer. (or, at least, the nature side of the equation will be mostly solved.) Currently the hardware to collect this data is expensive (Illumina machines are $1M last I checked) and the methods of analyzing the data are somewhat crude (eg. GWAS). As these two fronts advance more and more genes will be found until most of it is known.
If you control for socioeconomic status of the parents (which does have a big impact and definitely has to be controlled for, and is controlled for in every reasonable study), the socioeconomic status and educational attainment of the kids is still correlated with their IQ.
That's correlation at best (as you said, but worth emphasizing).
And IQ is a problematic metric for anything other than how good you are at taking IQ tests.
IQ measurement definitely has major flaws.. But IQ is better correlated with job performance than job interviews are.
As they say, perfect is the enemy of good. IQ tests are good. We do ourselves no favors by attempting to downplay what standardized testing tells us.
After a point, say 130 IQ, the differences between people's capacity become intangible. But there is certainly a big difference between someone under 80 IQ and someone with 130 IQ, which is why the US military doesn't even accept individuals under 80 IQ.
IQ tests are not exactly designed for poor people, eh?
Are they not? Most I've seen tend to be sorts of abstract pattern matching things. As opposed to basing IQ on ability to play piano or other traits less prevalent in poor communities.
Obviously nothing is perfect but it seems disingenuous to claim they're not designed for poor people to be able to complete them.
Since men make more money than women, does that mean men are smarter than women?
Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe statistics isn't the crystal ball it seems.
Coming from the middle class, I've never met anybody talented coming from a shitty school who didn't also get filtered into a gifted program at a good school. Maybe your school system just wasn't competent at filtering people?
Those that I know who have made bad life decisions (kids too early, dropping out of college, leaving extremely supportive parents) could totally have been expected to based off looking at GPA/SAT signals.
I'm not sure I understand this one.. how would you know the gifted program missed them if they're now spending their life dealing with poverty? I'm guessing you don't mingle with the poors?
I've never met anyone that lives their entire life in the middle of a rainforest. So weird!
Also what the fuck is a gifted program lmao. That must be some London thing, aye? We were lucky to have teachers of the subject teaching the class up north haha
Gifted programs are American things. Talking to my California born partner it seems to be a kind of streaming thing. They don’t seem to have as much ability setting here as I was used to in UK (where for certain subjects classes are split by ability.)
Ahhh, gotcha. The focus on UK in the article and many comments put me in a UK-centric mindset. My bad there.
Aye we had splits in some subjects like that. Weirdly all the rich kids (for my town, mostly middle class really) were in the top classes and the poor kids in the bottom haha
Even if such programs exist and exceptionally talented people get filtered into them, it completely ignores the fact that there is still a huge disparity in outcome for people who are merely modestly above average.
many schools in the US will take the most gifted students and put them in advanced classes. They typically move faster.
In most poor countries, there isn't even such a thing as "gifted" programs.
And those that do, there's so much competition that people in deep poverty can never join it, you'd see mostly lower-middle class people.
Perhaps leave the US, travel for a while and you'll see that the average US life experience is very different in comparison to the rest of the world.
And to wrap up, a lot of gifted kids end up never having the opportunity to study in a school or environment that catapults them into any kind of gifted program.
Just be glad you were born American and start comprehending that you are lucky, but most of the world isn't. The best you can do.
Quite.
I have a similar experience but have a different opinion.
I am 100% lucky that I was in the right place at the right time so that I could be offered the opportunities that I had.
But I think you have to be disciplined in that you must try and try and try to do everything in your power to put yourself in the right place. Of course, even if you do this, you might never be given the opportunity. But if you don't try, you _definitely_ won't.
Many of the people I grew up with did not do this. They had the ability to do it, but they lacked initiative or the ambition. They were complacent with what they had, even though it was very little.
Not everyone comes from an unbroken home, or had a support network to do these things - I get that. But I see many people that could do better and just don't do it for what I'd guess is because it's hard. Instead they make bad decisions that are easy and increase quality of life on the short term: racking up debt, having kids at a young age without a career, etc.
Do people not shoulder some of the blame in today's information age?
A lot of talented people try hard and end up in poverty.
Luck > any attribute (IQ, etc)
Strongly disagree. I went to an average school in Russia where I was from one of the poorest families, then hung out a few times with people from a selective maths focused school where I was invited but didn't go to because I was lazy, then later lived for a few years in a worse neighborhood and hung out with my neighbors (ranging from ex cons to people working construction and loading dock), and I've worked in tech obviously.
Sure there are better and worse people everywhere, but on average the more meritocratic the system, the more poor people suck! With the exception of immigrants who start from 0.
In completely non-meritocratic system like Soviet Union you could have people living next door to each other in similar conditions, who went to the same schools and had the same opportunities, and one would be a Physics professor and the other a raging alcoholic. A system where equality is not forced just sorts them better.
Many people are really much better than others at most things, including merely being a decent worker/friend/partner. And many are worse
These things are cultural and collective in nature, they're not the fault of any individual. "Poor people suck" in Russia and elsewhere because their upbringing has failed to educate them with the middle-class values that are the foundation of any genuinely prosperous society. (To be sure other things are important too, such as social cohesion and even some degree of egalitarianism.)
> humanity could progress faster if we focused instead in eliminating poverty, creating more possibilities for everyone...
Those with the wealth and the power to change this, don't have an interest in spreading out welfare and therefore making themselves less wealthy and powerful in the process, but enriching themselves or at least maintaining the status quo, and that usually comes at the expense of keeping those less fortunate where they are.
A lot of goods and services that we take for granted in the west, like commodities in our daily lives: cheap cocoa, cheap coffee, cheap exotic fruits, cheap sneakers and clothing, cheap electronic gadgets, all rely on an underclass of less fortunate people who have no choice in life but be prisoners in a neo-slavery system where they have to work in their given conditions for the give pay, with no way up or out.
Please google and check out the human exploitations going on in cocoa and coffee farming at your own discretion.
Do you think the kids and adults working on those farms for pennies in the beating sun and bitten by mosquitos, wouldn't rather do something else with their lives than picking coffee beans, like go to school/university and work in an office? But if we would spread welfare for them to have that choice, who would then choose work in those bad conditions for nothing to provide western consumers with cheap commodities? Robots aren't even remotely there yet. Same with mining minerals to make iPhones, PlayStations and EVs.
If we were to make their lives and jobs fair while also watching over the environment, then the price of commodities would explode, so the mega conglomerates who own these markets, like Nestle or Apple for example, would have to take a missive hit on their profits, or the western consumers would have to stomach the explosion in prices, or both simultaneously, neither of which are acceptable trade-offs in the west, so we keep the status quo of having to rely on perpetual underclasses of people slaving away in poverty for us, while pretending we're great humanitarians and benefactors.
I said "we" here, because it's not just the great evil billionaires like Bezos, Jobs, Saudis, and so many others who profit from and enable this exploitation, but also the western governments like US, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. where they're HQ but have the audacity to lecture them on human rights and environment concerns, plus the individual shareholders, employees, taxpayers and consumers who enable them as well.
Sure, a lot of people in poor nations got out of poverty "thanks" to globalization and mega conglomerates outsourcing of less desirable manufacturing and services there, but let's not forget they didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts, but to extract even more profits. People getting out of poverty was just a happy side effect.
Well said, I think we would be friends. Please send me an email at the link in my bio if you want!
It's hard to explain what life is like as a formerly very poor™ person to people who have never experienced it.
Like, every once in a while I get a craving for poverty comfort foods like ramen with frozen veggies, a slice of American cheese, and a sliced up microwaved hotdog.
Or trying to explain why it's so hard for me to let go of a 20 year old pickup truck that still works because I used to sleep in it.
Or how no matter how much money I earn now I always feel poor and one step away from homelessness.
How I won't go and buy new clothes, why I shop at thrift stores and pawn shops when I can afford new, how I don't feel like I own anything, why I always plan for and expect the worst out of every event and encounter I have, how I dedicate my self to working hard so that the places I work at can't "afford" to fire me, so much so that I have been accused of being an overworker and a slave driver.
On an income basis I'm probably at the top for my entire family right now, but years of homelessness and over a decade of extreme poverty have made their marks on my life and I don't know if it will ever get better. I could win the lottery and I'd still be cutting coupons and searching deal sites for discount codes, wearing discount clothes and shopping in pawn shops.
you can reprogram your brain.
Journaling and meditation have helped me a lot, and I've heard of others who have had success with therapy.
If these habits/accumulated traumas are causing you pain, know that there are ways to heal that. :)
Stephen Jay Gould said it best:
That is it. Just imagine. We would already have found all rules that govern our universe.
I agree with you, talent's abundant. Something is very badly wrong with our societies and economic systems if so much of that talent is in the mud and unusable.
This took me several decades to grasp and then "forgive" myself for not being the person I wanted to be. I also think it is a message that is worth spreading, particularly among young folks.
It's quite easy to amalgamate the concept of meritocracy with that of success, such that a lack of the latter implies a lack of the former. This is (or, at least for me, it was) an endless supply of anxiety of pain, which is completely unfounded.
Everyone fails dozens of times before hitting on something good, it's just the nature of things. Some lucky people can just fail as much as they need to, while some other's can't even afford to try even once. I read this somewhere else and stuck with me, "people don't make better choices, they just have better choices".
Luck is the big differentiator.
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite...
A university professor's personal observations about how a typical city college student faces myriad obstacles to success with little support, whereas a typical student at an elite college must practically struggle to fall through all the safety nets and actually fail. The article should be required reading for anyone who is or has been in any way involved with a higher-tier university in the United States.
I think plenty of people are well aware of this. That's why parents insist for the best possible education for their children - they know that it's the credentials carried by the diploma, and not the child's actual talents (or lack or thereof) will decide the future quality of life of the child. Cue in tutoring, extensive paid college exam/SAT prep etc.
Associating wealth with discipline and virtue is a successful propaganda campaign with framing rooted in strict father / conservative worldview.
Per George Lakoff (full interview: https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10... )
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.
So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.