Let’s not confuse the issue by changing too many things at once.
Let’s start by first combining our scenarios: Now there are both unlucky and lazy people. Lucky and lazy people both have access to food; lazy people just don’t want to do the work to gather it. Unlucky people don’t have access to food, and will starve to death. We can’t tell the lazy from the unlucky.
Now, if we re-distribute, the unlucky will live but the lazy will free-ride. If instead we choose not to redistribute, we punish the lazy but the unlucky will starve to death.
Now you tell me; how many unlucky are we willing to let starve to punish the lazy? I’d like a number here; for instance, are you willing to let 5 unlucky people starve to death if it means punishing 10 lazy people?
Once we’ve made this decision we can move on to a discussion of luxury goods.
Even among those who started life poor and worked their way into middle-class living and beyond, a very high number them did so only because they randomly crossed paths with someone who was in a position to open doors for them.
My ex-BF is a great example of this. Came from a crappy homelife, abandoned by his mom and living with a broke, indifferent, uneducated father. He lucked out when his 10th grade dance teacher took a liking to him–a tall, gangly, blonde-haired kid with a silly sense of humor–and informally adopted him into her household. This lady pushed him into college, nagged him into filling out his FAFSA forms, and was his coach and cheerleader when he needed. Took him to his doctor’s appointments when he tore his ACL; gave him money, food, shelter. Then later in his early 30’s (after we broke up), when he quit his job to pursue a MBA and spent half a year looking for work, she let him live in the basement for as long it took for him to get on his feet (which he eventually did). Now he’s living like a stereotypical yuppy.
From firsthand experience, I know my ex-'s work ethic is nothing to write home about. His intelligence and maturity level are average at best (which is why we broke up). He was poor as a kid and more than likely would have stayed poor had he not made the life-changing decision to sign up for a silly dance class in the 10th grade.
Bingo! This is what I was talking about even more than my example. This is an example of luck beyond simple accidents of birth- it’s being in the right place at the right time, and having some luck to go along with it.
That luck is what seems to make the difference between moderate and spectacular success, and between moderate success and moderate failure. It isn’t usually going to make someone go from living in a cardboard box to a CEO position, but neither is bad luck usually going to make someone who has made prudent decisions and worked hard be instantly poverty stricken either.
Hence the “usually” part. I realize that some urine-soaked bum might buy a Powerball ticket and win 200 million dollars, and that would certainly be good luck, but it’s extraordinarily unlikely, just like it’s unlikely that sheer bad luck would take someone from a reasonably secure middle class existence and plunge them into abject poverty, minus some fairly bad decisions on their part (no homeowner’s insurance, no savings, spending above their means, etc…)
Does the ex-BF get no credit for deciding to go to college, completing his degree and then later going on to get an MBA?
Yes, luck and circumstances and innate ability certainly play a role. But it is insulting to imply that all it takes to be successful is to go off to college and receive some certificate indicating your eligability to join the middle and upper middle classes.
Here is the problem with your scenario. Presumably it does actually require “work” to gather food. And we can probably assume it will require work to distribute it to people who are unlucky since they are unable to get at it themselves. So the question for everyone becomes “why should I work so hard just so someone else can reap the benefits of my labor?”
Of course he gets credit! But neglecting to take luck and external influences into account, and just attributing his success to the obvious stuff (e.g., going to school, applying to jobs), would lead one with an incomplete understanding of the full picture here.
Luck ultimately is what put him on the path to success. Advancing his educating and refining himself is what kept him on that path.
A lot of kids that are as capable and self-motivated as he was will not become successful because the path remains elusive to them. They don’t have a Mrs. Feinberg to rescue and guide and nag them in the right direction.
You with the face, you never answered my questions above (which is fine if you don’t want to, but maybe you just didn’t see it). The questions boil down to: why do you feel it is necessary to discuss luck so much?
Also, on the response above re: discussing luck as a way to engender empathy–what does that have to do with how to construcÞ a society? That is, I see policy arguments about how to organize as completely separate from my own feelings of empathy for the down-trodden. I need more to advocate a new government program than “it will help people I feel empathy toward.”
Finally, Evil Economist, I just don’t think your example does anything for us here. It’s so far removed from the real world that it can’t really produce a fruitful discussion.
I’m sorry. Others answered this question a while back. I thought it was fairly obvious by now why I’m emphasizing it in this discussion.
I’m discussing luck “so much” because it is a major reason why poor people are poor. Whatever role that intelligence (or the lack thereof) plays, it’s usually overshadowed by external circumstances that greatly hinder upward mobility.
Well consider that its ultimately in society’s best interest to help less fortunate folks, because one day those less fortunate folk may be stealing your car, robbing your bank, or mugging you in the alley. Does that sound like fun for you?
Or, to spin it less negatively, if society does more to help the less fortunate, then a person who otherwise would have been unproductive might one day develop, say, a new energy source that is clean, plentiful, and amazingly profitable for our country. Thus helping us all in some shape or form. Especially tax attorneys.
I mean, use your imagination here. I can think of a lot more reasons for helping unlucky people than not helping them.
But all government programs have goals, as does the removal of government programs. Some, like protecting the country, are pretty much universally shared, but we need to programs which help those we feel empathy towards with those which help the rich keep more money. Maybe some have more empathy to the rich than the poor, at least that’s the way it seems to me.
It is not just rich and poor. While the parents of my kids’ friends went to college, they went to relatively uninteresting schools or state schools. My wife and I both have graduate degrees, and know how colleges work. We gave them a lot more support in choosing and applying to colleges than their friends got, far beyond just the willingness to pay for it. I’d consider that luck on their part. Sure they got good grades, but people no more choose to be excessively studious than they choose to be straight or gay. They also got an extra boost from us giving a shit, but we never had to force them to do homework.
I figure if I had 50 fewer IQ points I’d be living under a bridge, which makes me a lot more sympathetic to those who weren’t lucky enough to be born with my advantages.
See, this is the problem I have with your line of thinking. You aren’t actually making a policy argument for any specific government program. You are just emphasizing luck as part of some fuzzy overall view that it’s a good thing to help poor people, and you don’t separate out the question of whether it’s best for that help to come in the form of private charity or government programs.
It’s crazy that you are expecting me to provide such information in response to a question like “Why do you feel it is necessary to discuss luck so much?”
Government programs exist because other solutions weren’t working. That is, government programs exist because private charities failed.
It’s funny, we have working examples of high-functioning, highly-equitable economies (basically all of Western Europe plus some Pacific Rim countries), but there are people out there who want to trash the whole system and replace it with something that doesn’t even work theoretically. (Hey guys, let’s replace food stamps with private charities! That’s been shown to work out well in the past, right?).
Let me ask you a question: you think luck doesn’t really play a part in outcomes? Then answer the following:
Even if you think the poor are less intelligent than the middle class, there’s probably substantial overlap in IQ between the poor and the middle class; that is, probably about half of the poor are smarter than probably about half of the middle class? So why are they poorer?
Even if you think the poor are lazier than the middle class, there’s probably substantial overlap in work ethic between the poor and the middle class; that is, probably about half of the poor are harder working than probably about half of the middle class? So why are they poorer?
Even if you think the poor are less educated than the middle class, there’s probably substantial overlap in education between the poor and the middle class; that is, probably about half of the poor are better educated than probably about half of the middle class? So why are they poorer?
Given the above, there must be poor people who are smarter, harder-working, and better-educated than some middle-class people. Why are they poorer?
Instead of what? Live forever? Everyone dies eventually.
Have you given away all your money to the homeless?
But lets presume that I decide to be compassionate and share some of my hard-earned food. How much should I give? Should I expect something in return? What happens if they want “more”? What if I decide I want to be one of the lazies and not look for food anymore?
Again, that random event only opens a door. Both the rich person and the poor person have to recognize the opportunity and make use of it.
Going all the way back to the beginning: even if we made university entrance a lottery system, winners still have to go to class. Simply being given an opportunity isn’t enough. I’ve accepted so many opportunities that others passed up. Since they were asked first, technically they’re luckier than me. Yet I made use of those opportunities and I’m now more successful.
So as far as I can tell, the difference between being successful isn’t about luck it’s about recognizing an opportunity.
It’s what I find so insulting about all of this. Crossing paths randomly happens so rarely as to be inconsequential for the discussion, and obviously where we differ because I was told to make your own luck. If meeting people in the recording industry is important for your career, you need to be in places where those people are. That guy isn’t going to come to your house and offer you a job. There are a lot of things people can do to increase their chances.
Or maybe it’s all just God’s divine plan, and God wanted those people to meet, who are we to question that?
If luck is the major reason poor people are poor, how are we supposed to help them? Will giving them money change their luck?
It seems preordained that the poor person is poor because he is unlucky, and thus will remain poor because he will remain unlucky.
If in that scenario someone cooked up about an unlucky person being unable to find food, what’s to say that providing him food will keep him from starving? If you take 35% of the apples I lucked upon, and distribute them to the unlucky, what’s to say they won’t continue to suffer bad luck like dropping the apple, getting e. coli, or choking to death?
And if you think I’m being difficult, consider how many people go bankrupt after winning the lottery. What percentage of winners do you suppose use that “luck” to better their lives, and what percentage of winners blow it all?