« 1991: Herman Cain Sings (Beautifully) Imagine There’s No Pizza (VIDEO)
One Months On: Random Observations On The Occupy Wall Street Protests »
Success: Luck or Work ?
Given the debates raised by Occupy Wall Street I thought I’d bring up this topic again, since it seems quite timely.
The basis of my original post was a caller to a local talk show. He was the father of 5, the youngest in her 5th year of college, so you figure he’s around 60ish. He grew up as one of 12 children in a working class family, not abject poverty but very tight money wise.
As teens he and his siblings were encouraged to go to college but were told they’d have to pay for it themselves as there was simply no way the parents could do so. They’d help with getting scholarships, etc but it was pretty much ‘when you’re 18 you’re on your own’.
The man and two of his brothers worked their way through school, which is not at all easy and all three got advanced degrees. They’ve worked since then to build a successful life and while none of them are rich they are all very comfortable, sort of upper middle class range.
Recently he attended a family reunion with all of his siblings. The nine who did not go to college are not as successful and some are unemployed. They all berated the man and his 2 brothers for not understanding ‘what they are going through’ and for being ‘rich’.
Now remember they all started out exactly the same, with the same opportunity and the same cost in terms of going to college. The caller stated that if he and his 2 brothers were asked to name the smartest kids in the family they’d all name one of the other nine, not each other.
So in theory they even started out a little behind in terms of intelligence.
But they chose to go to college and make sacrifices to succeed.
Of course I am sure there are differing reasons the other nine did not go and in some cases it might well have been less a lack of desire than something happened to prevent going. But still, I think this does illustrate how people do bear at least some responsibility for where they end up.
38 Responses to “Success: Luck or Work ?”
It is both, with work sometimes creating its own luck. There are too many different dynamics occurring in a persons life to use a story like this to make any kind of real point…great for politicians, “I have a friend named Joe, Joe the plumber”.
Growing up in the same house does not demonstrate that people have the same childhood experiences.
You must have equal opportunity to work your way up. You can’t step up the ladder if there is no rung there to step on.
Regardless of what national propaganda leads one to believe, we do not have equal opportunity in this country and there is little effort to correct this problem.
This is the political problem, not lethargy.
Allen, are you a Creationist or a Evolutionist? Let me just guess and say that you are the latter.
Where in the Evolutionist’s world is there a level playing field? It is survival of the fittest…the strong survive.
Many people who have been dealt a bad hand overcome the odds. We cheer these folks. Others whine and complain; we pity them.
We choose to be happy or sad regardless of our circumstances. We have a choice. Envy is what gets us into trouble. If you disagree, how would you explain the smiles and laughter from impoverished people in Africa and other parts of the world who live hand to mouth?
There is no such thing as a level playing field in the game of life. If there is no rung on the ladder in front of you, you had better start using your smarts and drive to figure out how to get to the first one. If you don’t, you will just be one of those who didn’t make it…an evolutionary process.
Mal-
Whether Evolutionist or Creationist has no bearing on civilization. If you want a world where people live like animals fine. I prefer continuing the long advancement toward a civilized world into which we have made great stride. You have to keep leveling to get a road. You won’t have a road if you give up at the first ant hill.
By your scenario and your backward Republican philosophy, those whom have not the smarts to get around that missing rung would be left to die in the streets. Which makes you anti Christian also.
Malcontent, We are left to assume from your post that you are a creationist. How else can we explain your poor understanding of evolution.
Evolution is not survival of the fittest. This was a term coined by opponents to evolution, creationists. In fact, evolution is the story of the most adaptable and the luckiest. It also is a story about complete species not individuals. All of which pretty much destroys your analogy.
In fact it does point out the weakness of the self-made man, overcoming tremendous odds to get an education and to succeed meme that you are trying to push. While they make great stories there is one problem. There are very few people who can do it. The OP talked about 3 out of 9 in their circumstances, which the story admits weren’t so dire.
Our evolutionary need as a society is the broad success of its members. Not the occasional superstar but improving the situation of all of each generation. We should be making it easier for the other 6 to make it in terms of the OP.
See, your weak analog was finally useful.
When I read or hear about “If there is no rung on the ladder in front of you, you had better start using your smarts and drive to figure out how to get to the first one,” I invariably think of some poor little kid in the slums of Calcutta or in the barrios of Mexico City, or for that matter in any of the teeming towns, cities or countries with so many missing rungs in the ladder — or no ladder at all.
Sure, some, a very, very few, will “make it,” but that is the exception.
We need to build more ladders with sufficient rungs in them to make the exception a little more common
Just a side note: since tuition has been outpacing inflation for many years, it’s getting almost impossible to work your way through college: you need the income from the degree to afford the degree. We don’t need to create ladders as much as stop destroying the ones that used to exist.
Fixing the perverse incentives in the student loan program would help.
Allen, everyone who disagrees with you is not a Republican. You are so far left, I know that it is hard for you to tell.
Professor Merkin…I am a little of both…when I look down at the earth from 35,000 ft. of put on a mask and snorkle and study a small 2′x2′ foot area of a coral reef, I am a creationist. A couple of amoeba didn’t plan and initiate all this.
When I study the scientific aspects, I know that the world was evolving long before man became the supreme being. I also scatch my head when someone said, “If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys”. Faith plays a big role in my thinking and is an intangible.
Your “it is a story of complete species, not individuals” is…excuse me Professor…a bunch of b.s. What you fail to do is breakdown what’s going on within the species order to insure that the next generation is bigger, stronger and better adapted than the last.
Here is a simple test of the advantages of working hard to overcome the odds idea. Ask how many of the 3 who succeeded despite the odds forced their own children to work their way through college. Odds are none of them did.
The most successful demographic in raising children who in turn are successful in their own right are the wealthy. And you can believe that the vast majority of these kids don’t work their way through college.
I discouraged my children from working in college. They would be able to earn so much more money once they got out of college than they could at the jobs they could get during college that it made no sense to prolong their time in college by working. They took money from their dad the whole way through to two BS’s in engineering, one a highest honors and the other a high honor, a MS, a MD and a PhD. Total time working outside of school, two summer internships, which I got them with my contacts. Both young adults now who work very hard as they did in college. Both with good jobs.
This is by far the norm in my upper middle class world here in Atlanta.
(Thanks as always for any thread that allows me to brag about my beautiful children.)
I’m also going to ask you, who think that people like me who understand that the playing field is never going to be level, why you assume that we are a non-caring bunch of “Republicans”.
Compassion and a helping hand can be, and are offerd, by many churches and conservative leaning people. To think otherwise is just ignorant.
Merkle….don’t disagree with your statements at all. The wealthy are at an advantage. They are always going to be…. and in a captialistic society, there are going to be “Have’s” and “Have not’s”.
Things are really out of whack right now because we are going through what the country was experiencing 100 years ago…the battle against the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, and the middle class disappearing. Teddy Roosevelt put his Square Deal package together and busted up the monopolies and the voting blocks which afforded them everything they wanted.
It is the same fight I see starting with Occupation Wall Street. The only thing lacking is a dynamic leader.
Sorry, but the scenario is just a little too perfect. This was a call in show, right? Anybody can call in to a call in show, right? And anybody can make up any story they like, right?
I’m surprised and a little disappointed that some story told on a call in show would be the basis for an article on TMV.
El Zagna… hypotheticals and suppositions are used all the time to make a point or get a rise out of someone.
Merkin gets an A+
I totally agree with you. I will discourage my kids from working during college.
Luck plays a massive role in evolution. Sudden changes in environment and a species ability to adapt or already match the new environment has been a major driver of evolution.
As I said before (maybe when this story was first posted), I think the relationship between “luck” and “hard work” is complicated and can’t be meaningfully distilled into a simple proportion. It suffices we to say that neither one appears to dominate over the other in terms of what makes people successful.
In my mind, the first question is: Should we attempt, through government policy, to minimum the effect of luck? My answer: Yes (a meritocratic position), but we need to be very careful about the side effects. How do we do it without also minimizing the effect of hard work?
From that perspective, I see value in the Occupiers drawing attention to some important issues, such as income (or, more broadly, opportunity) inequality, just as I value the tea partiers for drawing attention to issues such as the federal debt. However, attempting to correct for income inequality by shifting the tax burden seems to me the wrong approach. We would be treating the symptom, not the cause (no, our tax policy is not a significant driver of wealth inequality). Rather, I’d focus on issues such as education disparity (caused partly by problems with our education system, but partly by factors in society at-large). If, to address those issues, additional revenue is needed, we can discuss where that revenue should come from (ie. should we tax the rich more?). But that should be a means to an end rather than an end by itself.
merkin – “I discouraged my children from working in college.”
I follow your logic but, in my case, working in college I believe gave me a leg up when landing a job after college. Employers look for real-world experience to supplement book learning. That mostly applies only if the job relates to your anticipated career path, though.
There are other benefits to working also: it prepares you for a real work environment. It makes you more invested in your education.
My point is that it depends on individual circumstances, personalities, goals, etc.
My husband, who grew up in a family of five, was actively discouraged by his parents from going to college. So he had to work to to put himself through, and he is the only one of his siblings to do so. I admire his gumption.
I also grew up in a family of five. We were all expected to attend college and were given financial help to do so, although we all also worked part time and took out loans. Four of us hold advanced degrees. I have to say, I was really lucky to be born into a family like mine instead of one like my husband’s. I don’t feel like I ever worked very hard to achieve what I did. I enjoy learning, but I was too lazy to make really good grades. I didn’t attend a top school. I don’t think I worked any harder than my sibling who never graduate from college, although I did make better choices.
So for some of us, luck gets us through. Others have to work hard to accomplish the same thing.
“when I look down at the earth from 35,000 ft. of put on a mask and snorkle and study a small 2?x2? foot area of a coral reef, I am a creationist. A couple of amoeba didn’t plan and initiate all this.”
My goodness you are silly and impressionable. And tacky.
I accept your admission that you operate in part on faith. Faith by definition is belief not based on evidence. As with anything the question of reality verses fantasy depends on the degree of each and where they are applied. But I would say that applying a theory you don’t understand to support a personal belief based on your faith in the work ethic is pretty far into fantasy.
When I drove on the coral reefs I was amazed at the complexity and diversity the rather simple mechanism of evolution, natural selection, can produce. And this doesn’t require mythology or the supernatural to explain.
Once again it is not always a matter of bigger and stronger, it is a question of adaptability to changes in the environment. The dominance of the mammals started with rat sized animals surviving a climate change the bigger, stronger dinosaurs couldn’t survive.
And once again it is not individuals who evolve, it is entire species that do over thousands of generations. Here is an excellent explanation of the point by Richard Dawkins, who was born with the patience to try to explain evolution to the faith based believers of the world. From his point 26 Organisms don’t evolve. Populations do.
I don’t want to belabor the evolution analogy. It is after all your analogy, not mine. But society does succeed or fail as a whole in the long term. It is important that every member of a democratic society has the opportunity to succeed or advance. If they don’t take it it is an individual’s failure. If the opportunity isn’t presented it is society’s failure.
Mal-
Well lets be open then “Malcontent”. Are you evolutionist or Republican? Let me just guess and say that you are the latter.
Care to dispute this? Because Mal, not everyone is what YOU judge them to be.
Another thing Mal….
Why in Heavens name would see a conflict between Religion and Science? They both seek truth, one through empirical evidence, and, the other through the human spirit. We need both to survive.
IMO, those whom pit the two against each other are really missing the point of truth altogether.
“It is important that every member of a democratic society has the opportunity to succeed or advance. If they don’t take it it is an individual’s failure. If the opportunity isn’t presented it is society’s failure.”
I guess I failed to notice that everyone on this thread has been talking about the chances for success in “prosperous” “democratic” societies such as ours and how hard work and making, or not making your kids work for and during college, enhances their chances to advance and succeed.
How stupid of me to interject the slums of Calcutta, the barrios of Mexico City, etc.
But, OK, let’s look at the kids of a prosperous democratic society such as ours, trapped in the crack-crime-ridden ghettos of, say, New York. What are their chances for success? Is it just a matter of pretending that the ladder “that one just has to climb” is there for them, too? And that, “If they don’t take it it is an individual’s failure.”? Or that”If the opportunity isn’t presented it is society’s failure.”?
It is not a cut-and-dry issue as some may want it to be.
Allen…are you a day drinker?
Windy… Professor Merkle is an engineer by trade, I believe. As such, everything has to be “cut and dried” and you have to follow the dots to get to the truth. Forget the fact that they torque and twist and stretch on occasion to attempt to prove their point.
Those who combine some spiritual faith into the equations are deemed to be naive and a bit intellecturally lacking.
I would suggest to you that people migrate more toward the enlightened spiritual moron than they do toward some pontificating, intellectual, bloviating, scientist/engineer. It all boils down to who you’d rather have a beer with.
Sorry, Mr.Merkle…I’m migrating toward the person who is emotionally moved and comforted on occasion by faith in something he cannot truly describe or show to others. Something not found in some textbook.
The unemployed siblings are right to claim that their “rich” siblings don’t know what they are going through. The unemployed siblings are wrong to berate their “rich” siblings. No doubt the unemployed siblings made choices that were right for them at the time. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist or president. We also need farm workers, factory workers and there are plenty of occupations that do not require a college education yet are essential to make this country run. There is nothing wrong with people who are happy doing simple work and do not have high career goals.
The OWS is a movement that will gather steam as more and more “educated” people become unemployed and cannot find work. Including people who have worked for the same company for decades, yet in order to maximize profits for the shareholders (and to continue to receive big fat paychecks) top management chose to let good, loyal productive people go.
Really what does it say about a profitable company who lets long-time, loyal and productive employees go simply to increase the paycheck size of the executives and return more money to shareholders? Especially in these tough economic times with high unemployment rates?
As far as the question of the article- luck or work… It’s a little bit of both, but with coporate greed on the rise the only way to survive in the corporate world is to be an executive… so a third component shold be added to the mix: ambition. Taken with my above statements…. it’s no longer necessary to be productive in your job and be a loyal employee to suceed. Companies no longer care about long-term employees who are satisified with their positions Companies will let them go at the drop of a hat. These days in order to succeed you have to have the ambition to be in top management. Otherwise your job is not secure and you have no control whatsoever.
Discipline is the word you are looking for. Combined with a proper perspective it will take you far. Discipline is far more important in a structured cooperative environment than just intelligence. Intelligence is good of courses, but useless without a purpose and drive.
Its a complex problem that, predictably, is reduces to simplistic arguments by our current political system. That fact is that it is a bit of both (but even that is too simple, as I get into below) and that any tax system is not going to be able to separate one from the other. Taxing the “rich” _is_ going take money from some who worked hard to make it. I would say that for the majority, work is at least part of it. A few hedge fund managers aside, the large majority of the “rich” (though it would help if there wasn’t a concerted effort _not_ to define this) are people who are doctors, lawyers, small business owners, etc.
Of course, what does it mean to be “both work and luck”. The fact is that those who don’t try _won’t_ succeed. However, for those who do try, especially in business, the rewards are unequal. Two people can dedicate years of their life and have one become rich and the other go bankrupt. What does this mean? Does the person who succeeded not “deserve” his money because someone else didn’t make it? Well, aside from the fact that I would say that both would have said any sucess is deserved (esp. when they started), the fact is that if you treat the rewards of such effort cavalierly, then you discourage such effort, which is a foundation of our economy.
This also brings up another issue. If I take money and risk it (whether it is buying stock or starting up a business), do I deserve the rewards? If not, do they deserve to have put up with the loss of the money? Should they demand the government bail them out?
The bottom line is that taxing the “rich” means taking money from some who stumbled into their money and from many who worked hard and took risks to get it. Conversely, redistributing money to lower incomes involves helping/rewarding both those who got a bumb deal in life and also those who were never willing to bother to try.
Quelcrist: LOL!
Your case study lacks way too much detail to provide an objectively derived conclusion, Patrick.
However, to whatever degree either element comes into play in achieving wealth, there is no justification for reaching into another person’s pocket. Whether the pick-pocketing is done by a crooked businessperson or a redistributionist liberal, they are both still thieves.
“crooked businessperson”
I suppose it depends on what your definition of a crooked business person is.
What of the corporate executives who earn 400 times more than their average employee, and yet in pursuit of bigger profits and more compensation for themselves they lay off productive, long-time and good employees, knowing full well that the remaining employees (who are overworked) can’t find work in this environment?
If that’s not a crooked business person… then it’s certainly a redistributionist conservative (or liberal depending on the political leanings). Take from the poor and powerless and give to those with plenty of money and power. That’s what these banks are doing. And with the increase in fees to offset revenue losses from other sources, these banks are also “robbing” from their customers to ensure that top management and shareholders receive more money in the form of higher stock prices and dividends. That’s just plain steal from the “poor” and give to the rich. If that’s not a form of redistribution based entirely on greed (many of these companies would be profitable withour higher fees), then I don’t know what is.
StockBoyLA,
I agree that there is nothing wrong with people who do not pursue a college degree and dedicate themselves to work that doesn’t require it. But to the extent that it is a voluntary choice, it is done with the understanding that such work is inherently less secure. Whether that is the “right” choice for them is a personal matter, but they are not immune from the consequences of their choices. If it was not a choice, and the other 9 siblings just couldn’t get into college despite their best efforts, then that’s a different matter and adds up on the “luck” side of the equation.
With regards to the trend that you cite (or predict?) that companies are laying off productive workers to boost short-term profits, I’m not seeing it, anecdotaly or in the unemployment data. Obviously, any such company is hurting itself, by definition, and so I wouldn’t expect any such trend to sustain itself for long. The idea that one must strive for an executive position to be successful doesn’t match the world that I see either. Obviously, any executive needs to attract and retain many good employees (skilled and, to a lesser extent, unskilled) to be successful in the long or the short term.
CO brings up the libertarian argument I referred to earlier. This whole argument assumes that we care (at least as far as public policy is concerned) about the distinction between luck and hard work. As I said, I do, but I do think the libertarian argument has merit. I’d like to live in a world where private charity took on this role instead, but in reality I think we live in a world where most of us are willing to help those less fortunate, but only if everyone else does too. That’s a situation that lends itself to an organized, yes, coercive method. Like I said, I’d rather see it take the form of education/social investment rather than tax redistribution, as I think that minimizes the work disincentive, but it is redistribution (or theft, from the libertarian perspective) either way.
Wow, one day at work and a plethora of responses. I will try to get in responses to specific comments but am quite buisy this week.
Just wanted to express appreciation for the response.
Mal…uh…
I’ll let the engineers build the bridges and such…and the clergy build the spirit.
Vice versa would make a heck of a clunky bridge and quite the confused soul.
You need to face the reality that there is a time for everything and everyone.
Let me repeat:
You need to face the reality that there is a time for everything and everyone.
John:1 says it all for me. Unfortunately or Fortunately science has not empirically explained any of it yet. God bless them for trying and I still have faith in their efforts.
Coming to this thread late, but enjoyed reading through it. Excellent commentary from merkin, Dorian, and Stockboy (as always) and a great graph from QF! Working hard and playing by the rules used to be enough to build a life. Those were the days..