Wealth of people in their 30s has 'halved in a decade'

[Luck12]

Check this link of average starting salary + bonus of MBA grads.   Average MBA grad is about 30.     They say average of all 128 schools is 90K so let's guess that #50 school = $100K.    GMAT score of #50 is about 640-650 which is 70th percentile but that's for GMAT takers who are definitely a lot smarter than your average person.   So at absolute minimum, top 30% = $100K, but realistically, probably more like top 15-20%.   

Of course MBA grads are very likely to be more hardworking, more ambitious, and from a higher socioeconomic background than the average person.  Do you people still think it's easy to get to 100K by age 30 given this? 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2016-03-07/us-news-data-job-rates-starting-salaries-for-mba-grads

[Luck12]

What do you see in the data?

Already mentioned it a few other times.

I'm not understanding the disconnect here.

This the last time I'm going to go over this.  I've heard it said people are more materialistic and hence worse savers than in the past, especially young people.  Well, the data clearly doesn't show they are any worse than older cohorts were at the same age, in fact they are better. 

Savings rates went down from the 70's to the late 80's but clearly from the data, it's been dismal since 1990.  It's not like there's anything specifically irresponsible about young people today. 

[Enigma]

I keep reading the article and looking at both of the charts (not just the first one).  I would say the Net Worth for a 30 year old around 27k and 54k is nearly the same for both generations.  The second chart in the article "Avg household income for people born in different decades" both decades appear to be between 20-25k when they were in their 30s.

These younger years are also the time in people lives that they are not even thinking about retirement.  I only wish I was thinking about retirement in my 20s (I am sure some mustachians did but I didn't).  The net worth of 40 year olds and 50 year olds in different generations is a much better indicator then when people are still starting careers and worry about something besides where their friends and next party are.

[nereo]

What do you see in the data?

Already mentioned it a few other times.

I'm not understanding the disconnect here.

This the last time I'm going to go over this.  I've heard it said people are more materialistic and hence worse savers than in the past, especially young people.  Well, the data clearly doesn't show they are any worse than older cohorts were at the same age, in fact they are better. 

Savings rates went down from the 70's to the late 80's but clearly from the data, it's been dismal since 1990.  It's not like there's anything specifically irresponsible about young people today.

Au contrare - I have provided you with multiple examples of how spending today has increased over previous generations and how discretionary income has actually increased..  The fact that savings rates have been dismal since the 1990s seems to bolster my argument, not yours. Per the OP article, what we are talking about is the difference in savings over the last few decades, not since the 70s/80s. Savings rate is a function of income.  If its negative (which appears to be the case for at least some of the cohort we are talking about) then NW will actually suffer faster as incomes increase.

I never commented on whether the spending was "irresponsible" - that's putting words into my mouth (or onto my screen). The bottom line is we are spending more. Whether the items we are spending money on can be considered "irresponsible" is a moral judgement.
Also, as I said before, a household could be "above average" according to this survey if they had done nothing more than contribute to an IRA - I don't see how that's even questionable.

[Guses]

If two people apply for a job, only one person can get it. If one person leaves a position, it creates a vacancy to be filled.

The total number of positions/jobs can increase or decrease but, at any given moment it is a set number.

Even if this is true (which it's not), how is it relevant to anything? Jack also points out the obvious truism above that not everybody can earn $300,000 per year, and I think this is just intended to be another way of rephrasing that. I've never disputed that fact, but it's totally irrelevant to everything I've posted in this thread. It's about as insightful as saying that the economy would be destroyed if everybody became frugal, because, even if true, it's just not going to happen. Most people will never put in the effort to earn $300,000 per year -- or even anything close to that -- so we don't need to worry about what would happen if everybody did attempt to.

You're quoting a reply to a reply I made following a comment by Ender. Maybe that is why you don't think it's relevant?

First example: Cathy is born as a Native American in 1766. How does Cathy become a millionaire?

All of my comments in this thread, and everywhere else on the forum, are intended to apply to the circumstances of the present-day United States, unless otherwise indicated. I may not have explicitly stated this until now, but there were some pretty obvious hints that this was the case, such as speaking in the present tense when saying it is open to you to earn $300,000 if you want.

As for your attempts to personalise the thread, I'm going to have to decline to participate. There's really no winning with people who want to personalise topics like this. Even if somebody had to overcome every imaginable obstacle to get where they are, and is able to outline a moving story of overcoming adversity through hard work, you would just write it off as exceptional and learn nothing from it. Other people might learn from it, but you, Guses, certainly would not. Some people just don't want to hear about how they can improve their station in life.

Yes, it's called Reductio ad Absurdum. I am only exposing that your original statement in post #59 is demonstrably false.

I don't know why you have to attack me Cathy, if you disagree with my statements, feel free to present arguments instead of hand waving and wishy washy statements.

[MrGreen]

Why is this article anything other than common sense? 10-15 years ago people's net worth was buoyed by the longest bull run in history. People in their 30's now had two bear markets to deal with. Duh?

[MishMash]

Sooooo what you are saying is that you have ZERO experience with the actual ability to bootstrap yourself up in the world, yet claim that it's not possible or next to impossible for someone to do just that? 

I am the freaking poster child for bootstrapping, crappy family life, poor financial role models, crushing student debt, experience in getting a job at the height of the recession etc.  I am standing here as a very well off early 30's woman with a six figure salary telling you that it IS possible if you don't suffer from a disibility or extreme bone crushing poverty.  Yet apparently I am the "exception". 

No luck, on this planet your overly pleasant and perfect upbringing is the exception.  People bootstrap themselves up every. damn. day. 

Let me ask you:  What did you score on the SAT/ACT or on standardized tests in general?  I'm guessing minimum top 20%.   Do you really think you'd be in the same financial position if you had a below average IQ, particular with respect to math and science?   Additionally, perhaps you even got lucky in obtaining your first job.  Not trying to discount your success, it's just that people have no idea how much fortune can play a role in their own success.  I know I've had some luck.       

Hard work and determination is helpful to achieving success, but it's definitely nowhere near enough, that's all I and others are arguing. 

As someone mentioned, it takes hard work, talent, and luck to be successful.  Obviously, only one of the 3 is within one's control.   Do the math.

English I was top 10%, I read A LOT as a kid.  Math...well now math has been a constant struggle my entire life, it still is, I was in the bottom 30-35ish% on the SATs if I recall and I never took the ACTs.  Hence the million extra hours I had to do to get an engineering degree.  I still, to this day, couldn't answer most basic geometry questions.

Jack, of course not everyone can do everything perfectly, we'd all be robots in a utopian society if that were the case.  The entire point of this though is that it IS possible and it's possible for more then just the onesy twosies you seem to think it is, that's what everyone here is saying.  They are sharing their personal experiences so that you know it's not as rare as you think it is.  You just don't want to believe it.

Being successful early, provided you are of able body and mind, is an extreme case ONLY because more people don't seek out the knowledge that is needed to do better for themselves, they prioritze stuff and status quo because heck, that's the "American way" and that's across ALL generations.  As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, needs now are a lot different then needs 20 years ago.  Now kids "need" that iphone, 2500 square foot house, 2 new cars, latest subscription clothing service, mail order food etc.  Those things weren't considered "needs" 20 years ago.  Personal choices and personal responsibility play a much bigger part in things then you want to realize.

[Jack]

Jack, of course not everyone can do everything perfectly, we'd all be robots in a utopian society if that were the case.  The entire point of this though is that it IS possible and it's possible for more then just the onesy twosies you seem to think it is, that's what everyone here is saying.  They are sharing their personal experiences so that you know it's not as rare as you think it is.  You just don't want to believe it.

Stop with the strawman arguments and hasty generalizations/false dichotomies already!

Fallacy 1 (strawman): I did not claim that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is only possible by "the onesy twosies," either "seemingly" or actually. You are consistently exaggerating the magnitude of my claims in order to falsely pretend they aren't correct. Learn the difference between "none," "few," "some," "many," "most," and "all" -- none of which are equivalent terms -- please!

Fallacy 2 (hasty generalization): "Everyone here" is not making the same point. Luck12 and I are making different points, just to name two counterexamples.

Fallacy 3: Personal experiences (i.e. anecdotes) are not data. They can be useful as examples (including as counterexamples to disprove contrary claims), but are not evidence of trends by themselves. For example, you can use your anecdote to disprove the claim that "nobody can pull themselves up by their bootstraps," but not to prove the claim that "everybody can pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

Fallacies 4, 5, and 6: "You just don't want to believe it" is an ad-hominem attack, attempt at proof by assertion, and another strawman (since we disagree on what "it" -- the claim you are accusing me of not wanting to believe -- is), all rolled into one sentence.

Being successful early, provided you are of able body and mind, is an extreme case ONLY because more people don't seek out the knowledge that is needed to do better for themselves

That's an extremely specific and unequivocal claim. What evidence do you have of it? None so far, that I've seen! It seems to me to be nothing more than an ideologically-based proof by assertion (again!). It is not only useless as a point of discussion, but actively distracts from attempts to discover the real problem.

Besides, something is still apparently different between previous generations and now (assuming Cathy isn't correct that the whole thing can be explained by margin of error). So what is it? Even if the idea that "people don't seek out the knowledge" were on the right track, does that mean you are claiming that it has become harder to seek out that knowledge than it was before?

[Luck12]

The fact that savings rates have been dismal since the 1990s seems to bolster my argument, not yours. Per the OP article, what we are talking about is the difference in savings over the last few decades, not since the 70s/80s. Savings rate is a function of income.  If its negative (which appears to be the case for at least some of the cohort we are talking about) then NW will actually suffer faster as incomes increase.

Original article is for UK I believe so I'm just talking US here.   Article compares age 30's now vs age 30's then, hence why I mentioned savings rates by age over time.   No, young people are not saving less now than young people 10 years ago or 25 years ago, it could not get any clearer!  Jesus christ.  That's what the article is about, a comparison over time.  Can you offer any evidence supporting the assertion/implication of many on this thread that young people are worse savers now than young people 10,20, 25 years ago?  I don't think so! 

[nereo]

The fact that savings rates have been dismal since the 1990s seems to bolster my argument, not yours. Per the OP article, what we are talking about is the difference in savings over the last few decades, not since the 70s/80s. Savings rate is a function of income.  If its negative (which appears to be the case for at least some of the cohort we are talking about) then NW will actually suffer faster as incomes increase.

Original article is for UK I believe so I'm just talking US here.   Article compares age 30's now vs age 30's then, hence why I mentioned savings rates by age over time.   No, young people are not saving less now than young people 10 years ago or 25 years ago, it could not get any clearer!  Jesus christ.  That's what the article is about, a comparison over time.  Can you offer any evidence supporting the assertion/implication of many on this thread that young people are worse savers now than young people 10,20, 25 years ago?  I don't think so!

The article you cite groups everyone age 0-35, and shows a negative savings rate.  As shown upthread, income has increased, particularly since the 'great recession' when so many in this broad age bracket were either unemployed or went back to school.
a negative savings rate combined with increases in income result means there is more spending.
as for evidence, i've given examples upthread of the population in general with regards to cars and homes (particularly first-time homes) - it's worth noting that the average first-time home buyer in the US is age 33; right in the target group we are talking about.

[Dollar Slice]

Why is this article anything other than common sense? 10-15 years ago people's net worth was buoyed by the longest bull run in history. People in their 30's now had two bear markets to deal with. Duh?

Yeah, I am in my 30s, started my first full-time job in late 1999. Started investing almost immediately. The first ten years of investing, 2000-2010, the S&P 500 was close to 0% return (depending on how you calculate). If I were ten years older and started investing ten years earlier? 1990-2000 returns were more like 300%! Yeah, that'll change the average numbers just a bit...

[JrDoctor]

The geographical arbitrage in the UK has also shifted.  As Doubleh points out, in the past a move to London to grow equity by taking advantage of rising housing demand there worked well to "create" wealth.  These days London is an much more international city with the associated pressures, and a much more difficult place to live in and in which to make those sorts of gains.  Someone interested in building wealth in the UK now should probably go either to an expanding but cheaper city (Birmingham would be my choice) or to a poorer area of the country where housing is cheap compared to a professional/entrepreneurial income, and invest in the stock market.

Agree with this, the capital involved in London housing makes it tricky and high risk as an investment.  Poorer areas are definitely a better way of generating wealth.

[MishMash]

Jack, of course not everyone can do everything perfectly, we'd all be robots in a utopian society if that were the case.  The entire point of this though is that it IS possible and it's possible for more then just the onesy twosies you seem to think it is, that's what everyone here is saying.  They are sharing their personal experiences so that you know it's not as rare as you think it is.  You just don't want to believe it.

Stop with the strawman arguments and hasty generalizations/false dichotomies already!

Fallacy 1 (strawman): I did not claim that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is only possible by "the onesy twosies," either "seemingly" or actually. You are consistently exaggerating the magnitude of my claims in order to falsely pretend they aren't correct. Learn the difference between "none," "few," "some," "many," "most," and "all" -- none of which are equivalent terms -- please!

Fallacy 2 (hasty generalization): "Everyone here" is not making the same point. Luck12 and I are making different points, just to name two counterexamples.

Fallacy 3: Personal experiences (i.e. anecdotes) are not data. They can be useful as examples (including as counterexamples to disprove contrary claims), but are not evidence of trends by themselves. For example, you can use your anecdote to disprove the claim that "nobody can pull themselves up by their bootstraps," but not to prove the claim that "everybody can pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

Fallacies 4, 5, and 6: "You just don't want to believe it" is an ad-hominem attack, attempt at proof by assertion, and another strawman (since we disagree on what "it" -- the claim you are accusing me of not wanting to believe -- is), all rolled into one sentence.

Being successful early, provided you are of able body and mind, is an extreme case ONLY because more people don't seek out the knowledge that is needed to do better for themselves

That's an extremely specific and unequivocal claim. What evidence do you have of it? None so far, that I've seen! It seems to me to be nothing more than an ideologically-based proof by assertion (again!). It is not only useless as a point of discussion, but actively distracts from attempts to discover the real problem.

Besides, something is still apparently different between previous generations and now (assuming Cathy isn't correct that the whole thing can be explained by margin of error). So what is it? Even if the idea that "people don't seek out the knowledge" were on the right track, does that mean you are claiming that it has become harder to seek out that knowledge than it was before?

Jack, you mean kind of like your over exagerrations of well not EVERYONE can pull themselves up (so therefore its not really a feasible option), or EVERYONE would become an engineer and then NO one would work at McDonalds?  Broad claims against personal responsibility are met with broad claims for it.

Personal ancedotes ARE data.   Simply because one was not surveyed does not make that data point any less significant in overall terms.  But here's one from Bloomberg looking at non essential expenditure increases over time.  Data is from the BEA which also has several tables and articles relating to the same thing https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-02/americans-spend-more-on-stuff-they-don-t-need

[TexasRunner]

most people are capable of being electricians or plumbers or welders or any other trade labor.  10k hours. you may need better brain capacity to be an engineer but there are shortages of trade labor world wide.

Do you genuinely think a trade worker could earn 100k a year or save 1MM by thirty?...

(Not you specifically boarder but) Some of the ideas and thoughts shown on here are INSANE.  The concept that anyone could make 100k a year if they simply 'tried harder' is absolute BS.  The concept (posted earlier) that millennials bouncing between companies because they "are impatient" is INSANE.  They bounce between companies because bureaucratic nitwits in management assume no one should get higher than 3% raise per year and the only way to command higher pay is to change companies.

I challenge everyone on this thread to read or at least skim (and consider) this article:  http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/01/donald-trump-and-politics-of-resentment.html

It so happens that you can determine a huge amount about the economic and social prospects of people in America today by asking one remarkably simple question: how do they get most of their income? Broadly speaking—there are exceptions, which I’ll get to in a moment—it’s from one of four sources: returns on investment, a monthly salary, an hourly wage, or a government welfare check. People who get most of their income from one of those four things have a great many interests in common, so much so that it’s meaningful to speak of the American people as divided into an investment class, a salary class, a wage class, and a welfare class.

The answer, of course, is that three of the four have remained roughly where they were. The investment class has actually had a bit of a rough time, as many of the investment vehicles that used to provide it with stable incomes—certificates of deposit, government bonds, and so on—have seen interest rates drop through the floor.  ...

The salary class, similarly, has maintained its familiar privileges and perks through a half century of convulsive change. ...

And the wage class? Over the last half century, the wage class has been destroyed.

In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury. In 2016, an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage is as likely as not to end up living on the street

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/01/donald-trump-and-politics-of-resentment.html

[Jack]

Jack, you mean kind of like your over exagerrations of well not EVERYONE can pull themselves up (so therefore its not really a feasible option), or EVERYONE would become an engineer and then NO one would work at McDonalds?  Broad claims against personal responsibility are met with broad claims for it.

You know what? I've changed my mind. I no longer believe you are intentionally misrepresenting my claims; I now believe you lack the reading comprehension skills to understand them. (For example, you apparently got my engineers/McDonalds thought experiment exactly backwards -- and also fail to understand the difference between "getting an engineering degree" and "being employed as an engineer," for that matter.)

Good luck with that.

Personal ancedotes ARE data.   Simply because one was not surveyed does not make that data point any less significant in overall terms.

No, they're not. They only become data when you have a whole bunch of them! Conversely, each individual data point within a set is pretty damn insignificant by itself.

(This time, your fallacy is the fallacy of division, by the way.)

But here's one from Bloomberg looking at non essential expenditure increases over time.  Data is from the BEA which also has several tables and articles relating to the same thing https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-02/americans-spend-more-on-stuff-they-don-t-need

FYI, you've failed to comprehend that article too. It's understandable, since trying to talk about the change in spending rates (i.e., the second derivative of spending, an acceleration) is pretty confusing to begin with. It's also entirely possible for it to be misleading, because knowing about an acceleration says nothing about what the position is: you'd have to integrate twice, generating two unknown constants. In other words, what we need is a breakdown of different generational cohorts' actual "wants" and "needs" spending expressed as a fraction of income, not the acceleration of it.

Regardless, it appears that you have completely ignored at least part of the article's conclusion:

The increasing importance of nonessential spending has various possible interpretations...

Alternatively, it could reflect the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich, who naturally devote a larger share of their expenditures to luxury goods and services. Their income has become more volatile in recent decades, so perhaps their spending is doing the same, driving faster growth in nonessential goods during recoveries. If so, that could mean a bumpier ride for less affluent folks.

And finally, note that your article says nothing about Millennials and/or people in their 30s. For all we know, the entire increase could be due to the actions of Baby Boomers, drowning out an opposite trend among younger people!

[TexasRunner]

Being better than average is what sets you apart.

If you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you. There is a reason why success is generally attributed to "Hard Work, Talent, Luck." It doesn't matter if you are the absolute best in the world at something, if don't have a bit of luck in the mix you might end up just another of the unwashed masses. How often to business owners attribute failings to bad luck and everyone nods knowingly? Talent gets back to the point I made earlier, not everyone has the talent for things and all the hard work in the world will not save you if you don't have the talent for something.

Luck is a concept invented by the weak to explain their failures.

Like MMM's creation of a home-building company immediately before a recession.  :rolleyes:

This might be true in some cases but you can't honestly claim that there is not a degree of luck/chance involved in everyone's life.

I'll give you an example...  The best soccer referee in the world can't officiate the World Cup Final because one of the finalists is from his home country.  Is this bad luck or "a concept [the referee] invented to explain his failure"?

[2lazy2retire]

Jesus it's not difficult, we all victims of wiring and circumstance. Sure a kid from a dodgy background and poor SAT scores can become a electrician and earn 100k a year but we all know that not every kid from that background is going to do that - can someone explain why if you take 10 people from the same challenged background only one makes it out, you think the other 9 make a conscious decision that doing a shit load of drugs and getting a record is a better long term option that going to trade school?.
 My question is, what in a persons make up leads to the choices they make in life - personally I think nobody knows the answer to this and to suggest that any individual can turn on/off the ability to point their life in the right direction is a fairytale which we can use to blame people for their own misfortune. Simple be glad you are who you are that your makeup allowed you the make the choices you did, others are not so fortunate - we won the lottery and we should stop f@cking judging people. There will always be a segment of the population that are rich/poor/smart/stupid/thin/fat etc etc etc.

[ender]

Like MMM's creation of a home-building company immediately before a recession.  :rolleyes:

This might be true in some cases but you can't honestly claim that there is not a degree of luck/chance involved in everyone's life.

I'll give you an example...  The best soccer referee in the world can't officiate the World Cup Final because one of the finalists is from his home country.  Is this bad luck or "a concept [the referee] invented to explain his failure"?

The overwhelming majority of "lucky" people I know are lucky by consistently taking advantage of those opportunities and putting themselves into position to do so.

A lot of people have a lot of opportunities to be lucky that their lack of planning prevents them from taking.

There are circumstantial things (who you are born to, your intellect, etc) but I think anyone on these forums has the ability to plan to take advantage of future opportunities and thus become "more lucky."

[GuitarStv]

Like MMM's creation of a home-building company immediately before a recession.  :rolleyes:

This might be true in some cases but you can't honestly claim that there is not a degree of luck/chance involved in everyone's life.

I'll give you an example...  The best soccer referee in the world can't officiate the World Cup Final because one of the finalists is from his home country.  Is this bad luck or "a concept [the referee] invented to explain his failure"?

The overwhelming majority of "lucky" people I know are lucky by consistently taking advantage of those opportunities and putting themselves into position to do so.

A lot of people have a lot of opportunities to be lucky that their lack of planning prevents them from taking.

There are circumstantial things (who you are born to, your intellect, etc) but I think anyone on these forums has the ability to plan to take advantage of future opportunities and thus become "more lucky."

It's possible for luck and hard work to coexist.  It's not an exclusive or.

There are many people who work hard and reap the rewards of working hard - they get ahead.  They owe some of their success to their hard work, some of it to the circumstances that set them on the right path, and some of it to luck.

Will a person who is an extremely hard worker get ahead of others?  Yep.
Will a person who is born to great circumstances tend to get ahead of others?  Yep.
Do some people just luck out and get ahead of others?  Yep.

There's almost always something that you can do to improve your position in life if you really want it.  It's also true that there isn't a level playing field, and some people will never do as well as others due to luck and circumstance.  You're both kinda right which is why this argument is going in circles.

[2lazy2retire]

Like MMM's creation of a home-building company immediately before a recession.  :rolleyes:

This might be true in some cases but you can't honestly claim that there is not a degree of luck/chance involved in everyone's life.

I'll give you an example...  The best soccer referee in the world can't officiate the World Cup Final because one of the finalists is from his home country.  Is this bad luck or "a concept [the referee] invented to explain his failure"?

The overwhelming majority of "lucky" people I know are lucky by consistently taking advantage of those opportunities and putting themselves into position to do so.

A lot of people have a lot of opportunities to be lucky that their lack of planning prevents them from taking.

There are circumstantial things (who you are born to, your intellect, etc) but I think anyone on these forums has the ability to plan to take advantage of future opportunities and thus become "more lucky."

It's possible for luck and hard work to coexist.  It's not an exclusive or.

There are many people who work hard and reap the rewards of working hard - they get ahead.  They owe some of their success to their hard work, some of it to the circumstances that set them on the right path, and some of it to luck.

Will a person who is an extremely hard worker get ahead of others?  Yep.
Will a person who is born to great circumstances tend to get ahead of others?  Yep.
Do some people just luck out and get ahead of others?  Yep.

There's almost always something that you can do to improve your position in life if you really want it.  It's also true that there isn't a level playing field, and some people will never do as well as others due to luck and circumstance.  You're both kinda right which is why this argument is going in circles.

I think it goes beyond even circumstance and luck - what allows a person to make a choice to work hard or not and do they really have any control over it?

[boarder42]

Like MMM's creation of a home-building company immediately before a recession.  :rolleyes:

This might be true in some cases but you can't honestly claim that there is not a degree of luck/chance involved in everyone's life.

I'll give you an example...  The best soccer referee in the world can't officiate the World Cup Final because one of the finalists is from his home country.  Is this bad luck or "a concept [the referee] invented to explain his failure"?

The overwhelming majority of "lucky" people I know are lucky by consistently taking advantage of those opportunities and putting themselves into position to do so.

A lot of people have a lot of opportunities to be lucky that their lack of planning prevents them from taking.

There are circumstantial things (who you are born to, your intellect, etc) but I think anyone on these forums has the ability to plan to take advantage of future opportunities and thus become "more lucky."

It's possible for luck and hard work to coexist.  It's not an exclusive or.

There are many people who work hard and reap the rewards of working hard - they get ahead.  They owe some of their success to their hard work, some of it to the circumstances that set them on the right path, and some of it to luck.

Will a person who is an extremely hard worker get ahead of others?  Yep.
Will a person who is born to great circumstances tend to get ahead of others?  Yep.
Do some people just luck out and get ahead of others?  Yep.

There's almost always something that you can do to improve your position in life if you really want it.  It's also true that there isn't a level playing field, and some people will never do as well as others due to luck and circumstance.  You're both kinda right which is why this argument is going in circles.

I think it goes beyond even circumstance and luck - what allows a person to make a choice to work hard or not and do they really have any control over it?

so now you're gonna go into some phsycological BS about why people cant choose to work hard ... is there some puppet master controlling our every move and we actually make no decisions.  are we just computer programs in the matrix.  how far do you want to take that thought? 

[GuitarStv]

Like MMM's creation of a home-building company immediately before a recession.  :rolleyes:

This might be true in some cases but you can't honestly claim that there is not a degree of luck/chance involved in everyone's life.

I'll give you an example...  The best soccer referee in the world can't officiate the World Cup Final because one of the finalists is from his home country.  Is this bad luck or "a concept [the referee] invented to explain his failure"?

The overwhelming majority of "lucky" people I know are lucky by consistently taking advantage of those opportunities and putting themselves into position to do so.

A lot of people have a lot of opportunities to be lucky that their lack of planning prevents them from taking.

There are circumstantial things (who you are born to, your intellect, etc) but I think anyone on these forums has the ability to plan to take advantage of future opportunities and thus become "more lucky."

It's possible for luck and hard work to coexist.  It's not an exclusive or.

There are many people who work hard and reap the rewards of working hard - they get ahead.  They owe some of their success to their hard work, some of it to the circumstances that set them on the right path, and some of it to luck.

Will a person who is an extremely hard worker get ahead of others?  Yep.
Will a person who is born to great circumstances tend to get ahead of others?  Yep.
Do some people just luck out and get ahead of others?  Yep.

There's almost always something that you can do to improve your position in life if you really want it.  It's also true that there isn't a level playing field, and some people will never do as well as others due to luck and circumstance.  You're both kinda right which is why this argument is going in circles.

I think it goes beyond even circumstance and luck - what allows a person to make a choice to work hard or not and do they really have any control over it?

That question (while an important one) largely depends on your definition of free will, and is probably beyond the scope of this debate.  If you believe in free will, you're probably going to say that people have a choice.  If you are on the side of most modern research, that indicates free will doesn't really exist . . . well, that's a whole new can of worms.

[Jack]

I don't think delving into a philosophical discussion of free will is necessary. If people of below-average intelligence can't simply "choose" to be geniuses, is it really that implausible that people of below-average work ethic can't simply "choose" to be motivated?

[GuitarStv]

I don't think delving into a philosophical discussion of free will is necessary. If people of below-average intelligence can't simply "choose" to be geniuses, is it really that implausible that people of below-average work ethic can't simply "choose" to be motivated?

If nobody can choose anything, then there our entire society (which is heavily built upon the concept of personal responsibility) kinda falls apart.

[jtraggie99]

Like MMM's creation of a home-building company immediately before a recession.  :rolleyes:

This might be true in some cases but you can't honestly claim that there is not a degree of luck/chance involved in everyone's life.

I'll give you an example...  The best soccer referee in the world can't officiate the World Cup Final because one of the finalists is from his home country.  Is this bad luck or "a concept [the referee] invented to explain his failure"?

The overwhelming majority of "lucky" people I know are lucky by consistently taking advantage of those opportunities and putting themselves into position to do so.

A lot of people have a lot of opportunities to be lucky that their lack of planning prevents them from taking.

There are circumstantial things (who you are born to, your intellect, etc) but I think anyone on these forums has the ability to plan to take advantage of future opportunities and thus become "more lucky."

It's possible for luck and hard work to coexist.  It's not an exclusive or.

There are many people who work hard and reap the rewards of working hard - they get ahead.  They owe some of their success to their hard work, some of it to the circumstances that set them on the right path, and some of it to luck.

Will a person who is an extremely hard worker get ahead of others?  Yep.
Will a person who is born to great circumstances tend to get ahead of others?  Yep.
Do some people just luck out and get ahead of others?  Yep.

There's almost always something that you can do to improve your position in life if you really want it.  It's also true that there isn't a level playing field, and some people will never do as well as others due to luck and circumstance.  You're both kinda right which is why this argument is going in circles.

I think it goes beyond even circumstance and luck - what allows a person to make a choice to work hard or not and do they really have any control over it?

As was pointed out above, at the end of the day it's simply a combination of genetics (intellect and ability) and environment.  Even if you grew up in the worst environment and were taught nothing by your parents, somewhere along the way, someone interacted with you in such a manner that you learned the importance of hard work or the value of a good education, etc, etc.  You did not just magically acquire it on your own.  And there are plenty of examples of very intelligent people who never amounted to much because they were not exposed to the tools and ideas growing up that would prepare them to be more successful in life down the road.  Despite what anyone thinks about all that they accomplished in their life, no one did it without help (being that you were fortunate enough to be around people at some point that helped lead you down the right path). 

Either way, all any of us can do is do the best with the hand we are dealt.  Some people are simply never going to make good decisions and accomplish what they would want.  That's just life.  Of course living in a capitalistic society, by definition, for some to be wealthy, some others cannot be.  It's kind of like the old adage about if everyone had a million dollars, a million dollars wouldn't be worth much.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is though.

[Jack]

I don't think delving into a philosophical discussion of free will is necessary. If people of below-average intelligence can't simply "choose" to be geniuses, is it really that implausible that people of below-average work ethic can't simply "choose" to be motivated?

If nobody can choose anything, then there our entire society (which is heavily built upon the concept of personal responsibility) kinda falls apart.

"Nobody can choose anything" is not even slightly like anything I wrote. I'm getting really sick and tired of the strawman arguments in this thread!

[ender]

There's almost always something that you can do to improve your position in life if you really want it.  It's also true that there isn't a level playing field, and some people will never do as well as others due to luck and circumstance.  You're both kinda right which is why this argument is going in circles.

Right.

It's intellectually dishonest to take either position to its extreme - that everything is 100% outside your control, or, that everything you've done is purely the product of your own decisions.

[2lazy2retire]

Like MMM's creation of a home-building company immediately before a recession.  :rolleyes:

This might be true in some cases but you can't honestly claim that there is not a degree of luck/chance involved in everyone's life.

I'll give you an example...  The best soccer referee in the world can't officiate the World Cup Final because one of the finalists is from his home country.  Is this bad luck or "a concept [the referee] invented to explain his failure"?

The overwhelming majority of "lucky" people I know are lucky by consistently taking advantage of those opportunities and putting themselves into position to do so.

A lot of people have a lot of opportunities to be lucky that their lack of planning prevents them from taking.

There are circumstantial things (who you are born to, your intellect, etc) but I think anyone on these forums has the ability to plan to take advantage of future opportunities and thus become "more lucky."

It's possible for luck and hard work to coexist.  It's not an exclusive or.

There are many people who work hard and reap the rewards of working hard - they get ahead.  They owe some of their success to their hard work, some of it to the circumstances that set them on the right path, and some of it to luck.

Will a person who is an extremely hard worker get ahead of others?  Yep.
Will a person who is born to great circumstances tend to get ahead of others?  Yep.
Do some people just luck out and get ahead of others?  Yep.

There's almost always something that you can do to improve your position in life if you really want it.  It's also true that there isn't a level playing field, and some people will never do as well as others due to luck and circumstance.  You're both kinda right which is why this argument is going in circles.

I think it goes beyond even circumstance and luck - what allows a person to make a choice to work hard or not and do they really have any control over it?

so now you're gonna go into some phsycological BS about why people cant choose to work hard ... is there some puppet master controlling our every move and we actually make no decisions.  are we just computer programs in the matrix.  how far do you want to take that thought?

Can you answer me why one individual would choose to go the school and learn with an eye on the future, while the other sits at home watching TV and smoking pot - simple answer not need for puppet masters and computer programs.

[Chris22]

I've got to think two of the biggest drivers in this are A) the exploding price of college and resulting student loan burden, and B) the availability of no/low down payment loans on housing. Both of those would cause a serious surge on the liabilities side of the ole personal balance sheet without any (tangible fiscal) offset on the assets side.

[nereo]

"Nobody can choose anything" is not even slightly like anything I wrote. I'm getting really sick and tired of the strawman arguments in this thread!

You can't defeat them all, Jack!!

[2lazy2retire]

I don't think delving into a philosophical discussion of free will is necessary. If people of below-average intelligence can't simply "choose" to be geniuses, is it really that implausible that people of below-average work ethic can't simply "choose" to be motivated?

If nobody can choose anything, then there our entire society (which is heavily built upon the concept of personal responsibility) kinda falls apart.

Everyone can make choices and we all do every day and they most definitely impact how our lives end up - but what allows one person to make what is perceived as a good choice and another person a bad choice?, f@cked if I know.

[arebelspy]

I don't think delving into a philosophical discussion of free will is necessary. If people of below-average intelligence can't simply "choose" to be geniuses, is it really that implausible that people of below-average work ethic can't simply "choose" to be motivated?

If nobody can choose anything, then there our entire society (which is heavily built upon the concept of personal responsibility) kinda falls apart.

As a hardcore determinist, I couldn't disagree more.  This is a fallacy put forth by people who don't actually understand free will or determinism, and say silly things like "if one has no free will, we can't hold them accountable!" which is just ridiculous.  I'd be happy to discuss in a free will thread, but I couldn't let this statement pass unchallenged.  It's simply not true.

It's intellectually dishonest to take either position to its extreme - that everything is 100% outside your control, or, that everything you've done is purely the product of your own decisions.

I don't appreciate being called intellectually dishonest, when the first one you mention is, in fact, my position. :)

What you meant, I'm assuming, is that it's intellectually dishonest to set up one of those two extremes as the position you're arguing against if the other person you're arguing with doesn't believe one of those two extremes (i.e. a straw man, or putting words in their mouth).

[GuitarStv]

I don't think delving into a philosophical discussion of free will is necessary. If people of below-average intelligence can't simply "choose" to be geniuses, is it really that implausible that people of below-average work ethic can't simply "choose" to be motivated?

If nobody can choose anything, then there our entire society (which is heavily built upon the concept of personal responsibility) kinda falls apart.

As a hardcore determinist, I couldn't disagree more.  This is a fallacy put forth by people who don't actually understand free will or determinism, and say silly things like "if one has no free will, we can't hold them accountable!" which is just ridiculous.  I'd be happy to discuss in a free will thread, but I couldn't let this statement pass unchallenged.  It's simply not true.

I for one, would love to hear your argument on this matter.  My tendencies lean towards believing that things are predetermined, but have run into some issues reconciling this with the concept of personal responsibility.

[Jack]

You can't defeat them all, Jack!!

Says you!



(I also considered referencing Don Quixote or Sisyphus.)

[arebelspy]

I don't think delving into a philosophical discussion of free will is necessary. If people of below-average intelligence can't simply "choose" to be geniuses, is it really that implausible that people of below-average work ethic can't simply "choose" to be motivated?

If nobody can choose anything, then there our entire society (which is heavily built upon the concept of personal responsibility) kinda falls apart.

As a hardcore determinist, I couldn't disagree more.  This is a fallacy put forth by people who don't actually understand free will or determinism, and say silly things like "if one has no free will, we can't hold them accountable!" which is just ridiculous.  I'd be happy to discuss in a free will thread, but I couldn't let this statement pass unchallenged.  It's simply not true.

I for one, would love to hear your argument on this matter.  My tendencies lean towards believing that things are predetermined, but have run into some issues reconciling this with the concept of personal responsibility.

Events are not, IMO, predetermined. That has a very specific, different meaning (usually religious).   They are determined though (they're determined in the moment, so not "predetermined," but they couldn't have gone any other way).

There's no issues with personal responsibility.  The consequence of understanding this fact means that we should empathize with people more.  But that doesn't mean we can't hold them accountable.  If there were all these causal determinants that caused them to do that, okay, it's not their "fault" in that we don't judge them for it, but we still hold them accountable because that in itself is a determining cause for future events.  Our society works fine with understanding people aren't to blame for their actions, but still need to be held accountable for them, for the sake of preventing others from doing the same, if it causes harm.

[2lazy2retire]

I don't think delving into a philosophical discussion of free will is necessary. If people of below-average intelligence can't simply "choose" to be geniuses, is it really that implausible that people of below-average work ethic can't simply "choose" to be motivated?

If nobody can choose anything, then there our entire society (which is heavily built upon the concept of personal responsibility) kinda falls apart.

As a hardcore determinist, I couldn't disagree more.  This is a fallacy put forth by people who don't actually understand free will or determinism, and say silly things like "if one has no free will, we can't hold them accountable!" which is just ridiculous.  I'd be happy to discuss in a free will thread, but I couldn't let this statement pass unchallenged.  It's simply not true.

I for one, would love to hear your argument on this matter.  My tendencies lean towards believing that things are predetermined, but have run into some issues reconciling this with the concept of personal responsibility.

There is still a place for personal responsibility in so much as holding someone accountable for their choices gives them the opportunity to make better choices in the future. We should never just give up and say "its all out of our control". Take 2 alcoholics and put them through rehab, one may come out reformed having used the opportunity to change that society had afforded him, the other back on the sauce in a week, if we had done nothing both are still drinking??.  - societal expectations have their place but ultimately we are all going to make different choices each and every day - what I want to know is why we make the choices we do. ( at the risk of sounding like a child who keeps saying "but why")

[arebelspy]

There is still a place for personal responsibility in so much as holding someone accountable for their choices gives them the opportunity to make better choices in the future.

This too; the punishment can be a cause for future actions of that person (I was thinking in an extreme case of something like life incarceration or even the death penalty), but future deterrence and example to others are still both valid reasons for punishment.

[ender]

I for one, would love to hear your argument on this matter.  My tendencies lean towards believing that things are predetermined, but have run into some issues reconciling this with the concept of personal responsibility.

Even if they are 100% predetermined, you still don't know what they will be, and so in the moment you have to live as if they are not 100% predetermined.

In other words, whether or not they are 100% or 0% predetermined has minimal impact on your actual ability to effect change in your life. It ultimately doesn't matter whether or not the changes you do are 100% or 75% or 0% "your" choice or just "following" how your predetermined plan predicted.

Regardless of where that percentage falls, in the moment you don't know it, which means you effectively should live as if it's 100% your choice.

[Cathy]

The nature of free will is one of the least interesting discussions I can think of, because there are only two possibilities that are consistent with materialism: Either everything is determined mechanically, or everything is completely random. From our perspective, those two possibilities are completely indistinguishable, so it's impossible to have an intelligent debate about which one is "correct" -- in fact, a verificationist would say that it is a mistake to even say that one is correct to the exclusion of the other because of the impossibility of verifying either way.

I'm not actually sure what people mean when they say that they think "free will" exists, but as best I can tell, it seems to be a statement that there is a mystical mechanism such as souls, qualia, or other religious vector, which overrides the normal laws of physics by causing physical effects without a physical source (which is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics). I have yet to hear any conception of "free will" that is consistent with materialism unless that conception is just determinism or randomness (either of which can be argued to be free will).

Put another way, the debate has three positions: "determinism", "randomness", and "mysticism".

When I propose that a particular event is a person's "choice", I express no view on which of the three possibilities is accurate; I don't even express a view on whether it makes say to say that any one of them is accurate. Instead, the only thing I mean to claim is that the chain of physical events that lead to the event has its proximate physical origin inside that person's body. Please substitute that definition whenever I mention or have mentioned "choice".

[2lazy2retire]

The nature of free will is one of the least interesting discussions I can think of, because there are only two possibilities that are consistent with materialism: Either everything is determined mechanically, or everything is completely random. From our perspective, those two possibilities are completely indistinguishable, so it's impossible to have an intelligent debate about which one is "correct" -- in fact, a verificationist would say that it is a mistake to even say that one is correct to the exclusion of the other because of the impossibility of verifying either way.

I'm not actually sure what people mean when they say that they think "free will" exists, but as best I can tell, it seems to be a statement that there is a mystical mechanism such as souls, qualia, or other religious vector, which overrides the normal laws of physics by causing physical effects without a physical source (which is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics). I have yet to hear any conception of "free will" that is consistent with materialism unless that conception is just determinism or randomness (either of which can be argued to be free will).

Put another way, the debate has three positions: "determinism", "randomness", and "mysticism".

When I propose that a particular event is a person's "choice", I express no view on which of the three possibilities is accurate; I don't even express a view on whether it makes say to say that any one of them is accurate. Instead, the only thing I mean to claim is that the chain of physical events that lead to the event has its proximate physical origin inside that person's body. Please substitute that definition whenever I mention or have mentioned "choice".

For something you find uninteresting you seem to have given it a bit of thought ;)

I agree  "that the chain of physical events that lead to the event has its proximate physical origin inside that person's body." - but what triggers the chain of events in one person to differ from that of another leading to very different outcomes? or in other words what makes us make the choices we do?  - I apologize for what may be a simplistic view of things but it's the only view that makes sense to me.

[cheapass]

As someone mentioned, it takes hard work, talent, and luck to be successful.  Obviously, only one of the 3 is within one's control.   Do the math.

You know, it's amazing. The harder I work and the more I plan things, the luckier I seem to be.

[2lazy2retire]

As someone mentioned, it takes hard work, talent, and luck to be successful.  Obviously, only one of the 3 is within one's control.   Do the math.

You know, it's amazing. The harder I work and the more I plan things, the luckier I seem to be.

Nothing amazing about you, you were just wired to work harder - others were not. But not too hard, I mean what are you doing on here browsing the internet when you could be working even harder? - bad choices eh :)

[Shor]

As someone mentioned, it takes hard work, talent, and luck to be successful.  Obviously, only one of the 3 is within one's control.   Do the math.

You know, it's amazing. The harder I work and the more I plan things, the luckier I seem to be.

Nothing amazing about you, you were just wired to work harder - others were not. But not too hard, I mean what are you doing on here browsing the internet when you could be working even harder? - bad choices eh :)

They're just working on reaching the illustrious 'Walrus' status.... not very hard though it seems... hmmm..

[cheapass]

Nothing amazing about you, you were just wired to work harder - others were not. But not too hard, I mean what are you doing on here browsing the internet when you could be working even harder? - bad choices eh :)

I've determined that the utility I derive from my luckyness is at the maximum (considering effort required) so the marginal utility of an additional unit of luck is negative :)

[Cathy]

For something you find uninteresting you seem to have given it a bit of thought ;)

I agree  "that the chain of physical events that lead to the event has its proximate physical origin inside that person's body." - but what triggers the chain of events in one person to differ from that of another leading to very different outcomes? or in other words what makes us make the choices we do?  - I apologize for what may be a simplistic view of things but it's the only view that makes sense to me.

The human body is basically a computer with certain peripherals. The physical reason why people make different choices is one of or some combination of:

• different people's bodies implement different algorithms to govern their behaviour and some of those algorithms are more suited to achieving early retirement in a capitalistic society than others are;
• the random variables in the algorithms yield different results for different people even given the same algorithms and same inputs; or
• a mystical device such as a soul is injecting itself into the motions of the body contrary to physics.

If your point is that, a priori, different people have a different difficulty in reaching success, whether due to different algorithms running in their body, different random variable outcomes, or different souls, then that point is not only obvious, but something I've already conceded and that is not relevant to my argument in this thread. I fully agree that life is more difficult for some people than others. I also agree that some people will be running software that makes life more painful, more lonely, more barren, and overall more difficult.

I think the problem here is that some people assume that the personal responsibility rhetoric that I like to use is rooted in some sort of privilege, but that is not the case. Au contraire, the purpose of that rhetoric is to act as an additional input into the systems of people reading this thread, thus potentially giving those people a better chance of success at becoming millionaires by 30. In other words, my purpose for participation threads like this is altruistic. I can't speak for anyone else who may have participated.

[GuitarStv]

I think the problem here is that some people assume that the personal responsibility rhetoric that I like to use is rooted in some sort of privilege, but that is not the case. Au contraire, the purpose of that rhetoric is to act as an additional input into the systems of people reading this thread, thus potentially giving those people a better chance of success at becoming millionaires by 30. In other words, my purpose for participation threads like this is altruistic. I can't speak for anyone else who may have participated.

So you don't believe the personal responsibility things you type, you just type them in the hopes that they'll allow you to control the behavior of others?

:P

[Chris22]

As someone mentioned, it takes hard work, talent, and luck to be successful.  Obviously, only one of the 3 is within one's control.   Do the math.

You know, it's amazing. The harder I work and the more I plan things, the luckier I seem to be.

There were two instances where I was extremely lucky:

1.  Born to affluent parents in the US who emphasized hard work and education
2.  Graduated from college in 2004 in a time of relative economic prosperity

Almost everything else has been the result of hard work and planning, such as having specifically chosen a college major with lots of opportunities, intentionally chosen jobs that will give diverse experiences that will be valuable to my career, choosing to live in an area with lots of opportunities, deciding to spend my free time going back to school for an advanced degree, etc etc.

[GuitarStv]

As someone mentioned, it takes hard work, talent, and luck to be successful.  Obviously, only one of the 3 is within one's control.   Do the math.

You know, it's amazing. The harder I work and the more I plan things, the luckier I seem to be.

There were two instances where I was extremely lucky:

1.  Born to affluent parents in the US who emphasized hard work and education
2.  Graduated from college in 2004 in a time of relative economic prosperity

Almost everything else has been the result of hard work and planning, such as having specifically chosen a college major with lots of opportunities, intentionally chosen jobs that will give diverse experiences that will be valuable to my career, choosing to live in an area with lots of opportunities, deciding to spend my free time going back to school for an advanced degree, etc etc.

I didn't know you were a gay black woman, Chris.

[Cathy]

So you don't believe the personal responsibility things you type, you just type them in the hopes that they'll allow you to control the behavior of others?

Not quite.

A more accurate way of putting is that it's conceivable, even likely, that some people's actions are determined by algorithms that place a lot of weight on whether, in their mind, it's possible for them to do something. If we let those people know that, in fact, something is within their control and ability, the algorithms governing their actions may take that into account and then they may actually be able to do those things. After that happens, the original claims that I made will end up being true in a self-fulfilling way.

Or to say it a more artful, but less parsable, way: By promoting personal responsibility, we can actually have the effect of creating personal responsibility. The difference between somebody making bad choices and somebody making good choices could be that one of them didn't believe that it was possible to make the good choices, and we can change that.

[arebelspy]

I didn't know you were a gay black woman, Chris.

Not to mention all the disabilities she overcame, both physical and mental (reading and speech disabilities are no joke).