97
Economic inequality cannot be explained by individual bad choices, study finds (phys.org)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/news@kbin.social
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A global study led by a researcher at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and published in the journal Scientific Reports finds that economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich. Poor decisions were the same across all income groups, including for people who have overcome poverty.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (16 children)

I have a friend that believes she is entitled to nice things, even though her income cannot accommodate it. She gets a new car every other year, wears name brand clothing, and 'upgraded' to a house that costs $120k more than her previous home. We earn similar income, I drive used cars, wear clothes from Target, am content with my 3 BR home, and have steadily invested in mutual funds. I will be able to retire at 60, she will work until the day she dies.. We've made different decisions, there will be different outcomes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (13 children)

    I get what you’re saying, but this is what they call anecdotal evidence. Plus, the article doesn’t claim that a person’s choices can not affect their financial outcome, it says that [edit: “biased decision-making”] alone do not account for the amount of income inequality prominent in the countries studied.

    What you’re saying may be true, but if a terrible fate befell one of you, you would both have the assets to weather it. However, someone in the lower income bracket would not, no matter what choices they made, for reasons many times beyond their control.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    Jerome and Tina attend ACME High School. Jerome spends his evenings studying for tests and completing homework assignments. Upon graduation, Jerome enrolls in college and eventually gets a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Shortly after leaving college, Jerome obtains employment as an engineer and is prudent with his financial decisions, positioning himself to enjoy a comfortable life.

    Tina spends her evenings smoking pot and hanging out downtown with her friends. She thinks being successful in school is for suckers, and chooses to live in the moment. Thanks to today's lax education standards, she 'graduates' with effectively no marketable skills. She takes multiple low skill/low wage jobs throughout her life, all the while bemoaning the unfairness of it all.

    Tina and Jerome made different decisions, there are different outcomes.

    Anecdotal Evidence can certainly have value. Suppose I am sitting in a room with an empty box on the floor, and I notice a snake crawled into it. Then you enter the room and reach down to examine the contents of the box. I caution you that you may get bitten if you proceed....now, there hasn't been a scientific study completed on the box contents....so will you ignore my warning? I mean, it's anecdotal, after all..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    So, should I caution myself when looking in all boxes because you once saw a snake crawl into one this one time? What your saying with this snake example is not anecdotal evidence, it is an eye witness account and what your stating is a fact as far as you know it. Once you apply it to a broader idea or rule, your using a fallacy to to prove your point and, while it may seem and feel compelling (as many fallacies do), it is not a valid argument.

    It’s like scooping the ocean into a cup and showing everyone that the ocean doesn’t have trash because your limited observation shows this is true.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Jerome and Tina attend ACME High School. Jerome spends his evenings studying for tests and completing homework assignments. A year before graduating, Jerome's parents die in an accident leaving Jerome to look after his 4 younger siblings with no income or no family. Shortly after the crash, Jerome has to stop going to college to be able to work in 3 different jobs to look after his siblings, Jerome can't obtain employment as an engineer because he was not able to finish college nor do any internship without financial support and since all the entry level jobs require at least 3 years of experience, his temporary jobs become permanent and he never finds time to finish his college. and he can't be prudent with his financial decisions since he never makes enough money to save or invest.

    Tina spends her evenings smoking pot and hanging out downtown with her friends. She thinks being successful in school is for suckers, and chooses to live in the moment. Thanks to today's lax education standards, she 'graduates' with effectively no marketable skills. One day, Tina and her friends make a video for fun and become internet sensations. Tina continues to make videos for fun because she also thinks working is for suckers. Suddenly, marijuana becomes completely legal across all of United States for both recreation and medical use which causes a huge marijuana boom. One of the industry leaders in cannabis production makes a deal with Tina to become her sponsors, positioning Tina to enjoy a comfortable life.

    Tina and Jerome made different decisions, there are different outcomes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (8 children)

    But if at birth Tina has a trust fund of say $900,000 that is invested in index funds and blue chip stock, Jerome is likely to have significantly less money than Tina at retirement even though he worked hard and she just partied.

    Capital outpaces labour, mathematically speaking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Where did that come from? This discussion is about decisions. And statistically, how many people inherit huge trust funds vs people simply having the opportunity to make good decisions? It's miniscule.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    I think this discussion is about the contributing factors in economic equality. "Decisions" is just one of the possible contributing factors.

    I was trying to use an obvious (no maths needed) example to make the point that access to capital is another, more powerful contributing factor.

    The trust fund was a much easier way to make the point than if I give you a spreadsheet about people whose parents pay for their college versus those with student loans, or people whose parents own homes they can live in versus those who don't, people with access to college and people without etc etc etc.

    There's not all that much churn between those with access to capital and those without.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I think your point has some merit, but this thread is absolutely about choices (check the title). Feel free to start a new thread and posit your thoughts there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (2 children)

    The thread title is 'Economic inequality cannot be explained by bad choices, study finds.'

    I was talking about economic inequality as per the thread title. If you don't want to talk about it that's fine, don't - but there's no need to tell me not to talk in here. We're all friends.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You were not talking about economic inequality and choices (per the actual thread title), you introduced a random inheritance and chased a tangent as if they are the same thing. I didn't tell you not to talk in here, but the purpose of a discussion is to discuss the actual topic, not hijack it with unrelated information.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Wait, did you write this non sequiter in defense of rebul's garbage take?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    Christ no.

    I was trying to explain the main point in Thomas Picketty's Capital in the 21st Century in a way they might understand, but I soon saw that I had vastly underestimated how hard that is to do.

    That's my bad, next time I'll either take the time to spell it out a lot more clearly, or just walk on by.

    Not sure how you came to the conclusion I'm defending their argument, when I can see you just downvoted me for telling them I don't understand them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent