How about a reality hat: the world does not offer everyone equal chances. You live in a country surrounded by fences and border patrol exactly to keep those that were less lucky from trying to get some of that luck.

Even when born in the country, there are better and worse schools, better and worse social infrastructure, a billion different glass ceilings according to color, gender, age, accent or faith.

Your comment perpetuates the eternal lie that everyone can rise to the top, but we all know that some have a 50% chance and others a 0.0005% chance to 'make it'. It's absurd to blame the kid with a bad school and no breakfast for not living up to the highest moral standards and take all the right decisions when they have probably barely to no good advice, guidance or role models.

Its easy to judge, but try to empathise. That's not a policy hat, it's acknowledging reality.

Think of it another way:

What advice would you offer a young poor student looking to get out of poverty

A) The cards are stacked against you, but your best chance is to work hard, get good grades, keep a clean criminal record, go to college, and get a good job.

B) You are the victim of a broken system and this system needs to be fixed.

Both are true, but only one of these messages is actionable and relevant for the student.

Yes, the system us unfair, but people can and do rise out of poverty every day. In fact, most children born into poverty make it out of poverty (66% according to this PEW paper [1])

https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...

I don't understand why you can't tell the hypothetical young, poor student both 'A' and 'B.' In fact, not doing so seems a bit manipulative (regardless of your intentions).

A potential consequence of perpetually leaving 'B' out of the discussion is that, while some of these young, poor students will escape poverty and others will not, neither group may realize that the status quo reflects decisions made by human beings, not some invisible law of nature.

Telling poor and disenfranchised people that hard work is the solution to all of their problems sounds just like a recipe for inducing learned helplessness [1] to me. Sure, some hard-working poor people will escape poverty, but plenty won't. The difference between the two groups often lies in factors outside of their control.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

I would assume the opposite; tell someone that if they work hard, they have a chance is less likely to induce despair in my opinion and experience than telling them that their efforts are meaningless because every part of society is arrayed against them, the odds are laughable, and their failure is all but guaranteed. How could that not make someone feel hopeless? Opportunities and success are not and never will be evenly distributed, but effort still plays a part. Inculcating a victimhood complex in children seems extremely antithetical to the cause of bettering their prospects in life.

> tell someone that if they work hard, they have a chance is less likely to induce despair in my opinion and experience than telling them that their efforts are meaningless because every part of society is arrayed against them, the odds are laughable, and their failure is all but guaranteed. How could that not make someone feel hopeless?

I must not have done a very good job communicating my thoughts, because this is explicitly not what I was advocating for. The post I responded to claimed that both "A) The cards are stacked against you, but your best chance is to work hard..." and "B) You are the victim of a broken system and this system needs to be fixed", then suggested leaving B out of the discussion - even while acknowledging that both 'A' and 'B' were true.

My suggestion was simply to not leave out true, relevant information for the sake of provoking some desired behavioral response from the target audience. That just seems manipulative and paternalistic to me.

This isn't a revelation, however. It's certainly not uncommon for members of marginalized groups to tell their children that they'll have to work twice as hard as other children to end up in the same place.

My fundamental concerns are threefold:

First, is learned helpless. As the article you linked points out, learned helplessness is not the result of working hard and encountering challenges. It is the brain's default assumption in the absence of of encouragement. People's brains are already predisposed to inaction and helplessness by millions of years of evolutionary biology. Humans are already predisposed to fallacies and heuristics that overestimate the challenges and obstacles, and reinforcing them is actively damaging. Poor people already know how hard their life is, they don't need other people to reinforce this.

Second, discussion systemic problems is almost never accompanied by a quantification of the relative impact of hard work vs social policy. Is it 90% hard work and 10% luck, or the the inverse.

Last is relevance. A poor child cant wait 30 years for political solutions to improve social mobility by a few percentage points. They can't go back and be born to a richer household. Pursuing an education and clean record has vastly greater impact on outcomes today, and will continue to be more impactful in the future.

My point wasn't that we should gather all of the world's poor and disenfranchised together and hold a giant pity party, it was that being honest with people about the reality of the (unfair) status quo is better than trying to manipulate them with the sort of self-help mumbo-jumbo you might find at a multi-level marketing conference.

In both the contemporary understanding of learned helplessness and its predecessor, that is to say, whether helplessness is the default state of human existence or a conditioned response, what's being considered is a person's view towards their ability to reach a desired outcome through their actions.

Decontextualizing the actions of those who face increased environmental challenges is likely to provide discouragement, not encouragement, as the actions of those facing greater challenges will seem less impactful in comparison to the more fortunate. In more practical terms, this means that the relative under-performance of the disadvantaged may be interpreted as some form of personal inadequacy rather than an expected response to greater-than-average challenges. This relates to something you said, quoted below:

> Poor people already know how hard their life is, they don't need other people to reinforce this.

This actually isn't true, at least in many important ways, and that's a major part of the problem. While poor Americans may realize that their house/neighborhood/car/etc. isn't as nice as those they see on TV, they can't understand what they haven't experienced - for example: the impact of stable finances, well-educated parents, or a high-performing school district on academic performance. This phenomenon also holds true for other segments of society - those more fortunate generally can't fully understand the disadvantages faced by those less fortunate than them.

This is why it's important to have honest discussions about the differing realities faced by those across society. If we don't understand the context of our actions, we can't understand the impacts of our policies, nor can individuals make realistic choices that optimize for their specific environment.

> discussion systemic problems is almost never accompanied by a quantification of the relative impact of hard work vs social policy

I don't think this is at all feasible. The lived experience of every individual is too unique, with an almost infinite array of immeasurable factors contributing to visible outcomes.

>A poor child cant wait 30 years for political solutions to improve social mobility by a few percentage points...Pursuing an education and clean record has vastly greater impact on outcomes today

I don't want to sound overly blunt here, but the entire point of my previous comment was that we can encourage disadvantaged young people to take the actions most likely to lead to success while acknowledging that 'the system' is broken and trying to fix it. Where did you get the impression that we can't tell children to study and avoid crime while also telling them that they should be aware of unique challenges they could face?

And, again, I'm not trying to sound blunt, but what poor child doesn't want to be successful? What poor child wouldn't want "an education and a clean record?" I think it's important to consider why many of them won't achieve those goals. To me, ignoring the disadvantages some children face and simply telling them to work hard seems both naive and insensitive, but, most importantly, unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome.

I saw nothing of the sort in chmod600's comment. They even led with "When wearing your policymaking hat, I agree that you should consider what people actually do."

Policymakers in Washington and poor immigrants on the streets need different advice, because they control different things. If you are President or Congressperson in the U.S.A, then by all means: let's have a more humane immigration system, and universal health care, and a social safety net.

But if you're a poor immigrant in this country, none of that policy is up to you. Non-citizens don't get to vote; Congresspeople do not listen to them. They risk being deported for the slightest infraction. They often require their employer to sponsor their continued stay in the U.S. They lack financial resources, and oftentimes job skills. They lack cultural capital and a support network.

But they can control several things. They can control where they choose to settle, and move to areas with more opportunity. They can control what they choose to spend money on, and not let anything out the door that isn't absolutely essential for survival. They can control what they do with their time, and allocate that to building new skills and pursuing new opportunities. If they don't do all of those things, they will fall behind, through the cracks, because that's how life is for poor non-citizens in America. It's usually worse for poor non-citizens in the countries they came from, too.

Being able to think systemically, act collectively, and be free from any sort of reprisal or consequence is itself a form of privilege. I thought that chmod600's comment acknowledged reality more than yours did, because not everybody has that privilege. And if you're one of the many people who don't, your best option is to think about your own enlightened self-interest, act according to the options available to you, consider consequences carefully, and not feel too guilty about doing the best that you can.

Yes, thank you. An important element of my argument is to focus on what's in your control.

It's not exclusively about immigrants. In fact, immigrants are less likely to be caught up in notions of fairness because they probably thought to themselves before they came something like "this is going to suck and be unfair, but it will be worth it for my children and grandchildren". So they just make the best of it and compare with the country they came from, not some ideal utopia.

The ability to vote is some tiny amount of control, but democracy is a blunt instrument to actually affect your life in a positive way. Policies and their implementation rarely live up to expectations even when enacted, so people waiting for them just get more discouraged. And a lot of policies that might sound good have bad unintended consequences, which is why there are endless arguments.

I don't mean to give up on policy, just to recognize that it's not going to be the salvation you're waiting for. Sensibly spend some effort to understand issues and vote for good representatives, but don't hold your breath. Focus on ordinary good advice and encouragement that work regardless of the policies.

Most of the goodness in the world is not some well-crafted policy, but ordinary people doing ordinary good things. Be positive and encouraging and give credit when people do those good things, don't be dismissive because you think people will misinterpret the story and craft bad policy out of it.

The way we build on success as a society is when people share their success stories. If every time someone shares their success, the response is instantly about how privileged or lucky they are, then our culture is sick. We should listen to and support those stories.

> If every time someone shares their success, the response is instantly about how privileged or lucky they are, then our culture is sick. We should listen to and support those stories.

I would argue that a culture which attributes success in life to personal effort or choices is sick. This makes people blame themselves for not trying hard enough etc, when in reality there are more decisive factors such as who your parents are (or luck).

For me, This is a very strange take.

Don't we want a culture where success in life is associated with personal choice and an economic environment which allows it to be true?

For now, it is at least a half truth where some individuals are successful because of their hard work and others due to luck.

In what world would we want a culture where success is viewed as entirely random? how would this be better?

I think we already have a culture that exaggerates this aspect. Tried-but-failed stories do not sell very well. Not everyone can be successful and pretending this is case makes people that feeling left out blame them self (or maybe immigrants). I am not advocating a "entirely random" view, just a more nuanced and perhaps more realistic one. Also, I do not think humans will ever stop struggling to achieve things in life, even if we had a society where success where attributed to pure luck.

(Perhaps we should define "success" in this conversation)

I think our impressions are colored about by our different observations of those around us, and this conversation is probably colored by our definitions of success.

This thread kicked off with someone who escaped poverty and made it to the middle class. I am not talking about the fetishization of the hyper-rich.

I do think that with persistence, hard work, and an average allocation of luck most people are capable of achieving a comfortable job and a happy middle class life.

In my observations, a lack of personal responsibility for improving your situation is much more harmful than idealizing the successful. For every person I know held back by some sense of inferiority, blaming themselves, I know 10 stuck in a shitty situation by complacency. I see skilled people in miserable jobs who could be interviewing, people lonely or shitty marriages they should change. I see people who are unhappy with their heath but make no change. Many of these people think, "I am just unlucky" and resign themselves to their situation.

While you don't think people will ever stop struggling, I'm not convinced. People can become disillusion and hopeless if you tell them their effort has no correlation with their success in life.

Some say that the "American Dream" of getting ahead with hard work is a lie, but I think the idea that your efforts have no impact on outcomes is an even bigger lie, and a more dangerous one.

Sad to say, $200k is not middle class. $300k is the line, nowadays. Very few of us are middle class, in the sense that our grandparents could be even on a regular wage. That is, there is essentially no middle class in the US anymore. Income is distributed strictly bimodally.

None of this is accidental: it is the consequence of a specific program started about 1970, outlined in the Powell Memorandum, to grab control of the levers of power. Perhaps the most important factor was using military-grade propaganda methods to get the poorer half of voters voting against their own interests. It has been running for 50 years now, and has been a roaring success.

Kids come out of college now saddled with decades of crushing debt, facing homelessness after one medical or legal hiccup; scared voters are easily manipulated. Half the nation actually voted for an out-and-out con man--twice!--pretending to represent them while doing everything imaginable to grind them down further. Meanwhile the opposition has been forced to pray to the same gods, and depend on hedge funds to finance a half-hearted alternative that has to use a vocabulary created by the propaganda machine.

The amount of money generated by the US economy has gone up and up and up since 1945, but the amount collected by regular people--the less-than-99%-ers--leveled off in 1975. All the rest has gone straight to the pockets of those at the very top, even minting billionaires left and right. Make no mistake, we could all be fantastically better off given pretty small policy changes.

>Sad to say, $200k is not middle class. $300k is the line, nowadays. Very few of us are middle class, in the sense that our grandparents could be even on a regular wage. That is, there is essentially no middle class in the US anymore. Income is distributed strictly bimodally.

If you think <300k/yr is not middle class, I think we are coming from such different places that we cant have a meaningful discussion.

I'm just going to put this out there:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distri...

You have displayed just the left-hand lobe of the bimodal US income distribution. The other bump is way off to the right. Middle-class, if there were one anymore, would be at the dip in the middle, where I said, just off-screen. The goal has been to develop and maintain a permanent underclass who are just barely well enough off that any change seems to threaten to knock them into homelessness, yet imagine they are doing lots better than people with brown skin.

The propaganda message is that any improvement for the people at far left (with brown skin, in particular) would be at the expense of people immediately to their right. The other lobe, off-screen, that could afford everything, is invisible. The program has been a fantastic success. Champagne corks are popping every year, but most especially in 2020, when the right lobe shifted quite a ways further right.

I have some relatives in the other lobe. Their lives are very different from ours. Their kids' lives are very different from our kids'.

This is the entire distribution. The last bucket is everything greater than 200k. When you look at it plotted out, it is a long tail.

To track where the money is going, you have to multiply the count in each bucket by the value on the bucket.

And, get the income not reported as "household income". Income of most millionaires does not show up on there. Jeff Bezos's and Trump's incomes are not on there.

I guess you don't know about family trusts.

> a culture which attributes success in life to personal effort or choices is sick.

Then what is the point of making better choices, such as staying in school, avoiding drugs and not committing crimes?

Meaning, why bother not just rotting in prison? Or, why stay in school when it will make no difference anyway? When you and I were kids, one hourly wage was enough raise a family on, and two (often enough the kid's) to send them to college. Now that is impossible. They graduate today with a lifetime of debt.

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, both per capita and in absolute numbers (even counting, e.g., Chinese concentration camps). Cities have quotas now, where they are obliged to send a specific number to prison each year to maintain their contract. The prisons and police forces cost much more to operate than would be needed to lift every American out of poverty.

When you and I were young, no city police force had a billion dollar budget. Crime rates plummeted about 18 years after we stopped poisoning everyone with lead, so there is much less legitimate work for the police. They keep busy, though.

> one hourly wage was enough raise a family on

Having worked at minimum wage as a teen, I can guarantee you could not support a family on it.

> They graduate today with a lifetime of debt

The ones that did not google "starting salaries for major X" and compare that against the expected debt they'd incur, yes.

A culture that didn't do that at all would of course be doomed to failure. If people think it's all about luck, they won't make an effort. In reality it's of course not only about luck at all.

Yes you do need lucky genetics (and insane amounts of hard work) if you want to join the NBA, but if you're willing to work hard and make sacrifices it's more than enough to be born average (not too poor, not too sick), you'll be able to have a very decent life.

It's not about attribution. It's about learning from success, because we can't learn from luck.

Sure, but there's another part of it where applying statistical averages to individuals promotes helplessness. Expecting people to suck it up and achieve despite adversity is not realistic at a population level and you should not promote that as a solution there, but individuals can and do achieve despite adversity. Telling people that they are real humans that can make decisions and do things is healthy and you don't want to take that away. It's a line you need to walk but only going with the population level approach has a lot of downsides.

> When wearing your policymaking hat, I agree that you should consider what people actually do (which is not always wise) rather than just what they should do.

> But when actually struggling (or perhaps even when comfortable), you should forget about policy and fairness and just make the best decisions you can and keep trying to do the right thing, and that gives you or your children or grandchildren the best chance to make it to a comfortable place.

This exact dichotomy comes up when I give advice. I have started calling it 'advice for persons' vs 'advice for peoples' (the grammatical peculiarity is on purpose). Both are often completely different.

OP's advice is great for persons. It doesn't work for policy making which is decidedly about peoples. But, I don't think that was its intention to begin with.

Seems high crime rate decreases the efficiency and well being of societies a lot.

The person can't live in a dense area and must have a car, to avoid other people since they are potentially dangerous. Also their workplace is in a dangerous area. So a large portion of their money goes to transportation and housing.

What if they were just as poor but the crime rate in general was just lower? They could live in dense housing and use public transport all day, as could the spouse and the kids.

To an outsider, this seems like a really big factor.

Thank you for this response. As a first generation immigrant from a third world country, I don't understand this phenomenon of lightly chastising anyone who doesn't attribute their success to privilege, as if afraid someone might be inspired and succeed in something. I suppose its all a matter of perspective. If you haven't experienced poverty in the third world, its easy to whine about privilege and inequality in the USA. If you have experienced it, then you already know life is not fair and there is always someone better off than you.

I'm an immmigrant from a 3rd world country as well - I understand the phenomenon perfectly - it's not about "chastising anyone who doesn't attribute their success to privilege" - it's just pointing out the survivorship bias that's inherent in "If I made it through hard work, anyone can, if they just work hard". Implicit in that statement is that those who do not make it are lazy - this is just not true, but it also co-opts the "Just-world" fallacy.

I am doing better than the average American, in large part, because I'm not burdened by the things that hinder the average American (hyper-infation is one way of easily getting rid of your student loan, but the other aspects of your life will be terrible - I do not recommend it)

> If you haven't experienced poverty in the third world, its easy to whine about privilege and inequality in the USA. If you have experienced it, then you already know life is not fair and there is always someone better off than you.

Shouldn't it be a point of pride - that the USA has less inequality than third world countries. Americans should absolutely "whine" about it, and avoid moving closer to third-world standards. That should be taken as well as saying "If you haven't been detained for months without trial in the freezing gulags, it's easy to whine about mass surveillance and unlawful arrests in the USA".

> But the constant drumbeat of unfairness and victimhood is a counterproductive tactic in the policymaking process.

I don't get it, do you think the system is fair? Do you think it's fine to have so many homeless people in the US because they were given a fair chance? Do you think it's fair that you can go bankrupt due to a medical issue?

No, of course life is not fair. But in the limited time we have, we can either discuss how to make the world more fair, or succeed despite unfairness.

Each discussion has its place. We shouldn't derail every success story with comments about how "privileged" someone is for having an aunt.

I disagree, because people often focus on success story to argue that we don’t need to improve the situation, the market will figure out itself, and that’s what we’re seeing at play.

The opposite problem can also happen, where people focus on unfairness instead of taking advantage of the opportunities that they have. That probably causes more actual harm.

It depends on the situation, of course. Slavery was so oppressive that it needed to be abolished before any other progress could happen. But that's just not the situation today -- lots of progress can happen without policy changes. I know that policy makers (or politically-obsessed people) like to believe that policy is everything, but it's really not. Policy is important but it's just one piece of a complex social system.