More straw-man crap trying to pitch the ridiculous idea that hard work doesn't matter at all. OK, sure, you can argue that you're more likely to reach the very highest echelons of society if you are lucky enough to be born rich, etc. But:
a. "more likely" doesn't mean it isn't possible to achieve if you aren't "born right"
and perhaps more to the point:
b. "success" is measured on a continuum; it's not a binary proposition. And there's a lot of room between "Becoming a Supreme Court justice" (just to pick an example) and winding up as a barista at Starbucks. Like, plenty of lawyers who make a nice living for their families, or all the thousands of local district and superior court judges out there, or the hundreds of federal circuit judges who don't quite make it to the very top.
This kind of article is boring and pointless because it's selling a dangerous idea: that nothing you do matters at all, and, ergo, you might as well do nothing. I mean, if hard work doesn't matter, why bother working hard to begin with, right?
As the old saying goes: "It is better to shoot for the stars and miss than aim at the gutter and hit it". Or another take on it: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
So yeah, tell your kids to dream big and work hard. They'll probably go further than if you tell them "life sucks, you have no chance, so just go ahead and do nothing but play video games and smoke weed all day".
Did you read the article? It's about his life where he worked hard and got lucky to escape poverty and attend Oxford. He criticizes the system because it is inherently biased to the privileged so he argues that we need to do better.
Having 12 children is completely out of responsibility. Yet we saved this guy from poverty. Now what, not only the guy is barely thankful, but he claims that people should be able to reproduce this error and get the same incredibly good outcome – and it's a right? What about no?
He shows no understanding of what is normal; Growing from 12th-child of farmer parents to barrister in less than one generation is already a privilege; I'd be happy if my grand son had the same social status as I have already. Be humble. There's a lot of things to learn to rise in society, from not having TV to various attitudes about trading in business, from attitude about alcohol to relaxation things (or religion if that's your thing); No, if you don't educate your child, or if teach him that being a barrista is good enough, then he won't be able to become barrister despite his parents. But he's free to edicate his children better, that's how it works.
The XXI century is stuck in a wrong expectation that governments are supposed to compensate for your parents' life choices and make you a lawyer. To me, it explains why people are more and more polarized, on one side those who accuse the riches of stealing their right to equality (whatever that means), on the other people who grow a big expertise at getting deaf to such claims (and, unfortunately, they tilt towards not listening to any claims regarding rights, even older ones which were reasonable enough to survive the ages, like voting and democracy). Want to protect your democracy? Be reasonable with your claims, rights and expectations.
Non-Western cultures and Catholics both have a bias towards large families. As a survival strategy, it often makes perfect sense in those different cultural settings.
>The XXI century is stuck in a wrong expectation that governments are supposed to compensate for your parents' life choices.
No, it's really not. "Choices" are a luxury, not a given.
You need a good education and a personal or family tradition of researching and understanding outcomes to make useful choices. Those are not the default for most families.
Even if that weren't true, governments should not, in fact, compensate anyone for anything. What they should do is perform a cost/benefit analysis and work out which social mitigation strategies provide the best overall returns.
Does it cost less to house the homeless or to keep them on the streets, where they're a drain on all kinds of services?
Simple moralising can't answer that question. Objective, rational, research can. And when you do objective, rational, research, you often find that naive decisions based on simple-minded moralising tend to produces expensive, low-efficiency outcomes.
I'm often surprised how "objective, rational, research" can be biased by the author. For example, "objective, rational, research" lead to not demonstrating that women are paid less if they perform equal work (degree, interest in tech, but also number of extra hours at work), but "objective, rational, research"-people regularly and repeatedly refuse to discuss or even listen to such stats, because they're not "objective, rational, research" according to them. So if you leftist people agreed to question your own "objective, rational, research" that shows that leftist people are right, maybe we could hear each other.
Maybe that leads to a world where those who annoy their friends at school have no job when they're an adult. And that's how it should be, even if "objective, rational, research" show that "oh the poor boy he beats up his friends because [insert whatever family reason here]".
Note that I've given thousands to charities and helped minorities until my thirties. Until one of them raped my daughter-in-law. No matter how you try, even if you put them on a highway of priorities above normal people, those are their own top enemy. A bit of fairness towards former-normal people would be nice as well.
"As the old saying goes: "It is better to shoot for the stars and miss than aim at the gutter and hit it". Or another take on it: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
"
These are fine. However, there is also the belief that all people who have reached the stars have worked hard or that people who haven't reached stars just haven't worked enough. These are wrong. Success is a combination of hard work and a good portion of luck. You most likely won't be successful if you don't work hard but if you don't succeed it's not necessarily because you haven't worked hard.
To me it's a call for successful people to be more compassionate with people who aren't successful.
You were lucky and unlucky. You have probably worked hard but you may also have been co-founder of a bad startup and lost everything. Or you could have gone bankrupt because of medical bills.
You definitely should work hard but by no means there is a guarantee you will succeed. You also need some luck.
This totally reminds me of the scene in "The Expanse" series that showed the test run of an engine that allowed broader exploration of the solar system...
Almost every successful person I'm aware of is very driven... now, there's luck involved as well.. but it's a combination.
As the song goes[0]:
This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name!
That is certainly true, but survivorship bias still is a thing: Just because every successful person is hard-working, doesn't mean by any stretch that every hard-working person is successful.
Kind of the same thing everyone's saying here isn't it ? Not being driven guarantees failure, but there's just no way to guarantee success - although to a certain extent being driven does guarantee success. It just won't necessarily make you CEO or president or some such.
That's why when hiring I always say hire the lucky person not the hard worker. You're an idiot if you think it's hard work that explains success of a company. I get applications to role a set of dices and the one that roles the hirest number is hired.
Nowhere in that article does he say that hard work doesn't matter at all.
>What I have learned in this short period of time is that the pervasive narrative of “if you work hard you will get on” is a complete myth. It’s not true and we need stop saying it. This is because “working hard, and doing the right thing” barely gets you to the starting line. Furthermore, it means something completely different depending on to which context you’re applying this particular notion. So much more is required.
If you note what he says at the end of that paragraph, it becomes obvious that what he's trying to get across is that you absolutely need hard work, but that will give you only the bare minimum to have a chance and it's definitely not a guarantee that you will do well.
No, I read and understood the article. If I'm guilty of anything, it's reacting to more than just what this article is saying. But it strikes me as just one more in a long series of articles / essays / comments that have emerged over the past few years which, collectively, are promoting a message that denigrates the value of hard work and suggest that pretty much everything comes down to luck.
Yeah I agree that there have been a lot of articles that basically approach the topic (which I thoroughly believe in, that it's not just hard work that gets you to the top) with the tone of "hard work doesn't matter". I thought this one was good though.
Interesting. The parent was directed to mcbruiser3, and you responded as though it was directed to you. Having trouble getting your message out with only one account?
If we tell people the dangerous false idea that hard work is the main factor that makes someone rich or successful, we could end up with a terrible society where the rich feel they have no responsibility to help the less fortunate (by e.g. providing universal healthcare), because they must simply have been lazy – even though most rich people started out rich, and even the rich people who started out poor and worked hard still owe their success partially to being lucky enough not to have been randomly afflicted by some disease, by growing up in a society that provided them opportunities for education and business, etc.
So if your kids turned out more successful than others, don't tell them it was just because they dreamt big and worked hard. While hard work is important, their success was also partially due to luck and the work of others, and they should never forget that.
> we could end up with a terrible society where the rich feel they have no responsibility to help the less fortunate (by e.g. providing universal healthcare), because they must simply have been lazy
I completely agree with you, but it's curious that you frame this as a hypothetical outcome. At least in the US, this idea has been deeply ingrained in broad swaths of the population for decades - and not just among the rich.
I was going to make this point as well. Even in the responses to this article we can very clearly see a desire to defend the American meritocracy myth.
While hard work is important, their success was also partially due to luck and the work of others, and they should never forget that.
Agreed. My problem is with this meme that seems to have become pervasive over the last year or two, which seems to posit that, effectively, everything comes down to luck. Clearly the actual truth is somewhere between the extremes of "it's all luck" and "it's all hard work". My response here is a reaction to what I perceive as a swinging of the pendulum towards the "it's all luck" mindset, to a degree that I think is damaging.
I think the thing is that the luck is much more make-or-break than the work. Luck can make how much work you've done irrelevant, but no amount of work can make luck irrelevant. For example, the "cash me ousside" girl didn't do any work, but now is more successful than I am by sheer weird luck. Meanwhile, lots of people have put in stupendous amounts of work and still ended up with bad results just because they were unlucky (remember, despite being beloved of the Internet nowadays, Nikola Tesla died penniless and alone).
I think a better way to frame this is "Hard work barely matters when you work for someone else."
I've been in too many situations and witnessed too many friends and family members that shoot for the moon but are never able to leave Earth as all their extra efforts are usurped by their managers and business owners.
Sure hard work "matters", it can help you get places, but how much does it matter is the question? Does it make 1% difference? 5% difference? 50% difference? I'd bet the difference is <10% compared to someone who does just enough to get by.
I think kids would go furthest of all if we told them "treat yourself as an autonomous being, work hard when you are in a position to realize the benefits of your hard work, otherwise do just enough and save your energy for better days."
The strawman is yours. The author clearly does not believe or say that hard work doesn't matter at all. That's obvious to anyone who actually read it instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the title and not even bothering to quote-mine before responding. All he's saying is that hard work is only one factor, and that others must be addressed for that hard work to earn its just reward.
That's obvious to anyone who actually read it instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the title
It's not just this article alone, that's the thing. It's the broader meme that this article aligns with, which denigrates the value of hard work and - IMO - over-emphasizes luck.
That said, if you want quote-mining, here ya go. One that I a wholeheartedly agree with. It just feels a bit tacked on near the end.
We need to do more to double down on improving environments both at home and at school which continuously constrain potential. If the adage that hard work truly matters rings true, then we must do more – at all levels of society – to make it a reality.
Rather than nitpick on the wording, I think you should try to see the underlying point. It's unfortunate phrasing, but the point isn't about how hard you work or whether it's important to have a good work ethic.
I liked this article better, and it conveys more or less the same point as the topic link:
The problem is that hard work makes a dent, but not a very big one if you don't understand the "game" that you need to play. It's easy to take this for granted if you grow up in an environment with many people who understand it because you learn it by osmosis.
This is either a nitpick of your post, or a complete agreement with it, but I'm not sure which: "work ethic" or "Protestant ethic", in Weber's original understanding, had three parts: hard work, deferred consumption, and reinvestment. Using "have a good work ethic" to mean "work hard", without the other two elements, is a good way to stay poor -- which is to say, a good way to fail to understand how to play the game, in the way you mention. More accurate sociology would probably mean more upward social mobility.
I would argue that deferred consumption and reinvestment would help further, but still not necessarily enough.
Jumping into the article that I linked, the author was missing a critical chain of thought: that currently in the United States, the path to an "upward mobile" job generally follows these lines:
1. Get good grades in high school
2. Score high on the SAT (which has to be practiced), then get lots of help writing your college essay
3. Pick an area of study that corresponds with a well-paying occupation, and then get into a college that is solid in that department
4. Leverage the career and alumni network to find a well-paying job, or apply to business/law/medical school.
At each step, you have to prioritize how you spend your limited time and energy. I grew up with parents who understood this point and focused my energy into each step when it was time to do so, so I was very lucky in that sense. I also worked my ass off, but steps 1 through 3 were very much helped along by parental guidance.
“I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both; and I believe they both get paid in the end; but the fools first.” - Robert Louis Stevenson, Kidnapped
>>selling a dangerous idea: that nothing you do matters at all, and, ergo, you might as well do nothing. I mean, if hard work doesn't matter, why bother working hard to begin with, right?
You must work hard and contribute only to a system that is fair.
Its important to starve that system of good contributors which doesn't reward merit.
One of the reason why people immigrate to other countries, or move companies is because of futility of doing anything in their current ecosystem.
> What I have learned in this short period of time is that the pervasive narrative of “if you work hard you will get on” is a complete myth. It’s not true and we need stop saying it. This is because “working hard, and doing the right thing” barely gets you to the starting line
The author misses the point. It's true that only saying “if you work hard you will get on” is not enough. But it's only half the picture - working hard will only get you somewhere - the starting line. Then you need to continue and improve and adapt. Whether it's worth that time and effort is another question.
But simply accepting a half truth as a whole and ignoring the whole picture is harmful "It’s not true and we need stop saying it." is the completely wrong thing to say. Better: "it's not the only thing that counts, and we need to give tell our children what they really need to do"
I don't think the author missed the mark. He does elaborate on the other factors, such as social adaption:
> I don’t see this mindset shifting, so my advice to youngsters has remained: you need to adapt yourself. You need to find the right way to speak to different people, at different times in different contexts. This is not compromising who you are, but rather adapting to the relevant surroundings.
There are two really big problems with this outlook. First if everyone achieves a high level education, the competition for high skilled jobs also goes up, making the higher education mean less and requiring further education to beat the crowd. This is something millennials are experiencing right now. Second, if employers take more risk and hire more people from underprivileged backgrounds, it just means that someone from a privileged background missed out on the job and just shifts the resentment from one group to the other. It doesn't really solve the fundamental problem.
Working hard will move you forward. How forward is hard to determine, and it varies. The reality is that some people in their lifetime won't achieve success but they lay the foundation for their children too...ex his mothers struggle to get from Africa to the UK laid the foundation for him to achieve his success. Their is little chance that he will become say the Prime Minister, but his children may...thanks to their dad being able to provide them with a privileged life.
The job market isn't static like that. If there are lots of highly educated people, there will be new jobs created to take advantage of their skills. There might be more competition or there might not be, and it's definitely not a linear correlation.
The more I think on this topic, the more I think this statement is incorrect.
Or rather it's correct, but irrelevantly so. Sure new markets will be created if your worker pool is made up highly motivated and college educated individuals. But it won't matter for that first generation - economies simply don't shift that quickly.
It's not a linear correlation, but it's a lot more linear than economic theorists would lead you to believe. In human working-age timescales, it may as well be linear.
There is a lot more to entrepreneurship than a high education level. Young people are more educated than ever, yet small business creation is lower than ever[1]. A business requires startup capital, which is tough to gain when you must start your career in $40k-$100k in debt. The salaries of recent grads have been lower, too. Cost of living, especially in housing and medical expenses, is going up every year. With dwindling social stability and a hobbled ability to save, the only ones who can safely risk starting a business nowadays are those who already have capital.
Your first point depends on your definition of "educated." I'm unconvinced that young people are more educated than ever, because education includes broad critical/creative thinking. It's not cookbook mimicry bounded by a narrow set of choices in a common problem space.
It's the difference between "I made a new web framework" and Vannevar Bush or John von Neumann.
As for cost of debt - yes, it gets much harder to innovate when access to free capital is rationed. Rationing and hoarding capital is actually one of the dumbest things a capitalist culture can do. "Hard work" won't fix this.
As birth rates plummet across much of the developed world, can people really still be convinced to take on hardship just because things might supposedly be easier for their children (that they don't even have, or have but don't maintain a close relationship with)? Telling people today that their sacrifices are worth it or that the obstacles they face are not so bad, because things will be better for their kids, is cold comfort.
If there are equal outcomes, then we have succeeded at creating equal opportunity. Not as individuals; but statistically.
Individually preferences, choices, dumb luck, etc. of course would lead to unequal outcomes -- as it should be. But when taken as a whole, those differences should disappear.
It is an ideal, but I like it because it is a measurable ideal.
People in coal mines work pretty hard. Are they getting luckier, do you think? This is an absolutely great maxim for people who are fortunate or wise enough to be working on developing their own abilities and position. For the majority of people who are working hard to get paid to pay bills to have life's necessities, but don't have much energy or idea what to do beyond that, it's a cruel joke.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, miners get to use heavy equipment to do what used to be back-breaking labour, and salaries tend to start at twice the national median. Modern miners are not the poorest-of-the-poor picture of yesteryear.
I was just suggesting you update your mental image of coal miners from the 1950s to the 21st century.
I remember one politician here a couple of years ago defending miners in his electorate as 'battlers' (aussie slang for poor who are trying to make ends meet)... and at a time when the national median wage was $57k and median household income was $77k, the 'battler' he was defending made $110k...
It's not so much that I have a particular image of coal miners as people still do the more traditional back breaking labor sort of coal mining in the country where I live. The point is that people do heavy manual labor and it doesn't necessarily advance their economic interests, not to comment on the state of the coal industry in 2017.
Hmm, seems to work the opposite for me. Baling hay, one of the most demanding jobs I've ever had: a bit over minimum wage. Writing software, where my ping pong sessions are occasionally interrupted by work that involves sitting at a desk: fat stacks of Benjamins.
Quite so. Hard work will absolutely help you advance in your endeavors, but if your hard work advances others more than it advances you - which is true for an awful lot of people - then you are being used and when your utility is exhausted you will be cast aside without a second thought.
This argument is not, as some have claimed, an excuse for apathy. Rather, it argues that accepting the prevailing socioeconomic norms is foolish for anyone who is not close to the apex of society. The level playing field and other such political tropes are false, there is abundant evidence of this, and anyone who tells you otherwise either lying to you or to themselves.
Telling children 'hard work won't get you to the top' is simply a lie, also. Success has an endless number of variables and they are all weighted differently for every individual. Fact is, your work ethic is a variable you control - Teaching children that is important.
Alas, teaching children (and adults) they're but one of a larger group of victims is, and will always be, a political juggernaut.
I don't know when it became OK to use these logical fallacies online to support propaganda.
I also don't know at which point even the people with above average intelligence (AND definitely know about what a logical fallacy is) decided that they will pretend it suddenly doesn't exist.
Lastly, I don't know why the HN readers who I'm sure know ALL about all this AND even more end up going all groundhog day and have the same battle every time this type of article comes up.
One of my pet peeves is when someone takes issue with an oversimplification of something, but instead of dealing with the oversimplification, they keep the same level of oversimplification but assume that the opposite view must be true.
Just because something's not 100% true doesn't mean it's 0% true. In this case, a more appropriate level of granularity would be: "if you work hard, you are more likely to be successful than if you don't work hard." That kind of nuance doesn't really resonate with children though, which is why we don't tell them that.
Complaining that it's all a big lie is akin to someone growing up, realizing that there is no Santa living in the North Pole, and concluding that the North Pole must also be a lie.
I somewhat agree with the premise, but then I read "going home to a bedroom which you share with many other siblings"
Yes, surely sharing a room with your brother and sister hampers your chances of success (sarcasm). Did he mean a cramped room? Even so, I don't agree.
There is no guarantee for anything in life, it's an absolute certainty that you will get nothing without some semblence of hard work.
That's true -- but the top is a harder place to stay at than you think. China, the West, and the Middle East all have variations of "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations"; most fortunes don't last past the grandchildren of the people who earned them -- and this was even true under feudalism, where new titles had to be continually granted, and the fourth generation after the man who was first granted arms was hardly ever armigerous, if it existed at all.
The few who make it past the third generation, generally continue on indefinitely (the Roosevelts, who bought a 40-acre farm on Manhattan Island in the 1600s and still own it today, should come to mind; likewise the Rothschilds and Rockefellers in more recent times); but getting over that three-generation hurdle is a formidable task.
I think the more important insight is that what you work on is as important as how hard you work. This is especially true in today's world of automation, where things that took one person literally a year can now be done by machines in a few hours.
Inculcating a culture of work ethic into the majority of the population produces a surplus that may then be extracted and utilized by a specific class of people who do not wish to work hard.
Arbeit macht frei.
As far as I am aware, every human culture has always demanded more work than strictly necessary from the working class in order to support a relatively small proportion of non-workers or light workers. At the band/tribe level, that is generally very young children and very old elders. Larger organization units tended to reserve some of the light work and non-work for administrators and enforcers. For a while, we have had concepts such as "education" and "retirement" that take the place of child labor and dying at your workstation, made possible by improvements in productivity in the working class.
So for those whose hands never acquired a callus, it has long been necessary that other people do harder work. Indeed, we even had more odious lies, such as "you must work hard, because you are my property," or "work hard, or you will be removed, and your family will starve."
Sometimes, the promise of promotion was not a lie. The very best of the hard workers were elevated to encourage the others, but never quite far enough that they might question what is really done with all that hard work.
We have robots and power generators now. None of us can work harder, faster, or more cheaply than a fully automated factory running on raw materials and electricity. The former economic necessities are no longer required. But no one is prepared to come out and say "no one really needs to work hard any more, and you will only be able to reach the top by owning the most productive capital" because there are so many people out there who have been toeing that line their whole lives, working hard without reaching even a local maximum. The economy isn't entirely automated--not yet--and we still collectively need some people to work. No one wants to be the one chump in ten that has to bust their ass every day while everyone else just lies around goofing off.
So we have the "bullshit job" phenomenon, to distribute and obfuscate who is doing all the actual work, making the other 9 put up the appearance of work for the sake of the one still actually doing the critical labor, or dividing up the work so that 10 people each do 10% of a real job and 90% flimflammery.
What we should be telling the kids is "own something now, before it is too late."
I don't think I've ever heard anyone tell their children "hard work gets you to the top". I believe what is actually more often said is "if you don't work hard, you won't get to the top". Subtle, but crucial difference.
The title doesn't match the content ("gets you to the top" versus "get on in life") and makes the mistake that the only way to consider yourself a success is to become upper-middle class. It is wrong to teach all underprivileged youth that the only thing standing between them and their own professional practice is working hard, but it's not wrong to teach them that a good work ethic will make other things in their life easier.
What's needed is tons of hard work on exactly the right thing at the right time, or some half-assed work on a different kind of right thing at the right time.
Is "the top" the goal? Shouldn't be for every child. Telling every child they can reach "the top" is a lie.
I grew up in a very poor part of the country, certainly bottom 5%. And eventually paid my own way through an Ivy League school... I would say that the lessons my dad taught me were solid.
1) It's important to work hard. You don't work hard to get ahead... you work hard so you are satisfied that you gave it your all. Take pride in your accomplishments -- however small. Work until you're happy with what you have done.
2) Be careful what you wish for -- what you choose to dedicate your life to doing is important, but know that luck plays a huge role. You can't count on luck, but you can be immensely thankful for it and humble accepting it.
3) The world is yours to make what you will out of it. You're the only one who can determine what is right for you. Nobody is better than you are, but you're no better than anyone else -- stand up for yourself, and be kind to those you run into along the way.
Interesting to compare and contrast American and European attitudes toward social mobility [1].
Apparently Americans are far more likely than Europeans to believe that hard work gets you to the top.
However, these expectations are apparently quite divorced from reality. Apparently hard work is far more likely to get you to the top in Europe (especially continental Europe) than in the US.
"My mother gave birth to 12 children. I arrived in London at the age of nine, speaking practically no English. I attended some of the worst performing schools in inner-city London and was raised exclusively on state benefits. Many years later I was lucky enough to attend Oxford on a full scholarship for my postgraduate degree. Now as a barrister I am a lifetime member of The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn."
This...is....mind-boggling. Instead of being grateful to the host country which has given him so much he finds it necessary to moan that other people of similar circumstance don't have the same chances to succeed in this country as the existing elites?
And then people wonder why the natives are tired of accepting more of the same?
Btw, I'm in a similar situation myself (except that my mother didn't come from a society where people have 12 kids) - came as a penniless immigrant to the West, achieved a fair measure of success. But I happen to be grateful and appreciative instead of whine that a children of illiterate immigrants have worse chances at success than the middle classes.
That's why when hiring I always say hire the lucky person not the hard worker. You're an idiot if you think it's hard work that explains success of a company. I get applications to role a set of dices and the one that roles the hirest number is hired.
85 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 89.1 ms ] threada. "more likely" doesn't mean it isn't possible to achieve if you aren't "born right"
and perhaps more to the point:
b. "success" is measured on a continuum; it's not a binary proposition. And there's a lot of room between "Becoming a Supreme Court justice" (just to pick an example) and winding up as a barista at Starbucks. Like, plenty of lawyers who make a nice living for their families, or all the thousands of local district and superior court judges out there, or the hundreds of federal circuit judges who don't quite make it to the very top.
This kind of article is boring and pointless because it's selling a dangerous idea: that nothing you do matters at all, and, ergo, you might as well do nothing. I mean, if hard work doesn't matter, why bother working hard to begin with, right?
As the old saying goes: "It is better to shoot for the stars and miss than aim at the gutter and hit it". Or another take on it: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
So yeah, tell your kids to dream big and work hard. They'll probably go further than if you tell them "life sucks, you have no chance, so just go ahead and do nothing but play video games and smoke weed all day".
> My mother gave birth to 12 children
Having 12 children is completely out of responsibility. Yet we saved this guy from poverty. Now what, not only the guy is barely thankful, but he claims that people should be able to reproduce this error and get the same incredibly good outcome – and it's a right? What about no?
He shows no understanding of what is normal; Growing from 12th-child of farmer parents to barrister in less than one generation is already a privilege; I'd be happy if my grand son had the same social status as I have already. Be humble. There's a lot of things to learn to rise in society, from not having TV to various attitudes about trading in business, from attitude about alcohol to relaxation things (or religion if that's your thing); No, if you don't educate your child, or if teach him that being a barrista is good enough, then he won't be able to become barrister despite his parents. But he's free to edicate his children better, that's how it works.
The XXI century is stuck in a wrong expectation that governments are supposed to compensate for your parents' life choices and make you a lawyer. To me, it explains why people are more and more polarized, on one side those who accuse the riches of stealing their right to equality (whatever that means), on the other people who grow a big expertise at getting deaf to such claims (and, unfortunately, they tilt towards not listening to any claims regarding rights, even older ones which were reasonable enough to survive the ages, like voting and democracy). Want to protect your democracy? Be reasonable with your claims, rights and expectations.
>The XXI century is stuck in a wrong expectation that governments are supposed to compensate for your parents' life choices.
No, it's really not. "Choices" are a luxury, not a given.
You need a good education and a personal or family tradition of researching and understanding outcomes to make useful choices. Those are not the default for most families.
Even if that weren't true, governments should not, in fact, compensate anyone for anything. What they should do is perform a cost/benefit analysis and work out which social mitigation strategies provide the best overall returns.
Does it cost less to house the homeless or to keep them on the streets, where they're a drain on all kinds of services?
Simple moralising can't answer that question. Objective, rational, research can. And when you do objective, rational, research, you often find that naive decisions based on simple-minded moralising tend to produces expensive, low-efficiency outcomes.
Try going back one or two more generations in your genealogy if you can't see it closer.
Sadly and I hate to break it up. Having 10 children a few generations ago used to go with a very high mortality rate, even in Western Europe.
I'm often surprised how "objective, rational, research" can be biased by the author. For example, "objective, rational, research" lead to not demonstrating that women are paid less if they perform equal work (degree, interest in tech, but also number of extra hours at work), but "objective, rational, research"-people regularly and repeatedly refuse to discuss or even listen to such stats, because they're not "objective, rational, research" according to them. So if you leftist people agreed to question your own "objective, rational, research" that shows that leftist people are right, maybe we could hear each other.
Maybe that leads to a world where those who annoy their friends at school have no job when they're an adult. And that's how it should be, even if "objective, rational, research" show that "oh the poor boy he beats up his friends because [insert whatever family reason here]".
Note that I've given thousands to charities and helped minorities until my thirties. Until one of them raped my daughter-in-law. No matter how you try, even if you put them on a highway of priorities above normal people, those are their own top enemy. A bit of fairness towards former-normal people would be nice as well.
These are fine. However, there is also the belief that all people who have reached the stars have worked hard or that people who haven't reached stars just haven't worked enough. These are wrong. Success is a combination of hard work and a good portion of luck. You most likely won't be successful if you don't work hard but if you don't succeed it's not necessarily because you haven't worked hard.
To me it's a call for successful people to be more compassionate with people who aren't successful.
I was unlucky and had medical problems in college. I deserve some relief. But I'm also a co-founder of a decent startup. Am I lucky or unlucky?
You definitely should work hard but by no means there is a guarantee you will succeed. You also need some luck.
Funnily enough the moon is much closer than the stars. ;)
I think success is a matter of preparation, opportunity/luck and 'hard work' in the form of dedication when the opportunity presents itself.
Sure but if you MISS the moon, you'll be stuck heading towards the stars until you run of of oxygen and die.
That's the point of this saying, right? ...
As the song goes[0]:
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6hpVHx6QCw>What I have learned in this short period of time is that the pervasive narrative of “if you work hard you will get on” is a complete myth. It’s not true and we need stop saying it. This is because “working hard, and doing the right thing” barely gets you to the starting line. Furthermore, it means something completely different depending on to which context you’re applying this particular notion. So much more is required.
If you note what he says at the end of that paragraph, it becomes obvious that what he's trying to get across is that you absolutely need hard work, but that will give you only the bare minimum to have a chance and it's definitely not a guarantee that you will do well.
I see no evidence of that.
So if your kids turned out more successful than others, don't tell them it was just because they dreamt big and worked hard. While hard work is important, their success was also partially due to luck and the work of others, and they should never forget that.
I completely agree with you, but it's curious that you frame this as a hypothetical outcome. At least in the US, this idea has been deeply ingrained in broad swaths of the population for decades - and not just among the rich.
Agreed. My problem is with this meme that seems to have become pervasive over the last year or two, which seems to posit that, effectively, everything comes down to luck. Clearly the actual truth is somewhere between the extremes of "it's all luck" and "it's all hard work". My response here is a reaction to what I perceive as a swinging of the pendulum towards the "it's all luck" mindset, to a degree that I think is damaging.
I've been in too many situations and witnessed too many friends and family members that shoot for the moon but are never able to leave Earth as all their extra efforts are usurped by their managers and business owners.
Sure hard work "matters", it can help you get places, but how much does it matter is the question? Does it make 1% difference? 5% difference? 50% difference? I'd bet the difference is <10% compared to someone who does just enough to get by.
I think kids would go furthest of all if we told them "treat yourself as an autonomous being, work hard when you are in a position to realize the benefits of your hard work, otherwise do just enough and save your energy for better days."
Don't work harder if that will give you no returns. (like unpaid extra hours, going to your company funds or manager bonus for saving the project)
Which isn't what the author was saying, of course.
It's not just this article alone, that's the thing. It's the broader meme that this article aligns with, which denigrates the value of hard work and - IMO - over-emphasizes luck.
That said, if you want quote-mining, here ya go. One that I a wholeheartedly agree with. It just feels a bit tacked on near the end.
We need to do more to double down on improving environments both at home and at school which continuously constrain potential. If the adage that hard work truly matters rings true, then we must do more – at all levels of society – to make it a reality.
I liked this article better, and it conveys more or less the same point as the topic link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/opinion/how-i-learned-to-...
The problem is that hard work makes a dent, but not a very big one if you don't understand the "game" that you need to play. It's easy to take this for granted if you grow up in an environment with many people who understand it because you learn it by osmosis.
Jumping into the article that I linked, the author was missing a critical chain of thought: that currently in the United States, the path to an "upward mobile" job generally follows these lines:
1. Get good grades in high school 2. Score high on the SAT (which has to be practiced), then get lots of help writing your college essay 3. Pick an area of study that corresponds with a well-paying occupation, and then get into a college that is solid in that department 4. Leverage the career and alumni network to find a well-paying job, or apply to business/law/medical school.
At each step, you have to prioritize how you spend your limited time and energy. I grew up with parents who understood this point and focused my energy into each step when it was time to do so, so I was very lucky in that sense. I also worked my ass off, but steps 1 through 3 were very much helped along by parental guidance.
You must work hard and contribute only to a system that is fair.
Its important to starve that system of good contributors which doesn't reward merit.
One of the reason why people immigrate to other countries, or move companies is because of futility of doing anything in their current ecosystem.
The author misses the point. It's true that only saying “if you work hard you will get on” is not enough. But it's only half the picture - working hard will only get you somewhere - the starting line. Then you need to continue and improve and adapt. Whether it's worth that time and effort is another question.
But simply accepting a half truth as a whole and ignoring the whole picture is harmful "It’s not true and we need stop saying it." is the completely wrong thing to say. Better: "it's not the only thing that counts, and we need to give tell our children what they really need to do"
> So much more is required.
While he does not explicitly state what is required, he is obviously saying that we need to stop using that statement alone.
> I don’t see this mindset shifting, so my advice to youngsters has remained: you need to adapt yourself. You need to find the right way to speak to different people, at different times in different contexts. This is not compromising who you are, but rather adapting to the relevant surroundings.
Working hard will move you forward. How forward is hard to determine, and it varies. The reality is that some people in their lifetime won't achieve success but they lay the foundation for their children too...ex his mothers struggle to get from Africa to the UK laid the foundation for him to achieve his success. Their is little chance that he will become say the Prime Minister, but his children may...thanks to their dad being able to provide them with a privileged life.
Or rather it's correct, but irrelevantly so. Sure new markets will be created if your worker pool is made up highly motivated and college educated individuals. But it won't matter for that first generation - economies simply don't shift that quickly.
It's not a linear correlation, but it's a lot more linear than economic theorists would lead you to believe. In human working-age timescales, it may as well be linear.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/201...
It's the difference between "I made a new web framework" and Vannevar Bush or John von Neumann.
As for cost of debt - yes, it gets much harder to innovate when access to free capital is rationed. Rationing and hoarding capital is actually one of the dumbest things a capitalist culture can do. "Hard work" won't fix this.
No. Just no. That is utterly wrong.
The job market goes by itself. It has little correlation with education prospects (that takes 5 years for any change to make new student anyway).
Individually preferences, choices, dumb luck, etc. of course would lead to unequal outcomes -- as it should be. But when taken as a whole, those differences should disappear.
It is an ideal, but I like it because it is a measurable ideal.
Luck favors the prepared mind - Louis Pasteur
I remember one politician here a couple of years ago defending miners in his electorate as 'battlers' (aussie slang for poor who are trying to make ends meet)... and at a time when the national median wage was $57k and median household income was $77k, the 'battler' he was defending made $110k...
This argument is not, as some have claimed, an excuse for apathy. Rather, it argues that accepting the prevailing socioeconomic norms is foolish for anyone who is not close to the apex of society. The level playing field and other such political tropes are false, there is abundant evidence of this, and anyone who tells you otherwise either lying to you or to themselves.
Alas, teaching children (and adults) they're but one of a larger group of victims is, and will always be, a political juggernaut.
I don't know when it became OK to use these logical fallacies online to support propaganda.
I also don't know at which point even the people with above average intelligence (AND definitely know about what a logical fallacy is) decided that they will pretend it suddenly doesn't exist.
Lastly, I don't know why the HN readers who I'm sure know ALL about all this AND even more end up going all groundhog day and have the same battle every time this type of article comes up.
Just because something's not 100% true doesn't mean it's 0% true. In this case, a more appropriate level of granularity would be: "if you work hard, you are more likely to be successful than if you don't work hard." That kind of nuance doesn't really resonate with children though, which is why we don't tell them that.
Complaining that it's all a big lie is akin to someone growing up, realizing that there is no Santa living in the North Pole, and concluding that the North Pole must also be a lie.
There is no guarantee for anything in life, it's an absolute certainty that you will get nothing without some semblence of hard work.
The few who make it past the third generation, generally continue on indefinitely (the Roosevelts, who bought a 40-acre farm on Manhattan Island in the 1600s and still own it today, should come to mind; likewise the Rothschilds and Rockefellers in more recent times); but getting over that three-generation hurdle is a formidable task.
Arbeit macht frei.
As far as I am aware, every human culture has always demanded more work than strictly necessary from the working class in order to support a relatively small proportion of non-workers or light workers. At the band/tribe level, that is generally very young children and very old elders. Larger organization units tended to reserve some of the light work and non-work for administrators and enforcers. For a while, we have had concepts such as "education" and "retirement" that take the place of child labor and dying at your workstation, made possible by improvements in productivity in the working class.
So for those whose hands never acquired a callus, it has long been necessary that other people do harder work. Indeed, we even had more odious lies, such as "you must work hard, because you are my property," or "work hard, or you will be removed, and your family will starve."
Sometimes, the promise of promotion was not a lie. The very best of the hard workers were elevated to encourage the others, but never quite far enough that they might question what is really done with all that hard work.
We have robots and power generators now. None of us can work harder, faster, or more cheaply than a fully automated factory running on raw materials and electricity. The former economic necessities are no longer required. But no one is prepared to come out and say "no one really needs to work hard any more, and you will only be able to reach the top by owning the most productive capital" because there are so many people out there who have been toeing that line their whole lives, working hard without reaching even a local maximum. The economy isn't entirely automated--not yet--and we still collectively need some people to work. No one wants to be the one chump in ten that has to bust their ass every day while everyone else just lies around goofing off.
So we have the "bullshit job" phenomenon, to distribute and obfuscate who is doing all the actual work, making the other 9 put up the appearance of work for the sake of the one still actually doing the critical labor, or dividing up the work so that 10 people each do 10% of a real job and 90% flimflammery.
What we should be telling the kids is "own something now, before it is too late."
I thought we tell children that hard work pays off and is more likely to get you into a better position than being a slacker.
Luck matters, intelligence matters, natural skill matters, social circumstances matter, but hard work matters more.
You can be blessed with all of those behaviors and still fail, but hard work moves the odds in your favor more than the others.
I grew up in a very poor part of the country, certainly bottom 5%. And eventually paid my own way through an Ivy League school... I would say that the lessons my dad taught me were solid.
1) It's important to work hard. You don't work hard to get ahead... you work hard so you are satisfied that you gave it your all. Take pride in your accomplishments -- however small. Work until you're happy with what you have done.
2) Be careful what you wish for -- what you choose to dedicate your life to doing is important, but know that luck plays a huge role. You can't count on luck, but you can be immensely thankful for it and humble accepting it.
3) The world is yours to make what you will out of it. You're the only one who can determine what is right for you. Nobody is better than you are, but you're no better than anyone else -- stand up for yourself, and be kind to those you run into along the way.
Apparently Americans are far more likely than Europeans to believe that hard work gets you to the top.
However, these expectations are apparently quite divorced from reality. Apparently hard work is far more likely to get you to the top in Europe (especially continental Europe) than in the US.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_t...
Europe and USA are large continents, comprised of many environments and sub cultures.
This...is....mind-boggling. Instead of being grateful to the host country which has given him so much he finds it necessary to moan that other people of similar circumstance don't have the same chances to succeed in this country as the existing elites?
And then people wonder why the natives are tired of accepting more of the same?
Btw, I'm in a similar situation myself (except that my mother didn't come from a society where people have 12 kids) - came as a penniless immigrant to the West, achieved a fair measure of success. But I happen to be grateful and appreciative instead of whine that a children of illiterate immigrants have worse chances at success than the middle classes.