by Summary:
The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.Neil Wilson put this out on Twitter. I also came to believe that many rich people were probably just lucky. A person might sell his home to start a business but only one in three businesses are successful. We get to read about very successful people all the time but those that tried and failed disappeared into anonymity and this can give the impression that all we have to do is to try hard enough, and risk things enough, like sell the house, and we can become successful too, but it's not true. KV The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.Neil Wilson put this out on Twitter. I also came to believe that many rich people were probably just lucky. A person might sell his home to start a business but only one in three businesses are successful. We get to read about very successful people all the time but those that tried and failed disappeared into anonymity and this can give the impression that all we have to do is to try hard enough, and risk things enough, like sell the house, and we can become successful too, but it's not true. KV The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Jodi Beggs writes Economists Do It With Models 1970-01-01 00:00:00
John Quiggin writes Monday Message Board
Mike Norman writes 24 per cent annual interest on time deposits: St Petersburg Travel Notes, installment three — Gilbert Doctorow
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Daniel Waldenströms rappakalja om ojämlikheten
Neil Wilson put this out on Twitter. I also came to believe that many rich people were probably just lucky. A person might sell his home to start a business but only one in three businesses are successful. We get to read about very successful people all the time but those that tried and failed disappeared into anonymity and this can give the impression that all we have to do is to try hard enough, and risk things enough, like sell the house, and we can become successful too, but it's not true. KV
The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.
This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?
The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.
But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000.
The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.
And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are generally not the most talented by other measures.
That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.
So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.
Emerging Technology
If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance.