I would like to point out that in real life, that is also the case. The ones who roll the luckiest also win. Think of your birth situation. You didn’t chose it.
Now, is Monopoly teaching anything remarkably useful about real life that could put you ahead? I don’t think so.
It’s a game! Since the strategy is limited, takes a long time, I don’t think it’s a great one.
We like to live under the illusion that we are in control of our lives. We are not. We can set a general course, control this or that small, immediate thing - but so much of what we ascribe to our own success or failure is just sheer dumb luck.
I’ve had some ridiculous, absolutely undeserved successes over the years, I’ve been struck with serious illness out of the blue, I’ve seen friends with so many plans for their lives ahead snuffed out by illness and accident. I’ve seen the class clown rise to high office, and the prodigy work in a chip shop. We make choices, but against a sea of endless variables and influences, they make little difference.
People used to cite the fates, or their god or gods of choice - because they couldn’t explain the absolute randomness of the path of a life. I think you’ll find precious few people who, in their dotage, will say their life went to plan - and that doesn’t mean everyone’s a sad failure, rather that you end up places you never even dreamt of - because we really aren’t in control.
Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-...
Monopoly is about the ideas of Henry George for one set of rules, versus our land enclosed rentier reality.
The people that are born in first world countries and become radicalised over the internet to the point where they join a foreign fighting force in a third world country are squandering their ‘luckiest’ move of being born. That’s a win??
Talent is built, educated, trained; genes are partially luck.
I think you are conflating talent with skill. You can develop your skill, but generally, your talent is viewed as innate or biological.
Most people can train to be good at basketball, chess, etc. But most people don't have the talent to be michael jordan, magnus carlsen, etc.
> genes are partially luck.
Partially? I don't think it is possible since you inherit all your genes. Genes are entirely luck as you had no say in which genes you inherited.
From an individual person, looking at what they had agency over, it’s 100% luck. From a multi-generational family or societal view, it’s not 100% luck.
(I also hold the view that some of what is often described as innate talent is also malleable depending on early childhood nurturing, nutrition, and education. That’s luck from the child point of view but not purely so from the family/society.)
Human decision exists and luck is a cop out. Burying meaning and choice in statistics and randomness is giving up at life.
A woman I knew... her son got a full scholarship to university because he played baseball. He never got to finish school - because he wound up having a genetic condition that didn't allow him to play. Your friend didn't have these sorts of health concerns.
It isn't that it is all luck, sure. Yes, she had to work hard. But lots of her luck was already there. She probably wasn't Amish, for example, otherwise she wouldn't have school after 8th grade or something. She wasn't sick. She didn't have cancer. She probably wasn't starving. And so on. Even if she had some of these, you've witnessed an exception, not a rule.
Gimme some talents too!
Most people regardless of their background are not billionaires. Background certainly increases the chances, though.
> Strange idea. Elon musk started in SA.
Strange idea. There are people born into privilege all over the world. '"We were very wealthy," says Errol [Elon's father]. "We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe."' 'Errol returned to South Africa with a half-share in a Zambian emerald mine, which would help to fund his family's lavish lifestyle of yachts, skiing holidays, and expensive computers. ... It was that lifestyle, Errol says, that turned Elon into the kind of merchant adventurer who would later break the rules of the motoring business with Tesla, then go on to change spaceflight with SpaceX.'
I'm a little bit disheartened that no one in this thread has linked to actual data... There's a LOT of study on this topic: Social mobility in the US is measurably atrocious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_...
1) Success is determined by luck. People will complain that one person being more successful than another is grossly unfair.
2) Success is determined by extrinsic deterministic factors or uncontrolled intrinsic factors. People will complain that people aren't doing anything to 'earn' their success - it was in some sense inevitable.
3) Success is determined entirely by intrinsic deterministic factors that are in the control of the individual. More morally palatable, but suggestive that any gradient of accomplishments is actually reflective of a sort of selfish 'technique hoarding' (I'm not quite sure what to call it) by successful people. They should really be forced to share their techniques until everyone is equal.
The underlying issue here in this thread isn't how success is achieved; it is the concept of different outcomes for people. Which is a good philosophical point but not practically useful - nobody can point to a system where equal outcomes have led to anything like the material comforts of a world where a gradient of different outcomes is encouraged. The world simply isn't very fair and we've all got to roll with that.
Why would that be the luckiest? I would think being born as the child of a billionaire vastly increases your chances of billionairedom than being born the child of Harvard professors. The same goes for being born in South Africa or most any country that is not totally wartorn or sanctioned atm. The son of an African dictator will probably have many more chances at significant wealth than someone born to abusive parents in opioid-ravaged 'flyover country', regardless of the relative economic positions of their home countries.
“Most” and “upper middle class” tells me you’re probably making this up whole cloth. “Most” Americans don’t make it to the upper middle class.
I do not know if many American families can get access to the same resources for early education if they are not already from families that are economically affluent.
Most of the immigrants I know spent a lot of time or money or both either personally or by their parents to get here. At least recebtly even the ones who left everything behind to start here with nothing at least had some talent at getting things done in beuracracy which is pretty useful.
1. Geography (which country you're born in)
2. Parents' finances
3. Your gender
These 3 explain the vast majority of the variance in income between people. Knowing these 3 facts about a person allows you to predict their income with high accuracy (small 90% confidence interval).
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Haves-Have-Nots-Idiosyncratic-History...