Surprised to be the first person to point this out. The entire premise of the article is dependent on a single study that definitely cannot demonstrate causation. The results of the study could equally well be explained by a third variable that causes both better financial outcomes and a higher likelihood to have more relationships with people who are wealthier.
Beyond that, I just have a lot of trouble accepting the conclusion because of everything I have seen in my career. Hard working people tend to know other hard working people. Hard working people get more done. Getting more done seemed to get you promoted, at least where I worked. Getting promoted had a meaningful, positive effect on income. People who weren’t very productive languished, conversely.
Possible this experience does not generalize to all workplaces!
Many places I've worked didn't promote hard workers at all. Hard workers were hard to replace so they were kept where they were and even blocked from promotions at times. People floating about with few duties were easy to backfill so could move to new positions, including up.
Those people “floating about” were doing something: building relationships with others who could promote them. Something that’s very difficult for hard workers to do, because they’re busy actually…working.
A possible "third variable" could be intelligence. It's been shown to be strongly correlated with success in general, and it seems likely people of similar intelligence would find it easier to relate to each other.
I don't disagree with the result but the argument may be flawed. How do you know it's not the other way around, that richness causes having rich friends, rather than rich friends causing richness?
I remember hearing that having lower wealth children mix with high wealth individuals lead to improved outcomes. Some of the benefit was through example, some through sponsorship and mentoring.
I attribute 90% of my success in life to the fact that I happened to make the right childhood best friend. One thing led to another and I got a PhD and earn [unreasonable salary]/year now. Life is insanely unfair. On some level it is luck. I don’t know what the “skill issue” twitterites don’t get about it.
(Hard work doesn’t hurt, either, but that goes without saying.)
I’m correctly estimating my own effort in my success. I know just how hard I worked. Making the right childhood best friend causally set me on the path to do it.
This is probably the biggest value from going to college, or at least it was - making those connections. I got my first job from a college connection, and my second one as well. I'm not sure how useful the actual classes were, or the degree - my first job certainly didn't require one, and the second one would have likely waived the requirement for one since I was already employed as a software engineer.
To some degree (no pun intended), it depends on which college you attend. I went to Random Public University; my university contacts were the kind of people who go to that kind of university. If you went to Harvard/MIT/Caltech, your contacts are the kind of people who go to those places. Those are not equivalent groups.
Meeting people and making friends outside my income class through civic volunteering probably had a bigger impact on my lifetime earnings to date than either of my degrees or my work history itself.
Great question! For me, I met a lot of people through more traditional "serve on a board or commission"-type activity in my twenties. But what I found most enjoyable was hands-on volunteering: stream cleanups, teaching kids bicycle safety, composting demos, that kind of thing. Those more hands-on activities were often more inconsistent, though, with the folks showing up every week or month rotating quite a bit.
The sweet spot for me was somewhere in the middle, taking on more of an organizer role with civic meetups and that kind of thing. I still got to do some of the hands-on stuff by teaching the rotating cast of volunteers, but formed closer relationships with other organizers.
This is a game played at the level of primate politics.
If you care about epistemic accuracy more than tribal politics, you'll quickly find yourself in the outgroup.
Logical from a 'within the game' perspective, but those who believe that humans are legitimately trying to transcend their irrational nature will be very disappointed.
27000 + 20% is 32400 not 47000, so not sure what's up with that sentence.
Also, define "success". Even if it's just about being exceptional in economic terms, AIUI a bog-standard swdev salary is enough to be in the top 10% with no favoritism needed. And if it's about being able to retire and have grandkids come visit sometimes, I think that might be more common than not.
That sentence confused me, too, but it's clarified in the next paragraph:
> Children who grow up with high economic connectedness earn 20 percent more as adults on average than otherwise similar children who do not, a gap equal to growing up in a family making 47,000 dollars a year instead of 27,000.
ie: knowing wealthier people has as much impact on your income as growing up in a family making $47k/year instead of $27k/year
But wait, something was learned! I typed in the start of the equation and after hitting space after the equal sign it yielded the answer! The Hacker News comment box can do the math for you!
The 20 percent is the effect on the child's own adult income from growing up with more economically diverse friends. The 27,000 versus 47,000 comparison is a separate number: it's roughly the same size effect you'd see from that same child's own parents earning 47,000 instead of 27,000 while raising them, a different mechanism entirely, used only to give the 20 percent some intuitive scale. They're not the same number expressed two ways, so multiplying one by 1.2 to check the other won't line up.
The key to success is the same as it ever was: you buying my Product! Or even better, my Course about how you too can achieve success with your own Product.
First of all that could be a causality ≠ correlation, but more importantly. Even if it might be the biggest predictor, it might not be the biggest lever.
Still interesting train of thought that I might need, but the article is exaggerating the evidence and not adding the right disclaimers.
I think a huge part of success comes from stopping and spending some time in self reflection occasionally. It's really easy to get stuck on autopilot and not re-evaluate things. Especially when you are young. Stopping for a bit and spending time actually thinking instead of bashing my head against a wall has been my best strategy to date.
Out of the gate, hard work improves success rates, but not the count of opportunities.
Connections improve opportunities, it doesn't do shit for success-rate.
Luck does for both sides of the mix.
As a startup founder in my 40s, the entire VP/SVP level in silicon valley is people one or two hops away for an intro, though admittedly a lot of the first hop there is through the other founders.
The original paper about importance of weak ties is under appreciated, because people you work with tend to go on to better & bigger things - especially in the beginning of your career, if you are a nice person.
Veritasium put out a very nice video[1] about knowing which sort of game we're playing. It is a power law game.
There are only two takeaways I had, "show up" and "get lucky". There is no winning without showing up.
i get the narrative the author is going for, but it's stupid. you can put in effort to get to know people and make friends. like it's a game you can play. yes in the extreme cases it can be hard or impossible, but for the audience this is written for, certainly not the case
It's definitely the case based on my anecdotal evidence. Friendships are formed very early in life in Northern Europe and your circle has a tremendous impact on everything. The same is true for Western Europe, but maybe to a lesser extent.
This is absolutely it, and it's something I try to impart to college students. What programming language you learn, or what you put on your resume, or even how you dress and speak at e.g. job fairs all pale in comparison to. "Who do you know, who is in your 'network?'"
And note, this can be done without being sleazy. Try to be interested in other people, try to make random friends. That will "pay off" -- both in richness of life and in just money -- more than just about anything.
(One of my personal corollaries here is "go until they stop you." This works for nightclubs, conferences, etc. etc. And even if you are stopped, hit them with a HUGE mea culpa, and back away. Which will be rarer than you expect.)
(and one more. The other thing I do in every class: Each and every one of you knows something about something WAY MORE AND BETTER than literally everyone else in this room. No promises, but that might be your good avenue.)
Peterson before he went nuts covered the research on this quite bluntly:
Lifetime earnings is most strongly predicted by IQ, then conscientiousness. So those with both are considerably more likely. Social connectedness is entirely dependent on personality as well - extraversion predicts this, and extraversion also predicts ones interest in financial incentives rather curiously
Super uncertain causality. "Earnings is most strongly predicted by IQ" suggests mechanistic and innate causality, but SES acts on IQ and on outcomes (as IQ does on SES). Education powerfully influences lifetime earnings, but education is obviously and potently impacted by the SES of your family.
This is like that hoary chestnut about the Pentagon and pizza delivery orders. Military strikes, to hear the story go, are most powerfully predicted by pizza orders. But pizza itself does not cause wars (except in Chicago and New York City).
A nit, but the point is you can't distill these problems down to a single statistic and then do policy based on them (not that you were proposing policy).
Since luck can be defined as the crossroads of opportunity and preparedness, and since it takes work to be prepared for opportunity, and since it takes effort and a trained eye to spot opportunity...then ultimately it takes hard work to be successful.
Let's not let some billionaires who enjoyed friends with benefits skew the results of millions of successful people.
Yes. The definition of 'luck' stated in the article is just ... wrong. Luck as random, sure, but you become more 'lucky' by knowing more people but mostly being open to new opportunities, ideas, friendships. So yes, it is luck, but luck is (opportunity + preparedness + hard work + social skills) X iteration.
There are a lot of industries based on the "people I know" principle. From selling Tupperware and Herbalife to the whole Lobbying industry and politics, everything is about the right connections.
The world has been like that even before homo sapiens appeared on earth; higher primates also do a lot of making the right connections.
> 20% Higher adult income for children with economically diverse friends, the gap between a family earning 27,000 and one earning 47,000 a year
So we're comparing poor people to even poorer people?
I have never had an "economically diverse" group of friends. I grew up even more broke than the groups being compared. My friends were mostly lowlifes back then. I still don't know anybody filthy rich right now. I work from home in the suburbs making 6 figures and so do all my new friends.
I'm not saying there isn't some nepotism in high places, but if we're just talking about the middle class... I mean what do you want me to say other than "stay in school"?
Always been true. Physical proximity to wealthy people is the key to success. The reason to send your kid to a good college (or to a terrible "small private liberal arts college on the East Coast") is to get them to be near wealthy people. Sleep with them and compliment them. If you're black, or can pretend to be convincingly, give them a tacit "N-word pass." They probably won't use it, but it will give them a glow like they just voted for Obama again.
Tell them about the things you're working on and your business ideas, and praise every observation they make. Praise those observations so extensively that you abandon talking about your project entirely, and just talk about the implications of their astute observation. At the end, express gratitude for the universe giving you the opportunity to meet someone so much on the same page as you as they are. Ask them "why can't other people see it?" Try to develop a private joke from the conversations. Tell them about the difficulties your mother is going through.
Repeat until wealthy.
My favorite recent example is Carlos Watson. Got pulled up the greasy pole by Steve Jobs' wife, and after he slipped and fell into prison, got out through Trump circle ass-kissing. Even though I suspect owner of The Atlantic paid that bill, too, no matter the keyfabe.
I think calling it cryonyism/neptotism is the problem, as these words don't always capture what is happening. In many cases, the person receiving the opportunity isn't a crony or a relative; it is just someone who is known. There is some comfort that is felt in granting the opportunity to someone who is known or relatable. Perhaps it comes with a belief that one won't get screwed over after such a favor is granted, that the receiving person will remain grateful forever, and sometimes even reciprocate in the future. I am not justifying it.
Beyond that, I just have a lot of trouble accepting the conclusion because of everything I have seen in my career. Hard working people tend to know other hard working people. Hard working people get more done. Getting more done seemed to get you promoted, at least where I worked. Getting promoted had a meaningful, positive effect on income. People who weren’t very productive languished, conversely.
Possible this experience does not generalize to all workplaces!
This is mostly public sector and utilities
I found this article from 2022.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04996-4
> Children who grow up with high economic connectedness earn 20 percent more as adults on average than otherwise similar children who do not.
"otherwise similar children" is doing a lot of work here.
You have high economic connectedness, which may mean you grew up in a rich neighborhood to parents that are smart and value education.
Or maybe you're connected to your Harvard classmates who are successful, which means you're likely smart and work hard.
Or you're a successful networker, so you're socially adept.
But it's almost certainly not a random characteristic like having hazel eyes. No matter how hard they try to control for other things.
Correlation != Causation
(Hard work doesn’t hurt, either, but that goes without saying.)
Before him, I found math and physics unintuitive, but he explained it in a way that (to me) made the whole high school physics trivial.
I studied physics at the university where I learned programming, and switched to software engineering.
The sweet spot for me was somewhere in the middle, taking on more of an organizer role with civic meetups and that kind of thing. I still got to do some of the hands-on stuff by teaching the rotating cast of volunteers, but formed closer relationships with other organizers.
Over a period of time, when the right person thinks you are useful/attractive/interesting, you get more opportunity/promotion.
This happens to explain the networking effect implied by the post (and related analyses).
If you care about epistemic accuracy more than tribal politics, you'll quickly find yourself in the outgroup.
Logical from a 'within the game' perspective, but those who believe that humans are legitimately trying to transcend their irrational nature will be very disappointed.
Also, define "success". Even if it's just about being exceptional in economic terms, AIUI a bog-standard swdev salary is enough to be in the top 10% with no favoritism needed. And if it's about being able to retire and have grandkids come visit sometimes, I think that might be more common than not.
> Children who grow up with high economic connectedness earn 20 percent more as adults on average than otherwise similar children who do not, a gap equal to growing up in a family making 47,000 dollars a year instead of 27,000.
ie: knowing wealthier people has as much impact on your income as growing up in a family making $47k/year instead of $27k/year
But wait, something was learned! I typed in the start of the equation and after hitting space after the equal sign it yielded the answer! The Hacker News comment box can do the math for you!
It’s some combination of all the above plus some additional dimensions like decision making, etc.
Still interesting train of thought that I might need, but the article is exaggerating the evidence and not adding the right disclaimers.
Out of the gate, hard work improves success rates, but not the count of opportunities.
Connections improve opportunities, it doesn't do shit for success-rate.
Luck does for both sides of the mix.
As a startup founder in my 40s, the entire VP/SVP level in silicon valley is people one or two hops away for an intro, though admittedly a lot of the first hop there is through the other founders.
The original paper about importance of weak ties is under appreciated, because people you work with tend to go on to better & bigger things - especially in the beginning of your career, if you are a nice person.
Veritasium put out a very nice video[1] about knowing which sort of game we're playing. It is a power law game.
There are only two takeaways I had, "show up" and "get lucky". There is no winning without showing up.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBluLfX2F_k
It also glosses over the fact that who you know is often a result of some combination of hard work and luck.
and just like in business, a lot of opportunities and outcomes are depended on being in the right place right time & knowing the right person.
hard work tips the balance a little bit. not much
And note, this can be done without being sleazy. Try to be interested in other people, try to make random friends. That will "pay off" -- both in richness of life and in just money -- more than just about anything.
(One of my personal corollaries here is "go until they stop you." This works for nightclubs, conferences, etc. etc. And even if you are stopped, hit them with a HUGE mea culpa, and back away. Which will be rarer than you expect.)
(and one more. The other thing I do in every class: Each and every one of you knows something about something WAY MORE AND BETTER than literally everyone else in this room. No promises, but that might be your good avenue.)
This is not something to be celebrated - the one good thing about capitalism and open competition generally is that you can challenge this.
I don't see how capitalism help this at all, in fact it seems to make it much worse.
Lifetime earnings is most strongly predicted by IQ, then conscientiousness. So those with both are considerably more likely. Social connectedness is entirely dependent on personality as well - extraversion predicts this, and extraversion also predicts ones interest in financial incentives rather curiously
This is like that hoary chestnut about the Pentagon and pizza delivery orders. Military strikes, to hear the story go, are most powerfully predicted by pizza orders. But pizza itself does not cause wars (except in Chicago and New York City).
A nit, but the point is you can't distill these problems down to a single statistic and then do policy based on them (not that you were proposing policy).
Let's not let some billionaires who enjoyed friends with benefits skew the results of millions of successful people.
I'm sorry it didn't work out for you, but I attribute my success with my hard work.
There are a lot of industries based on the "people I know" principle. From selling Tupperware and Herbalife to the whole Lobbying industry and politics, everything is about the right connections.
The world has been like that even before homo sapiens appeared on earth; higher primates also do a lot of making the right connections.
So we're comparing poor people to even poorer people?
I have never had an "economically diverse" group of friends. I grew up even more broke than the groups being compared. My friends were mostly lowlifes back then. I still don't know anybody filthy rich right now. I work from home in the suburbs making 6 figures and so do all my new friends.
I'm not saying there isn't some nepotism in high places, but if we're just talking about the middle class... I mean what do you want me to say other than "stay in school"?
Tell them about the things you're working on and your business ideas, and praise every observation they make. Praise those observations so extensively that you abandon talking about your project entirely, and just talk about the implications of their astute observation. At the end, express gratitude for the universe giving you the opportunity to meet someone so much on the same page as you as they are. Ask them "why can't other people see it?" Try to develop a private joke from the conversations. Tell them about the difficulties your mother is going through.
Repeat until wealthy.
My favorite recent example is Carlos Watson. Got pulled up the greasy pole by Steve Jobs' wife, and after he slipped and fell into prison, got out through Trump circle ass-kissing. Even though I suspect owner of The Atlantic paid that bill, too, no matter the keyfabe.
There's maybe like one exception to this rule every century.
This other comment reflects the same understanding in different words: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49277355