Americans have become lazy and it's hurting the economy (article)

[Murphy101]

I read it, and it wasn't intended as an accusation. W/e. I'm not sure I believe that the majority of immigrants (historically or currently) are literally fleeing for their lives, but I don't have statistics on that. In your first post you made it seem like it was all about fear of death, in your second you argued mostly fear of death, but some for money. My point was that there are even more possible reasons than that, and that regardless, the author just isn't wrong that immigrants (as a group) tend to be willing to take more risks than non-immigrants (as a group), and that no, it's not because immigrants fear for their lives. There's not even a value judgement there (from me - there is one from the author, I think).

 

ETA: I think we're talking past each other?

I think we are talking past each other. Most people, generally speaking, do not uproot their family *purely for financial gain* - though of course most people also want to prosper so that affects where they look to go.

 

My point was simply that immigrants are no different than most people, they usually have far more compelling reason for immigrating than the writer implies.

 

As for being more risk taking. To my mind I suspect that's a chicken/egg scenario. Are they more risk taking and thus immigrate, or did they decide they needed to immigrate and thus seem more risk taking?

[luuknam]

As for being more risk taking. To my mind I suspect that's a chicken/egg scenario. Are they more risk taking and thus immigrate, or did they decide they needed to immigrate and thus seem more risk taking?

 

 

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00020#.WPE9uFLMxE4

 

"It has long been hypothesized that individuals' migration propensities depend on their risk attitudes, but the empirical evidence has been limited and indirect. We use newly available data from the German Socio-Economic Panel to measure directly the relationship between migration and risk attitudes. We find that individuals who are more willing to take risks are more likely to migrate. Our estimates are substantial compared to unconditional migration probabilities, as well the effects of conventional determinants of migration, and are robust to controlling for a variety of demographic characteristics. We find no evidence that our results are the result of reverse causality."

[SKL]

I disagree that significant opportunity for entrepreneurs no longer exists.  It exists, it just looks different than it used to.

 

We keep talking about risk tolerance, but I would break it down and say that flexibility of thinking is really key.  The idea that there's more than one way to skin a cat (is there a modern version of that morbid saying?).  It's probably the same kind of wiring makes some people willing to "take the path less traveled" / "go where no man has gone before."  It's more than just "I can deal with failure," it's also the above-average ability to envision success.

 

I also think a big factor is the ability to work with and use the talents of different people.  Most of us aren't the complete package, but if we partner with the right people, we can make more happen.

[luuknam]

I disagree that significant opportunity for entrepreneurs no longer exists.  It exists, it just looks different than it used to.

 

We keep talking about risk tolerance, but I would break it down and say that flexibility of thinking is really key.  

 

 

I was thinking something similar. For example, depending on what kind of ideas you have, today, unlike the 1950s or w/e, there's Kickstarter. So, some doors aren't open as wide as they used to be, but there are other doors that weren't there before. Not sure how that all works out in the end - I do think some of the regulations and the like are unnecessary and are just there because big business lobbyists got away with them (don't get me wrong, I think some regulations are very important for public safety or the environment etc).

 

And I was also thinking creativity is at least as important as risk taking. Risk taking could just be foolishness, and risk taking without creativity isn't likely to be very innovative - risk taking without creativity could be opening a bookstore or restaurant or w/e* - which of course we need bookstores and restaurants, but it's not going to make a big dent in the economy (not at the level of keeping the US above the world average), whereas creative new businesses do make a difference - the Steve Wozniaks and Steve Jobs together in their garages kind of risk taking. 

 

*Unless, of course, you come up with some brilliantly innovative way to run a bookstore or restaurant.

[Crimson Wife]

I disagree that significant opportunity for entrepreneurs no longer exists.  It exists, it just looks different than it used to.

 

It exists, but it is harder for those who don't already have social capital via family connections to access. It used to be that someone with an idea could go to the locally-owned bank and fairly easily get a startup loan. Now that funding source has pretty much dried up and the way most startups get funded is through "angels". My DH has enough connections now in his 40's to tap into that market but a 20something who grew up lower-middle-class like he did would not.

 

It's the whole "Matthew effect" where the "haves" get richer and everybody else just falls further and further behind. :thumbdown:

[frogger]

I disagree that significant opportunity for entrepreneurs no longer exists.  It exists, it just looks different than it used to.

 

We keep talking about risk tolerance, but I would break it down and say that flexibility of thinking is really key.  The idea that there's more than one way to skin a cat (is there a modern version of that morbid saying?).  It's probably the same kind of wiring makes some people willing to "take the path less traveled" / "go where no man has gone before."  It's more than just "I can deal with failure," it's also the above-average ability to envision success.

 

I also think a big factor is the ability to work with and use the talents of different people.  Most of us aren't the complete package, but if we partner with the right people, we can make more happen.

 

 

I agree that it certainly looks different than it used and there is opportunity. I also still think that a lot of regulation is targeted towards small businesses and in favor of larger businesses as I have already given examples I will refrain from posting a book again. :)

[Bluegoat]

I was thinking something similar. For example, depending on what kind of ideas you have, today, unlike the 1950s or w/e, there's Kickstarter. So, some doors aren't open as wide as they used to be, but there are other doors that weren't there before. Not sure how that all works out in the end - I do think some of the regulations and the like are unnecessary and are just there because big business lobbyists got away with them (don't get me wrong, I think some regulations are very important for public safety or the environment etc).

 

And I was also thinking creativity is at least as important as risk taking. Risk taking could just be foolishness, and risk taking without creativity isn't likely to be very innovative - risk taking without creativity could be opening a bookstore or restaurant or w/e* - which of course we need bookstores and restaurants, but it's not going to make a big dent in the economy (not at the level of keeping the US above the world average), whereas creative new businesses do make a difference - the Steve Wozniaks and Steve Jobs together in their garages kind of risk taking. 

 

*Unless, of course, you come up with some brilliantly innovative way to run a bookstore or restaurant.

 

REalistically though, there is only room for a few Steve Jobs.  If there were 100 of them, none of them would be as successful. 

 

Many people who own businesses are always going to be the kind who provide a service, often locally, and an income for the owner and employees.  And if we wanted an economy where self-employment was a really big portion of people - as opposed say to big companies with large workforces - they are going to have to be smaller businesses.

[luuknam]

REalistically though, there is only room for a few Steve Jobs.  If there were 100 of them, none of them would be as successful. 

 

Many people who own businesses are always going to be the kind who provide a service, often locally, and an income for the owner and employees.  And if we wanted an economy where self-employment was a really big portion of people - as opposed say to big companies with large workforces - they are going to have to be smaller businesses.

 

 

I don't think there's necessarily an advantage to having a large percentage of the workforce being self-employed. No idea what the 'ideal' percentage is though.

 

You could have a lot more innovative people like Steve Jobs than there currently are (and than there have been) - there's obviously a cap to how many exactly, as companies need worker bees too, and there's a limit to how many could become billionaires or w/e, but overall, sure you could have 100 (or 10,000) of them, so long as they're innovating different things in different industries. 

[SKL]

It exists, but it is harder for those who don't already have social capital via family connections to access. It used to be that someone with an idea could go to the locally-owned bank and fairly easily get a startup loan. Now that funding source has pretty much dried up and the way most startups get funded is through "angels". My DH has enough connections now in his 40's to tap into that market but a 20something who grew up lower-middle-class like he did would not.

 

It's the whole "Matthew effect" where the "haves" get richer and everybody else just falls further and further behind. :thumbdown:

 

I disagree that everyone who isn't born a "have" falls behind.  Many of the entrepreneurs are not what I'd call "haves" when they start out.  Many build businesses out of their bedrooms, and yes, some get "angel" funding, but that is not limited to people who have their bed made for them.  There really are a lot of resources out there, and with the internet, interested people can easily find out about them.

 

One of our local universities has a "maker" facility open free to the public, with many resources such as a 3D printer and other prototype making tools.  That's just one example.  So I really think it would be more helpful to talk in hopeful terms about the opportunity to turn a good idea into a business.  Not that everyone is going to generate good enough ideas, but there is fertile ground for those who do.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think there's necessarily an advantage to having a large percentage of the workforce being self-employed. No idea what the 'ideal' percentage is though.

 

You could have a lot more innovative people like Steve Jobs than there currently are (and than there have been) - there's obviously a cap to how many exactly, as companies need worker bees too, and there's a limit to how many could become billionaires or w/e, but overall, sure you could have 100 (or 10,000) of them, so long as they're innovating different things in different industries. 

 

There is a school of thought which says that by having a relativly large % of the population self-employed, you avoid many of the problems inherent in capitalism as well as those found in many types of communist economic systems.  It's often a feature in what are called third way economic systems.

[Rosie_0801]

There is a school of thought which says that by having a relativly large % of the population self-employed, you avoid many of the problems inherent in capitalism as well as those found in many types of communist economic systems.  It's often a feature in what are called third way economic systems.

 

Can you recommend something easily digested to read?

[creekland]

I disagree that everyone who isn't born a "have" falls behind.  Many of the entrepreneurs are not what I'd call "haves" when they start out.  Many build businesses out of their bedrooms, and yes, some get "angel" funding, but that is not limited to people who have their bed made for them.  There really are a lot of resources out there, and with the internet, interested people can easily find out about them.

 

Of course one can never say "everyone" or "nobody," but the best predictor of how well one will do in life is the family/background they come from - esp socioeconomic class.  It's expected that one will have a certain amount of success (or not) based upon one's background.  When someone doesn't fit the profile (either way) it makes (local) news or chatter because it's odd.  No one is surprised my guys are doing well.  In similar conversations, no one is surprised when kids from other backgrounds aren't.  If our kids had been switched at birth, chances are, their futures would have been different.  Genetics plays a part, but environment and opportunities parents can provide (or not) play a larger part.

[luuknam]

There is a school of thought which says that by having a relativly large % of the population self-employed, you avoid many of the problems inherent in capitalism as well as those found in many types of communist economic systems.  It's often a feature in what are called third way economic systems.

 

 

I could see there being advantages, just like people owning their homes and living in them tend to take better care of them than people renting out their homes to renters, but OTOH, having a large percentage of self-employed/business owners would reduce the advantages of specialization and economies of scale. 

 

Again, I don't have a clue what the ideal percentage would be, so if someone has studies that show that having a large percentage of self-employed/business owners is better for the economy (in developed countries - I'd imagine developing countries could be a different scenario altogether), I'm totally open to that. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by luuknam

[FaithManor]

Of course one can never say "everyone" or "nobody," but the best predictor of how well one will do in life is the family/background they come from - esp socioeconomic class. It's expected that one will have a certain amount of success (or not) based upon one's background. When someone doesn't fit the profile (either way) it makes (local) news or chatter because it's odd. No one is surprised my guys are doing well. In similar conversations, no one is surprised when kids from other backgrounds aren't. If our kids had been switched at birth, chances are, their futures would have been different. Genetics plays a part, but environment and opportunities parents can provide (or not) play a larger part.

Agreed. We see this so much in our area. People are not shocked that our kids are doing well too.

[Bluegoat]

Can you recommend something easily digested to read?

 

Probably the classic writer on this is Schumacher, in Small Is Beautiful.  It's a very enjoyable book.

 

Gandhi's economics also tended in that direction.  Co-op movements are often third-way in emphasis.  The idea is that the majority of people would make their living by owning the means of production, rather than being big employers or employees of individuals (capitalism) or of the state. (state socialism).  Often these kinds of systems propose things like apprenticeship based education for many types of work, and regulation through professional organizations. 

[Bluegoat]

I could see there being advantages, just like people owning their homes and living in them tend to take better care of them than people renting out their homes to renters, but OTOH, having a large percentage of self-employed/business owners would reduce the advantages of specialization and economies of scale. 

 

Again, I don't have a clue what the ideal percentage would be, so if someone has studies that show that having a large percentage of self-employed/business owners is better for the economy (in developed countries - I'd imagine developing countries could be a different scenario altogether), I'm totally open to that. 

 

I'm not sure that this has been tried in a modern economy, exactly, so I'm not sure if there are any studies of that type.  I'm not sure really that economists claims to have such things at any time are accurate, anyway.

 

There have been economists who tried to calculate the effects of small vs large business on the economies they operate in, and they suggest that smaller local businesses return something like two or three times as much to the local community, and are less likely to move around to take advantage of cheap labour or resources.  They thus tend to lead to a more stable economy.  Many feel they are also more likely to be socially and environmentally just - you can't so easily steal labour from yourself!

 

As far as scale - it is likely that in such an economy some things would be more expensive, and newer products slower to appear.  OTOH, there also would likely be less unemployment, and more time to evaluate the effects of new technology.  Larger scale businesses would be possible though, through co-op models where workers owned their own jobs.