While it seems foolish to discount all effect from individual agency or merit, we do know that random chance is sufficient to lead to the trends we see. [0] Much like how an iceberg always has some ~10% portion above the water: The top water molecules probably aren't special snowflakes (heh) compared to the rest, we're mostly just seeing What Ice Does.
Combine that with how humans seem hardwired to dislike/ignore random chance, and it's reasonable to think we overestimate the importance of personal qualities in getting rich. Consider how basically anyone flipping a coin starts thinking of of causal stories like "hot streaks" or "cold streaks" or "now I'm overdue for a different outcome", even when they already know it's 50/50.
________________
A simple trading simulation of equally-smart equally-lucky agents still demonstrates oligarchic outcomes [0]. When you also add a redistributing effect (like taxing the rich to keep the poor alive) it generates outcomes that resemble real-world statistics for different countries.
> If you simulate this economy, a variant of the yard sale model, you will get a remarkable result: after a large number of transactions, one agent ends up as an “oligarch” holding practically all the wealth of the economy, and the other 999 end up with virtually nothing.
> It does not matter how much wealth people started with. It does not matter that all the coin flips were absolutely fair. It does not matter that the poorer agent's expected outcome was positive in each transaction, whereas that of the richer agent was negative. Any single agent in this economy could have become the oligarch—in fact, all had equal odds if they began with equal wealth.
I like to think of becoming wealthy like catching a ball at an MLB game.
First, you have to show up at a game in person. No one watching the game on TV or ignoring it altogether is catching a ball.
Next, you have a greater chance at catching a ball if you bring a glove.
Then, it also helps your chances if you've practiced catching balls.
However, all of that preparation is for naught if a ball is never hit to you.
For every person who strikes it rich, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who were just as smart, worked just as hard, and did all the same right things, but they simply didn't make it.
To simplify: Yes.
While it seems foolish to discount all effect from individual agency or merit, we do know that random chance is sufficient to lead to the trends we see. [0] Much like how an iceberg always has some ~10% portion above the water: The top water molecules probably aren't special snowflakes (heh) compared to the rest, we're mostly just seeing What Ice Does.
Combine that with how humans seem hardwired to dislike/ignore random chance, and it's reasonable to think we overestimate the importance of personal qualities in getting rich. Consider how basically anyone flipping a coin starts thinking of of causal stories like "hot streaks" or "cold streaks" or "now I'm overdue for a different outcome", even when they already know it's 50/50.
________________
A simple trading simulation of equally-smart equally-lucky agents still demonstrates oligarchic outcomes [0]. When you also add a redistributing effect (like taxing the rich to keep the poor alive) it generates outcomes that resemble real-world statistics for different countries.
> If you simulate this economy, a variant of the yard sale model, you will get a remarkable result: after a large number of transactions, one agent ends up as an “oligarch” holding practically all the wealth of the economy, and the other 999 end up with virtually nothing.
> It does not matter how much wealth people started with. It does not matter that all the coin flips were absolutely fair. It does not matter that the poorer agent's expected outcome was positive in each transaction, whereas that of the richer agent was negative. Any single agent in this economy could have become the oligarch—in fact, all had equal odds if they began with equal wealth.
[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...