Hey, whatever rationalization gets you through the day, man... :)

There's also intelligence and particular skill sets.
Not everybody has the opportunity to go to law school, but not everybody has the intelligence either. Not everybody has the opportunity to go to medical school to be a surgeon, but not everybody has the talent to be a good surgeon.

It isn't just hard work OR luck.
And what's this about justice of outcome? Is there some justice/equality of outcome we are striving for?

Hey , I agree free-marketeers ignore the role luck plays in real world success. You're definitely channeling Rawls here.

But my take on this, is that this means that, in part, we have a responsibility as a society to make luck less important than effort and merit -- through effective policies that level the playing field, like public education or an inheritance tax.

You're kind of the exception to the rule -- most successful professions (doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc) do work hard to be more successful.

In fact, though the less successful certainly work hard, they are unlikely to give the kind of heart and soul only those who love their profession can give it.

Damn, that Protestant Work Ethic gets you every time. LOL.

And then their is William Kristol. How to explain THAT?

Even Einstein had it wrong (success is 10% (or whatever) inspiration and 90% perspiration). And he was a fucking genius... [and noone is sure his universal constant really exists].

Being smart really does seem to count though, even with the zillion exceptions that come to mind: John Bolton! Henry Paulson! Dick Cheney!

"so hard work it is."

it is all things,ezra.

life and what it presents us with,
is the confluence of timing, hard work, blind chance, dumb luck, brilliance, astuteness, vision, perseverance, flexibility, patience, wishes, reasons, planning, the lack of a plan, attitude and miracles.
at any one moment in time, it is any one of those virtues and msyteries that changes the design of things....a play of randomness and planning that is impossible to tease apart.
life is the unfathomably mysterious combination of luck and circumstance.
do the work as best as you can.
be kind,humble, forgiving, hopeful.
know that in life, and in making a decision, the moment of absolute certainty never arrives.
stay in the light. know that love is the shining path.....
measure your success by the good that you do in this world, and then, luck and circumstance will work in your favor.

I definitely agree. And occupation can be the result of a lot of things, but most often is related to the happy accident of birth (your parents, what country you live in) and a good education.

Matt Yglesias says it pretty well - "... yes, you need to work hard but also you need to have been the beneficiary of some pretty lucky breaks to even be in a position where you have the possibility of working hard."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/i_outlier.php

Thank you! I've been struggling recently with my own chosen profession--theater--and getting increasingly angry at the fact that people who graduated, say, in the field of investment banking, will make money hand over fist.

I recently saw a statistic (it was quoted as being from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) that said that the median wage for actors in Actor's Equity Association (which not everyone can get into) is roughly $6,000.

$6,000. It's not as though we in the theater are doing something selfish--we raise property values, supplement education (not to mention the esoteric upside of things like cultural value). But we rarely turn a profit.

From a capitalistic point of view, our profession is a waste of time. The "entertainment" and "culture" slots are filled much more effectively by the internet, by the film industry, etc.

When I apply for a job outside of the theater (which obviously I have to, since I don't make anything from my theater yet), they don't look at my theater experience as being ANYTHING at all.

I've fulfilled the role of "stage MANAGER" but I could never be considered for a managerial role; I've led a team of artists on an independent project, raised funds, and controlled a budget. But what is the best job I can land in the quote unquote "real world"? I sold popcorn for Regal Entertainment.

So the question I'm saying that your question raises is, WHAT ARE THE HIGH VALUE PROFESSIONS. And why? Is a teacher not a high profile profession? Is Bill Kristol worth more to the news business than the arts reviewers, who are getting shed like flies? Are hedge-fund managers worth more to us than the much maligned "community organizers"?

Apologies for length.

I don't think anyone denies the role that luck plays in success. My sense, however, is that when people invoke the primacy of hard work in attaining success, they are not opposing Work to Luck. They're opposing Work to Talent (which you may or may not consider a derivative of luck). It's Edison's old Inspiration versus Perspiration idea. In other words, the most persuasive propogators of the idea that success is mostly a function of work aren't conservatives. They're talented individuals, people with in-born skills (for draughtsmanship or music or dancing or math, say) who want the rest of the world to understand that even despite their unbidden gifts in these particular areas, their "success" is contingent upon the fact that they work harder than most at cultivating them. Which is almost certainly true, as there don't seem to be very many lazy, talented, successful people.

How can you talk about success without mentioning time preference (especially related to culture)?
Besides Asians discredit your liberal excuse-loving thesis and show we are all masters of our fate (to a large degree).

And your working poor examples are just empirically incorrect. Ever since the '80s it has been high income people who have worked the long hours almost exclusively.

I think I agree with kaybeel on this one... it's not justice of outcome that we strive for. The reason that we head in that direction sometimes, is because that even the best market system, though it may pretend to equal opportunity, does not, for the reasons Ezra describes.

We need to understand that the market provides only CONTINGENT equality of opportunity. If everyone had a similar basis of physical and social resources at birth: native intelligence, parental guidance, family wealth, etc., then the market might offer equal opportunity. But people don't (have the same basis).

What's needed though, is not a concept of justice of outcome, but rather a more comprehensive definition of equality of opportunity... one that addresses these differences in physical and social resources at birth.

The public education system had its origins in this kind of thinking... and would be well-served to move back in that direction.

I can't help but wonder about the laundromat women you write about.

Maybe their kids or grandchildren are going to be able to go to college because of their hard work and thrift.

It's not all about the individual -- families have a life arc too.

I'm really fortunate to be able to send my kids to good schools, but it's taken a combination of inheritance (the hard work of 3 generations of sheet metal workers) and my own hard work (dull office work) to be able to afford it.

So maybe these laundromat women are working for the future of their families.

Is it entirely fair? Of course not. But when I see my kids' opportunities, I do feel like it's been worth it. And I think a lot of "laundromat women" feel the same way.

As someone who used to work at McDonald's and my local movie theater, I can tell you that it does take a lot of hard work to do those jobs. The reason they don't pay well is because its hard work that ANYBODY can do. Your work may not be physically demanding like those jobs, or hard like the President's job, but not just any guy off the street can write cogently about a vast array of policy. You invested a serious amount of time and money to have the skills that you do, and because people like you are a rare breed, you get paid more. Stop feeling so guilty!

"In fact, though the less successful certainly work hard, they are unlikely to give the kind of heart and soul only those who love their profession can give it."

Well, I have sometimes played with a theory of success based on an ability & willingness to internally change or adjust. The changes would be internal, methodological, characterological. I know this sounds Zig Ziglerish but maybe the self-help industry does reflect some kind of truth.

I know best the difficulties talented chess players encounter in moving from International Master to Grand Master. They all have brains & talent, all spend long hours studying but very few manage the leap. It is not the quantity of work, but the quality or kind of work. The GM's work on nervousness, overconfidence, impatience, concentration, the pacing of effort...things that are very hard to analyze, let alone change.

How is it that Tiger Woods can sink that final putt in the playoff while so many others choke? I believe, without much evidence, that TW's clutchiness is something he has developed, rather than something he was born into.

But being able to honestly assess and change yourself may in itself be inborn, at least in degree. Certainly other contingent factors are important enough that compassion dictates magnanimity.

guy yedwab

you write that you struggle with the fact that people in investment banking are making money hand over fist, as opposed to those in theater.
and hard working orderlies in hospitals clean the fallen syringes off of the floor and empty bedpans.
and poets write beautiful lines that sometimes no-one will ever read.
and attorneys working in not for profit situations will come home with little pay, compared to their counterparts in shiny glass buildings representing corporate interests.
life is not fair.
financial remuneration is not commensurate with the quality, importance, effort or virtuousness of the work that is often being done.
in this sense, life is unfair.
sometimes, there is the extremely difficult choice of working for love or for money. sometimes, there is the lucky combination that both can occur...sometimes, one can just be incredibly thankful to be doing work we love a little with medical benefits.
you ask, what are the high value professions.....
what is highly valued to you?
that is the essential question.
you already know what is valued in this society.
life requires compromise, unless we choose to tilt at windmills.
make your choice.
if you choose to follow your bliss,
remember what your bliss is...
and in the darker moments,
dont let your heart become embittered,
when you look outward.
if you choose a difficult path,
follow your heart,
and hold onto the reason why
you have done it.
remember
life keeps changing.
and so will you.

Were some of the high-earning investment bankers using expertise on M&A deals that were adding value and jobs to the economy, or were they all just sending decimal places around in manners they didn't understand?

Do the management consultants at Bain and McKinsey improve companies, or do they just provide terrible buzzwords and obnoxious motivating signs?

Do the law school grads who go straight into $150k jobs in big firms do anything useful, or are they just necessary for navigating a legal labyrinth that the profession itself established?

Having had roommates, though, in various stages or pre-med-med school-residency, I'm pretty sure those guys deserve at least the primary care salaries.

jacqueline:

There are many things that are important to me. Money is not really so important to me, in and of itself.

I will tell you what is highly valued to me. Family. I have a hope one day to have a family. But I simply refuse to start one unless I can be assured that I can give them a future, something to rely on. Unless I marry a nice lady who's an investment banker or a business executive.

annwilliams hit it right on the nose. Families have a history too. And my parents have been incredibly supportive of me. They've put a sum of money behind my theater education that frankly, I'm ashamed to speak aloud because of how futile the attempt to pay them back would be. They themselves started at the bottom of the totem pole, and have fought their way to a position where each of their three kids have been given an opportunity at any future they want.

Is that something I'm going to be able to pass on? If I love someone enough, will I be able to give them a stability of life, and a future of opportunities? If the answer is even a maybe, then I'll eat spaghetti every day for the rest of my life.

My soul's path is set. The only thing that could stop me from fighting to be in the theater is a bullet through my heart. But this blog is primarily about public policy. And it's my firm belief that there is a role in public policy for the people at the bottom, and for the idea of fairness.

I'm aware that life isn't fair, and I know that human society will never be fair. But at the same time, I will continue to keep fighting to make it fairer.

But thank you for your encouragement, and your listening.

a little, related story about the hard work, good luck and purpose of our work.

many years ago, i knew someone who created some of the most beautiful gardens you could ever imagine.
in extraordinary heat and rockhard soil, he could create paradises. but the work was hard, and the pay was not nearly commensurate with the incredibly difficult labor and talent involved.
over time, creating these gardens became a struggle, physically....and also, what seemed like a lack of appreciation and lack of financial remuneration took a terrible toll on the soul.
the person considered himself highly unlucky and became disspirited.
most of those gardens and parks that were created years ago by this person, still exist.
i happened to pass some of them recently, and though the person is long gone, those gardens that were once filled with seedlings are now magical places and paradises that people enjoy and spend time in....where children play and old people rest and everyone finds delight.
they are places that bring beauty and consolation and joy to countless people.
so in some sense, what is the greater purpose served by our work and contributions?
do we always even know?
if we follow our calling and create something good, lasting, honorable, beautiful....that make the world a better place, is that the greater good...is that part of what makes us lucky...makes our life well-lived...makes a legacy of lasting service to our community, to the day or thoughts of one person?
i still believe that when we are able to utilize our gifts in a way that makes the world better, more bearable, more beautiful......luck and circumstance have come together, and we are doing what we have been called on to do with our lives.

tikkun olam
heal the world

This touches on a debate I always get into with my girlfriend. Her father is a bus driver who makes over $90k a year (including overtime). She feels this salary is much deserved because he has to wake up early and put in long hours. She is a strong believer that how physically hard a job is should be directly proportional to how much you make.

She gets mad that I get paid what I do for my pretty cushy academic life (compared to the salary of her and her father).

But, I also put in 10 years of training (with little to zero pay) compared to the week or so of training each of their jobs required.

I say, don't work hard, work smart. But, I'm not entirely convinced that 10 years of training was really all that "smart" despite my enjoyment of my current profession.

All in all, if you think your job pays you unfairly, find a new one. If you can't find one that pays you better, your current job is probably already paying you what you deserve, if not more.

guy yedwab

may the creativity of your work
bring you joy and satisfaction
and inspire the dreams of others.
may your hard work support you
and the life you hope to build.
may your family always support
and believe in you
and may your life be filled with love.
happy holidays

Social injustice consists not in the package of talent, luck, intelligence and industry being rewarded, but in the very poor takings for people who, without cleverness, luck, special gifts or any love of their jobs, are yet capable of decades of hard work that does not get them health care and decent housing.

This seems like something that most people figure out when they are like 12 years old.

jeebus

it takes a lifetime for all of us to figure many things out.
the simple things are often the hardest.
the fact that life is often mysteriously unfair
is the hardest thing to accept
or understand
and requires the most courage.

I don't think it's necessary "hard work vs. luck." However, when people try to justify their success or high salaries compared to others, they say, "it's because I work/worked hard!" No one out-and-out says, "it's because I had the foresight to choose a high-value profession which provides high compensation, given the amount of work I do." So, yes, maybe when I was around 18 or 19, I had the judgment to decide that I wanted to do something which pays rather well and focused on that profession because I liked it. Someone who made a different decision and decided at 18 or 19 spent a long time and lots of effort getting an English PhD and doesn't make anywhere near as much as I did. Someone else ended up not going to college and moving furniture for a living and does a lot more physically hard work than I've ever done and makes less. Then someone else decided, when he was 18, to become an orthopedic surgeon, and he worked very hard, just like I did, and makes a ton more money than I do.

For various reasons, in all those instances, we could justify our salaries compared to someone with less money by saying "I work hard!" There's an odd reluctance to say, "I happen to be in a high paying profession in which the marginal value of my work is quite high."

The surprising thing is not that managers decide that management is the most important job in the company and should receive the most money, but that anyone else takes them seriously when they do.

@Tyro: You conveniently omit the fact that some people couldn't "choose" high-value professions even if they chose to. Your scenario would be fine in a society in which all education, including post-secondary, was free to the student (and even that neglects the possibility of talent that isn't based on effort); but we don't happen to live in such a society.

You conveniently omit the fact that some people couldn't "choose" high-value professions even if they chose to.

Yes, that is certainly true, and I think people know this, which is why they consistently retreat to the "I work hard!" trope, and I was trying to explain that some of these decisions we made are decisions made when we were young and not ones that revolved around financial compensation at the time. People seem oddly reluctant to justify their salaries by launching into detailed explanation of why the added value of their profession is considered much higher than that of, say, a teacher or furniture mover.

Highly simplified list of ways to make big money:

1. Choose high-value profession.
2. Climb corporate ladder past middle management.
3. Entrepreneurship. Can be blue-collar, plumbing company entrepreneurship.

#2 involves much more emotional intelligence than regular intelligence. Regular may even be a hindrance.

I think people don't like to ascribe their successes to luck, but to their own skills. If you are lucky, you are probably going to misinterpret at least some of those lucky successful moments as a result of your own prescience or intelligence. So lucky people will underestimate how much a role luck played in their life.
Because all successful people are, of course, also lucky, I think you get a bad situation by which a lot of overly fortunate people are running things. The majority of us aren't lucky. Some of us are even unlucky! But nobody really speaks for us, I guess.
Maybe it should be hard work + luck + profession maybe = success.
Or have your dad be someone important.

Chris and Tyro point is a good one. It gets at what I was trying to say earlier --

That in a just society, society makes sure that what one is born with -- wealth, family connections, what have you -- does not determine his or her future.

(I'm skeptical of the determinist attiude that places high value on in-born or genetic talents -- "talent that isn't based on effort".)

This reminds me of something I heard on the radio yesterday. In Japan, apparently cleaners are highly paid and not immigrants, like in other industrialized societies. This is due to the high value placed on cleanliness and hygiene.

And they have really cool robotized toilets.

KathyF:This reminds me of something I heard on the radio yesterday. In Japan, apparently cleaners are highly paid and not immigrants, like in other industrialized societies. This is due to the high value placed on cleanliness and hygiene.

Cleaners- like what kind of cleaners?
Domestic cleaners are very often if not usually Philippine immigrants. They are fairly paid, but it isn't a path to riches (or citizenship, for that matter).
As for whatever other kind of cleaners you may mean, they may not be highly paid, but Japan does have an emphasis on the living wage (conversely, very little welfare).

Brian Rose:That in a just society, society makes sure that what one is born with -- wealth, family connections, what have you -- does not determine his or her future.
A truly just society would not ensure that someone born with benefits would not be able to use them to get ahead. That would be punitive.

---
The idea that it is either hard work OR good luck (and only those two) seems overly simplistic, and I don't believe for a minute Ezra believes those are the two choices.

"A truly just society would not ensure that someone born with benefits would not be able to use them to get ahead. That would be punitive."

With respect, I think that there is a real distinction between punishing success and asking those who benefit the most from society to give their fair share.

With respect, I think that there is a real distinction between punishing success and asking those who benefit the most from society to give their fair share.

With respect, there is a real distinction between asking those who benefit the most from society to "give their fair share" and making sure what one is born with does not give him benefits toward a successful outcome.

What is "fair share" in that scenario? It seems it would be giving up everything that would be of benefit. How is that fair?

Furthermore, people are often motivated to do well precisely because they want to benefit their children. Do you really want to/think we should create a situation where people cannot do that? The fruits of their labor will be spread equally to all. Is that just? Is it wise?

Sorry. That was me.

Sorry, had to cut previous comment short.

Kaybeel takes issue with "making sure what one is born with does not give him benefits toward a successful outcome."

"What is "fair share" in that scenario? It seems it would be giving up everything that would be of benefit. How is that fair?"

Well, not to be glib, but how is it fair if they don't? But another way, if that's fair, how do you define "fairness"?

Here's mine: Imagine you are a "rationally self-interested" outside constructor of a relationship -- ranging in complexity from two people, to an entire society. You have to become one of the people in that relationship, but you don't know which one.

How would you construct it? This is what fairness essentially is -- seeing a situation as an objective, outside observer.

As to the just society: One thing you would want to do, in the hypothetical, is to make sure that goods -- like liberty and opportunity -- were plentiful, particularly for the worst off (compared with the alternatives).

You would also want to limit your fate as little as possible -- and so would make sure that everyone in your construct could be masters of theirs.

"Furthermore, people are often motivated to do well precisely because they want to benefit their children."

Indeed, people are. But devotion to children and family can come in conflict with devotion to justice.

As an illustration, when the rich and powerful act on said desire -- by giving their less than qualified family members key positions in government or business -- it is called cronyism.

"The fruits of their labor will be spread equally to all. "

No, it wouldn't. See above comment.

Suppose I wave my magic wand, thus: Blam! Now everyone has an IQ at least two standard deviations above what was formerly the norm. Also, everyone now has the equivalent of three college degrees plus skillz. Question: who's going to be be flipping burgers, picking up trash, stocking the shelves at the local Ultra-MegaMart?

See, the problem is, there will always be a need for the hewers of wood and drawers of water. Having leet skillz won't change that. Of course, there is also the fact that economics vis a vis labor just plain doesn't work. Chad, the 28-year-old slacker living in his parents basement and working the fry machine at Burger King for the last five years has been more productive than Mozillo, Flud, Wagoner, et al. But who got paid more? No, the relationship between pay and work seems to be badly out of whack, and urgently needs to be addressed.

Finally, in many cases, it is not that people who are better off just happen to be lucky; it is that for them bad luck is more easily weathered. Hard-partyer Richy Rich - not a bad guy - gets kicked out of three schools before getting his head on straight, buckling down, and becoming a productive citizen in a highly-paid profession. Peggy Poor, otoh, was at school on a scholarship, a grant which was revoked when she was falsely accused of cheating. Later, it was determined that she did not in fact cheat, but by then her scholarship had been awarded to someone else. Good luck getting the money together to attend school again.

And so it often goes with the poor - make even so much as one wrong move, and it's all over in terms of realistic advancement. The rich, well, think of Dubya, the man who has come to exemplify failing upward.

"See, the problem is, there will always be a need for the hewers of wood and drawers of water."

What about robots?

"Productivity" is the economic term that you are looking for. Higher salary workers are described as being more "productive."

I am also a little skeptical of self-reported claims of "hard work." People who are top earners in our society are typically people who consistently demonstrated a very strong work ethic starting at least by the age of fourteen, and have never let up since. This also includes work on the weekends, often every weekend in train for many years. As much as I respect people who work in trades, labor, retail, etc, most of them don't have this track record, and freely admit it. They often develop a work ethic later in life by necessity (this observation excludes the emigre workforce).

Intelligence and family background is very important as well of course, and leads to a more Rawlsian conclusion.

My reaction to this entire debate: Who Cares!!!

I don't think anything fruitful will come from this. Who knows how one becomes successful. It's ultimately a philosophical question, not a policy question.

It's more than possible to live a happy, fulfilling life without being successful.

Let me add, I simply don't understand why liberals are obsessed with these types of questions. For some reason, liberals feel like everyone has the right to and ought to get the absolute most out of life. They look at a construction worker with horror and think, "that person isn't getting the most out of life."

Conservatives have a much more healthy view on this type of stuff (Existence and creation are good...So everyone should be content and grateful for their lives).

That in a just society, society makes sure that what one is born with -- wealth, family connections, what have you -- does not determine his or her future.

Well, I was born with a lot of privileges and advantages in terms of wealth that allowed me access a lot of academic opportunities as well as being in an environment in which the benefits of working hard were very clear for all to see. Rather than try to create a society where none of that would have helped me, I'd rather create a society in which everyone had the advantages I did. The circumstances of my birth provided me with way good academics and brought me up in an environment where it was clear that hard work and academics had professional/personal/monetary rewards that were worth striving for. Everyone should have that.

You invested a serious amount of time and money to have the skills that you do, and because people like you are a rare breed, you get paid more. Stop feeling so guilty!

All true. But we tend to need to morally justify our professional/monetary success by attributing it to the fact that we "work hard." We seem to be very shy and unwilling to say, "I'm the most qualified person available to my employer at the moment, and finding a replacement for me is quite difficult at the salary he is willing to offer." There doesn't seem to be enough moral worth in that statement, so we retreat to the more stark, "I work hard for what I got."

. For some reason, liberals feel like everyone has the right to and ought to get the absolute most out of life. They look at a construction worker with horror and think, "that person isn't getting the most out of life." Conservatives have a much more healthy view on this type of stuff (Existence and creation are good...So everyone should be content and grateful for their lives).

In other words: the left is telling the electorate: we want you to have the best life possible. The right is saying: be happy with what you have.

It's pretty easy to say people should be happy with what they have when you have quite a bit, isn't it? It's no surprise to me that Mr. Corporate Exec believes that things are as they should be. He looks around; all is well with the universe! He is the picture of psychological and spiritual health: he is willing to accept things as they are. He is at peace with the world. He's a goddamn Buddha!

liberals feel like everyone has the right to and ought to get the absolute most out of life. They look at a construction worker with horror and think, "that person isn't getting the most out of life."

I disagree-- the liberals look at the construction worker and think, "I hope he gets enough money, doesn't have to worry about his health insurance, and has a sufficient amount of leisure so that he can work out the rest of his life as he sees fit." Since everyone typically has to work, work, for the liberal, should be something that, even if it requires you to be a cog in a machine for 40 hours a week, leaves you with the rest of the time sufficient money and health to work out the rest of your life and value system. The conservatives think that the construction worker should be thankful to have a job and should be making construction work his life, if he wants to stay in the good graces of his employer.

This begs the question, what is a high value job? Clearly in order to reach the level of public intellectual, a somewhat perfect storm has to converge upon a profession in terms of a million factors like timing, culture, relevance, random chance, and, yes, hard work.

Now, I haven't read Outlier, but I will, and if my experience with probability assessment is any indication, I suspect TIMING is the most central ingredient to statistical outliers. (just as Matt Y. points out... timing was a huge factor in the value of your particular niche, for example.)

Of course, as was mentioned in the comment about the high value of Japanese janitors, job value is fairly cultural. That culture has existed for millennia, However, I think modern culture has begun to change so quickly that even cultural advantage is increasingly just another question of timing.

The same can be said of nearly everything in your perfect storm except, perhaps, hard work.

"Rather than try to create a society where none of that would have helped me, I'd rather create a society in which everyone had the advantages I did."
Tyro

More or less, that's what I'm talking about -- certainly with regard to your academic advantages.

I'm also sure we're also on the same page, in making sure everybody in our society lives in "an environment in which the benefits of working hard were very clear for all to see". Pretty sure...

really good post. thank you

Let me add, I simply don't understand why liberals are obsessed with these types of questions. For some reason, liberals feel like everyone has the right to and ought to get the absolute most out of life. They look at a construction worker with horror and think, "that person isn't getting the most out of life."

I won't cop to the 'liberal' label, but I'd guess that they're interested for the same reason I am: they want to know the truth. There's also the implications for policy. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that impeccably done research shows that in the U.S., 95% of a persons income can be shown to be the result of parental occupation and parental income. Are you seriously going to say 'so what'? If that's the case, you should have said so up front. Because then it would have been more accurate to say that conservatives don't really care about hard work.

Tyro:All true. But we tend to need to morally justify our professional/monetary success by attributing it to the fact that we "work hard." We seem to be very shy and unwilling to say, "I'm the most qualified person available to my employer at the moment, and finding a replacement for me is quite difficult at the salary he is willing to offer." There doesn't seem to be enough moral worth in that statement, so we retreat to the more stark, "I work hard for what I got."

It isn't just about morally justifying it, though. There is often the need to actually explain it.
I know I grew up in a neighborhood full of cops/firemen/teachers and we truly believed people making money in corporations or professions played golf all day. We believed the maxim that the higher you climbed the ladder, the less work you actually had to do.
It isn't like that, and I think those who are working physically hard in their jobs need to understand the hard work it takes to succeed professionally just as much as the successful professional needs to understand the hard work of those toiling at lower levels.

It doesn't do anybody who strives to be something other than a poorly paid physical laborer to imagine it takes merely luck, and not hard work, to achieve more.

Luck smiles more on those who prepare themselves to receive it.

Not doing drugs, going to school, etc. is a good way to prepare oneself.

Often, those who complain are those who have not prepared at all.

pa-1650-01