Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life is Short

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 452 posts

Re: Life is Short

#341

Post by tobbyb »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #290
jacobolus wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpacking the whole context and philosophical debate (e.g. between libertarians and Marxists) requires a book-length argument. (But to briefly answer your question, no. “People ought to be entitled to what they create” is not a universally accepted principle.) So folks responding to Graham are mostly not going to do the topic justice. (Side note: In a similar but less defensible way, Paul Graham’s summary of Joseph S…

> “People ought to be entitled to what they create” is not a universally accepted principle Yes, in the society and economy we are discussing this is a universally accepted principle. Bob is a farmer. He has the same amount of land as his neighbor, but he works twice as hard, and grows twice the number of crops to sell in a year. He has twice the income. No one would reasonably claim that he's entitled to none of wha…

I am not sure this analogy illuminates differences in productivity and resulting inequality as described. If everyone on earth had the same equal piece of land then it can be argued that the tax rate (as property taxes are) would not be on the income but fixed on the basis of the size of the land. So whatever Bob gets out of his land he would pay the same fixed amount of tax that Tom does.

But in the real world we are not born equal and we do not have access to the same size of 'land'. There are differences, sometime vast in family wealth, property, health care, education and access to nearly 'n' number of resources. Bob may be born with the land and have 'n' amount of time and the luxury to think of things like productivity, wealth, interests, life while Tom may struggle his entire life just to survive or maybe work towards getting 1/10 of the land as his entire life goal.

Moving to the real world property taxes are not fixed on income. Income tax is an entirely different tax that Bob and Tom would pay based on their income irrespective of their land holdings. If Bob is more productive he would pay more tax but I am not sure income tax or 'simple productivity' as a concept is useful to understand or explain inequality and disparity in a world where everyone does not have the same piece of land.

Re: Life is Short

#342

Post by geniium »

anunumoose wrote: post #3

Mr Graham, I respect you and you've accomplished more that I will in my life, but I sincerely hope that this essay against "bullshit" and "arguing online" isn't you declaring that you'll be "bubbling" yourself after your last essay was met with wide disagreement. It's possible that sometimes, no matter how smart you are, your experiences have been limited in a way and you're missing a part of something everyone else…

I think Paul Graham is just sharing his thoughts openly. He has his up and downs like everyone, but he has a public too. It's his way of sharing his inner thoughts and he's got all the rights to express himself.

Re: Life is Short

#343

Post by mikemajzoub »

From one stranger to another, thank you for posting this essay. I'm at a bit of a crossroads in my life, and your essay came at just the right moment. (This is one of the reasons I love the internet.)

If anyone wants to use IoT data, personal search queries, etc., to build a recommendation engine that increases the probability of 'reading the right thing at just the right time in life', I'd sign up for it! For subtle/complex things, this seems like an overly-intimidating task, but to get started on the project, someone querying illness, loss, etc., might benefit profoundly from this. You'd be essentially be creating a 'skewed Google' that returns what the user _needs_ rather than what the user _wants_ at the moment. (That said, don't pursue such a project at the expense of spending time with family... :) It's a tough balance to strike, isn't it?)

In peace, Mike

Re: Life is Short

#344

Post by ZoF »

jacquesm wrote: post #322
ZoF wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by these downvotes you all actually think that pg's wife knows him better than psuedonymous hn posters? Ridiculous.

I think the sarcasm was a bit too subtle, at the same time maybe this isn't the time for it?

Yep, probably isn't the time or place; well warranted downvotes.

Oh well, live and learn :)

Re: Life is Short

#345

Post by moultano »

enraged_camel wrote: post #324
xiaoma wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the idea that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income a "breathtaking misunderstanding of poverty"? It's absolutely true that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income and it's also true technology acts as a lever and is increasing the variation in productivity between people. At no point did PG say anything like what you claim it "sounds like" he is saying. The essay was an arg…

>>How is the idea that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income a "breathtaking misunderstanding of poverty"? It's absolutely true that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income... No. Productivity has nothing to do with income. You can be the most productive widget-maker in the factory. That doesn't mean you will make a lot of money. Income inequality exists and has been growing becaus…

> You can be the most productive widget-maker in the factory.

You are using a non economic definition of productivity, and he is using the economic one. In Economics, productivity is the value of what is produced, not the quantity.

Re: Life is Short

#346

Post by BatFastard »

Life is too short to be in a hurry

While that seem contradictory, it is not. When we are in a hurry we make unneeded mistakes, we don't enjoy the process of what we are doing, and we don't do things that reflect our true selves.

Re: Life is Short

#347

Post by veidr »

hellofunk wrote: post #189

>And while it's impossible to say what is a lot or a little of a continuous quantity like time, 8 is not a lot of something. If you had a handful of 8 peanuts, or a shelf of 8 books to choose from, the quantity would definitely seem limited, no matter what your lifespan was. But not if you had 8 private jets, or 8 cars, or 8 houses, or even 8 telephones. This is a rather arbitrary statement.

So true! For instance, if you had 8 pathologically pedantic Internet commenters, you would end up with 8 comments just like yours.

Re: Life is Short

#348

Post by moultano »

giaour wrote: post #216
sirsar wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [saying] inequality would arise because some people are "more driven" than others [=== saying] those with less money are simply less driven. Slow down there. You can't just take the converse of any old statement. PG is saying: IF ((starting equal) AND (differences in drive)) THEN (ending unequal). You are saying that PG's statement is equivalent to: IF (now unequal) THEN ((earlier equal) AND (differences in drive))…

> Slow down there. You can't just take the converse of any old statement. This is in the context of a hypothetical universe where "the only way left to get rich is to start startups." In that universe, PG asserts that the driven will do well, thereby creating inequality. Since we know inequality exists, some will have done less well, and "determination is the main factor in the success of a startup." To go back to wh…

If you think it was a justification of inequality then you are reading it wrong. His argument is that there are good things which inherently produce inequality, so it is too non specific of a target. We're better off attacking rent seeking and poverty than inequality as a whole.

Re: Life is Short

#349

Post by ue_ »

FatalBaboon wrote: post #339

It is funny how one of the top comment is a very long debate about how this article is good or not, completely missing the point. The sooner you realize life is short, the more you will make smart use of your time. The same goes for faith: the sooner you realize there is no life after death, the more you will make smart use of your time. Your brain runs out of electricity and fluids, and poof you go.

I disagree on the point about life after death. I don't think that having faith that there's something after necessarily leads to valuing your time less now. Especially when you don't know what's in store for you next - a good existence or a bad one. With that kind of uncertainty, I'd certainly value the time I have now - at least I know what it's like now.

There are also two ways of thinking about what's "smart". For the faithful, the smart thing to do is racking up merit (or studying or whatever) for your future rebirth or heaven etc.

For the materialistic people, the smart thing to do is to enjoy the time you have right now by doing what makes you feel good.

Both groups of people think the other is being silly, foolish or something else.

Re: Life is Short

#350

Post by alrs »

enraged_camel wrote: post #323
wfo wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you pay any attention to current political discussion, e.g. the field of Republican candidates they do NOT argue in favor of inequality. They describe it as a problem just as the Democrats do. And of course that's false. The Democrats of the 1900s are conservative; the new deal is the most iconic conservative movement we've ever seen yes? And Hoovervilles were created by socialist thought?

>>the new deal is the most iconic conservative movement we've ever seen yes? No. The New Deal is the most liberal policy enacted in American history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority... with its base in liberal ideas, the white South, traditional Democrats, big city machines, and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic m…

You missed the sarcasm.
Post reply on HN