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

Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

blogs.law.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#71

Post by houseabsolute »

ilkhd2 wrote: post #34
houseabsolute wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any reason to be upset that a civilized society spends a large portion of its output on living longer. It seems to make sense that as the material goods and experiences we want become less expensive that we should start spending more of our money on increasing the time and comfort in which we can enjoy them. With respect to people living bad lifestyles, you have three unappetizing options. - Let them die.…

Bad behaviors often have a reason behind them: stress. Stress is often created by poorly run, evil, cruel, egotistic societies. Improve social capital - the problems will decrease by themself. Why you think US is the country with highest incarceration rate? And let's say Norway - much smaller?

I think if you took away drug related arrests, the U.S. incarceration rate would be dramatically lower. So that's a case of stupid, fundamentalist laws more than stress causing crime.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#72

Post by steveklabnik »

pyre wrote: post #66
nostrademons wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 roommates in a basement is only miserable living conditions when compared to the McMansions that people are moving into now. My dad grew up in a 3rd world country. His family would be considered upper-class within their city, and yet they had 10 children crammed into a couple rooms, geckos in their living spaces, and mosquito nets to keep away the malaria. And they got bombed out of their home by the Americans, and…

> 3 roommates in a basement is only miserable living conditions when compared to the McMansions that people are moving into now. Unless you are applying the term 'McMansions' to include a single person living in a studio apartment or a 1-bedroom apartment (or even a couple living in a 2-bedroom apartment), then I suggest you revisit that statement. It's obviously not abject poverty, but to say that the only people th…

I actually really enjoy living with other people. Instant everyday socializing. YMMV, of course.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#73

Post by ilkhd2 »

BrandonM wrote: post #60
ilkhd2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, his parenting rights has to be taken back. He buys toys for kids used - which is very unhealthy. And he will not be able to buy cutting edge or very good stuff this way. No new books kids - Nope! Dad knows better. No new dress - nope! Dad has THE idea! In case of emergency he will not be able to pay for care for kids, unless he depend on government provided healthcare (do not get me wrong, I am "socialist" m…

Is this comment serious, or were you just trying to figure out a good way to get downvotes?

Absolutely serious.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#74

Post by ilkhd2 »

ebiester wrote: post #37
ilkhd2 wrote: post #2

Read the article. Visited link to Wikipedia article? Daymit, how you can SURVIVE on 35K a year in USA??? Maybe somewhere in Mississippi, but not in North USA. Still, you'll have to eat random crap from 7-11 and macdonalds...

There's a difference between survival and a middle class lifestyle. For those of us who have lived poor at some point, it's a point of privilege to have all of these luxuries. Even so, if you look at the lifestyle of a single person on 35k a year, it's vastly superior to that of someone in the 1980s in many aspects, with health care and real estate as major exceptions.

hmm..Not sure. 35K in 1980 were a lot bigger money :). Superior by the way because of globalization - which created better (?) material supply, but made jobs in USA horrible trash.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#75

Post by ilkhd2 »

houseabsolute wrote: post #71
ilkhd2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad behaviors often have a reason behind them: stress. Stress is often created by poorly run, evil, cruel, egotistic societies. Improve social capital - the problems will decrease by themself. Why you think US is the country with highest incarceration rate? And let's say Norway - much smaller?

I think if you took away drug related arrests, the U.S. incarceration rate would be dramatically lower. So that's a case of stupid, fundamentalist laws more than stress causing crime.

Not sure. Incarceration rate is almost directly tied to rhe level of inequality in the society, so even if USA takes away these laws, will change, but dramatically.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#76

Post by ilkhd2 »

nostrademons wrote: post #35
ilkhd2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but they have free healthcare (at least 400$/month worth), live in miserable living conditions (3 roommates in a basement), and have 0 savings. And, apparently they walk naked. Do not forget to add taxes. And waterbill. And trashbill. And phonebill. My observations are in total correspondence with Daniel Kanemann's research: For good life in USA you need $60K/year - more will not make you happier, less will make…

3 roommates in a basement is only miserable living conditions when compared to the McMansions that people are moving into now. My dad grew up in a 3rd world country. His family would be considered upper-class within their city, and yet they had 10 children crammed into a couple rooms, geckos in their living spaces, and mosquito nets to keep away the malaria. And they got bombed out of their home by the Americans, and…

Kanneman said two things: - 60K is a point where bigger income won't make you happier. - GDP higher than 12(?)K Per capita/year will not make big difference on the wellbeing of citizen of the country.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#77

Post by anamax »

anamax wrote: post #45
swombat wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is basically claiming that if a doctor earns $100k a year, and costs, say, $1m in funds to be able to complete his or her extended studies (that take many years), then creating that doctor is not a worthwhile investment for parents or for society. That's wrong on so many levels that I won't even bother to argue with it.

> The article is basically claiming that if a {knowledge} earns ${number} year, and costs, say, ${bigger_number} in funds to be able to complete his or her extended studies (that take many years), then creating that notfunh is not a worthwhile investment for parents or for society. For a given value of {knowledge}, there are values of {number} and {bigger number} for which that statement is true. There are other valu…

> For a given value of {knowledge}, there are values of {number} and {bigger number} for which that statement is true. There are other values for which it is false.

Actually, there are values of {number} and {bigger number} for which that statement is true regardless of the value of {knowledge}.

I suspect that there are values for which it is always false as well.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#78

Post by dgordon »

lr wrote: post #58

America (and we are not alone) is in a race to the bottom. Just like Coke and Pepsi spend more an more each year on advertising,-- because the other does the same -- doesn’t mean they are making that much more in profits each year. The same can be said for education: Costly perks need to be added because “the other guy is doing it”, and in the end, we just pay more for (mostly) what we had before. Seriously, has basi…

I would hope most students learn a lot more than basic calculus in four years of college.
Post reply on HN