Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#21

Post by tome » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

pillowkusis wrote: post #2

I don't like the use of the word "predictable". I would qualify this populist uprising as a Black Swan[0], and as Taleb describes in his book, one of the common reactions to a black swan is to rationalize it's obvious predictability after the fact. Were there logical reasons to believe this populist uprising would occur? Of course (and this paper does a good job exploring them). Was it predictable? I don't know. By a…

Agreed. It's predictable in the same way that the security services knew about 9-11 in advance. Yes, they had tip-offs, but they also had tip-offs about many other attacks that never happened.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#22

Post by Mikeb85 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

perfmode wrote: post #10

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

Racism and poverty are related.

Yes, and you can fix it by fixing poverty. Not by calling poor people racists.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#23

Post by candiodari » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

justicezyx wrote: post #9

notadoc wrote: post #5

You mean exporting the middle class and then undercutting upward mobility was doomed to face a political backlash? What a surprise.

Agree 100% No matter how many ways to justify, the wealth and power enjoyed by a few are simply irrational. Edit: the wording is difficult, but all replies below have the same idea. Or I should rephrase it to: the absurdity of the wealth and power enjoyed by people grows exponentially with their rank in the social ladder. The ideal probably should quadratically.

You do realize that while the 1% doesn't include all IT workers in the bay area, the 2% does (I believe 1.6% is 100k per year before tax).

It's easy to complain about the 1%, but most people on this site ... are the 1%. Median household income in the US is $55,775. That means, about half of all US households have less than that. [1]

By and large, it's not the wealth enjoyed by the few. It's the comfortable, but probably not excessive wealth enjoyed by millions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#24

Post by Swizec » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

I for one support globalization because it's how me and all my friends escaped the fate of our parents. Working all your life for $20k/year in a tiny little country in Europe. Without globalization we'd all be fucked.

If we could get skills and jobs that rival Bay Area or are in Bay Area from half the world away, why can't someone from Atlanta? What's stopping them? What, realistically, are the missinh opportunities for them compared to someone who couldn't even practically communicate in English until high school or so?

Like, I'm sorry person from Atlanta, you were born in the land of opportunity. I had to not only get here first, but also realize that such a thing is even possible.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#25

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #23

justicezyx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree 100% No matter how many ways to justify, the wealth and power enjoyed by a few are simply irrational. Edit: the wording is difficult, but all replies below have the same idea. Or I should rephrase it to: the absurdity of the wealth and power enjoyed by people grows exponentially with their rank in the social ladder. The ideal probably should quadratically.

You do realize that while the 1% doesn't include all IT workers in the bay area, the 2% does (I believe 1.6% is 100k per year before tax). It's easy to complain about the 1%, but most people on this site ... are the 1%. Median household income in the US is $55,775. That means, about half of all US households have less than that. [1] By and large, it's not the wealth enjoyed by the few. It's the comfortable, but proba…

Exactly. I think the 0.1% or 0.01% are the ones who truly warp our political/economic system but it is the top 10% or 20% who lock in that warped system by engaging in forms of political NIMBYism to prevent any real change. (see the Democratic party's relationship with progressives and their funders: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/)

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#26

Post by zer00eyz » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

>> When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said to get $10k more per year. Today I would say, getting an extra year at $30k is enough.

As someone who works in the bay area, I can throw a rock and probably hit someone who will give me a job in software engineering. For all of our collective complaints about how bad the interview process is, the reality is that we have choice and mobility.

This is a big deal and your take on this is spot on!

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#27

Post by ygaf » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #16

just a minor gripe: was predictable is lame. you either predict the future or you dont. you dont say that you could have predicted it. i get the point of the article, but its lame when people try to act like the "could have predicted" something, because they are using the fact that it happened.

Seconding this, the use of predictable actually makes me think the article isn't worth it.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#28

Post by bradleyjg » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

The reason it was predictable can be explained by examining two concepts used in public policy theory:

Pareto Improvement: A change that is an improvement for at least one person and no worse for any other.

Kaldor-Hicks Improvement: A change such that those that are made better off could hypothetically compensate those that are made worse off and lead to a Pareto-improving outcome.

It turns out that people aren't particularly thrilled with hypothetical compensation. Who could ever have imagined that?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#29

Post by deepnotderp » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #23

justicezyx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree 100% No matter how many ways to justify, the wealth and power enjoyed by a few are simply irrational. Edit: the wording is difficult, but all replies below have the same idea. Or I should rephrase it to: the absurdity of the wealth and power enjoyed by people grows exponentially with their rank in the social ladder. The ideal probably should quadratically.

You do realize that while the 1% doesn't include all IT workers in the bay area, the 2% does (I believe 1.6% is 100k per year before tax). It's easy to complain about the 1%, but most people on this site ... are the 1%. Median household income in the US is $55,775. That means, about half of all US households have less than that. [1] By and large, it's not the wealth enjoyed by the few. It's the comfortable, but proba…

It's not even the "1%", it's the "1% of the 1%", Zuckerberg is great no doubt, but does he really deserve 2000X as much as a high level machine learning researcher?

The issue is that ~6-8 people in the world own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of the world, that's not because of eight software engineers making $100K.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#30

Post by Mikeb85 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #24

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

I for one support globalization because it's how me and all my friends escaped the fate of our parents. Working all your life for $20k/year in a tiny little country in Europe. Without globalization we'd all be fucked. If we could get skills and jobs that rival Bay Area or are in Bay Area from half the world away, why can't someone from Atlanta? What's stopping them? What, realistically, are the missinh opportunities…

So you were lucky (to be smart enough) to out-compete your peers and a bunch of Americans. By definition not everyone can achieve this success (as it's based on competition), so it does nothing to alleviate inequality on a scale that matters.