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

How rich kids already won the career game

michaelochurch.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 275 posts

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#51

Post by calibraxis »

ramanujan wrote: post #29
ovi256 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice personal attack right there. Try addressing his argument next time. And FYI, sociologically speaking, most corporations are brutal psychopats.

Absolutely agree with you that he should address his argument. That said, this is almost too obvious to point out, but it happens to be true that the Soviet Union and Communist China (and Vietnam, Cambodia, etcetera) murdered 100 million+[1] in the name of "building socialism", and it is quite possible that the original poster knows people from those countries who lost loved ones to socialism/communism. Seen in this…

Perhaps you are not familiar with the terminology... In most of the world, "libertarian" means libertarian socialism. The historically correct meaning. Some right-wingers in 1950's US appropriated the term to mean extreme capitalism. Discussed earlier:

(http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald-and...)

The usual claims against communism don't apply, as libertarian socialists historically opposed both communism and capitalism. (In the senses you mean.)

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#52

Post by ig1 »

arethuza wrote: post #50
ig1 wrote: post #47

Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK there's no statistical difference between earnings 3.5 years after university graduation due to parental background once you adjust for university/degree subject. (children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go into good universities or study high-earning subjects, but if they do then they'll earn as much as their better off peers)

In some areas (e.g. law) I wouldn't expect there to be much difference in that time - in Scotland at least, 3.5 years after you graduate with a law degree you've only been qualified for 6 months! (The law degree is followed by a postgraduate course for a year then two years training before you qualify). I'd be interested to see the results for 10 years after graduating!

Only a tiny percentage of law graduates go onto become lawyers (Certainly it's possible that in some careers that there is a divide, but due to the the careers not being common that it doesn't show up in the stats. But there's no evidence this is the case.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#53

Post by yequalsx »

ramanujan wrote: post #46
yequalsx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of material wealth Western commerce structures have produced more. However, much suffering has occurred a result. High levels of pollution, propping up of corrupt regimes in exchange for access to resources for cheap cost, environmental damage done to poor countries, etc. The costs of this material wealth have not been measured fully. Typically fields like economics only look at financial matters to determin…

> In terms of material wealth Western commerce structures have produced more. High levels of pollution, propping up of corrupt regimes in exchange for access to resources for cheap cost, environmental damage done to poor countries, etc. It is inarguable that all these things have occurred. The point I hope to politely contest is that this is a function of Western commerce structures to a greater degree than other com…

There was a far greater ecological disaster in the former Soviet Union than in the United States. I don't think the comparison is fair since Soviet chemical and gas companies didn't do quite the level of investment in third world countries as American companies did. I think one needs to factor in things like Bhopal, Nigeria delta, etc. when comparing to the Soviet Union. We just shifted the dirty work, literally, to other countries.

The problem as I see it comes from trading with countries without high levels of worker safety standards and environmental standards. Also from not accounting for negative externalities. A tax on carbon would be useful. Things like that.

A man said many years ago that the love of money was the source of all evil and this, I think, is the crux with the problem of capitalism. Money is not a great motivator. Newton did not invent calculus to make billions. Leonardo would not have painted better if he had been paid more. I don't the answers to the problem but I do believe there is a huge problem with capitalism and, more specifically, corporatism.

Adam Smith opposed corporations because the externalities weren't accounted for (to use modern parlance). I agree with him on this. There are lots of examples of corporations acting in a brutally authoritarian way and the comment by nazgulnarsil seems to imply that by reading history one comes away with a view opposite to:

" fortune 500 company a "brutal authority" "

Again, I don't know the solution but there is a problem and plenty of examples of Fortune 500 companies acting with brutal authority.

EDIT: I'm not implying in any way that the Soviet Union was a model or that it ought to be emulated. I don't suggest communism as practiced by the Warsaw Pact nations was better than capitalism.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#54

Post by btipling »

usejoy wrote: post #5

Holly Crap. People that go around here don't question capitalism. They dream to sell their souls to the highest bidder. And than when water and food are so crappy (because of the corporate masters) they will give all money to health corporations. Oh my....

That this comment has a positive upvote count is depressing.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#55

Post by btipling »

usejoy wrote: post #30
endtime wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're surprised that people on an entrepreneurship website are capitalists?

No i am surprised that people with intelligence and vision for technology, don't think outside the box when is needed. For me there is no panacea for society. Part of my life was in Socialism, another in Democracy / Corporatocracy and believe when i say that in two cases for normal hardworking and talented individual there is no hope. The solution is to take what's good from both of them, for example public healthcar…

The public interest may not be in the public's interest. Inequality may not always be a bad thing. The focus shouldn't be on the gap between the haves and have nots, the focus should be on the dire situation of the poor without worrying about the lives of those better off.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#56

Post by notahacker »

ig1 wrote: post #47

Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK there's no statistical difference between earnings 3.5 years after university graduation due to parental background once you adjust for university/degree subject. (children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go into good universities or study high-earning subjects, but if they do then they'll earn as much as their better off peers)

That's quite an interesting observation I don't seem to have seen trumpeted (enough) during the battles over tuition fee increases. Do you have a citation for it?

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#58

Post by robeastham »

CaptainDecisive wrote: post #23

The article seems to me a just-so story. The author might be ignorant of the rich kids who end up as drug addicts or at the very least entirely economically unproductive simply because they can. They've got nothing to loose by not kowtowing to the bosses but nothing to gain by working hard either as they've already got everything laid on a plate for them. However I think there often is something different in the atti…

I whole heartedly agree with this, it also really felt like the post author was describing a really specific situation. Perhaps one where he was that middle class guy and the other guy was someone who just got the raise he wanted. I don't know, but the whole article came across as trying to blame failure to thrive on forces outside of one's control. In fact it might be more to do with bravery, personality and intelligence. I'm from a middle class background and have never had a problem saying what I think to senior management right up to CEO level, I am from a contracting background though and so perhaps I've never settled in one place long enough to get scared of losing my job.

Anyway from what the original poster describes I think someone in this particular middle class guys position would find working for a web technology company much more rewarding and fulfilling. Corporate structure tends to be less top down and more open and inclusive. For anyone in this position who is thinking of moving jobs perhaps they'd like to refactor their résumé using my new app:

http://www.mightycv.com/

Invites will be sent out soon.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#59

Post by watty »

This was an whiny and awful post about "life isn't fair". The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he came from a wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills. It isn't discrimination until you start hiring the less wealthy (with less skills) because of the fact that they're less wealthy.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#60

Post by forgotAgain »

watty wrote: post #59

This was an whiny and awful post about "life isn't fair". The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he came from a wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills. It isn't discrimination until you start hiring the less wealthy (with less skills) because of the fact that they're less wealthy.

Agreed, there is some serious projecting going on here.
Post reply on HN