231–240 of 368 posts
Your comment could basically be copy-pasted in any popular thread on HN and seem relevant. Much like a horoscope. Why don't you engage with the specifics of the article yourself so that we have an example of what properly engaging with the specifics entails?
In fact, I'd find it interesting to read why you believe that others haven't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a certain point the ratio is so high that it cannot be explained by differing abilities, and can only be explained by the structure of the market. Let's say a brain surgeon makes $2m/year. That makes sense, they are uncommonly talented. Does it make sense that someone can amass as wealth 50,000 years of brain surgeon economic output ($100bn)? If the distribution of human endowments is Gaussian, as it likely is, th…
> Does it make sense that someone can amass as wealth 50,000 years of brain surgeon economic output ($100bn)? If the distribution of human endowments is Gaussian, as it likely is, this level of wealth accumulation cannot be explained by superior productivity alone. Well, yeah, if someone figured out how to operate an 10000 brains at once, then all of a sudden one would think that he ought to make 50000 years worth of…
Let's say Amazon records its warehouse workers and captures data which it can use to train industrial robots at some future date.
Those industrial robots have $X of economic value. Who created that value? Did the workers whose data enabled it? Did the DARPA/NSF funded university system who pushed the techniques to the point of being production-ready? Or was all the value created by the Amazon engineer who blended the established modelling techniques and the data?
It's an honest question about the source of value creation and whether inputs are being priced reasonably, efficiently, or fairly.
The suggestion that governments can close the remote working gap is not very well thought out. A large percentage of low income work is service work that requires physical presence. You can’t make the typical burger joint remote friendly without automating all the jobs away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever enables a dignified existence. It doesn't require much imagination to figure out what's included in that.
Does it include children? How many is considered dignified? Some people have to have 3 just to keep the population steady. If so, is it appropriate for a childless 18-year-old on minimum wage to earn that much (he could probably lease a Ferrari or retire at 38) Is it appropriate for a company to pay a childless person less than a person with children? Why? What if he’s sterile? Seems very tricky to me.
Just pick a floor that's good enough for everyone, accept that will be people with low expenses who will be "overpaid", and stop trying to figure out what every individual deserves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are miserable people who want to make things worse for remote workers because if everybody can't have something then nobody can.
Every time there's an article on hn highlighting how a vulnerable/at risk/marginalized group of people is being put further at risk the typical response is exactly yours: selfish instead of charitable. They're not miserable people simply because you don't get to have another luxury. They're circumspect and compassionate for not simply being complacent and instead exploring all of the effects. You do realize the autho…
How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? Moreover, the poor people in SF are doing a hell of a lot better than many parts of the world. I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy.
Poor is relative, and the working class in America would be doing great if not for the massive inflation in college, housing, and healthcare prices. And what do all three have in common? You guessed it, the government! It should be no surprise to anyone that the natural result of pumping absurd amounts of money into these sectors (student loans, government subsidized mortgages, medicare/medicaid) is inflated prices.
Given its potential benefits, telecommuting is an attractive option to many. Studies have shown a substantial number of workers would even agree to a lower salary for a job that would allow them to work from home. The appeal of remote work can be especially strong during times of crisis, but also exists under more normal circumstances.
The ongoing crisis therefore amplifies inequalities when it comes to financial and work-life balance benefits.
This seems to be saying that workers often prefer remote work, and perhaps even more so at present. But, they're trading salary away for a work environment they prefer, which (by definition) lowers their monetary compensation, which is bad.
Not sure what to make of that.
Alright, narrower spreads in economic inequality appears to connote greater overall happiness in the measured society. Perhaps attributable to the averaging and not representative of the outliers, or demonstrable of modality, but that might be a separate argument. Northern European countries are famed for ranking near the top. The degree to which a society is advanced can be measured in part by how it treats its most…
I can set up a self perpetuating lobby to government to make laws that make generations stuck in a cyclical system of poverty. Thus it's easier to exploit and make more money. Rinse. Repeat.
By better maintaining a relatively tight "artificial fairness" it prevents the system from falling into one of the two extremes - everyone poor and struggling and one extremely powerful elite and the serfs.
Not all work is equally valuable. Not all work is equally doable. Some work requires decades patience and sacrifice before one is competent enough to perform it. Some work is physically or cognitively beyond the vast majority of the population. It doesn't make sense to expect all jobs to have all the same benefits and privelegdes. Even if we pretend that all humans are fundamentally equal in ability, inequality will…
I really can't understand this mindset, it views the system that we have as fundamentally meritocratic and that only hard work matters. This is demonstrably false with a cursory review of how our (the US) education system, economy, and geographic distributions reward and punish people.
[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/inside-the-vault/spr...
Disclaimer: I have just read the title of the article, looked at the first chart within it and read your comment. Your comment could basically be copy-pasted in any popular thread on HN and seem relevant. Much like a horoscope. Why don't you engage with the specifics of the article yourself so that we have an example of what properly engaging with the specifics entails? In fact, I'd find it interesting to read why yo…
(I detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23158853)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it include children? How many is considered dignified? Some people have to have 3 just to keep the population steady. If so, is it appropriate for a childless 18-year-old on minimum wage to earn that much (he could probably lease a Ferrari or retire at 38) Is it appropriate for a company to pay a childless person less than a person with children? Why? What if he’s sterile? Seems very tricky to me.
I like how the premise of this argument is that it's somehow horrible to pay someone too much. How horrible that an 18 year old be able to afford more than the rent on a crappy apartment. The more you empower young people with a livable wage the less of an influence their parent's money or lack of is on their life. Just pick a floor that's good enough for everyone, accept that will be people with low expenses who wil…