Live data from Hacker News

Average Is Over

nytimes.com

151–160 of 254 posts

Re: Average Is Over

#151

When a liberal talks about how somebody "should have access to" something, hang on to your wallet. Because you will pay for it.

When a conservative starts talking about how taxes should be lower, hang on to your credit card. Cause he's not going to cut spending, he's just going to run up debt.

Re: Average Is Over

#152
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is none. There is no "solution" because it, in itself, is not a problem. The problem is that everybody feels entitled to a top 10% salary and many would kill for "their fair share" when nowadays even the lower 10% have their basic needs covered and some left for leisure. The problem is that a society where everybody have similar incomes is somehow fairer, when there is no logical chain leading there and…

Not salary disparity though, as it isn't a problem in the first place. Salary disparity is very much a social problem. Crime is correlated much more highly to income disparity than it is to income. Even poor-on-poor crime is correlated to overall societal disparity, it's not just rich people getting mugged and secretaries embezzling funds.

How do you explain some of the highest income disparity in the last century with the lowest crime rates, well, pretty much ever?

Re: Average Is Over

#153
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come across this "salary disparity isn't a problem" comment every so often and need to call it out. Salary disparity is definitely a social problem. When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. I have no problem with there being rich people, but I find it obscene that our society allows people to become billionaires.

> When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem. Note that organizations also have power. Why should I be any happier when the AARP influences govt than Larry Page?

The fact that you've identified an additional social problem doesn't mean that the original social problem that I declared exists, doesn't exist.

The only thing I addressed was the claim that massive salary disparity isn't a problem. It is a social problem.

Re: Average Is Over

#154
I believe that the solutions will be found in a change in our value system. Things that we really appreciate, things that are uniquely human, will be valued more. See thisismadebyhand.com Obviously solving big problems and being "not average" will be important, but I believe that many people will be able to find niches doing things that add value to life in ways that a machine can't.

Re: Average Is Over

#155

I can't believe those Presto touchscreens at restaurants are $100 per month. I love gadgets and technology, but much prefer dealing with a server and think most people do. My kids like the games and nag incessantly to play the "pay" ones, but I hardly think this is the end of waitresses and waiters. (I hope)

I think that would remain a restaurant luxury, mostly like it is now. Lower rank locals will be forced to make cuts in personnel.

Re: Average Is Over

#156
In the future, people will need more than a degree. They will need a few. That's what our children will have to deal with. There's nothing ridiculous about this. More and more and people are getting access to education.

Re: Average Is Over

#157
post #18

Ridiculous. The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above average as that is by definition impossible. It's a feel good message for average folk that papers over the truth, which is that average folk that used to make a decent living doing average work will become poor. All of them, eventually. How poor exactly? Well, yo…

I'm sensing quite a bit of schadenfreude here, and no substance. Surely america can use its considerable resources to educate and train its populace to do work that will be in high demand in the 21st century.

Is your point that the "average person" is just too stupid to learn to do these jobs?

Re: Average Is Over

#158
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come across this "salary disparity isn't a problem" comment every so often and need to call it out. Salary disparity is definitely a social problem. When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. I have no problem with there being rich people, but I find it obscene that our society allows people to become billionaires.

I've never understood the argument of "allowing" people to become billionaires. Many of these people created things that changed the world. Should they be artificially limited even more on their income?

Billionaires don't exist without a state. Nobody toils for years in grad school and invests time and money in a new enterprise without the panoply of legal protections created by the state. Moreover, since the system of property rights enforced by the state is, like any other system of law, completely arbitrary, the specific people that get rich under a certain system owe their wealth to that arbitrary choice.

So the phrase "artificially limited" is a deep distortion of the underlying situation. It's not a matter of more versus less limitation in the legal framework. The income would not exist without all of the limitations that exist on other people in that framework. Rather, we're simply talking about points in a design space: one arbitrary set of choices versus another arbitrary set of choices.

Re: Average Is Over

#159

When a liberal talks about how somebody "should have access to" something, hang on to your wallet. Because you will pay for it.

Do people seriously consider this guy a liberal? He spent most of the 2000s talking about how awesome globalization is and how the free market was gonna fix everything.

Re: Average Is Over

#160
post #18

Ridiculous. The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above average as that is by definition impossible. It's a feel good message for average folk that papers over the truth, which is that average folk that used to make a decent living doing average work will become poor. All of them, eventually. How poor exactly? Well, yo…

Actually, everyone can be above average if you have multiple scales. Some people could be above average at singing, others at mathematics, others at running.

The unfortunate losers in this situation are the people who are uniformly below average.

Post reply on HN