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

Average Is Over

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 254 posts

Re: Average Is Over

#201

Post by cgmorton »

beatpanda wrote: post #26

So we're currently building an economy that the "average person" doesn't have the skills to participate in. OK. So who are we building this economy for, and why?

We're building an economy that the average person doesn't have the skills to -contribute to-. Much different.

The economy is still 'for' the average person, because its point is to -produce- things, not to employ people. If the requirements for human life become easier to produce, that can only be a good thing for those humans (i.e. everybody).

Re: Average Is Over

#202

Post by astine »

rayiner wrote: post #158
watty wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's like arguing we shouldn't oppose Internet censorship because censorship is just a kind of regulation and other regulations make the Internet possible.

Besides it's totally possible for billionaires to exist without a state or regulations. It's just that they would look more like feudal lords than the relatively benign fellows we have today. So it is a matter of limitations in the legal framework. It's just an issue of which limitations are appropriate and which are excessive.

Re: Average Is Over

#203

Post by batista »

DrJokepu wrote: post #197
shalmanese wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Specialisation is nothing new but I think what both the article and the grandparent really mean is that you have to be above average in your field of specialisation, e.g. being an average professional singer, professional mathematician or professional athlete is not enough.

Most people are average at everything. Even if you have multiple scales, it doesn't change.

For one, people are not willing to work in all the "scale field", even if they are above average (i.e: I'm above average at preaching. Too bad I don't want to be a priest).

Second, you can be above average in a field that doesn't matter (i.e: oh, I'm an above average haiku writer. Too bad nobody pays for this).

Third, most fields are so saturated but merely being above average doesn't matter anyway. (i.e: oh, I'm above average at singing. Too bad only the top 1% or less makes any money of it).

Re: Average Is Over

#204

Post by orky56 »

adamgravitis wrote: post #63

The author's sudden and poorly supported conclusion doesn't really fit. Because people with bachelor's degrees have the least unemployment, it is imperative we pass a GI Bill to ensure everyone gets a bachelor's degree?! He's getting the causality wrong. It's not because they have bachelor's degrees that they're getting jobs. They're getting jobs because they're (minimally) bright and (minimally) ambitious. Printing…

Although your argument is perfectly valid, one should not underestimate the value of the Bachelor's degree as just a piece of paper. I'm not trying to be facetious but a lot of employers filter, and sometimes hire, applicants based on their education level. In these cases, some employers assume these people have the skills. The important point here is that skills can be acquired in post-secondary education or on your own. However if done on your own, you face a hurdle of not having the college degree.

Re: Average Is Over

#205

Post by yesbabyyes »

dnissley wrote: post #146
jedbrown wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's the second, then market forces might eventually balance out and make hiring people an attractive choice again. It's definitely not going to balance out so that it becomes economical to hire people for today's low-skill jobs. At any given time, there will be jobs that machines are capable of, but that it is more economical to hire people for. However, the skill level required for those jobs is going to keep in…

It's definitely not going to balance out so that it becomes economical to hire people for today's low-skill jobs. Let's take a market force like peak oil. When oil is When oil is $50.00/gal then you might think twice about using a backhoe to dig ditches, and instead hire a bunch of ditch diggers for minimum wage.

When oil is $50/gal then the minimum wage must also be way higher, or your ditch diggers will not be able to get to work, or eat.

Re: Average Is Over

#206

Post by sethg »

giardini wrote: post #172
gyardley wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a completely wingnut idea. I first bumped into it in Hayek, who was in favor of it and not much of a socialist. The rationale works like this - given that some less-fortunate members of society will need assistance at some point in their life, and given that 'conservative' != 'asshole' and we don't want to just let them die in the street, we have to provide some form of limited welfare state. Since we have t…

"... or we could simply periodically cut everyone a small check." And what do you do when they drink the check and once again lie dying in the street? I really do agree with you - society can pay up to some point and no more. But at some point people must be allowed to die. For example, today I would not be opposed, in the case of cancer, to society providing payment for all necessary pain medications and hospice car…

I agree with the general point that you can’t give a blank check for anything, but I think your specific point about cancer is off-base.

Some quick google-fu teaches me that in 2008, $90 billion was spent in the US on cancer treatment. During the same year, $2.4 trillion was spent on health care in general. Given that cancer is [at least as of 2007] the second leading cause of death in the US, this proportion doesn’t seem blatantly wrong; I would want society to tackle some of the other well-documented inefficiencies in our health-care system before cracking down on chemotherapy.

IIRC one of these inefficiencies is that terminally ill people who would rather get cheap palliative care than expensive, aggressive, and uncertain treatment... can’t get the cheap care covered by insurance.

Re: Average Is Over

#207

Post by batista »

anamax wrote: post #104
mike-cardwell wrote: post #99

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?

Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem

No. That's one of the problems (others: cartels, influencing public opinion with your media, having people or ideas killed, using his money to buy influence with people, etc).

And you seem naive enough to think that somehow we could do with him not getting govt to do things on his behalf.

Maybe by reducing or eliminating the government? This is a sure-fire, tested way to have the rich guy and his friends have a free reign to anything with no stop gaps.

You seem to see it:

(1) government = some people with power, that they abuse or rich people can buy them.

It would help to also see it this way:

(2) government = the ONLY power that is elected and somewhat controlled by the general public and its will.

Re: Average Is Over

#208

Post by lutorm »

watty wrote: post #115
mike-cardwell wrote: post #99

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?

We can argue over to what extent their success is earned or simply random. Taleb would argue that it has much more to do with randomness than not, and in that case I fail to see how they have earned more than the countless others who attempted the same thing but were unlucky.

Re: Average Is Over

#210

Post by lutorm »

mtts wrote: 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…

It's not super germane to your comment, but:

not everyone can be above average, but a whole lot can. Just like currently a lot more than 50% earn less than average. You are confusing average with median.

But also, the context of the article seems to imply that he was thinking about international competition, so that "We will have the best-trained American people in the world." You just have to make sure the below average ones are somewhere else.

Post reply on HN