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

Stay Gold, America

blog.codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 239 posts

Re: Stay Gold, America

#51

Post by coldtea »

throwpoaster wrote: post #17
gary_0 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hasn't it been dead and burried for decades? "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin, like 30 years ago. Just after he observed that "hard-working people of modest means continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about them."

America is the best country in the world for growing something new. Source: I am a non-American who does business in America.

>America is the best country in the world for growing something new

The 27th best, if that new thing is supposed to lift your social/economic status upwards: "The US ranked 27th in the 2020 Global Social Mobility Index".

But it might well be the best for people to build new businesses of scale (especially already well off people).

Re: Stay Gold, America

#52

Post by coldtea »

627467 wrote: post #39
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if I assume you’re right, upward mobility and ease of starting a business are quite different things.

My thinking has been that society only pays attention to the mechanisms that favour upward movement while completely neglecting how to push down - from the top. Maybe because of naive concepts like "enlarging the cake for everyone" or - more likely - the top won't allow the protections they raised to be lowered.

>naive concepts like "enlarging the cake for everyone"

Yeah, that has been working a treat (pun intended)...

Re: Stay Gold, America

#54

Post by roenxi »

docdeek wrote: post #9

>> Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. The 2024 election had a turnout of about 59% of the voting age population. Since 1972, only one presidential election had higher turnout than that (it was 2020). If the 2024 vote didn’t represent everyone, then most every election for the last half century has been even worse at representin…

Furthermore, while philosophically I don't want to see any barriers to voting, full participation is not a good thing in the abstract. It is like free speech; great idea but that doesn't mean we just say everything. Similarly, everyone has the right to vote but for heavens sake people with only a shallow clue should stay away from all but the most basic of policy questions.

Lot of great people of average intelligence. They should not be trying to involve themselves in governance. There should be no expectation or need that they get involved. Average people make poor decisions vs the unusually intelligent. Political discourse should elevate, not mean-regress.

The magic of voting is that most people vote for a side in a semi-random manner and cancel each other out harmlessly.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#55

Post by imacomputertoo »

coldtea wrote: post #7

> We are at an unprecedented point in American history, and I'm concerned we may lose sight of the American Dream The understatement of the year. From all I read, hasn't it been dead and burried for decades? (Of course not for some founder who hit the jackpot like Jeff). "Evidence indicates that in recent decades social mobility in the United States has declined, and income inequality has risen.[7][8] Social mobility…

people have been saying the American dream is dead my entire life. I'm tired of hearing it.

I'm also tired of people saying the American dream is about becoming a billionaire. It's not. It never has been. It's always been about having the opportunity to improve your wealth and living standards. Sometimes that means just leaving something better for your children, much like the Italian and Irish immigrants did That American dream is very much still alive.

On a related note, I'm tired of hearing people say they can't afford to buy a home. Buying a house is a very expensive and slow way to build wealth. These people would do better to put some money into a low cost index fund, or max out their 401k if they have one.

Obviously, the very poor do not have money to invest with, but they can give their children a better life. it's certainly not easy, but it's possible. The working class, however (not the most poor), routinely chooses to put their money into flat screen tvs, Iphones, expensive vehicles and clothing, and other depreciable assets. We've failed to teach people how to take advantage of the abundant opportunities in America, and we have a culture of frivolous spending.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#56

Post by coldtea »

throwpoaster wrote: post #30
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if I assume you’re right, upward mobility and ease of starting a business are quite different things.

Yes, they are different: the latter is a prerequisite of the former.

They're orthogonal.

You can start and business and get downwards social mobility (lose your personal investment in a bussiness which fails).

And inversely, you can get upwards mobility without starting a business (like with a promotion or getting a better job). Or rather, in the last decades, increasingly you can't. But traditionally, that was the way most people saw it. The "company man" going through the ranks, the immigrant who studies and gets a good job, etc. Building a business was always a thing for a minority.

And since most new businesses fail anyway (and in most fields require capital, not to mention connections and lack, plus a specific set of skills like salesmanship and market savvy), "start a business" as a solution to social mobility at large, is a really bad idea.

Starting a succesful business doesn't even necessarily translate to social mobility for others. In fact, it can happen even in a social mobility wise regressing economy. E.g. many people lose better paying jobs, and end up working on the cheap for some uber (pun intended) successful new business.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#57

Post by gadders »

gandalfgeek wrote: post #36

Most charities on that list are on sharp sides of deeply polarizing culture war issues and it is not at all clear that their causes align with the “American Dream”. If the last election was any indication then more than half the country explicitly rejected many of them.

Yeah, this is more like a democrat wish list, donating to help polices that the electorate didn't want.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#58

Post by thrance »

gadders wrote: post #50

I don't know how you can want to improve democracy, and be in favour of universal mail-in voting, the most open to abuse form of voting there is.

That's a big lie promoted by the republicans who don't like mail-in voting because democrats use it more [1]. There is still absolutely no evidence that any fraud ever happened with that system.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-mail-in-vo...

Re: Stay Gold, America

#59

Post by Narkov »

alkonaut wrote: post #24
noduerme wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in a country with compulsory voting (Argentina), I find the notion charming but I can scarcely say it leads to more intelligent outcomes.

Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

> Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy.

Why on earth would you prefer a signal of legitimacy over 70/80/90% vote participation? Get people engaged.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#60

Post by alkonaut »

Terr_ wrote: post #47
alkonaut wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

> Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Not really: Voters can still choose to "not participate" (whether as protest or laziness) simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices. If anything, the signal you're talking about becomes stronger , since a compulsory-voting system removes or reduces certain practical impediments which have nothing to do…

> simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices.

The signals are different. I cast a blank vote to indicate my support for the process/election, but my lack of support for any of the candidates. I cast no vote to indicate my lack of support for the process itself.

Non-voters and blank/invalid voters are usually reported separately to give exactly these 2 signals.

Post reply on HN