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

The Summly deal makes no sense

philosophically.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 260 posts

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#221

Post by Domenic_S »

phillmv wrote: post #203
nsxwolf wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. Are you saying this kid should have his $30M (or whatever he gets out of the deal) taken away from him, because you perceive he didn't earn it?

No. I'm saying is maybe increase high end income taxes, maybe look into the viability of higher capital gains taxes, maybe find and create some kind of disincentive for companies to be bailing out VCs. Find some way to even the playing field. I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc.

Ah, the 'regulation is the answer' argument.

> I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc

It's like every other human relationship, the more you have to offer the higher your standards can be. Google can afford to hire only top CS people (or accomplished non-traditional ones) because they're Google. Yahoo!... I don't think that's going to work out so well. The market will take care of it soon enough.

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#222

Post by peterjancelis »

phillmv wrote: post #203
nsxwolf wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. Are you saying this kid should have his $30M (or whatever he gets out of the deal) taken away from him, because you perceive he didn't earn it?

No. I'm saying is maybe increase high end income taxes, maybe look into the viability of higher capital gains taxes, maybe find and create some kind of disincentive for companies to be bailing out VCs. Find some way to even the playing field. I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc.

Or how about you get over your negative emotions with regards to wealth so you can enjoy meeting wealthy people and end up making millions getting involved in their business deals?

After all those million-a-year investment bankers did just that.

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#223

Post by hluska »

beachstartup wrote: post #176
kyro wrote: post #123

For some who need perspective: Right now, somewhere in the world, a child is being born into an uberly rich family. That child will grow up to inherit millions for absolutely no work. He'll live the good life full of yachts and private jets. Right now, somewhere in the world, there is a party happening full of gorgeous wealthy people who need not lift a finger to attain the luxuries that they have. Their success is o…

This is good perspective and i think it's good to keep this in mind, but let's not forget the other end of the spectrum: Right now, somewhere in the world, a child is being born in a farm house with a dirt floor. That child will grow up to die in a civil war before age 14. Right now, somewhere in the world, there are people waiting in line to get food from a charity. Right now, somewhere in the world, someone is suff…

My Mom grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. Her biological father had a habit of staying at home just long enough to get my Grandma pregnant, then taking off. Life for single mothers (especially French Canadians) in the late 1940s/early 1950s was hard. Consequently, my Grandma worked multiple jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. Grandma was always an incredibly hard worker - she eventually remarried and her and my Grandpa started a cleaning business. She ran that business and worked incredibly hard up until the day she died.

My life was very different from my Mom's. My Dad was a police officer and, though we weren't wealthy, I never went without. But, I got to grow up in a household where two things were valued - hard work and education. Consequently, I'd spend summers working in my Grandma and Grandpa's business - I had my first job (with an actual hourly wage) when I was 8 years old and worked every single summer and during Easter break.

Grandma never complained because she got herself in that mess and by golly, she'd get herself out. That sense of resilience carried through the generations and now, finally, my generation has the benefits of a middle class upbringing, combined with the work ethic that only comes from having been very poor one generation ago.

I think that it's wonderful you're concerned with people who are less fortunate and I respect what you wrote. However, poverty is a great motivator and frankly, I'd rather hire someone who knows hunger than someone who went to prep schools and fancy Universities with billion dollar endowments...

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#224

Post by seivan »

kyro wrote: post #123

For some who need perspective: Right now, somewhere in the world, a child is being born into an uberly rich family. That child will grow up to inherit millions for absolutely no work. He'll live the good life full of yachts and private jets. Right now, somewhere in the world, there is a party happening full of gorgeous wealthy people who need not lift a finger to attain the luxuries that they have. Their success is o…

Bullshit, the scrutiny is here because of Yahoo paying 30m for some shit app. That's it. Age is irrelevant.

Can the shareholders do anything about this? It seems incredibly stupid.

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#225

Post by [deleted] »

kyro wrote: post #123

For some who need perspective: Right now, somewhere in the world, a child is being born into an uberly rich family. That child will grow up to inherit millions for absolutely no work. He'll live the good life full of yachts and private jets. Right now, somewhere in the world, there is a party happening full of gorgeous wealthy people who need not lift a finger to attain the luxuries that they have. Their success is o…

[deleted]

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#226

Post by phillmv »

Domenic_S wrote: post #221
phillmv wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm saying is maybe increase high end income taxes, maybe look into the viability of higher capital gains taxes, maybe find and create some kind of disincentive for companies to be bailing out VCs. Find some way to even the playing field. I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc.

Ah, the 'regulation is the answer' argument. > I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc It's like every other human relationship, the more you have to offer the higher your standards can be. Google can afford to hire only top CS people (or accomplished non-traditional ones) because they're Google. Yahoo!... I don't think that's going to work out so…

No, it's the "redistribute the wealth" argument. Whether you do it by funding welfare or schools or giving tax refunds, it's up to you.

>It's like every other human relationship, the more you have to offer the higher your standards can be.

It's more complicated than that. Since the prestige of your alma mater is largely divorced from the quality of the teaching therein, it's also an expression of class discrimination.

I have this burning suspicion - borne out by my own anecdotal experience - that the most important thing distinguishing the median Harvard undergraduate from the median Good State School undergraduate is a capacity to absorb the tuition fees.

Setting up a system that rewards having been born to rich parents is ultimately detrimental, in my opinion. It's just a lot easier to check whether you came from Stanford than to determine if you're smart.

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#227

Post by phillmv »

peterjancelis wrote: post #222
phillmv wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm saying is maybe increase high end income taxes, maybe look into the viability of higher capital gains taxes, maybe find and create some kind of disincentive for companies to be bailing out VCs. Find some way to even the playing field. I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc.

Or how about you get over your negative emotions with regards to wealth so you can enjoy meeting wealthy people and end up making millions getting involved in their business deals? After all those million-a-year investment bankers did just that.

I have no negative emotions regarding wealth. In absolute terms, I am quite wealthy; I enjoy the serendipity of my birth tremendously and every day give thanks for it.

It's just plain to me that we're getting fucked by those much further up the chain and being admonished for having the gall to find it unpleasant.

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#228

Post by pron »

kyro wrote: post #123

For some who need perspective: Right now, somewhere in the world, a child is being born into an uberly rich family. That child will grow up to inherit millions for absolutely no work. He'll live the good life full of yachts and private jets. Right now, somewhere in the world, there is a party happening full of gorgeous wealthy people who need not lift a finger to attain the luxuries that they have. Their success is o…

While this has little to do with the original post (which is about the logic behind Yahoo's decision, on which I have absolutely no opinion one way or another), I think it's extremely important to adress what you're saying. You write "I get down about how unfair that is from time to time, but there's nothing you can really do about it, other than focus on your work". This is not only patently false, it is dangerously so. It is the thinking of the downtrodden man who accepts the hegemony's perspective on things, namely, that this is the natural order of things, and all you can do is work.

True, the world is unfair and it will remain so. But much of its unfairness is not a result of cruel nature, but as a result of our political actions. And I won't even go into what actions we should take to adress the issues you've raised, only to say that we should, and must act to change society, and that there's quite a lot we can do. We are not sheep.

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#229

Post by farinasa »

Domenic_S wrote: post #221
phillmv wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm saying is maybe increase high end income taxes, maybe look into the viability of higher capital gains taxes, maybe find and create some kind of disincentive for companies to be bailing out VCs. Find some way to even the playing field. I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc.

Ah, the 'regulation is the answer' argument. > I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc It's like every other human relationship, the more you have to offer the higher your standards can be. Google can afford to hire only top CS people (or accomplished non-traditional ones) because they're Google. Yahoo!... I don't think that's going to work out so…

>the more you have to offer the higher your standards can be.

This assumes that a more reputable school necessarily represents a higher quality of education, which isn't necessarily true.

Re: The Summly deal makes no sense

#230

Post by pron »

Domenic_S wrote: post #221
phillmv wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm saying is maybe increase high end income taxes, maybe look into the viability of higher capital gains taxes, maybe find and create some kind of disincentive for companies to be bailing out VCs. Find some way to even the playing field. I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc.

Ah, the 'regulation is the answer' argument. > I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc It's like every other human relationship, the more you have to offer the higher your standards can be. Google can afford to hire only top CS people (or accomplished non-traditional ones) because they're Google. Yahoo!... I don't think that's going to work out so…

The kind of things "the market" takes care of is vanishingly small, and even when it does it rarely works in favor of most people. Why shouldn't we act in some way to make sure society as a whole benefits from our economy as much as it can? After all, our economy exists to serve us, not the other way around.
Post reply on HN