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

The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

alexdanco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#11

Post by pjc50 »

Tournament wages theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory

This seems to happen whenever there's (a) direct competition (b) the value provided by the winner is very scalable (media, sports, software) and (c) most importantly, it can't be substituted by splitting the job among more people.

So footballers follow this model because you can only have 11 people on the pitch - there's no amount of low-wage non-first-worlders you can replace Ronaldo with. Megastars follow this model; if you want to see Taylor Swift, that doesn't substitute cleanly with Ariana Grande or your local bar band.

And software engineers follow this to some extent because splitting problems up is in itself the difficult bit.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#12

Post by pjc50 »

blfr wrote: post #10
bko wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is true. Just a cursory google search suggests that the market, at least globally, is a lot flatter and is likely flattening. Not everyone has an iPhone or Samsung. [0] Similarly, those large cities he lists (LA, New York and San Fran) have relatively low population growth, at 0.67%, 0.25% and 1% respectively [1]. Large cities like Phoenix, and Austin have around 2% growth. This makes more sense to m…

Large cities seem to also depress fertility. https://twitter.com/Cicerone973/status/1124426697972092928

That's kind of irrelevant; city growth has always been more a question of internal migration than fertility.

(Rome and many pre-industrial cities usually had negative population replacement rates because disease was such a problem. People still came.)

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#13

Post by sokoloff »

jdhn wrote: post #3

His paragraph about jobs is spot on. I've seen this in my own workplace on a team that is 75% contractors and 25% full time employees. Contractors are seen as completely replaceable, and if one leaves they'll be replaced with another one after a quick round of interviews. However, if a full time employee leaves, the process to replace them seems to take much longer as it appears that those doing the hiring are lookin…

What's to fix? Contractors don't have the same shadow of having to pay out severance or even the emotional investment of having to fire an employee.

It seems perfectly natural that management would be much more selective for permanent employee hires than for contractors.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#14

Post by Barrin92 »

bko wrote: post #5
polote wrote: post #2

> Chances are good that if you’re in the market for a smartphone, you fall into one of two very clear cut categories. Either: a. you’ve decided that your new phone is a very important item in your life, so you’re going to buy the nicest phone available at whatever price. (Usually this means an iPhone, although some flagship Android phones qualify for this category.) Or, b. you’ve decided that just about every phone o…

I don't think it is true. Just a cursory google search suggests that the market, at least globally, is a lot flatter and is likely flattening. Not everyone has an iPhone or Samsung. [0] Similarly, those large cities he lists (LA, New York and San Fran) have relatively low population growth, at 0.67%, 0.25% and 1% respectively [1]. Large cities like Phoenix, and Austin have around 2% growth. This makes more sense to m…

Yes, it's just a wrong intuition sold as fact. Millenials have increasingly started to buy larger cars and moved from the big cities to the sunbelt and the suburbs.

(https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/why-is-...)

The idea that everyone will be riding around in shared cars and live in the LA megalopolis is a tech industry fantasy.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#15

Post by JackFr »

This is pretty muddled thinking. He talks about categorical variables and then points out that they are not normally distributed. Which doesn’t make sense. (It almost could, but he skips an important step.)

Apart from that it's mostly handwaving and opinion with no actual data. When you don't use data it's unsurprising that your personal experience matches your hypothesis.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#17

Post by in_cahoots »

The author almost stumbles on the answer to his question when he shows the height distribution. It’s bimodal, because men and women have different average heights. Similarly, flagship and lower-tier phone buyers will display distributions in what they’re willing to pay. If you combine two separate normal distributions you can always make a claim that a single distribution is no longer normal. But that doesn’t make it an interesting insight on its face.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#18

Post by bobthepanda »

Barrin92 wrote: post #14
bko wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is true. Just a cursory google search suggests that the market, at least globally, is a lot flatter and is likely flattening. Not everyone has an iPhone or Samsung. [0] Similarly, those large cities he lists (LA, New York and San Fran) have relatively low population growth, at 0.67%, 0.25% and 1% respectively [1]. Large cities like Phoenix, and Austin have around 2% growth. This makes more sense to m…

Yes, it's just a wrong intuition sold as fact. Millenials have increasingly started to buy larger cars and moved from the big cities to the sunbelt and the suburbs. ( https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/why-is-... ) The idea that everyone will be riding around in shared cars and live in the LA megalopolis is a tech industry fantasy.

It’s worth noting that it’s unclear whether or not this is a generational preference for the suburbs, or rather a result of a lack of suburban-equivalent amenities for families like safe parks, good, not-overcrowded schools, and available daycare options. Not to mention a lack of housing at the 2+ bedroom size.

It’s still a reversal of the ‘60s and ‘70s where the cities were being abandoned wholesale.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#20

Post by nkozyra »

JackFr wrote: post #15

This is pretty muddled thinking. He talks about categorical variables and then points out that they are not normally distributed. Which doesn’t make sense. (It almost could, but he skips an important step.) Apart from that it's mostly handwaving and opinion with no actual data. When you don't use data it's unsurprising that your personal experience matches your hypothesis.

Yeah, I felt like there is perpetually a point the author is about to get but then just moves on to the next thought. Kind of frustrating to read, honestly.
Post reply on HN