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

Inequality in Equalland

daemonology.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#111

Post by Andrew_Quentin »

loewenskind wrote: post #99
MrDunham wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that was the promise of communism - which failed due to most people's inherent desire to be better than others or to excel. Also, people realized that they could/should do the absolute minimum, as there was no benefit for working harder. They did end up adding incentives (in the USSR) which started looking more and more like capitalism.

Ugh. The reasons Russia's communism failed is an incredibly complicated and still debated subject. Throwing it all to "people's inherent desire to be better than others or to excel" is completely wrong.

Is it? Isnt that what we are told?

Why did it collapse then?

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#112

Post by loewenskind »

Andrew_Quentin wrote: post #111
loewenskind wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh. The reasons Russia's communism failed is an incredibly complicated and still debated subject. Throwing it all to "people's inherent desire to be better than others or to excel" is completely wrong.

Is it? Isnt that what we are told? Why did it collapse then?

Lots of reasons. You could watch the movie "Reds" with Warren Beatty. It's just a movie, but it should be a good jumping off place to see what parts to investigate.

For example, I'm sure sanctions from the rest of the world [1] from the beginning didn't do them any favors. Having a wolf in with the hens (named Stalin) was also unfortunate.

[1] All terrified that revolution would kick off in their countries. Justified fear as well, it did just that in Spain.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#113

Post by Teckla »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #106
Teckla wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor don't eat too much compared to the middle class and the wealthy. The poor eat the wrong kinds of foods, because the wrong kinds of food are inexpensive.

If you are fat, you eat too much food. You have more than enough to eat. The situation described by monos, "the lowest x% don't have enough to eat", does not apply. His advice to "share the cake" will only make the real problem (the bottom x% already eats too much cake) worse. Also, price is not the controlling factor here. 3500 cals of crap might be the same price as 2250 cals of nutritious food, but so what? If you…

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. You've oversimplifying the complex subject of nutrition.

It is now known that it's not as simple as "calories in - calories burned = weight gain or loss". The body burns more calories processing some kinds of foods compared to others. The body is less efficient or less encouraged to convert some kinds of excess calories into fat, depending on the source of the calories. It is becoming more clear that insulin plays an important role in a large percentage of cases of obesity, and it turns out most of the most cost effective foods encourage the body to produce the most insulin (and, almost paradoxically, also encourage hunger).

Your own example demonstrates my previous point. I would need to eat 18 (!) of those salads you suggested, every day, to merely maintain my weight. Or 5 Big Macs. It's obviously an extreme example, but which do you think poor people would choose? Buying cheap food can make the difference between paying the rent and living on the street.

With all due respect, it's ignorant and offensive to blame poor people for all their problems. Having an adequate amount of money makes an astonishing difference in your ability to achieve good nutrition, lower your stress, pursue advanced education, get enough exercise, etc.

I know it's popular to blame all poor obese people for their own predicament, but it's simply ignorant.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#114

Post by yummyfajitas »

loewenskind wrote: post #110
yummyfajitas wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are the ones who spend the money,... Consumption isn't useful to society. Society is useful in that it makes consumption possible, but that's not the same thing. How do you define "work"? Obviously not manual labor. I imagine he meant production, rather than work. A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potenti…

>Consumption isn't useful to society. That seems absurd on it's face. If there is no one to consumer what exactly are the producers selling? >A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potentially earning $20k/year). Exactly. Surely you're not under the impression that programmers are in the top 1%? Maybe one or two of…

That seems absurd on it's face. If there is no one to consumer what exactly are the producers selling?

So a loaf of bread is eaten just so that it can be produced?

Also, the developer I mentioned is in the top 3%, not the top 1%. Does that substantively change the nature of my assertion?

Lastly, when discussing CEOs who fail to turn a company around, you are comparing CEOs to other CEOs. Similarly, while most programmers are more productive than most secretaries, most programmers are not that much more productive than other programmers. (A few are, however, just as in the case of CEOs.)

Unless you believe that a company would be better off making the secretary into the CEO, it is ridiculous to assert that the CEO is less productive than the secretary. Less productive than the competition at his level != less productive than the janitor.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#115

Post by jbooth »

ericd wrote: post #49
jshen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so glad linus did the minimum when working on Linux, you know, since he wasn't getting paid and there was no perceivable financial gain in it. This meme that money is the only significant benefit from ones efforts should be plainly false. Why smart people believe it is beyond me.

Linus really can't be used as an example of what normal behavior would be. Noone's saying it's the only significant benefit, but for a lot of people, it is the overwhelming majority of the benefit of what they do. Programmers live in a privileged bubble compared to most.

Of course, when we're talking about the top of the income scale, we're very specifically talking about the group of people who live in that privileged bubble.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#116

Post by jshen »

ericd wrote: post #49
jshen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so glad linus did the minimum when working on Linux, you know, since he wasn't getting paid and there was no perceivable financial gain in it. This meme that money is the only significant benefit from ones efforts should be plainly false. Why smart people believe it is beyond me.

Linus really can't be used as an example of what normal behavior would be. Noone's saying it's the only significant benefit, but for a lot of people, it is the overwhelming majority of the benefit of what they do. Programmers live in a privileged bubble compared to most.

I disagree. most people I know have some passion that they do for the love of it. Whether it's playing guitar, doing wood work, cooking, etc. Many of us here happen to have a passion for programming.

But in all cases, money is not the motivator. If money were such a strong motivator video games would be a lot less popular.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#117

Post by jshen »

tjansen wrote: post #69
jshen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so glad linus did the minimum when working on Linux, you know, since he wasn't getting paid and there was no perceivable financial gain in it. This meme that money is the only significant benefit from ones efforts should be plainly false. Why smart people believe it is beyond me.

Linux is not a good example, because many (most?) good programmers love their work and would do it without payment. But this is not the case for many (most?) other workers - they would rather do something else and only work because they have to, or because their job pays better than other alternatives.

I think you're missing the point. That's only because other people aren't usually paid to do what they enjoy. However, most of them will have a passion like cooking, wood working, gardening, competitive video games, basketball, etc.

If money were such a strong motivator things like video games would be a lot less popular. Pickup basketball would be a lot less popular.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#118

Post by yummyfajitas »

Teckla wrote: post #113
yummyfajitas wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are fat, you eat too much food. You have more than enough to eat. The situation described by monos, "the lowest x% don't have enough to eat", does not apply. His advice to "share the cake" will only make the real problem (the bottom x% already eats too much cake) worse. Also, price is not the controlling factor here. 3500 cals of crap might be the same price as 2250 cals of nutritious food, but so what? If you…

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. You've oversimplifying the complex subject of nutrition. It is now known that it's not as simple as "calories in - calories burned = weight gain or loss". The body burns more calories processing some kinds of foods compared to others. The body is less efficient or less encouraged to convert some kinds of excess calories into fat, depending on the source of the calories. It is becom…

I agree with your first paragraph - there are significant corrections to the rule of "calories in - calories out = weight gain". That doesn't mean it's not a good first order approximation (in my experience, within about 15% [1]). It also doesn't mean that fat people aren't eating too much. If you are 40lbs overweight, eat less. If you are not overweight but don't have a 6 pack, that's the time to start worrying about exactly what you are eating.

Also, you are correct - the straw man you are arguing against is wrong. It would be cost inefficient to eat 18 salads and 0 big macs.

Now, lets say you are obese. That means you are eating 6 big macs. If you are constrained by cost, you could reduce consumption to 5 big macs (saving the cost of 1 big mac), and you will eventually be merely overweight rather than obese. Or you could change your consumption from 6 big macs to 4 big macs + 1 big salad, and you will approach a healthy weight (and save money). If you want a visible 6 pack, you might even need to play around with the exact composition of your 2250 calories.

You are also ignoring the fact that it isn't very expensive to cook healthy food at home. Last night I cooked about 6 meals from rice, lentils and frozen vegetables. Total cost: about $5. 6 big macs costs about $18.

Also, as for exercise, the lowest earners have the most free time and they exercise the least (I won't even get into the vast majority of poor who don't work at all). They spend the most time watching television. The highest earners have the least free leisure time and spend the most time on exercise (and the least on TV). I'm not sure why having more leisure time would make it harder to get exercise or cook a healthy meal.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm

[1] My personal experience: I was obese as a teenager. I got myself down to a reasonably healthy weight simply by reducing intake during a 1 year period when I was living well below the poverty line (this was during college and due to some unusual choices I made). I was hungry as all fuck. My rate of weight loss was within 15% of what calorie counting predicted.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#119

Post by Confusion »

gjm11 wrote: post #94
Confusion wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think drunkpotato is disagreeing with that at all. He's supporting someone that states that wealth disparity is not a good thing.

Whoops, yes, I got that backwards. Anyway, the point is that what he's agreeing and disagreeing with are opinions that aren't just a matter of unambiguous facts and figures.

I don't think that opinion of cperciva is relevant to the point btilly made, which is the subject of this subdiscussion. As such, there are no opinions to disagree with. I may be imagining things, but I've seen too many cases of people discarding facts because of some not directly relevant opinion the author/collector/presentor of the facts also happens to have.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#120

Post by InclinedPlane »

loewenskind wrote: post #104
InclinedPlane wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think a high-school dropout who spends his days playing Black Ops should have the same wealth as a trained surgeon who saves lives in the ER? No thanks. That idea is brain dead.

Maybe that high school dropout is wasting his life away because he sees no means of being successful. I think you'll find that most people who prefer to stay at home and mooch off the system do so because to make their life just slightly better would require them to seriously bust their asses. That means their effective compensation would be very low (maybe zero or even negative in some cases). We have and have had s…

We have and have had societies in the past where everyone got equal compensation. Do you think those societies allowed loafers to goof off all day and contribute nothing?

That's not better. If someone wants to be lazy, put in the minimum effort, and spend the rest of their time playing games that's their choice and they shouldn't be punished for it by forcing them to contribute to society to "earn" what they've been forced to receive. That cure is far, far worse than the disease.

Post reply on HN