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

Life is Short

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 452 posts

Re: Life is Short

#121

Post by natrius »

drhayes9 wrote: post #68
vcarl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read some "rebuttals" to the previous essay, and while there were definitely some valid points brought up, a lot of them seemed to me to have misinterpreted a lot of what was said. PG tweeted about feeling like a lot of his side of the "debate" was pointing out that he hadn't said something. [1] [1]: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/688044252744527875

From PG's essay "Economic Inequality": "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them... Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." This feels like the heart of that particular essay and displays a r…

> This blames poor people for being poor.

No it doesn't. A claim that most rich people are driven doesn't imply that most poor people are lazy. The portion you quoted makes this distinction clear: "Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources."

If we found a way to give everyone the same opportunities, there'd still be economic inequality. Is inequality what we should attack? It's probably better to attack the undesirable causes directly. The essay made this point clearly.

Re: Life is Short

#122

Post by xiaoma »

drhayes9 wrote: post #68
vcarl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read some "rebuttals" to the previous essay, and while there were definitely some valid points brought up, a lot of them seemed to me to have misinterpreted a lot of what was said. PG tweeted about feeling like a lot of his side of the "debate" was pointing out that he hadn't said something. [1] [1]: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/688044252744527875

From PG's essay "Economic Inequality": "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them... Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." This feels like the heart of that particular essay and displays a r…

How is the idea that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income a "breathtaking misunderstanding of poverty"?

It's absolutely true that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income and it's also true technology acts as a lever and is increasing the variation in productivity between people.

At no point did PG say anything like what you claim it "sounds like" he is saying. The essay was an argument to attack rent-seeking, and other bad behaviors, but not the variation in productivity. It also argued that even if all rent-seeking were eliminated, there would still be variations in income because some people are far more productive than the average.

Re: Life is Short

#124

Post by S4M »

bansarefun wrote: post #95

I had the same thought as the parent. His last essay was, by a wide margin, his least well considered, most nonsensical, and most widely criticized essay. It was, by a wide margin, his worse ever work. And now, suddenly, his next essay is on life being too short for bullshit and arguing on the internet? Yes... this seems to me like one thing: it seems like Paul Graham knows he wrote a god-awful, indefensible, steamin…

I personally didn't like too much that essay about inequalities, but I think your comment is unnecessarily nasty.

I believe arguing with commenters like you is exactly the bullshit PG mentioned.

Re: Life is Short

#125

Post by sjg007 »

zappo2938 wrote: post #91
numlocked wrote: post #67

And for a completely different perspective, we have Kurt Vonnegut: [Vonnegut tells his wife he’s going out to buy an envelope] “Oh, she says well, you’re not a poor man. You know, why don’t you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I’m going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a…

"You are the music while the music lasts." --T. S. Eliot I am looking forward to twenty years from now when I will have time to read all the Kurt Vonnegut, T. S. Eliot, and Charles Bukowski I missed when I was younger. Fortunately, for now, I need to get some work done.

Read them now. They may even guide your future.

Re: Life is Short

#128

Post by totalrobe »

bansarefun wrote: post #95

I had the same thought as the parent. His last essay was, by a wide margin, his least well considered, most nonsensical, and most widely criticized essay. It was, by a wide margin, his worse ever work. And now, suddenly, his next essay is on life being too short for bullshit and arguing on the internet? Yes... this seems to me like one thing: it seems like Paul Graham knows he wrote a god-awful, indefensible, steamin…

Truth. His last essay actually hurt me pretty personally. There aren't too many figures in the business or tech world that I actually admire, and I was really disappointed when a guy that has been this lucky is too scared to acknowledge that life simply isn't fair, and that hard work isn't always enough. PG has become a beggar like the rent seekers he claims to abhor.

Re: Life is Short

#129

Post by rukuu001 »

drhayes9 wrote: post #68
vcarl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read some "rebuttals" to the previous essay, and while there were definitely some valid points brought up, a lot of them seemed to me to have misinterpreted a lot of what was said. PG tweeted about feeling like a lot of his side of the "debate" was pointing out that he hadn't said something. [1] [1]: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/688044252744527875

From PG's essay "Economic Inequality": "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them... Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." This feels like the heart of that particular essay and displays a r…

Re: "Economic Inequality".

I tend to read with a charitable eye, so I don't take the same meaning as yourself. But, he's chosen an expression that allows a lot of interpretation.

The way I read it, I assume we're talking about a cohort, and the point is, on average, the least lazy of the cohort will probably do better.

Re: Life is Short

#130

Post by iiiggglll »

S4M wrote: post #124
bansarefun wrote: post #95

I had the same thought as the parent. His last essay was, by a wide margin, his least well considered, most nonsensical, and most widely criticized essay. It was, by a wide margin, his worse ever work. And now, suddenly, his next essay is on life being too short for bullshit and arguing on the internet? Yes... this seems to me like one thing: it seems like Paul Graham knows he wrote a god-awful, indefensible, steamin…

I personally didn't like too much that essay about inequalities, but I think your comment is unnecessarily nasty. I believe arguing with commenters like you is exactly the bullshit PG mentioned.

His tone might seem unnecessarily harsh at first, but when taken in context of the amount of ass-kissing that goes on here, it starts to seem more like an appropriate counterweight.
Post reply on HN