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

121–130 of 239 posts

Re: Stay Gold, America

#121

Post by throwpoaster »

DaSHacka wrote: post #49
throwpoaster wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the people who serve society at the highest levels should also have the biggest stake in its successful outcomes.

That would still require what GP is suggesting, no? 1%'ers don't have to worry about the price of groceries nor affordable housing; they can just brute-force whatever they desire through excessive wealth. At least, that's the impression I get from the millionaires I know. Perhaps not all are like this (they gathered their wealth primarily via private equity) but I have no reason to think politicians would be any diff…

The rich care as much as much about how the price of groceries leads to social unrest as you do, maybe more.

There are jerks everywhere. Most very wealthy people I know fund science and hospitals.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#122

Post by throwpoaster »

coldtea wrote: post #76
throwpoaster wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Gotcha: Can't win, don't try." - Bart Simpson This is nihilist cynicism, and is worth rejecting out-of-hand.

Take the same idea and apply it to gambling. Does it hold up well? In any case it's a moot point, to an argument nobody made. Trying or not trying, and understanding that the (documented) cases of social mobility are worsening are orthogonal. In fact, with that understanding, a society can do something to improve that, which will also make it easier for people trying.

The point was that donating 8m to charity wouldn’t help because too many things are wrong. This is obviously incorrect, prima facie.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#124

Post by throwpoaster »

coldtea wrote: post #56
throwpoaster wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is only true if you consider absolute instead of expected value and cherry pick statistical outcomes.

Successful business people start multiple businesses.

Social class and economic class are different. Few successful welders go to the opera.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#125

Post by xocnad »

apexalpha wrote: post #120
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…

Isn't this just the FPTP system? I mean what point is there in voting R in California or so. You'd have to be a dogmatic believer of civic duty to stand in line for hour just to vote R or D in a state that will go the other way with 30% difference...

There is a solution to presidential elections for this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters....

Re: Stay Gold, America

#126

Post by lapcat »

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…

A lot of people don't vote because they feel that in our American plutocracy, no matter who wins the elections, the elected leaders always cater to the needs of their financial benefactors rather than to the needs of their constituents. The outcome is never good for the public. This is not to say that the candidates are exactly the same but rather that the candidates are simply different forms of corruption, controlled by competing factions of the wealthy. The voters are merely pawns in their game.

The fact that Jeff Atwood can make $8 million in political donations just underlines the fact that I am powerless compared to him. We may have equal say on election day, but people like Atwood have vastly disproportionatal say on legislation days. Putting money into politics is the problem, not the solution to the problem.

If the "American Dream", according to Jeff Atwood, is to become much wealthier than one's fellows, that's inherently anti-democratic.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#127

Post by raincole »

michaelt wrote: post #88
roenxi wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> while philosophically I don't want to see any barriers to voting, full participation is not a good thing in the abstract. Have you ever heard people say, when government policies transfer wealth from the young to the old, that it's because young voters have low voting rates while old voters have high voting rates? If you believe politicians will naturally favour the interests of demographics who vote, then having e…

> If you believe politicians will naturally favour the interests of demographics who vote, then having equal voting rates across all demographics is required for a just society.

But it doesn't solve this particular issue.

The whole population is aging. Which means we're going to see higher and higher percentage of old people vs young people. Now what? We demand higher turnover rates from the young to cancel it out?

Re: Stay Gold, America

#128

Post by machiaweliczny »

alecco wrote: post #34

As a foreigner, I think this is too naive. The Western elites are in cahoots, that's why they meet all the time. They negotiate things and then they make a DUAL narrative to be pushed by ad-controlled media and social networks so they can divide and rule. And, sadly, we are getting dumber and easier to manipulate. Grassroot movements with legitimate concerns are infiltrated and destroyed. Elite made "grassroot" movem…

I wish more people were aware of this

Re: Stay Gold, America

#129

Post by throwpoaster »

gorbachev wrote: post #102
throwpoaster wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the people who serve society at the highest levels should also have the biggest stake in its successful outcomes.

But they are already rich, so the only thing they've been concentrating on is wealth preservation of their own class. To what consequences is quite nicely laid out by the blog post by Jeff.

This perhaps says more about you than them. Most rich people I know donate money to science and build hospitals.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#130

Post by throwpoaster »

coldtea wrote: post #66
throwpoaster wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the people who serve society at the highest levels should also have the biggest stake in its successful outcomes.

"serve society"? More like help themselves to the loot, while driving society to the ground...

That this is how you think says a lot about you and nothing about them. The very wealthy people I know are largely focused on charity work and family.
Post reply on HN