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

What Oxford taught me about posh people

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 383 posts

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#131

Post by WalterBright »

djrobstep wrote: post #124
WalterBright wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Work, life, and social structure is extremely unfair It's always going to be unfair. Attempts to fix it always result in some other unfairness. The real thing that works is freedom, i.e. not having the law artificially holding you back. Instead of being consumed by envy of others, you can make your own life better.

[flagged]

> the Nordics prove that they are genuinely better places to live economically speaking

The Nordics live atop an ocean of oil they sell that provides 20% of their GDP. This is hardly a situation other countries can replicate.

P.S. I want to spend a summer sometime touring Norway and its astonishing beauty.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#132

Post by pm90 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #120
pm90 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh this has become common in Silicon Valley. “We have a brilliant team of engineers who previously worked at FAANGUberAirBnB”…it’s sickening. So is what the companies say about their board members and their C suite. I guess it could just be a reflection of facts but I fear this will lead to future startups hiring purely on this sort of credentialisms.

There is nothing wrong with using branding as a heuristic. Everyone does it when they prefer buying one brand over another. People do not have enough time or information to make fully informed decisions about each and every thing, including other people.

There is a lot wrong with credentialism. Branding is fine for products. We already have rampant credentialism based on University pedigree and this appears to extend that to careers.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#133

Post by djrobstep »

WalterBright wrote: post #131
djrobstep wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> the Nordics prove that they are genuinely better places to live economically speaking The Nordics live atop an ocean of oil they sell that provides 20% of their GDP. This is hardly a situation other countries can replicate. P.S. I want to spend a summer sometime touring Norway and its astonishing beauty.

Familiarize yourself with the basics of welfare state economics before engaging further. Norway isn't the only Nordic. All of the Nordics fund their welfare state with generally high levels of redistributive taxation, it's not oil-specific. Limited withdrawals are made from Norway's large SWF and it funds very little of their welfare state.

And of course, there is nothing unique about oil as a form of capital. Many forms of capital exist, all of which generate income that can be used for similar purposes.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#135

Post by lotsofpulp »

pm90 wrote: post #132
lotsofpulp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with using branding as a heuristic. Everyone does it when they prefer buying one brand over another. People do not have enough time or information to make fully informed decisions about each and every thing, including other people.

There is a lot wrong with credentialism. Branding is fine for products. We already have rampant credentialism based on University pedigree and this appears to extend that to careers.

Human labor is a product too, in this context. Credentialing is a consequence of people having to make decisions with limited resources. There is no reality where it will not exist, in some form or another. It existed before Google/Apple/Facebook, and it will exist after as long as it is advantageous to try and filter what you are buying.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#136

Post by coffeecat »

deanCommie wrote: post #123
WalterBright wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Work, life, and social structure is extremely unfair It's always going to be unfair. Attempts to fix it always result in some other unfairness. The real thing that works is freedom, i.e. not having the law artificially holding you back. Instead of being consumed by envy of others, you can make your own life better.

> It's always going to be unfair. Can I ask you a question without I swear any implicit judgement. Do you gravitate towards conservative politicians? Because I'm finding that this is the main distinction between Progressive and Conservative-minded people in today's western society. You can account for religion (there are religious leftists and atheist rightists). You can account for racism (there are plenty of racist…

> Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Conservatives believe it is not possible, and it's silly to even try.

Having recently decided that I dislike leftist politics and that I align more with right-wing politics (in theory, if not in practice), the thing that switched in my mind is: why does it matter whether or not society is fair? I think that's the wrong question; I don't see any intrinsic value in fairness.

I think the right questions are: (1) how can we improve our average level of well-being, and (2) how can we reduce suffering?

So in my view, progressives incidentally get some important issues right including single-payer healthcare and environmental conservation. These policies tangibly improve our quality of life. But all the emphasis on equality, fairness, etc? Useless, in my view.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#137

Post by pm90 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #135
pm90 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot wrong with credentialism. Branding is fine for products. We already have rampant credentialism based on University pedigree and this appears to extend that to careers.

Human labor is a product too, in this context. Credentialing is a consequence of people having to make decisions with limited resources. There is no reality where it will not exist, in some form or another. It existed before Google/Apple/Facebook, and it will exist after as long as it is advantageous to try and filter what you are buying.

I know why credentialism will arise. Just because it “will exist” doesn’t mean that we accept it.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#138

Post by WalterBright »

TchoBeer wrote: post #116
WalterBright wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Work, life, and social structure is extremely unfair It's always going to be unfair. Attempts to fix it always result in some other unfairness. The real thing that works is freedom, i.e. not having the law artificially holding you back. Instead of being consumed by envy of others, you can make your own life better.

That sounds rather defeatist. Is it impossible to make work, life, or social structure more fair? I doubt you think that.

The US Constitution says nothing about things being fair. It talks a lot about rights, though, which is what freedom is about.

Note that we have a right to equal treatment under the law, but that is not the same thing as a right to fair treatment.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#139

Post by mrpopo »

WalterBright wrote: post #138
TchoBeer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds rather defeatist. Is it impossible to make work, life, or social structure more fair? I doubt you think that.

The US Constitution says nothing about things being fair. It talks a lot about rights, though, which is what freedom is about. Note that we have a right to equal treatment under the law, but that is not the same thing as a right to fair treatment.

And the US isn't a good example of a country where people have a fair chance at success in life IMO.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#140

Post by lotsofpulp »

pm90 wrote: post #137
lotsofpulp wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human labor is a product too, in this context. Credentialing is a consequence of people having to make decisions with limited resources. There is no reality where it will not exist, in some form or another. It existed before Google/Apple/Facebook, and it will exist after as long as it is advantageous to try and filter what you are buying.

I know why credentialism will arise. Just because it “will exist” doesn’t mean that we accept it.

Why not accept it (and try to improve it)? It seems futile given the basic fact that it is impossible to have perfect information about the decisions you make. Therefore the options are to make decisions completely randomly, or use some Bayesian probability to try to make better bets.
Post reply on HN