151–160 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve never worked hard in my life and I earn more than my (hard working) parents combined
Careful when making that statement that you don't fall into the trap of believing that only physical labor counts as "hard work".
Not all software work is hard work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What evidence do you cite that they are arbitrarily chosen?
I think you need to provide evidence that they are not. But for my evidence, I would put forth important positions, like teachers, being grossly underpaid as evidence that they are arbitrarily chosen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some parties here in Germany actively pushing this. They talk about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. But what can you do? You're phenotype is mostly determined by stuff you can't control. If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f*cked and you can't control this either. Even if you're high on openness and have a average to high IQ, you're still playing a high risk game.
>If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f-cked and you can't control this either. The point about IQ is definitely worth worrying about. But the idea of moralizing a person with low conscientiousness as particularly f-cked (implying that they have gotten an injust dessert) seems odd to me. I have seen several sociological studies linking high conscientiousness with high income and other good…
If you are open and smart (openness+high IQ) you are creative and can do things people without these traits can not.
Such people can have low conscientiousness.
But even if they don't show up at 9 o clock, they could still be helpful to society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does success mean being able to afford a home in one of the most expensive real estate markets in North America? If I were to say "I'm not successful because I only make $200K and can't afford a home in Manhattan", people would laugh in my face.
I think we're radically changing the goal posts of success if a wide swath of educated, hard working young professionals can't afford to lay down roots in the cities they grew up in because of the current absurd asset bubble's effect on home prices. Additionally, your example is kinda silly. on an income of $200k, you can afford a high end luxury apartment with approximately half of your income - as a bachelor.
The reality is most people will never attain the 20th century consumer lifestyle and I think a lot of people would argue that’s a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does success mean being able to afford a home in one of the most expensive real estate markets in North America? If I were to say "I'm not successful because I only make $200K and can't afford a home in Manhattan", people would laugh in my face.
I think we're radically changing the goal posts of success if a wide swath of educated, hard working young professionals can't afford to lay down roots in the cities they grew up in because of the current absurd asset bubble's effect on home prices. Additionally, your example is kinda silly. on an income of $200k, you can afford a high end luxury apartment with approximately half of your income - as a bachelor.
As for the $200K comment, I meant own a home, not rent an apartment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, dictatorships are anything but "natural". They require a massive amount of effort and savagery to maintain and enforce effectively. Second, I'm not saying that we should treat economic inequality as something that's static or immutable any more than any other natural force. I'm saying that we have to recognize that natural forces dictate behavior and economics, and that you can't change natural forces by decre…
> There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable. This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.
Sure, I agree. Neither of us made the case for particular cruelty / non-cruelty because it's not really the point. My intention was only to broaden the scope and perspective of the reader to view the economic system in its macro-level historical and global context, and compare in reference to the natural forces and conditions that cause economies to emerge. I personally think it's hard to argue that things are particularly bad right now, but I certainly don't want to stop people from trying if they are adequately informed and really believe that.
The point is that whether you think our system is great or terrible, you can't change it by dictum. It doesn't bode well that you've apparently dismissed the whole crux of the argument because you believe that we may have a different ultimate value judgment.
>You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.
I mean, like I said above, whether I believe that or not, it's neither here nor there. You still have to identify specific things that you want to change and the mechanisms by which that supposed change would operate, because "We'll just demand things change" is not a serious approach to anything.
You and I may have different opinions about a certain piece of software and its subsystems, and that's all well and good, but neither of us would take someone seriously who showed up and said "We have to just write 'STOP CRASHING' at the top of each file". That's not how any of this works!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if the baseline for the richest country in the world is "has a roof" then hard work mostly is enough to succeed. But there are too many people who work extremely hard, sometimes at two or three jobs, who barely can afford to eat and need government assistance. So no, hard work is not a good terminology. There simply isn't a link between "working hard" and any measure of success above the lowest baseline. Some pe…
The difference is where you start. If you start lower middle class or working class, odds are working hard will get you at best stable employment and the ability for your children to do something. Start upper middle class or upper class and you're going to the best high schools, best colleges, and have a shot at politics or being worth 70 billion dollars. I've met too many poor and undereducated people who are as cap…
It used to be well known that it takes generations to move up the class hierarchy but that concept seems to be lost to time. Now we see a lot of complaining that literally everyone doesn’t have access to an upper class lifestyle. I’m not sure how that would even be possible or why it would be desirable.
Not everyone will be successful. I’m highly skeptical of any philosophy that doesn’t factor that concept in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simply because they worked hard to get the degree doesn't mean that the degree is useful, or benefits society. If there is currently an over saturation of bio-chemists in relation to the amount of jobs open, he cannot add anything to the greater food. From that, there is no reason that his degree/hard work should grant him personal benefits, as he would be taking more than he is giving. Very few people would argue th…
Maybe it should be a little more clear what is considered 'valuable', before people spend years of their life's efforts and a great deal of money on education.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is truth to this, however there has also been major changes to how we live and the expectations. "my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma" Yes, but they probably couldn't buy a house anywhere in the world they wanted. The house size was probably much smaller than the sizes of today's suburban houses. I would argue that one could by a small,…
He was selling shoes. Their house has 4 bedrooms, 3 living rooms, 2 offices, a garden, a court, a garage, a basement, a 2 cellars, an attic, and 2 bathrooms. And yes, not in a big city. But his job paying the house was not in a big city either. While housing prices in is little town are indeed way lower than in most parts of the country, so are the wages. I agree for the food though. If you have somebody to do the sh…
i would be extremely happy to eat a meal at $4. these days i end up spending >10$ on a meal, and I am not even living in a big city in US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What evidence do you cite that they are arbitrarily chosen?
I think you need to provide evidence that they are not. But for my evidence, I would put forth important positions, like teachers, being grossly underpaid as evidence that they are arbitrarily chosen.