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

The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

alexdanco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#151

Post by throwawayjava »

jgalt212 wrote: post #146
throwawayjava wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every line of that budget screams "luxury", with the exception of two things: 1. The skyrocketing cost of college really does create enormous problems. I'm assuming the family profiled are either doctors or lawyers, because otherwise those $32K/yr payments would only last for a few years at most. (I paid $40K/yr in loans for both my wife and I when I got my first real job, but that happened exactly once... and…

> 2. $5,000/mo mortgage is pretty high, even for a family of four in a high CoL area. I'll take you task on this one, as a crummy 3 BR apartment in Manhattan is north of $2MM. Interest alone on that is $6700/mo. And I've personally seen number of dispiriting 3 BR's listed for $3MM.

You don't have to live in Manhattan to work in Manhattan. Or at the very least, if you value your walkable commute that much, then why the hell do you need $10K/yr in luxury car expenses?

Also, you can recoup up to $3K of that $5K mortgage by cutting the other luxury goods in the budget.

I guess the point is: any one item on this list might be justifiable. At the very least, each on its own is a totally reasonable luxury to indulge in after decades of not just hard but also smart and stressful work. But the budget, taken as a whole, is hard to describe with any word other than "luxurious".

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#152

Post by throwawayjava »

jgalt212 wrote: post #147
throwawayjava wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every line of that budget screams "luxury", with the exception of two things: 1. The skyrocketing cost of college really does create enormous problems. I'm assuming the family profiled are either doctors or lawyers, because otherwise those $32K/yr payments would only last for a few years at most. (I paid $40K/yr in loans for both my wife and I when I got my first real job, but that happened exactly once... and…

> 6. $1K/mo on "children's lessons". In NYC, these fees are necessary if you want to get your child into a "good" public middle and high school. The alternative is to pay $50K/year for private school. So #6 is a valid strategy to cut costs via attending public school--the very opposite of "luxury".

> "good"

Yes. Plenty of perfectly accessible public schools are good even though they're not nearly the best.

Again, access to the elite educational institutions in the country with most of the elite educational institutions in the world is... a luxury good.

Also, as someone who tutored those kids, IMO you're not doing them any favors in the long. If you have to work for a living, then at some point way before "the best public schools in NYC, $50K/yr private schools, or bust", grit >> prep. That sort of prep also has the effect of disabusing them of a clear-headed understanding of their own limitations; which, again, can be a really terrible thing for them in the long.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#153

Post by michaelmrose »

roenxi wrote: post #144
michaelmrose wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you find yourself proving that 2 + 2 = 17 this is your cue to examine the chain of logic that got you there. The idea that one person can own everything and everyone is equally well off as if they all owned equal shares is wrong on its face. In practice in an environment that isn't deeply unequal the landlord creates value by investing capital in maintaining housing stocks that renters may lack or not want to in…

> The idea that one person can own everything and everyone is equally well off as if they all owned equal shares is wrong on its face. You say that, but it your counter is also obviously wrong. It would be trivial to have a system where everyone owns equal shares of everything - dissolve private property rights and nationalise. On the face of it that isn't a bad idea but when it is tried it fails spectacularly. I'm n…

You are being deliberately obtuse and confusing the map for the territory.

Can you really not conceive of anything that could be done to decrease inequality less than literally swapping houses?

Money is an abstract store of value so that we don't have to trade goats and houses.

I suggest we tax the rich to fund a better social safety net, education, and free medical care for all Americans.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#154

Post by roenxi »

michaelmrose wrote: post #153
roenxi wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that one person can own everything and everyone is equally well off as if they all owned equal shares is wrong on its face. You say that, but it your counter is also obviously wrong. It would be trivial to have a system where everyone owns equal shares of everything - dissolve private property rights and nationalise. On the face of it that isn't a bad idea but when it is tried it fails spectacularly. I'm n…

You are being deliberately obtuse and confusing the map for the territory. Can you really not conceive of anything that could be done to decrease inequality less than literally swapping houses? Money is an abstract store of value so that we don't have to trade goats and houses. I suggest we tax the rich to fund a better social safety net, education, and free medical care for all Americans.

> Can you really not conceive of anything that could be done to decrease inequality less than literally swapping houses?

I can think of lots of ways to decrease inequality.

> Money is an abstract store of value so that we don't have to trade goats and houses.

Yes.

> I suggest we tax the rich to fund a better social safety net, education, and free medical care for all Americans.

That is cool and all, but talking hypothetically what if we doubled everyone's real wealth & income? That'd more than double the tax take and the poor would have more to start with to boot.

So that would be a big improvement for everyone even though inequality would have risen some ungodly amount.

Why would the rise in inequality in such a scenario be bad? The list of things you have here is of phenomenon of absolute amounts of resources. Inequality is a phenomenon of relative amounts.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#155

Post by michaelmrose »

roenxi wrote: post #154
michaelmrose wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being deliberately obtuse and confusing the map for the territory. Can you really not conceive of anything that could be done to decrease inequality less than literally swapping houses? Money is an abstract store of value so that we don't have to trade goats and houses. I suggest we tax the rich to fund a better social safety net, education, and free medical care for all Americans.

> Can you really not conceive of anything that could be done to decrease inequality less than literally swapping houses? I can think of lots of ways to decrease inequality. > Money is an abstract store of value so that we don't have to trade goats and houses. Yes. > I suggest we tax the rich to fund a better social safety net, education, and free medical care for all Americans. That is cool and all, but talking hypot…

We can tax the rich more next year I don't believe you can credibly claim we can double real wealth by next year.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#156

Post by roenxi »

michaelmrose wrote: post #155
roenxi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you really not conceive of anything that could be done to decrease inequality less than literally swapping houses? I can think of lots of ways to decrease inequality. > Money is an abstract store of value so that we don't have to trade goats and houses. Yes. > I suggest we tax the rich to fund a better social safety net, education, and free medical care for all Americans. That is cool and all, but talking hypot…

We can tax the rich more next year I don't believe you can credibly claim we can double real wealth by next year.

:P That does seem unlikely. It is a thought experiment to illustrate that whatever the problem is it is not the inequality per se. Which is why I'm asking questions along the lines of "What is the problem here, and why do people think it is wealth inequality?". I think the problem is a lack of resource provision for the poor.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#157

Post by jgalt212 »

throwawayjava wrote: post #151
jgalt212 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. $5,000/mo mortgage is pretty high, even for a family of four in a high CoL area. I'll take you task on this one, as a crummy 3 BR apartment in Manhattan is north of $2MM. Interest alone on that is $6700/mo. And I've personally seen number of dispiriting 3 BR's listed for $3MM.

You don't have to live in Manhattan to work in Manhattan. Or at the very least, if you value your walkable commute that much, then why the hell do you need $10K/yr in luxury car expenses? Also, you can recoup up to $3K of that $5K mortgage by cutting the other luxury goods in the budget. I guess the point is: any one item on this list might be justifiable. At the very least, each on its own is a totally reasonable lu…

> Or at the very least, if you value your walkable commute that much, then why the hell do you need $10K/yr in luxury car expenses?

Have you ever tried to carry one or more toddler car seats to a rental agent? Even The Rock would balk at that task.

In any event, I appreciate all your counterpoints, but I'd prefer to hear counterpoints from current/former Manhattan parents than a logician without on the ground experience.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#158

Post by iheartpotatoes »

coldtea wrote: post #61
iheartpotatoes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cute, but facts?

You can surely search for 3+ decades of books, studies, and articles on the declining US middle class, stagnant wages, increased housing/college/healthcare costs, etc, right?

Isn't it funny how when you ask for citations, the other person flips out and says do it yourself? Like, I have to spend my time figuring out if you actually did research or pulled something out of your ass? Sorry bro, got better things to do with my time than your work for you.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#159

Post by unreal37 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #145
unreal37 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fix is to always hire contractors, let the bad ones go, and convert the good ones to full time if you can.

When I was contracting I would always get an offer towards the end of my contracts. I never accepted as I enjoyed the clearer supplier/customer relationship you get with contracting. Most of my peers refused because it rarely made financial sense.

Yes, same with me. Sometimes I would accept. And sometimes I would not.

Sometimes this conversation happened during the original job interview. "Would you consider going full time ever?" Good to have that conversation sometimes.

Re: The Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution Is Vanishing (2015)

#160

Post by nerdponx »

username223 wrote: post #62
pjc50 wrote: post #11

Tournament wages theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory This seems to happen whenever there's (a) direct competition (b) the value provided by the winner is very scalable (media, sports, software) and (c) most importantly, it can't be substituted by splitting the job among more people. So footballers follow this model because you can only have 11 people on the pitch - there's no amount of low-wage no…

Maybe that works for Levandowski-level celebrity engineers. There are, maybe, a few thousand pro football players in the world, and a few hundred on the top teams. (For comparison, there are 450 players in the NBA.) The tech behemoths each have tens of thousands of employees, so most engineers are a commodity.

You can't typically replace a 150k/yr engineer with two 75k/yr engineers.
Post reply on HN