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

One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

work.qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 177 posts

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#21

Post by ACow_Adonis »

lwhalen wrote: post #12
njarboe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"fall by the wayside" is a bit hand wavy. Do you mean they become poor, broke, with nothing to loose, ripe for a revolution? Or that they are killed by automated drones when they come over the fence of your/my/our/their gated community?

if they were prone to revolution, you'd think "get a danged job" would be the path of least resistance (pun fully intended).

Again...

As per my other response re: your apparent implicit belief in a labor theory of value, now you're espousing the implicit belief that a labor market must tend towards full employment, and at a wage level that makes revolution unattractive.

If I might make the observation, your positions seem to be littered with false beliefs/understandings.

I'm assuming another one of those false beliefs would be that you'd be in the relative merit camp under any such meritocracy...

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#22

Post by ffreire »

stonogo wrote: post #17
mpweiher wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in a meritocratic world, what happens to the dumb and/or lazy? They don't get to run things? Put another way: assuming you're going to have some sort of hierarchy, and you will, how would you want to organize that hierarchy? Merit seems like the least bad way to do so.

"Merit" is not a quantifiable characteristic. All your plan would do is give the power to the people who define "merit." It's like you're advocating for correctpersonocracy. Put another way, literally every government that has ever existed would call itself a meritocracy. The actual word 'meritocracy' comes from a book that warned about the dangers of creating easily-gamed draconian systems that needlessly exclude pe…

And by book you are referring to "The Rise of Meritocracy"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#23

Post by ixtli »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #11
lwhalen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it bad if they just fall by the wayside? If one puts forth zero effort, they should get zero reward.

It never ceases to amaze me how most people in capitalist (all) countries continue to work under the folk-belief of a labor theory of value. How much effort you put in has, at best, a second order relation to reward. Far stronger effects are supply, demand, mechanism of action, distribution of initial resources, and social factors.

It's pretty shocking. What becomes _infuriating_ is when they say this while also defending their right to own the product of that labor because they were there first or happened to present capital in the right place at the right time.

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#24

Post by ixtli »

njarboe wrote: post #8
lwhalen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it bad if they just fall by the wayside? If one puts forth zero effort, they should get zero reward.

"fall by the wayside" is a bit hand wavy. Do you mean they become poor, broke, with nothing to loose, ripe for a revolution? Or that they are killed by automated drones when they come over the fence of your/my/our/their gated community?

Indeed. We all know "fall by the wayside" means "starve homeless." At least in countries like America.

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#25

Post by ACow_Adonis »

mathgladiator wrote: post #20
lwhalen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if they were prone to revolution, you'd think "get a danged job" would be the path of least resistance (pun fully intended).

I've been thinking about this with respect to America's future. Basically, suppose people want a revolution. Well, that would require a competent leader to make the mob effective. This is the rub, if you have leadership skills then you make bank and would be in 'the system'.

The implicit assumption here is that American firms actually higher leaders based on some kind of objective leadership skills (and that the market will suck them all up).

I'm guessing whoever wrote this hasn't grown up poor/discriminated against, didn't beat their peers and find themselves never-the-less judged/ousted because they "weren't of the right background/proper means/cultural fit".

And remember, all it takes is a few key leaders. And that includes those who may have been part of the system but were unjustly ousted...(or those who just think they are getting a wiff of the winds of change and want to be on the right side)

/I'm not making any actual prediction of revolution the US incidentally. I'd be inclined against any theories of imminent revolution. Just pointing out that simple theories of "it wouldn't happen here because of our fake-meritocracy" are pretty off the mark.

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#26

Post by crankylinuxuser »

txsh wrote: post #13
whb07 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of like any venture where you try as hard as possible and yet fail ? Kind of like an athlete in the olympics who ends up losing by a fraction of a second? Idk, they don’t get the gold right?

So, in your world, the best software developer gets paid the most (gold), the second best gets paid less (silver), the third best gets paid the least (bronze), and everybody else works as slaves because they're losers.

There's capitalism in a nutshell.

Except first prize was granted by your parents and upbringing. Second prize was partially because of parents and upbringing, but with a bit more luck.

And bronze? Yeah, well they're just lazy and bad and they deserve what little they have - cause the Gold and Silver earned what they have.

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#27

Post by pwinnski »

polm23 wrote: post #14

Given the date I thought this might be fake, but it seems the program is real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Residency_of_Estonia That said, the article also claims "Shinto" Abe was the first person to enter the program, but besides mispelling his name I can't find any other reference to him being involved with it at all.

Technically, it only claimed he was the first prime minister to do so, but the sentence was ambiguous.

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#29

Post by jadedhacker »

lwhalen wrote: post #3
njarboe wrote: post #2

"Estonia wants to be a role model and leader for a different way of seeing the world: a world that is more open, meritocratic and reflective of the demands—and opportunities—of the 21st century." Meritocratic seems highly promoted in many circles (seems like on first glace a good idea as opposed to say, despotic), but in a meritocratic world, what happens to the dumb and/or lazy (unmeritable?) people.

Is it bad if they just fall by the wayside? If one puts forth zero effort, they should get zero reward.

It sounds like you are not a fan of landlords or am I misunderstanding something.

Re: One of Estonia's first "e-residents" explains what it means

#30

Post by mathgladiator »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #25
mathgladiator wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about this with respect to America's future. Basically, suppose people want a revolution. Well, that would require a competent leader to make the mob effective. This is the rub, if you have leadership skills then you make bank and would be in 'the system'.

The implicit assumption here is that American firms actually higher leaders based on some kind of objective leadership skills (and that the market will suck them all up). I'm guessing whoever wrote this hasn't grown up poor/discriminated against, didn't beat their peers and find themselves never-the-less judged/ousted because they "weren't of the right background/proper means/cultural fit". And remember, all it takes…

There are objective things like 'people follow you'

Why are you making assumptions about me?

What if leadership isn't about beating your peers, but about using influence to bring people together?

Post reply on HN