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

This is a teenager

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 868 posts

Re: This is a teenager

#231

Post by ineptech »

bsimpson wrote: post #158
throwway120385 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would also help if more people that are doing marginal work could receive a wage that they felt secure with. Money is one of the biggest stressors for couples and families.

I don't understand how to practically make this work. There's a strong case to be made that a minimum wage helps people whose value approaches the minimum while hurting people above or below (e.g. $12 and $18 wages in an unlimited market both round to $15 with a minimum, while someone who only produces $7 of value is no longer employable). Similarly with cash infusions - giving people more money is inflationary. Nobo…

> someone who only produces $7 of value is no longer employable

This is the wrong model. You're using a worker's wage to describe their productivity, and a big reason for the mess we're in is that wages stopped increasing with productivity fifty years ago. (search "wages productivity graph")

Re: This is a teenager

#232

Post by tomrod »

imacomputertoo wrote: post #209

The conclusion of this data presentation is that so of these people are our collective responsibility, and I just wasn't convinced. I wish they had shown percentages with the visualization. They choose not to. I was underwhelmed by some points that seemed like they should have been more shocking. Look at the huge number of people in the many adverse experiences category who made it to college, and make a high salary.…

This highlights what Judea Pearl's causal framework gets at: Pr(Y|X) versus Pr(Y|do(X)), where we can set early.

Causality isn't easy to establish. Correlation is insufficient.

Note, too, I am unfamiliar with the literature cited by the Infoanimatedgraphic.

Re: This is a teenager

#233

Post by drawkward »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #210
causal wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can select a dropdown at the end for "Parenting style" which divides the groups by number of parents involved. This seems to be the strongest correlator of any of the data shown.

Parenting style is much more likely to not be causative though

Citation, please?

Re: This is a teenager

#234

Post by s1artibartfast »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #71
ericmcer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convincing people that their problems are outside of their control and that the only way to solve them is to vote a certain way is also a form of authoritarianism. If you aren't to blame for your own life that implies you have no control over it.

Statistically most people born into poverty stay there. Do you think most of them aren't trying? Conversely, do you thing most people born wealthy have to put as much effort into staying wealthy? There are a number of systemic barriers, one of the big ones mentioned in this demonstration is education. If we had equal baseline access to education, housing, healthcare, and food... then sure, if people stayed impoverish…

>Statistically most people born into poverty stay there.

That simply isn't true. Look at the data on economic mobility, and the vast majority of people born in the bottom 20% leave the bottom 20%.

Outcomes obviously aren't random, but are far from deterministic.

For example, this article puts the number at 63% leaving the bottom 20%. 80% would require that there are no impacts whatsoever from every factor correlated with poverty

https://www.wsj.com/articles/upward-mobility-income-quintile...

Re: This is a teenager

#235

Post by colonelpopcorn »

imacomputertoo wrote: post #209

The conclusion of this data presentation is that so of these people are our collective responsibility, and I just wasn't convinced. I wish they had shown percentages with the visualization. They choose not to. I was underwhelmed by some points that seemed like they should have been more shocking. Look at the huge number of people in the many adverse experiences category who made it to college, and make a high salary.…

You have to balk when anyone says that anybody is the same person they were 24 years ago.

Re: This is a teenager

#236

Post by worik »

somenameforme wrote: post #204
prmoustache wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it was the case, would it be a problem? What is more important, having less humans being happy or more humans having a crappy life. Why should specie survival be more important than overall happiness of those that would have lived?

This is a tangent, but when in the world did "happiness" become a desirable metric? If you think about it, it's really quite absurd. Happiness is a brief liminal state that should be triggered by relatively infrequent events. It is not a normal, nor desirable, default state. Contentedness, satisfaction, at-peace, and so on - there endlessly more rational, logical, desirable, and attainable things to aim for. Yet ever…

> when in the world did "happiness" become a desirable metric?

Happiness is not a metric, cannot be measured, and is one of the most important things

Despite it being unmeasurable we know that economic security increases it

Re: This is a teenager

#237

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

somenameforme wrote: post #189
toomuchtodo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that humanity will die out so long as only willing, intentional parents have children? That is an interesting thesis and conclusion to come to (total fertility rate = 0 vs somewhere between 0 and 2.1 [replacement rate]). We should empower people who want children to succeed, and empower people who don't want children to never have them. What happens after that, we can solve for.

I think many people have a misunderstanding of what lower fertility means. Imagine a country has a fertility rate of 1. It doesn't seem that bad because it's pretty close to replacement. But fertility is an exponential system. So a fertility rate of means that each following generation (~20 years) will be half as large as the one that came before it (the formula is simply a ratio of fertility_rate/2). So you won't se…

> I think many people have a misunderstanding of what lower fertility means. Imagine a country has a fertility rate of 1. It doesn't seem that bad because it's pretty close to replacement.

That's not even close to replacement. It's somewhere above 2 (often cited as 2.1, but it may be more like 2.04 in times of peace) for it to be replacement. If you could magically make fertility be that number, population increases would only come as a matter of life expectancy increase.

1 actually implies some sort of high-speed demographic implosion that will wreck an economy within a single human lifetime.

> It's easy to imagine 'oh we'll just fix it if it becomes a serious problem like that'

If it takes 30 years to recognize the problem, then one generation has already aged out of ever possibly being able to fix the problem, and the next generation is getting too old to be able to fix it (unless you can do so instantly). You've only got a few generations at a given time that can fix it.

> Japan, for instance, hasn't even hit the worst of it yet. Their fertility plummeted about 40 years ago.

There are fewer people living in Japan today, than there were a year ago. They didn't leave to go elsewhere. They died. And it will be like that every year until there are zero Japanese left. They have been functionally extinct for a few years now, though they may not know it yet.

> it even further is indeed speedrunning the extinction of Western civilization!

There haven't been distinct, compartmentalized civilizations on Earth for over a century at this point. There's only the one civilization. And, if it dies, there likely won't be another. Who had "can't be bothered to fuck" on their Fermi's Paradox bingo card?

Re: This is a teenager

#238

Post by rconti »

I'm not sure if it was just me, but I struggled with the visual style. In some groups there were more rows than others, but then the rows would be of different lengths, making it difficult to intuitively compare the population sizes, especially when trying to break them down by color coding.

It felt like the "some adverse experiences" group was worse off than the "many adverse experiences" group, which I'm guessing is incorrect.

Re: This is a teenager

#239

Post by erikerikson »

colonelpopcorn wrote: post #235
imacomputertoo wrote: post #209

The conclusion of this data presentation is that so of these people are our collective responsibility, and I just wasn't convinced. I wish they had shown percentages with the visualization. They choose not to. I was underwhelmed by some points that seemed like they should have been more shocking. Look at the huge number of people in the many adverse experiences category who made it to college, and make a high salary.…

You have to balk when anyone says that anybody is the same person they were 24 years ago.

You have to disbelieve anyone who says they aren't a derivation of their previous person states. That's just physics.

Re: This is a teenager

#240

Post by imzadi »

elil17 wrote: post #25

Anyone else notice how those with the most adverse experiences were both more likely to be depressed and more likely to be happy "all of the time" for the past month? Is this a flaw in the data? What is the causal explanation for this?

I noticed that the no adverse group had very few people who said they were happy most of the time. I think this could come down to the weight of debt and maintaining a "stable" lifestyle. The more adverse effect group is probably generally lower income and less likely to have a lot of debt.
Post reply on HN