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

Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 632 posts

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#241

Post by achow »

ekianjo wrote: post #184
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #170

America is a country of huge wealth. Wealthy in natural resources, capital equipment, labor ... fucking everything. And yet we have such terrible poverty. When I read stories about poor people in America, always there is lurking just below the surface the key element of scarcity. Not food. Not transportation. Not clothing. Not even, surprisingly, health care. The missing factor in all these broken lives is the simple…

Terrible poverty? Well much less poverty than in about 95 percent of the planet so everything is relative. Now, the market cannot solve a problem that is linked to human nature. Humans like living in dense areas rather than on the top of mountains, so space will be more and more expansive as density increase. Nothing unusual. Density also brings more jobs and more commerce so this is a cycle that goes with it. This b…

OP makes it very clear cheap space where it matters, where people need it: "NIMBY" and "neighborhood character".

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#242

Post by throwaway8879 »

peterwwillis wrote: post #239
throwaway8879 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solving inequality goes against everything in nature. The market is as close to an evolutionary natural state as we can get.

We develop drugs and medical practices to artificially extend our lives. We build gigantic civilizations and trade goods around the globe. We take the coffee beans from a farmer in a poor nation undergoing drought, pay that farmer between $0.07-$0.50 per kilo of coffee, and then sell that kilo in a coffee shop (after roasting and brewing) for about $70. We aren't natural. We don't need natural evolutionary states. We…

None of that is my responsibility. I'm not obligated to help anyone but myself. Nobody asked me for consent before flinging me into existence, and now I have to follow all these rules that people make up?

I don't need "unnatural, human-oriented, ethical states". I'm perfectly happy with a state where I can acquire as many resources as possible, even if that incurs a significant cost to others.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#243

Post by dnautics »

ojii wrote: post #189
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #170

America is a country of huge wealth. Wealthy in natural resources, capital equipment, labor ... fucking everything. And yet we have such terrible poverty. When I read stories about poor people in America, always there is lurking just below the surface the key element of scarcity. Not food. Not transportation. Not clothing. Not even, surprisingly, health care. The missing factor in all these broken lives is the simple…

> Why hasn't the market solved this problem? Maybe "the market" is not a good tool to solve inequality.

You can flip it:

> Why hasnt the government solved this problem?

Maybe the government is not a good tool to solve inequality?

After all, what percentage of your salary before taxes goes to directly help the less fortunate with no middleman? Before you answer: You could probably do more.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#244

Post by pmden »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #201
radoslawc wrote: post #196

> Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not. But not having 3 kids when you cannot afford having them might be. That is the issue nobody likes to address. For driving a car you have to have driving license, for owning a gun you have to have some kind of permit, to made new human being you can just go ahead. No matter if you can raise it. Would she be better of not having them? Might be,…

So: only the wealthy should have children. Got it.

The parent above wants a way to stop people that can't shoulder the financial burden of children intentionally placing that responsibility on society, and suggests removing subsidies that allow that reallocation of burden is a way to achieve it. It isn't clear what part you disagree with. Is it the solution he proposes that you don't think will work? Or the implication the government would have the right to restrict parenthood to those it feels capable?

I know I disagree with the latter, but I don't have an alternative to the former. Which is (I think) exactly what the parent means when they say 'That is the issue nobody likes to address'. I think if there's anything in the post I do agree with, it is that education feels like a good starting point, and that personal responsibility is a necessity.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#245

Post by throwaway8879 »

pwm wrote: post #206
throwaway8879 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wouldn't make them intelligent at all. This idea that there should always be fairness and equality in existence is very naive.

What’s wrong with the idea of sharing?

I can't answer that until we establish what you mean by "wrong".

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#246

Post by sheepmullet »

sintaxi wrote: post #192
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #170

America is a country of huge wealth. Wealthy in natural resources, capital equipment, labor ... fucking everything. And yet we have such terrible poverty. When I read stories about poor people in America, always there is lurking just below the surface the key element of scarcity. Not food. Not transportation. Not clothing. Not even, surprisingly, health care. The missing factor in all these broken lives is the simple…

> Why hasn't the market solved this problem? The market did solve the problem and then we blew it by undermining the family unit so we have people dependent on the state with no significant family support. > Believe it or not, its not impossible to manufacture a living space in a factory and assemble it on site in a day, to provide extremely well made and affordable housing structures. The soviets tried this approach…

> The market did solve the problem and then we blew it by undermining the family unit so we have people dependent on the state with no significant family support.

Good point. In my birth country you must support your elderly parents by law. Even without the law 99% of families would.

The idea that the government should do it seems crazy.

The government only needs to step in where the elderly have no family, are unable to work, and private charity is not enough.

This means the government only deals with a tiny percentage of people.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#247

Post by anoncoward111 »

Tommek wrote: post #219
noobermin wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are humans, they relate to individual stories more than raw statistics. I think it's great, it shows there's always a human side to trends and large statistics.

And that's how we get those "vaccines cause autism" mothers. They like stories more than statistics, too.

Polemic. We also get stories like, "despite a strong economic recovery, John, 26, struggles to find a new job after being laid off."

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#248

Post by skookumchuck »

coldtea wrote: post #180
skookumchuck wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the meritocratic myth I've been around to see people over decades, and how their decisions affect their lives. Meritocracy is not a myth. Where people wind up is very much a consequence of their choices. This isn't the Soviet Union where one is assigned a career, a job and an apartment. I've seen immigrants arrive here with nothing and become millionaires. That's why everyone wants to come to America. The opportuni…

> I've been around to see people over decades, and how their decisions affect their lives. Meritocracy is not a myth. Where people wind up is very much a consequence of their choices. Choices is not the same as skills. Meritocracy is about merit, not choices.

People choose to acquire skills, or not. It's the whole point of all the education available to Americans, most of it free. Choose it, or not. Heck, you can even get an MIT education for free over the internet. It's up to you.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#249

Post by throwaway8879 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #210
throwaway8879 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wouldn't make them intelligent at all. This idea that there should always be fairness and equality in existence is very naive.

Support your position please.

Sharing resources with other people has absolutely nothing to do with being intelligent.

Re: Americans Want to Believe Jobs Are the Solution to Poverty. They’re Not

#250

Post by throwaway77384 »

throwaway8879 wrote: post #197
coldtea wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there are only 19 bones for every 20 dogs, then it doesn't matter how good a bone hunter they all are there will always be one dog disappointed and the other 19 will be grateful for the bone no matter how thin and weedy it is. Or, if the dogs are intelligent, they could split those 19 bones to 20 pieces...

That wouldn't make them intelligent at all. This idea that there should always be fairness and equality in existence is very naive.

Okay, you are conflating fairness and equality, which are totally separate concepts.

Let's assume you are talking about sharing, as that's what the original point was about. Specifically the sharing of 19 bones among 20 dogs, by dividing up the bones.

Assumign by 'naive' you mean wrong, are you saying that it is simply a more optimal situation for one dog to go hungry?

Does the one dog always go hungry, or does one dog (but a different one each time) go hungry?

Do we just let the one dog go hungry each time intentionally, so that in future no dog goes hungry? What if then one day there are only 18 bones for 19 dogs? Do we let that dog die too?

What if a group of 18 dogs is required to take down an animal that provides enough bones, but we let the two other dogs die because sharing is naive?

Well, that pretty fundamentally calls into question rather a lot of all the principles civilisation is founded upon and which permeate nature, even (nature!).

So you better provide some amazing scientifically backed proof of that statement. No, Atlas Shrugged is not scientific proof.

Post reply on HN