Is everything an MLM • Hacker News Board

Re: Is everything an MLM

#241

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #112

seibelj wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. I’m arguing on fundamental principles because the parent commenter is advocating a reorganization of market-based economies. I don’t care how complex the system is. If you aren’t letting me, the individual, determine what is best for my life, then you are coming from a place of superiority and belief that you kn…

> The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. In real-world "free" markets, the poor have their choices made for them by the wealthy.

Really? The wealthy are to blame?

Wealthy tell poor mothers to buy junk food instead of healthier (and cheaper) options?

Wealthy tell poor kids to watch TV instead of doing homework?

Wealthy tell poor that having a budget and sticking to it is a dumb idea?

Re: Is everything an MLM

#242

Post by petra » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

fwip wrote: post #89

petra wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> because market forces will mostly solve only small "consumer" problems and cannot reorganise our society in a more efficient way. That's true. But also, can most people really, truly, contribute to big, important problems in our society - in the context of globalization and automation ?

Could most people contribute to (solving) big important problems before globalization or automation?

It depends how far back we're talking about, but sure.

Before the industrial revolution, most people made food. That's important.

After the industrial revolution, but before ww2,the standard of living was low, so most manufactured goods we're pretty important - be it a car, a fridge, a pot, etc - but maybe less important than food.

Afterwards, came consumerism, with a lot of low value stuff.

So it seems that with time, many people do less significant things at work.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#243

Post by Retra » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #233

orthecreedence wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you should be born with a trust fund and not have let people convince you to take on overwhelming debt when you were 17 and naive. It's all very simple. Granted, I agree with you about emergency saving, but a lot of people don't have the extra laying around when they're shackled to debt.

Come on, don't be hyperbolic. You don't need a trust fund to do just fine. No one I knew growing up had a trust fund afaik. What is this victim complex my generation seems to have bought into wholesale? Who tricked you into taking on debt? Was in-state tuition not an option? As for the saving not being an option, are you sure you've cut your expenses as far as you can? If you eat out more than once per month or pay m…

Yet you still believe they should be willing to walk away from their job.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#244

Post by aj7 » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

“The fault with thinking of academia as a pyramid scheme is that there’s no one at the top — just the increasingly ambivalent structure, the ever-reproducing base. You could say administration profits, or football coaches profit. But it increasingly feels like a system in which no one wins: not the students, not their parents, not the graduate students, not professors facing increased belt-tightening, axing of departments, and continual fights for whatever meager resources remain.” This is a very naive statement from a dedicated academic who has written an otherwise great, and deserves-to-be-read article. Who benefits? Administrators and tenured professors, all effectively with lifetime positions, large guaranteed pensions. To duplicate the expected cashflows, here, for a mid-careered 50-year-old, requires capital of ca. $5M. THAT’s who benefits.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#245

Post by Draiken » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #241

rectang wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. In real-world "free" markets, the poor have their choices made for them by the wealthy.

Really? The wealthy are to blame? Wealthy tell poor mothers to buy junk food instead of healthier (and cheaper) options? Wealthy tell poor kids to watch TV instead of doing homework? Wealthy tell poor that having a budget and sticking to it is a dumb idea?

Yes?

Who owns the fast food chains? The marketing agencies? The land where the stores are built?

Who lobbies politicians to allow them to do anything they want in the name of profit? Who owns the media brainwashing the masses into voting for X or buying Y?

I'm sorry but literally everything is done for the wealthy and by the wealthy.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#246

Post by ericd » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #243

ericd wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, don't be hyperbolic. You don't need a trust fund to do just fine. No one I knew growing up had a trust fund afaik. What is this victim complex my generation seems to have bought into wholesale? Who tricked you into taking on debt? Was in-state tuition not an option? As for the saving not being an option, are you sure you've cut your expenses as far as you can? If you eat out more than once per month or pay m…

Yet you still believe they should be willing to walk away from their job.

Which part should make me not believe that? If you're not willing to walk away from your job, you have no leverage against your employer.

I mean, ideally, you find another job before you leave your current one, if only for negotiating leverage to get a better salary from the new employer - it's not ideal to just leave with no backup plan. But you should always make it so that walking away is an option.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#247

Post by ben_w » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

anticensor wrote: post #234

ben_w wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any circumstance where adjusted retirement age would not be sufficient? Even in extremis, if there were zero births and zero or negative immigration, would setting it to 130 not be sufficient?

You would retire beneath your grave. Human lifespan is 120 years maximum.

That’s why I picked the number.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#248

Post by quickthrower2 » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

jononor wrote: post #90

quickthrower2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because growth in terms of money which has no inherent value is meaningless. The real growth is in knowledge and technology and connections. The real value is in the systems we create.

How do you measure the value of these systems? The knowledge, technology and connections?

I don't think you can objectively. Money isn't a good measure, we all though that what someone gets paid is not necessarily in line with their contribution to a company or society.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#249

Post by zdragnar » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

teucris wrote: post #200

zdragnar wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disposal already costs; either you pay directly, through taxes if your local municipality organizes it, or your rent if your property owner organizes it. The cost of disposal varies by where it is disposed, not where it is purchased or made. It makes no sense to add an arbitrary cost to a product when the receiver of that money is not the one dealing with the externality in the first place. The same goes for carbon e…

Except that disposal costs are highly distorted - depending on where you are, it’s much cheaper than it should be because of cheap land for landfills, cheap shipping to shift the problem away, etc. Proposals to add cost to disposal are meant to correct for these distortions - to really represent the collective cost to the world. This absolutely should not be done arbitrarily - massive, ongoing research should be done…

My point was that the added cost should be reflected in the collection of waste, not the point of sale, because there aren't any externalities yet, and so there isn't anything to calculate.

As for landfills being cheap, that isn't a bad thing. That means the externalities at those sites are low. I live near an old one that was turned into a 50 acre prairie restoration space with about 2 miles of walking paths and full of wildlife. As others pointed out, burying carbon does sequester it. Methane capture merely prevents it from getting back out when it is nutrient and water dense (aka food waste).

Re: Is everything an MLM

#250

Post by badpun » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

foxhop wrote: post #231

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand. You want 30% of the population of earth to farm their own food? Does economy of scale not apply to food production?

Yes I want at least 30% of the population on Earth to farm their own food. I want the food system to become localized which will prevent a crisis which makes people starve and stops "food islands" where people in certain locations only have access to junk food and fast food.

> "food islands" where people in certain locations only have access to junk food and fast food.

Surely they also have access to the food that they can buy at the store and cook themselves?