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

Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

ludic.mataroa.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#301

Post by djoletina »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #288
neogodless wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. > extremely common for people to increase their standard of living That was a choice. But the opposite is "not a choice"? You choose to spend so much money that you are forced into work you may despise to support the spending choices you make, so there's no option to... not make those spending choices?

Choices aren't made equal. Some are easier to make, even unconsciously, than others. For example, choosing immediate pleasure is easier than immediate discomfort. A series of small, incremental choices over time is easier than one large step. Etc.

What is your point? It’s still a choice. It’s easier to spend more money than less money, great insight.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#302

Post by lapcat »

Draiken wrote: post #289
lapcat wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're telling me most retired Americans have more than hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings? How much do you think you need? I think the recommendation is something like 10x your current annual income. > I'm not gonna dive into stats for that since I'm not an American How is your nationality relevant to reading stats? If you don't want to, then just say that.

10x? Financial independence is normally at least 20x, more like 30x. > How is your nationality relevant to reading stats? If you don't want to, then just say that. Sorry maybe I wasn't clear, but that's exactly what I meant. I won't dig into stats for the US because it's of no interest to me. That's why I mentioned I'm not from the US. I know that for my country that's absolutely not the case and I'm pretty sure it's…

> 10x? Financial independence is normally at least 20x, more like 30x.

You appear to be overlooking Social Security, which is a crucial source of income that all US workers pay into their entire careers. It's not just savings.

> I won't dig into stats for the US because it's of no interest to me.

Yet it's interesting enough to you to make baseless empirical claims about the US.

> I know that for my country that's absolutely not the case and I'm pretty sure it's the same for most of the world.

That's not the way the world works.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#303

Post by ta988 »

anvil-on-my-toe wrote: post #251
neogodless wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No it's not really a choice. Hard disagree. Have never worked for "terrible big company" (though some mediocre medium companies!) But outside of the super high cost of living areas like NYC and San Francisco, it's trivially simple (if not easy) to live on $50-60K USD each year (adjust this number for inflation as needed) while still enjoying yourself, having high performance technology, doing some travel, etc. You…

$60-100k salary is not enough to support a family and retire; it's probably not enough for a single person to make meaningful progress towards retirement because at that level of pay home ownership is constantly out of reach and inflation outpaces wage growth. It's sacrificing your life so someone else can get rich.

So you say a salary above the median salary is not enough? This raises a big question of how is half the population in the country getting by.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#304

Post by Draiken »

sokoloff wrote: post #298
Draiken wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always lower your standard of living, sure. But that's a different conversation IMO. I guess technically that's a choice, but it's so bad in the long term I personally can't consider it valid.

Living below your means (whatever that is) is a very good thing, not a bad thing. Being stuck on an expenses ~= income treadmill is what sucks.

Living below your means is separated from your standard of living.

In a better world everyone should be able to live well without having to sacrifice as much.

Somehow we've convinced ourselves that it's always the individual's fault when they have to live with a worse standard of living to maybe retire one day.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#305

Post by rini17 »

konschubert wrote: post #148
borroka wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a company that employs 100k people. The effects of my work strategy and behavior on the company's revenue, profit, vision, products are zero. On the contrary, the effects of my work strategy and behavior on my salary and position can be quite pronounced. My company can fire me tomorrow, they will forget my name in 5 days. To "fire" my company, I need to find another job, maybe in another city, working with…

I respect that you probably have loved ones to take care of, and that what you are doing is probably a responsible choice. Don't hate the player, etc. But damn, if it isn't depressing to go to work every day and not caring about impact, just impression.

The endless search of The Meaning and the general futility of it with never ending doubts are depressing too.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#306

Post by ta988 »

oooyay wrote: post #296
anvil-on-my-toe wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100k for a down payment - how many years of saving does that take and what happens to that $500k price tag during those years of saving? One hardship like a medical issue, a setback in employment, or a child you weren't ready for, then what? And I'm not sure you could find a one bedroom, one bathroom for $500k in a city with tech jobs.

It took me about five years to save my down payment. I lived very frugally, don't have a wife, don't have a kid, I paid less than $20k on note for each of my cars, and do not have college debt. I'd say it's fairly difficult if you start moving any of the knobs I minimized or set to zero above. Even then, after my down payment money was tight for the first year because it was everything I had. I got a mortgage similar…

So you are a both a bit of an exception nowadays with no family and no debt.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#307

Post by Draiken »

lapcat wrote: post #302
Draiken wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10x? Financial independence is normally at least 20x, more like 30x. > How is your nationality relevant to reading stats? If you don't want to, then just say that. Sorry maybe I wasn't clear, but that's exactly what I meant. I won't dig into stats for the US because it's of no interest to me. That's why I mentioned I'm not from the US. I know that for my country that's absolutely not the case and I'm pretty sure it's…

> 10x? Financial independence is normally at least 20x, more like 30x. You appear to be overlooking Social Security, which is a crucial source of income that all US workers pay into their entire careers. It's not just savings. > I won't dig into stats for the US because it's of no interest to me. Yet it's interesting enough to you to make baseless empirical claims about the US. > I know that for my country that's abs…

You seemingly care about this but also can't be bothered to bring any empirical evidence for any of your claims. Goes both ways.

The US is not that different from everywhere else... we all live in the same capitalist hellhole last time I checked.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#308

Post by BeFlatXIII »

pierat wrote: post #203
lordnacho wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll admit this isn't fully fleshed out. I've yet to design the gulags. But the core of it is a change of focus away from "everyone must contribute as much as they can" which the lefties also support. It's more the recognition that actually we could (maybe!) get more done if we didn't insist on everyone doing something.

What you're trying to create needs to deal with this now simple fact: Creation of a thing costs a lot of time and resource. Copying said thing is trivial to the point of free. (This is the biggest difference between our current culture, and previous years. Copying is effectively free.)

Abolish IP and treat ideas the same way bacteria swap their plasmids.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#309

Post by BeFlatXIII »

smeej wrote: post #173
lordnacho wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I'm thinking we need a new system. Not capitalism, not communism, not anything that's already been talked about for 200 years. It seems to me that our real problem is that we are wired to demand everybody contributes. Both righties and lefties actually agree on this, they just have different views on how to get it done theoretically, and in practice have also come up with various schemes to make this happ…

So "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"? I hate to tell you this, but you've very much missed your target of "not something that's already been talked about for 200 years." Who does the selecting? Who says, "You, there! You shall devote your time to programming robots, so your neighbors can 'be good friends' and have meaningful relationships. Buck up, comrade. Look how good it will…

Also,

> To make things worse, there actually is a class of people who have no job at all, which creates a kind of fear among the hangers-on.

Is a rephrasing of Marx's idea of the reserve army of labor. They are the lumpen who _could_ be used as replacements but mostly aren't.

I do mostly agree with GP's main point. The skill floor for meaningful work—even before this recent round of AI hullabaloo—has increased to the point where there are many people unemployable at any wage.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#310

Post by itronitron »

achenet wrote: post #158
zmgsabst wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when you were right? Eg, as an SDE in 2017 you worked on Amazon Device’s econometrics team and were screaming the entire org was in trouble — but the PhD economists and directors ignored you. We’re at 5 years, a gutted department, billions in losses, etc. Now what? Or you warned WarnerMedia executives about their internal corporate misandry just before they fired Johnny Depp for being a male victim — and…

maybe I've read too many Taleb books, but can you put yourself in a position to bet against the stupidity? For example, take a short position on WarnerMedia/Amazon stock?

It would probably be safer to buy options instead of short-selling a stock, because with options your potential loss is limited and known.
Post reply on HN