Live data from Hacker News

Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

wsj.com

321–330 of 343 posts

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Becoming a teacher is far easier than successfully becoming an investment banker. Most people who try end up making teacher territory pay to push paper in a cubicle all day. And they don't even get summers off.

That's no necessarily true since teaching requires a degree and certification, at least in the USA. Also it's an extremely hard job compared to investment banking - the hours are long, you must take your work home, you're usually on your feet a significant portion of the day, and you must function as a social worker and a live performer for a significant portion of the day. Every single day for a term. And the pressu…

I don't think you have any idea about what investment banking is outside of teenage rage posts on twitter or reddit.

https://onlabor.org/wall-streets-dangerous-grind-the-human-t...

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#322
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would change that to extreme poverty. There should be a guaranteed minimum standard of living which is humane, basically access to food, housing, education and health. After that, is up to every individual. I remember a previous discussion here about ozempic, and how one commenter was asking how to force his father to become healthy, as it was using ozempic as a crutch and leaning back to it when he needed to, whil…

While I would like that as well, I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on. I think that even two like-minded people can spend too much time talking about what exactly is "basically access to food, housing, education and health", before doing anything.

> I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on.

Au contraire, I think inequality while easy to define is hard to act on, and it also merits the question if you should act at all, we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died.

Defining food, housing, education and health is not hard. We have guidelines on being healthy already, so you need access to preventive care to do so. Education you would just need easier/less onerous access to university education. Food requires a change of culture, which has been happening over the past 20 years. Housing, at least a studio place should be enough.

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#323
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about needing a laptop for the internet? There's $1000, and you need to upgrade every couple years. I spent $2000 to build a desktop myself 10 years ago; it still works well enough, it plays the games I like, but Windows wont support it anymore, it's end of life; there's $200 a year. Again, "living" implies a little wiggle room and having access to more than just the one cheapest bottom-of-the-barrel option. Wha…

The living wage calculation on that website does not constitute your last paragraph. I'd argue that not including a savings/retirement investment portion makes it a much worse number. As for a computer, your desktop will work fine with Linux. A laptop doesn't need to cost 1000, again we are over consuming. If your hobby requires a computer, that would be from recreational expenses, not required technology spending. L…

A living wage should allow recreation. Gaming is one of the cheapest forms of recreation.

You're also claiming average people should know how to install and use Linux, so I don't know if we can reach further agreement.

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#324
post #307
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of American politicians were executed in their homes a few months ago and one of the two presidential candidates was nearly JFKd in front of hundreds of cameras last year. A few years ago, a mob stormed the capital and erected a gallows to hang the sitting vice president if they could lay hands on him. That’s violent enough even if you don’t consider the fact that de facto martial law is about to descend on…

What you're describing are anomalies. Most Presidental candidates are not "nearly JFK'd" nor do mobs storm the Capitol with regularity. For all of its cultural pretensions of being a nation of armed patriots always ready to "water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" the US political system is for the most part incredibly stable and nonviolent. In ancient Greece, meanwhile, violent mobs, assassinations and…

One person's anomalies is another person's new normal.

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#325
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only known a "good" economy from about 1995-1999 when the internet went mainstream and for the briefest of moments, we got a taste of what public investment in tech feels like. The powers that be quickly saw the danger in that and IMHO orchestrated the Dot Bomb, 9/11, the Housing Bubble, etc to keep as much money as possible out of public hands so that the average person wouldn't have the means to participate in…

Sincere question: Do you have thoughts as to how we can invest our $ if our goal is to support the "good economy" instead of attempting to ride the wave of the rich getting richer? I would like to be part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem, but it is challenging to identify companies in which to invest without supporting the status quo. I am not "rich," but wish I could better vote with what asset…

Basically, don't invest through investment companies. They'll chase the big profits because that's what they're paid to do. Even "green" or "sustainable" funds might invest in pharmaceutical companies that produce treatments instead of cures, or psuedo-science companies chasing net-energy loss concepts like clean coal or hydrogen, for example.

Instead, invest in specific technologies and goals:

  - Low-cost solar panels and windmills
  - Alternative chip designs like RISC-V and high-multicore (64+ cores)
  - Peer to peer communications systems, alternatives to cellular/5G
  - Robotic/hydroponic automated organic food production
  - Incubated/cloned meat and meat alternatives without side effects like FODMAP
  - mRNA vaccines, CRISPR, treatments for genetic disorders
  - Low-cost EVs, LiFePO4 batteries, high-kW inverters, axial flux motors
  - Heat pumps, thermal energy storage, concentrated trough solar
  - Labor-saving inventions and assistive devices for freight, construction, etc
  - Companies that openly support public education, single-payer healthcare, etc
  - Incubators like Y Combinator but that provide smaller $10,000-$100,000 VC
  - Open source projects/collaborations that distribute risk like Humble Bundle
  - Mass transit like electric busses/high-speed rail (boring but global demand)
  - Strike Debt and other loan forgiveness efforts that buy up loans in default
  - PACs, unions, environmental groups working to unseat incumbants
  - Foreign aid programs aimed at education, especially women and girls
  - Independent investigative journalists and media
  - Local bond efforts for better public schools, libraries, parks, etc
  - Stocks/groups working to legalize cannibis and end the war on drugs
  - Builders of tiny homes and alternative housing like yurts and earthships
Avoid:

  - Crypto (untraceable exploitation, black markets, human trafficking, etc)
  - Mutual funds and index funds (same reason as investment companies)
  - FAANG/GAMMA (high profit, low innovation over market cap)
  - MLMs (often tied to fundamentalist religious organizations and lobbyists)
  - Foreign currencies (profits from exploitation and environmental degradation)
People to emulate (these are merely breadcrumbs towards ways of thinking):

  - MacKenzie Scott
  - Bill McKibben
  - Michael Pollan
  - Derrick Jensen
  - Thom Hartmann
  - Howard Zinn (deceased)
  - Ed Abbey (deceased)
  - John Muir (deceased)
  - Frank Church (deceased)
  - Terence McKenna (deceased)
See also:

  - Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty
  - The Jungle and other books by Upton Sinclair (deceased)
  - Nickel and Dimed and other books by Barbara Ehrenreich (deceased)
If I ever win the internet lottery, I'll work towards getting matching funds to tackle the biggest problems facing humanity:

1) That starts with liberating all peoples from forced labor, exploitation and subjugation so that they can self-actualize. Which looks like freeing capital from "black holes" of concentrated wealth, specifically moneyed interests and wealthy individuals who hoard resources and choose to do none of what I've stated above, at great expense to the rest of humanity. That's done not through competition or direct confrontation, but by getting everyone "off the grid" to disrupt the supply and demand curve which always results in the wealth inequality and late-stage capitalism we see today when there isn't regulation.

2) Then also improving quality of life universally, so working towards providing free treatments for all conditions/illnesses/injuries across borders.

3) Then also promoting kindess, mindfulness, and other cultural movements which move us away from othering and back towards reconnection to foster the common good. This looks like a rejection of reason for its own sake, and replacing that with the pursuit of meaning. So deciding collectively that using electronic devices in public is impolite, ending surveillance capitalism, tearing down the economic walls which separate us from our neighbors, etc. So that we can once again gather in small communities that provide mutual aid, childcare and tool/resource sharing so that we aren't forced to take on so much individually for our basic survival.

I think it may be possible to recruit AI to do all of this holistically and rapidly shift into the reality that we may have envisioned for the 21st century, a bit like the rapid technological growth we saw during COVID-19, when the first vacation that billions of people ever had resulted in 10-20 years of innovation in just 1-2 years. That's the key, that getting real work done requires escaping the menial labor that extracts profit from the working class.

So that's what I would do: use AI to examine thousands of stocks to find which ones trend similarly and which one correlate inversely, and come up with a plan to start moving profit the opposite direction from where it's moved traditionally. Then invest that cashflow into countless underemployed people whose talents, dignity and divinity haven't been recruited yet effectively because they've only been put to use in the service of capital.

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's no necessarily true since teaching requires a degree and certification, at least in the USA. Also it's an extremely hard job compared to investment banking - the hours are long, you must take your work home, you're usually on your feet a significant portion of the day, and you must function as a social worker and a live performer for a significant portion of the day. Every single day for a term. And the pressu…

I don't think you have any idea about what investment banking is outside of teenage rage posts on twitter or reddit. https://onlabor.org/wall-streets-dangerous-grind-the-human-t...

People drop dead in Japan from their jobs frequently as well, regardless of industry. This hasn't anything to do with the job being hard and everything to do with work culture.

I acknowledge that investment bankers have a toxic work culture, but I don't believe the job is inherently harder than teaching, which is unavoidably hard in many ways. Some of the ways are solvable by having more teachers (smaller class sizes, not needing to take work home), but not all of them.

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#327
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would like that as well, I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on. I think that even two like-minded people can spend too much time talking about what exactly is "basically access to food, housing, education and health", before doing anything.

> I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on. Au contraire, I think inequality while easy to define is hard to act on, and it also merits the question if you should act at all, we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died. Defining food, housing, education and health is not hard. We have…

> we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died.

I've not heard of this. Which experiments "forced equality" and then as a result caused millions of deaths?

I'm aware of the experiment of capitalism failing in India to the tune of about 100 million dead, is that what you mean? With capitalism's attempts to equalize through meritocracy?

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your CV indicates you graduated in 2006, so effectively into a different world. You should consider carefully how the world has changed for young people entering the workforce before dispensing advice, because they find themselves in a very different landscape to you and advice like "Plugging in and helping people solve their concrete problems is IMHO the best way to get started" is trite and frankly insulting.

Sorry you feel insulted. Lemme try to put it another way, because I am suggesting a different way to think about the idea of work, which /also/ was not the dominant way of thinking about things when I was a student. The notion that you go get credentials in order to get a job standing in a spot and doing a thing and get paid is... perhaps fine, for the trades. But, as I mentioned above, the beaten path is saturated,…

You note "the beaten path is saturated" - how do you reconcile that with two facts:

1. Fact 1: There is unusually high unemployment rate for new STEM graduates, including those with advanced degrees like MS and PhDs

2. Fact 2: Our politicians and business leaders are noting there is a "massive shortage of workers in STEM" and thus we need to import hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to meet the demand.

How can both be true and in line with your position?

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on. Au contraire, I think inequality while easy to define is hard to act on, and it also merits the question if you should act at all, we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died. Defining food, housing, education and health is not hard. We have…

> we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died. I've not heard of this. Which experiments "forced equality" and then as a result caused millions of deaths? I'm aware of the experiment of capitalism failing in India to the tune of about 100 million dead, is that what you mean? With capitalism's attempts to equalize through meritocracy?

URSS, Mao's china, other communist regimes throughout the 20th century. Capitalism doesn't equalize, it tries to maximize.

Re: Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died. I've not heard of this. Which experiments "forced equality" and then as a result caused millions of deaths? I'm aware of the experiment of capitalism failing in India to the tune of about 100 million dead, is that what you mean? With capitalism's attempts to equalize through meritocracy?

URSS, Mao's china, other communist regimes throughout the 20th century. Capitalism doesn't equalize, it tries to maximize.

They used equality as a rhetorical pretext for empowering a different narrow elite that the one than the revolutionary cadre replaced.
Post reply on HN