Is my advice too mercenary? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#361

Post by kbenson » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

legalcorrection wrote: post #287

kbenson wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different than some fiefdom ruled over by some noble? The whole point of democracy and elective government is that you can't rely on a system like that to be consistently good, whether it's the Duke's son squandering all the wealth and not listening to the people or a shift in management at the company. Just because sometimes there were benevolent companies that decided to contribute to their communit…

Others have done a good job answering you, but I just want to add that there's a whole body of theory and scholarship that calls your mental model of this into serious doubt. It's called public choice theory and it essentially concludes that politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials are just as driven by selfish interests as anyone else, and that democratic systems typically do a very bad job at channeling that s…

My point isn't that politicians are inherently better or more trustworthy than companies, but that you have more control over them. The amount of control as a community you can exert on a company beg enough to have a large influence in a community is minimal. The amount of control a community has over an elected official that oversees that community should be large.

There will be good companies and bad companies. There will be good politicians and bad politicians. One is easier to steer than the other.

Duty, loyalty and trust are good to have. What do you do if the large local company that has outsized influence on the community is lacking those? What do you do if the local elected officials are lacking those? Neither is easy to deal with, but I think one is a far more manageable problem.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#362

Post by kbenson » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

alexashka wrote: post #292

kbenson wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said there's a right answer forever? The whole point of what I said is to make sure you use your own power as a citizen to pass laws and elect those people you think will serve your interests best at the current time, and as soon as that's not the case, try to get rid of them. That's the point of democracy and a representative democracy, the power to keep interests aligned with the people. Often that means puttin…

Our difference lies in the axioms. Your axiom is democracy and what sounds like dozens of other conditions. My axiom is highly intelligent, capable, compassionate people in power. That's it. My position is trivially superior, for many reasons, if only because your exact position is just one of many possibilities that highly intelligent, capable, compassionate people in power can choose to implement.

Well, I'm for utopias, which is better, so does that mean my argument is superior? I'm also for letting people eat as much as they want and not exercise and be in perfect health.

Perhaps having a feasible path to the desired outcome actually matters, rather than just assuming those are unimportant details... otherwise we'd already have off-world colonies and faster than light travel.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#363

Post by epgui » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #334

epgui wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Annoying” for me would be stepping on a small LEGO. As a Canadian, I think that the US healthcare system exists in a first world country is absolutely “shocking”.

As someone who has experienced both systems, the fact Canada covers all is great but there are big issues with wait times and coverage gaps (in some provinces).

Oh absolutely. If you don't have an emergency you will have to wait.

But man, when you do have a medical emergency, it's great not having to think about whether you're going to have to remortgage your house, sell your kidneys, put your kids up for adoption or reconsider all of your life plans.

Personally I think Canada is a little bit over-dogmatic about rejecting a parallel private system entirely: I know there are problems with running two systems (mainly around inequity and brain-drain incentives for healthcare workers to move out of the public system), but IMO, nothing that can't be fixed by sufficiently high prices/taxes.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#364

Post by kbenson » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

rglullis wrote: post #317

kbenson wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different than some fiefdom ruled over by some noble? The whole point of democracy and elective government is that you can't rely on a system like that to be consistently good, whether it's the Duke's son squandering all the wealth and not listening to the people or a shift in management at the company. Just because sometimes there were benevolent companies that decided to contribute to their communit…

You are talking past (way past!) the point of OP. The point of OP is about a time where local communities mattered more than global output. When those in power were close enough to the common folk to the point where they could face consequences of their abuse. A time where societies had much higher levels of trust. OP is not talking about "relinquishing the responsibilities to others". Quite the opposite. It's much e…

> The point of OP is about a time where local communities mattered more than global output.

Correction, a time when companies didn't have an easy and clear path to global output.

> When those in power were close enough to the common folk to the point where they could face consequences of their abuse.

I'm not sure that's ever been the norm anywhere in the world throughout history. I definitely don't think it was the reality in the Norman Rockwell like idea of what you think it was like.

We just view the past with rose-tinted glasses. Things were always bad, just in different ways. Those same companies that gave to the community and were the main employers in an area also set the working wage in the area with little market competition, and faced less scrutiny from the local law enforcement (who wants to be the prosecutor or police officer responsible for hurting everyone employed there in the community).

If you want actual evidence of wrongdoing, it's trivially easy to find.[1]

> OP is not talking about "relinquishing the responsibilities to others". Quite the opposite. It's much easier to effectively exercise your rights and responsibilities on a smaller sphere of influence and power.

I wasn't really making a countering the OP, as much as expanding on a point they noted. Those situations that were good or appeared so are unstable and there's little the local community can do to change it. But in a democracy they all have power to elect local representatives, and if they rely on their representatives instead of a mostly unaccountable company, they can exert control the outcome of situations if they don't like where things appear to be going.

1: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#365

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

LordDragonfang wrote: post #354

lotsofpulp wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are talking about is taxpayer funded healthcare, with the large collective entity being the government. Seeing as how that is not politically possibly, middlemen with sub 5% profit margins was the compromise. Obviously not the best situation, but still better than before.

Correct, that was what I was alluding to. There's lots of good reasons to move to such a system, and no good reasons to keep our current system. >Seeing as how that is not politically possibly Basically every other liberal democracy has taxpayer funded healthcare, and even many US states have successful programs. It's extraordinarily silly to call that impossible, or to call what we have now a "compromise" rather tha…

There literally was a compromise in 2009 during the passage of ACA that nixed the “public option” (taxpayer funded) healthcare in order to win the votes of necessary Senators to pass the bill.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-art...

Seeing as how Republicans have zero interest in taxpayer funded healthcare, and they have held enough Senate seats to stymie any Democrat led effort for the past 20 years and probably next 20, I do not see why it is “silly” to call it politically impossible.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#366

Post by kbenson » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #342

kbenson wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different than some fiefdom ruled over by some noble? The whole point of democracy and elective government is that you can't rely on a system like that to be consistently good, whether it's the Duke's son squandering all the wealth and not listening to the people or a shift in management at the company. Just because sometimes there were benevolent companies that decided to contribute to their communit…

The obvious difference is that the employees are free to change jobs at any time. Yes, they may need to move if there are literally no other jobs in town, but that's not an option serfs had in a fiefdom. I'll also point out that maybe fiefdoms aren't as bad as you think. Don't get me wrong, I think we're way better off now, but I'm sure many rulers were just as generous and caring as these business owners. And it's h…

> The obvious difference is that the employees are free to change jobs at any time. Yes, they may need to move if there are literally no other jobs in town, but that's not an option serfs had in a fiefdom.

You misunderstand my point, and possibly the discussion. If the company is large enough to be a majority employer in the area and much of the social works of the area are provided by the company, then regardless of whether you work for them you are beholden to them in some way. The local government will not want to upset the local economy by be antagonistic with them, they'll set the local pay scale based on whatever they pay as everything will be in relation to it, and there will be immense social pressure to not cause problems that would be bad for the whole community.

Do the people involved have more options for getting out from under the control of a company like that in an area? Yes, but far less than I think your statement would lead people to believe. To actually get out of control you'd have to completely leave the area. That's far easier now than in the distant past, but it's not easy.

> I'll also point out that maybe fiefdoms aren't as bad as you think. Don't get me wrong, I think we're way better off now, but I'm sure many rulers were just as generous and caring as these business owners.

I'm not saying every one of these companies was horrible, nor that every ruler was horrible. I'm saying that ceding your power to control who governs you to them leaves you at a disadvantage when inevitably a worse ruler or bad management comes into place, because nobody lives forever, and nothing is static.

Put another way, what if you contracted with someone to provide all your meals and you paid them $1000/mo. Maybe you're extremely happy with the quantity and quality of the food provided initially, but eventually, years down the line, the quality has changed to sub-par and the quantity is lower than your got previously as well. You'd want to renegotiate that contract, right? Well what if it was a lifetime contract? That would be a problem, and you'd probably see that as a major red flag initially and be wary of entering a lifetime contract where the future was uncertain.

That's what allowing a company to control the local economy and be the provider of social works is like. By allowing the company to take over the job of the local government, the people have ceded their power to enact change through their elected representatives, and they are stuck with whatever they get down the line. Elected representatives aren't perfect, but at least there's the option to change them or pressure them to change based on the community needs. What pressure can the community honestly exert on the company when if decides that it's so much cheaper to move the factory two states over that they have to do so?

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#367

Post by dlp211 » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

nmhancoc wrote: post #350

dlp211 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because giving individuals money, targeted or otherwise, is given/spent to enhance an individual or families life in some way. It is a direct benefit to them. And yes, SS is absolutely welfare and it is extremely effective. It reduces the poverty rate of the elderly by nearly 30%. It also reduces, directly and indirectly, child and young adult poverty by meaningful amounts as well, 1.5% and 3% respectively.

Hey I appreciate your answer. Regarding your first point, I disagree. I think the intention is clearly to provide a direct benefit, but that isn’t always the effect. One example which seems to be entering the zeitgeist now is student aid. The presence of additional student aid has a high correlation with the rise in tuition over time, but I think we’d all struggle to say it was commensurate with to the cost. Addressi…

As to your point about SS, you are right, but the counterfactuals have been measured. We didn't have SS in this country for the majority of its history and elder poverty was terrible prior to its existence, reaching well over 40% in the 1920's.

SS also has always been a Pay Go system and doesn't have any debt servicing, actually the reverse is true, SS is owed money from the US government. That is, SS lent the US government money. That government debt would exist with or without SS as federal government spending is not constrained in any way by tax receipts, so SS's impact here is moot.

To your point about student aid, that is far more complicated. While it is likely true that the existence of the aid has resulted in some upward pressure on tuition, it is not the only factor. Increased demand both in quantity and quality of services, reduction in direct public aid to institutions, and increasing administrative costs among other things all play a part. Without student aid, it is likely true that prices would be lower, but probably not nearly as much as one would assume, and we would have a far less educated populace. The latter being a substantial negative in a world where the best paying work is and continues to be more knowledge based.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#368

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:37 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #362

alexashka wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our difference lies in the axioms. Your axiom is democracy and what sounds like dozens of other conditions. My axiom is highly intelligent, capable, compassionate people in power. That's it. My position is trivially superior, for many reasons, if only because your exact position is just one of many possibilities that highly intelligent, capable, compassionate people in power can choose to implement.

Well, I'm for utopias, which is better, so does that mean my argument is superior? I'm also for letting people eat as much as they want and not exercise and be in perfect health. Perhaps having a feasible path to the desired outcome actually matters, rather than just assuming those are unimportant details... otherwise we'd already have off-world colonies and faster than light travel.

[deleted]

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#369

Post by agentdrtran » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

LordDragonfang wrote: post #359

agentdrtran wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single one of those programs comes with a laundry list of asterisks that make them far worse than any employer provided insurance I have ever had.

To offer a contrasting anecdote, my government health insurance (MediCal) was the best I ever had, including my current 6-figure job. It can be done well.

BadgerCare (in Wisconsin) I've heard good things about too (considering they're insurance)

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#370

Post by fleddr » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 8:24 PM UTC

aahortwwy wrote: post #281

fleddr wrote: post #201

The apology is unneeded. Not telling the entire truth during the very last phase of employment, the exit interview, is but a drip in a bucket of lies that is called employment. You lied to get in. By emphasizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses. The employer did the same thing. You lie constantly about the work or its conditions being fine, as complaining about it is kind of a taboo. You lie to your peers an…

> You lied to get in. By emphasizing your strengths and hiding your weaknesses. The employer did the same thing. One of the most powerful tools I use when interviewing senior candidates is being brutally honest about the company's weaknesses. Implicit in the act of hiring is the reality that you have a problem you need an employee to solve for you. Pretending those problems don't exist is bizarre.

That sounds wonderful, I'm sure in such an open and honest dialogue, a candidate would also be more comfortable to admit a weakness.

Other than anxiously hiding weaknesses, the other bizarre thing in business is the idea that any and all weaknesses must be addressed.

To use the sports analogy: one can conclude that the star attack player is terrible at defense, but it really makes zero sense to invest a lot in defensive skills.