I think it's perfectly valid to point out that improvements in technology are beneficial to the poor. Technology is the reason why most people would likely prefer to be poor in 2021 than rich in 1547.
It's not just iPhones. Even access to food is dramatically better thanks to technology. We no longer have wide-scale famines that we used to have in the past that would kill thousands. Even in the US, to my knowledge, food insecurity is much less of a problem today than it was in 1960.
So I don't see the point in implying that technological progress is worthless.
I do think it's correct that the rich benefit from societal structures more, but I'd rephrase: the rich are more capable of leveraging societal structures. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, so long as others are allowed a shot at utilizing those structures, too.
In other words, the fact that more money gives you more benefits isn't something to be sneered at. It's kind of the whole point of money. It should make your life better. Otherwise it fails as an incentive. What shouldn't be the case, however, is that people are unfairly barred from being able to make more money in the first place.
I think we focus too much on equality of outcomes, and not enough on the three important questions:
- It doesn't matter who can leverage societal structures the most. Kudos to the people who can. What matters tax-wise is, who is stressing societal structures the most? An example for illustration's sake: if Amazon is placing an insane burden on the road system and causing more maintenance work, theoretically they should pay more for that than the rest of society does.
- Why don't people have more opportunity to make money? Is our educational system failing them? Are there laws and regulations that are keeping people down? Is rent-seeking behavior edging people out? Etc. This idea that people can't make money because rich people are "taking it all" is silly and not the real problem.
- How can we raise the floor? How do we make it so being poor in America isn't so terrible, and ideally, is okay? We have so many problems with rising healthcare and educational and housing costs, segregation, crime, etc. Collecting more taxes doesn't seem to solve this. Look at SF. One of the most tax-rich cities in America. But do we even know how to deploy that budget effectively to curb homelessness? It doesn't seem so.
The spread of this narrative is fascinating, given how easy it is to find counterexamples. I attribute it to a lack of education around business.
One of my good friends is a highly-paid engineer at a tech company, and he told me, "Businesses want to keep people poor, so they have cheap labor." Which is about as sensible as saying consumers want businesses to be poor, so we get cheaper products. This is actually a pervasive myth believed by many intelligent people.
Of course businesses want to pay as little as they can for labor, the same way literally anyone paying for anything wants to pay as little as possible. But other concerns obviously come into play as well, e.g. the quality of the people you hire, the affluence of the customers you can sell to, your top-level revenue numbers, etc. This should have been obvious to my friend, who works at a tech company that's happy to pay him and others $200k+.
The reality is that businesses actually prefer wealthy societies with wealthy customers who can buy more things. It's a chronic problem that poor communities are under-served by businesses, because poverty makes it harder to profit.
And yet the myth that businesses want people to be poor persists.
As does the myth that you can only make large sums of money through cheating, scamming, lying, stealing, etc.
I see your point now, but your comment above (MLK's quote) comes across as saying the opposite.
It sounds like it's saying that Trump et al are okay, they're just exercising their right to speak, and if people are violent in return then we should punish those violent offenders.
But I suppose in reality you're saying the tech companies are okay, they're just exercising their right to police their own platforms, and if people are violent in return then we should punish those violent offenders.
Specifically, I think that appeasement is a real stupid justification for decisions made one way or the other, and I'm not persuaded by that argument in general. (https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.htm..., for another fine literary reference)
In this case, justifying continuation of parler's services because "if not, the people that just shit in the rotunda are going to do something worse" is in fact a strong argument for doing the opposite and posting the national guard outside the capitol building for a week, which is what's actually happened.
In the long run, is it going to stop them? No. In the short term, is it going to really hamstring the potential for a reprise of this insanity on the 20th? Yep!
* where your boundaries lie along the spectrum from self-serving to doormat
* your propensity to be generous to people on the good side of your boundaries
I myself trend close to what you'd call a stoic. Probably out of fear of being a doormat. My boundaries are healthyish, but I don't quite trust them. So I don't seek out help from others, and in return I hope they don't ask for generosity from me. Being generous without crossing my boundaries is something I have to work on.
I know some narcissists who can actually be quite generous. This fools them into thinking, "There's no way I'm a narcissist!" because they can easily recall past instances of generosity. Yet they're still regarded by others as selfish. Their boundaries are shifted so far in their favor that they feel taxed being generous to others who most would deem worthy of generosity. And they expect sympathy, attention, and generosity in situations where most would not have that expectation.
These abusers often do end up ostracized, but that doesn't always look like solitude. They become victims, upset at their crummy relationships and unable to garner sympathy from others, yet unwilling to ever point the finger at themselves. Some end up alone, yes. Others befriend other victims who they can commiserate with, but those relationships don't last long for obvious reasons. So it's sort of a fleeting, on-again off-again ostracism.
Of course I'm speaking in generalities here. Plenty of victims aren't narcissists, etc. And I do have sympathy. Nobody chooses to be a narcissist. I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.
My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about your personality traits, take it seriously. It'll be tempting to deny and seek disconfirmation, e.g. by changing the subject, blaming your accusers, deflecting to other causes (e.g. race or gender), or running away to find people who will say nice things about you. But for all our follies, human beings are naturally pretty decent judges of character. If you're getting consistent character feedback from lots of different people, it's probably accurate.
I found the clarity of your thinking and writing refreshing, it's rare for someone to observe and recognize these archetypes. I by and large agree with how you see it.
One thing jumped out:
>> I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.
and
>> My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about personality traits from others, take it seriously.
If you think about it these two comments are contradictory. Either you are a victim of your programming, or you have the power to (slowly and painfully) recognize it and change.
I am a firm believer that people ultimately can recognize their problems and change. Recognition is the harder part. For most of us, to recognize the really deep and ugly things about ourselves is really hard and often is only done when someone has hit bottom and are forced to confront that there's something wrong. It's easy to say "listen to feedback" but it's impossible to convince someone they should until they've had some painful experience that forced them to recognize there's something that needs to be heard. But it's possible and important.
The other thought as I was reading your comment - I think you'll enjoy Ray Dalio's Principles book.
>> My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about personality traits from others, take it seriously.
This is bland and simple advice at best, that only serves the 'groups' best interest, not the individual.
Half the people you meet are below average intelligence, I'd strongly advise not listening to at least half of what people have to say. The other half could also be giving self-serving advice that isn't in your best interest.
> where your boundaries lie along the spectrum from self-serving to doormat ...
Healthy boundaries are more consistent and universal than you think, with the massive caveat being different cultures handling boundaries differently.
But it’s more about the fundamental psychological nature of human beings and less about individual personality.
IMHO a lot of what you describe boils down to “people who could develop healthier boundaries through therapy or other forms of personal growth and healing.”
What's disingenuous is assuming people who disagree with you (and who present supporting arguments) are knowingly bad actors. Actually, they're much more likely to be normal people with sincere beliefs.
And we all know that nobody is going to "go do their own research" because you snarkily disagreed with them. People do research when you make it easy for them to do, not when you drive-by insult them with an unreasonable reply. Drawing conclusions without providing reasons is literally being unreasonable.
There are billions of people with bad opinions on the internet. Nobody is forcing you to educate all of them. If you decide to try, it's predictable that you will at some point become tired of repeating yourself. At that point, you have two choices:
A) take a break
B) post crappy comments and justify it by saying you're tired
Comments like this are useless, bc you're declaring someone is wrong without any explanation of (a) why they're wrong, and (b) what's actually correct.
The result is that I have no reason to believe you, or to even understand your point. Because you've essentially made no point.
I think it's an interesting comment and see no reason America deserves some special shield from criticism, trope or not. It should be responded to on its own merit, just like anyone sharing any other opinion on HN.
It seems pretty irrelavent to me. Nobody was talking about specific state actors, claiming that X is evil while America is a saint, etc. The comment feels like a response to an argument that nobody made.
It's not interesting. Every major thread on HN has at least one comment trying to force the America Bad angle into the conservation regardless of whether the discussion is about the US.
If the primary conversation - derived from the linked article - is about the US and about a topic having to do with something negative about the US, then it's both interesting (as the root source) and makes reasonable sense that it should be in the thread.
Otherwise it's nothing more than a political agenda - someone being triggered and unable to control theirself - being force-wedged into a conversation where it doesn't belong and it degrades the quality of HN dramatically. As it would if the same treatment were applied to any other nation.
Imagine if every large thread had someone trying to force comments about all the bad things France or Britain have done. Every single major thread. Now apply it to dozens of nations. Of course that wouldn't be allowed because it would be insane. It's insane to allow it for the US just the same.
It's not interesting to you. Not every comment needs to be interesting to everyone.
> Every major thread on HN has at least one comment trying to force the America Bad angle into the conservation
This is an extreme exaggeration. Plenty of large threads don't discuss this. I'd wager the vast majority.
> If the primary conversation - derived from the linked article - is about the US and about a topic having to do with something negative about the US…
There are plenty of sub-conversations on every thread that aren't explicitly about the main topic. On this post alone, there are comments about the definition of terrorism, bitcoin, health insurance laws, American military action, etc. It seems like you're singling out "criticism of America" as the only taboo topic for no real reason.
> Imagine if every large thread had someone trying to force comments about all the bad things France or Britain have done.
Nobody is "forcing" comments. People are leaving comments. About all sorts of opinions, including those criticizing other countries. And absolutely none of this happens on "every large thread".
> someone being triggered and unable to control theirself
Didn't sound like the commenter was triggered at all.
It also acted as a starting gun for every other country on earth to create and/or massively expand their cyber warfare capabilities. Sparking a new arms race for the 21st century, normalizing acts of (cyber) aggression against foreign infrastructure during peacetime.
Assuming the conventional wisdom about the event is accurate:
A state military attacking a perceived threat to the national security of that state (while at the same time doing its damndest to make sure nobody knew about it) is pretty clearly outside the definition of terrorism. It fits squarely into espionage / warfare.
None of the terrorism boxes get ticked. It wasn't a splashy, overt thing meant to instill fear. It wasn't carried out against emotionally-charged targets attempting to incite, nobody claimed credit, etc.
Everything adverse that happens is not terrorism. The term has kinda worn itself out, which is bad, because that word invokes a whole bunch of executive power shifts.
Why not just downgrade your lifestyle to be in a cheaper situation? Easier said than done obviously, as that initial downgrade feels like a big hit. And ofc you might have extenuating circumstances that prevent it. But otherwise, I've found that you simply acclimate over time. Then you can give yourself breathing room to take time between jobs, or perhaps move to a lower-paying job you actually enjoy.
No, workers are supposed to be silent about it AT WORK. They can donate to whichever party they want outside of work.
And, presumably, if the company is making political contributions to help it accomplish its goals, I'd imagine workers could discuss that and make suggestions inside work. But when you're just discussing your personal politics, you can do it elsewhere.
I was on the fence about the backlash, but ultimately what sealed the deal for me is his response to the situation.
As presumed-CEO and leader, he needs to have the confidence of his organization, and also the ability to address controversial difficult topics. He failed on that.
He finally did the right thing by stepping down. He would have always carried the weight of the mismanagement of the response to the employee-criticism, and that is what killed him ultimately.
A CEO position isn't a reward, it's a service position, and I believe that no one is entitled to it. (Ditto many forms of leadership) So to complain about how unfair it was to him, perhaps we should think about how unfair it was to the employees of the organization who had to deal with situation instead.
Only a world where the feelings of the CEO are the most important thing in the entire company does this difference really matter.
As CEO your job is (a) leadership and (b) communications. He failed at both, badly. Perhaps he should have reached out to internal resources more (HR, PR, crisis PR, etc), but these are things I expect a CEO to figure out.
I'm not teaching a new hire coder what a computer is. Nor am I teaching a CEO about PR and communications!
Except he walked straight into another CEO position and it's never been a problem despite everyone knowing about his donation to a political group.
Literally all he did was monetarily support a cause ($3,100) in private. He was not out there making statements or instituting changes to the company.
What does that have to do with "leadership and communications"?
I certainly don't align with his political position but respect people's right to hold one without fear or favour.
It has to be one of the most egregious acts of employee activism. And look where it got Mozilla now, the politically palatable replacement has driven it into the ground while it's only held afloat with money from Google.
I have no particular reason to believe Eich would have done better than his replacement. The marketplace has not been kind to mozilla's entire business model.
Brave has grown every month since launch, while Firefox has shrunk. But it's all coincidence, uncorrelated, meaningless; inevitable for Firefox, and yet nothing to do with me for Brave, I'm sure. :-|
It's not just iPhones. Even access to food is dramatically better thanks to technology. We no longer have wide-scale famines that we used to have in the past that would kill thousands. Even in the US, to my knowledge, food insecurity is much less of a problem today than it was in 1960.
So I don't see the point in implying that technological progress is worthless.
I do think it's correct that the rich benefit from societal structures more, but I'd rephrase: the rich are more capable of leveraging societal structures. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, so long as others are allowed a shot at utilizing those structures, too.
In other words, the fact that more money gives you more benefits isn't something to be sneered at. It's kind of the whole point of money. It should make your life better. Otherwise it fails as an incentive. What shouldn't be the case, however, is that people are unfairly barred from being able to make more money in the first place.
I think we focus too much on equality of outcomes, and not enough on the three important questions:
- It doesn't matter who can leverage societal structures the most. Kudos to the people who can. What matters tax-wise is, who is stressing societal structures the most? An example for illustration's sake: if Amazon is placing an insane burden on the road system and causing more maintenance work, theoretically they should pay more for that than the rest of society does.
- Why don't people have more opportunity to make money? Is our educational system failing them? Are there laws and regulations that are keeping people down? Is rent-seeking behavior edging people out? Etc. This idea that people can't make money because rich people are "taking it all" is silly and not the real problem.
- How can we raise the floor? How do we make it so being poor in America isn't so terrible, and ideally, is okay? We have so many problems with rising healthcare and educational and housing costs, segregation, crime, etc. Collecting more taxes doesn't seem to solve this. Look at SF. One of the most tax-rich cities in America. But do we even know how to deploy that budget effectively to curb homelessness? It doesn't seem so.