Hacker News Reader

Comment by vinceguidry | Hacker News Reader

> As a result of this upward redistribution, most workers have seen little improvement in living standards from the productivity gains over this period.

I believe this to be a myth caused by lamp-posting. The world is a much better place than it was 30 years ago, we just haven't found the right way to quantify exactly how much value 'high technology' has brought to their lives.

Measurable wealth might have been redistributed upwards, but everyone is still better off regardless. I'd rather be poor today than rich twenty years ago.

View on HN

> I'd rather be poor today than rich twenty years ago.

Since everybody else is commenting I'll join in too. :-)

Rich twenty years ago meant that instead of an iPhone, you had a secretary. Your TV was smaller. Your music was better. You talked to people in person. Oddly enough, the world at that time was a lot less crazy than it is today too.

Being poor in any era is in no way desirable compared to being rich in any era. A statement like that assumes poor means "I could probably live really cheap if I had to today" similar to tiny-housers.

The reality is closer to being uncertain of whether you will eat every day, where you will sleep and not to mention a feeling of hopelessness that can very easily come from feeling stuck in such a situation. When you're worried about having enough money to survive, things like getting a better education or job training go out the window.

Just by saying "I'd rather be poor..." you're getting the theoretical ability to CHOOSE it.

> I'd rather be poor today than rich twenty years ago.

Poor today means homelessness or working several jobs. Rich in 1995 meant flying around the world and eating really well, great company...lap of luxury, really.

You must really like your iPad.

Depends on your definition of poor. By the official poverty standards, which except income from government programs, poor people in the US can be quite comfortable in the material sense.

You should spend time with actual poor people and tell them about how comfortable they are.

Poverty certainly aggravates things like mental illness and drug addiction, and is strongly correlated with homelessness, but I think he means it is possible to be materially comfortable in the sense of food/clothes/shelter, at least relative to places in the world where that isn't possible. But... welfare could stand to be higher, as could the minimum wage.

Yes, yes, this wouldn't be HN without someone chiming in to say how much better they know poor people than the rest of us. Thanks.

> I'd rather be poor today than rich twenty years ago.

The most generous restatement of this that I can imagine is, "I'd rather be middle-class today than rich twenty years ago." Because poor is poor. Not knowing where you're going to eat next, not knowing where you're going to sleep, not having money for formula or diapers, there's no time where that's good.

But even with the generous form, I still disagree.

Having a Blu-Ray player and a flat screen today... versus a Laserdisk and a Projector twenty years ago... An Android today... versus a Car Phone back then... A house today... versus 4 homes, one of which is overseas back then... Hell, you can't fly a Concorde today.

> Because poor is poor. Not knowing where you're going to eat next, not knowing where you're going to sleep, not having money for formula or diapers, there's no time where that's good.

There are many shades of 'poor-ness'. I'd model them as various forms of insecurity. Poor is not just one thing.

The main thing that hurts the most is loss of hope. If you have no hope that things will ever get better, then you'll stop trying to find jobs, you'll stop standing up for yourself, you'll settle for whatever security you can find, be it in the arms of a psychopath or not.

With the Internet, you can find out about the larger world. You can talk to people that are not part of your tiny social circle. It's a life raft that you can hold on to.

I met this older lady at the bar once who was in a real rough spot, she had a fixed income that she thought was so small that she couldn't afford her own space, and no access to the Internet to look for anything and no ability to do so even if she had, old people are scared of Internet. She was living with several other women in the house of a man who I'd gathered was at least being emotionally if not physically abusive to. He was charging them rent and coercing favors out of them and being controlling. It was all this lady could do to get out of the house once a week.

I happened to have my laptop with me, so I asked her what her income was, then went on Craigslist and found her several neighborhoods she could move to that fit all her criteria.

The next time I saw her at the bar, she had managed to secure a rental using the information I'd given her. She was a million times happier and effusively grateful for my pointing her in the right direction.

What she had told me pissed me off to the point of being willing to consider violence to rectify her situation, but all she really needed was a few minutes on Craigslist to radically transform her life.

Never underestimate the value of information. The rest of the tech can jump off a cliff, but you will have to pry the Internet from my cold, dead fingers.

The freedom to make choices, and the knowledge of your choices.

Sure, you just described a lack of knowledge... But she ALSO had the financial freedom to make the choices she wanted.

That's well above "poor" in my mind.

You're describing someone who thought they were poor. Sure, yup, some people are there. But many people are ACTUALLY poor - and the claim was that it's better to be ACTUALLY POOR TODAY, than RICH twenty years ago. I don't buy it.

You're not quite getting my point.

Sometimes the difference between being ok and standing on your own feet and being downtrodden boils down to knowledge. You're trying to move the goalposts on what 'poor' means, and you keep having to move them because the Internet makes life so much easier that you have to actually be pretty much homeless before it'll qualify for your definition of 'poor'. People like the lady in my story, when they don't have access to social contact and information, fall prey to psychopaths because they perceive they have no other options. The psychopaths take their money and their dignity and leave nothing left. Then sure, they'll fit your definition of poor.

You know what was nice when I was a kid and we were bouncing around from apartment to apartment because my mom kept losing jobs? My Nintendo. My mom won the money to buy it from a radio contest and managed to convince a coworker to sell one to her. It was the only thing I wanted for Christmas that year.

Children, at least the ones I grew up with, are awful, status-conscious, hateful things. They're much better now, but there was no love lost between me and my peers growing up. We bemoan the distractification of America, but I gotta tell you, I'm eminently grateful that I could escape those horrible little shits into a brightly colored world where practice and patience earned you reward after reward.

I had books, and read the ones I had plenty, but having that Nintendo was just the greatest thing in the world for me.

I've seen firsthand how technology curbs violent impulses, raises moods, defuses tense relationships. Distraction from your problems is a real, take-it-to-the-bank luxury when you have no control over your life.

You're not getting my point.

YES, ABSOLUTELY, sometimes it boils down to knowledge. But MOST OF THE TIME, it DOESN'T.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I said poor, and then you wanted to talk about people who aren't poor, but think they are, and if you educate them, it turns out they're not poor.

> They're much better now

Dude, not cool. Do you have a paper towel I can use to clean the milk off my screen? You just made me spit all over.

And now you're moving the discussion between having KNOWLEDGE, and having TECHNOLOGY. Those are, in fact, different things.

And let's just BACK UP.

Let's pick that kid with a Nintendo. Which was, of course, more than 20 years ago. Is he really THAT much better off with an XBox One today?

And please remember, the target we're discussing is "poor today versus RICH 20 years ago." RICH. As in, if you want it, you buy it. If you need information, you hire people who research it for you. If you are ill, you go to the best doctors in the world. RICH. In 1995. Rich in 1995 ain't too shabby. In fact, I'd say it's much better than poor in 2015.

> And now you're moving the discussion between having KNOWLEDGE, and having TECHNOLOGY. Those are, in fact, different things.

That is, in a nutshell, the difference between 20 years ago and today. They used to be different. Now they are not. Having the technology eventually exposes you to the knowledge. Knowledge now is completely free if you live in the US, because of free access to technology. Between Wikipedia, Craigslist, various social media outlets, there is no way you can be on the Internet today and not find what you are looking for, if it's important to you, eventually. Very much not the case in the 90s.

This has a direct effect on the experience of being poor.

> Is he really THAT much better off with an XBox One today?

Yes, because society was that much worse 20 years ago. What you were escaping was that much more awful.

> Rich in 1995 ain't too shabby. In fact, I'd say it's much better than poor in 2015.

I would rather be 30 and poor today, than 30 and rich in the 80s. You may disagree, but I was not very well off not that many years ago, and I was able to leapfrog what would have been decades of hustling to get where I am now, because of advantages that I wouldn't have had 30 years ago.

You're right, 30 and rich in the 80s isn't too shabby. But that would mean that I would have 30 fewer years of life in today's world. You're completely discounting the value of time and over-valuing money. 30 years is an unimaginably enormous amount of time. I can get 100x the value of my time out of a year here than I could have with any amount of resources in the 80s. If I chose to be 30 and rich in 1985, that means I would be in my sixties today. Being young in today's world is worth, to me, any amount of money you can name.

I'm reminded of the fact that things we find totally boring today were fine luxuries in the Middle Ages. Chairs were the domain of the medieval super-rich at one point in time. The conversation we are having right now likely could not have existed 30 years ago.

Here, I'll name a few things a rich person could do twenty years ago that a poor person today could not:

Visit the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

Visit the Seven Wonders of the Modern World.

Go to Cannes Film Festival.

Go to Pixar movie premiers.

Personal chef.

Personal masseuse.

Back-stage passes to go see amazing rock legends, many of whom have died by now.

Influence politics.

Invest in corporations, like SOLAR power, WIND power, NUCLEAR power. Fund start-ups.

Help stabilize and transform former Soviet Block countries.

Fly a Mig.

Visit the Galapagos islands.

See a living White Rhino, up close.

Swim with dolphins.

Swim with green sea turtles off Maui.

Eat at Mama's Fish House on Maui, one night, and stay overnight in Hana so you can wake up early and visit the seven sacred pools bright and early.

Walk the Great Wall of China.

Go to the Olympics.

Ride a hot air balloon.

So, let's come back to what you said.. "100x the value"??? Come on. Name TWO things a poor person can actually do today, that would make them tangibly HAPPY, or tangibly BETTER OFF that a rich person couldn't do 20 years ago.

> The conversation we are having right now likely could not have existed 30 years ago.

First, you're moving the goal-posts, the discussion is 20 years ago. And second, nonsense. I was active on well over 100 BBS systems.

I don't understand your point. I could care less about any of these things. A few of them I would rather not do, even had I the option. Life contains a series of problems that need to be solved. If you solve them adequately, then you are happy and fulfilled. If you don't solve them at all, then you are unhappy. It's as true for the rich as it is for the poor.

How to attain personal fulfillment. How to leave a legacy. How to earn the love of your family, friends, and community. How to retain a sense of control over your destiny. You can do all of these things with or without the wealth that would allow you to go to Cannes. You can fail to do them even if your personal masseuse is also your mistress. You can even do them if you're poor.

Having the easy access to information that today's Internet offers means you don't have to limit yourself to your own mind, your own efforts.

Fly a Mig? Christ man, talk about missing the point.

> Life contains a series of problems that need to be solved.

And MOST of the problems that MOST people face, have already been solved by the time someone is rich. As in, seeking food, seeking shelter, seeking transportation, clothing, future security...

> If you solve them adequately, then you are happy and fulfilled.

That's not how my life works. My daughter just had heart surgery. It cost over $50,000. My cut of that was about $2,000. It saved her life. You still think I'd rather be POOR today?

> If you don't solve them at all, then you are unhappy.

In my experience, there are two broad types of people - those who imagine how happy they'll be after they accomplish their list of tasks (you), and those who are generally happy and find a way to put joy into the things they're doing (me). Since I'm generally happy, the gravy for me is getting to experience more out of this life and help other people.

> How to earn the love of your family, friends, and community.

I don't believe I do "earn the love of my family, friends." I think my family and friends love me unconditionally.

> How to retain a sense of control over your destiny.

We're talking about POOR today. ACTUALLY POOR. And ACTUALLY POOR people do not have nearly as much control over their destiny as you're painting.

> Fly a Mig? Christ man, talk about missing the point.

I specifically asked you to name TWO things a poor person can actually do today, that a rich person couldn't do 20 years ago. You're full of criticism for my point of view, but I've given you a terribly simple challenge, and you have not risen to it. If you want me to understand your point, then try STATING your point (via examples), rather than criticizing mine.

And to defend myself, I find that in debate it's best to try to understand the most charitable rendition of the other person's argument. You're breezing right past several of my points: "Influence politics. Invest in corporations, like SOLAR power, WIND power, NUCLEAR power. Fund start-ups. Help stabilize and transform former Soviet Block countries." Those are all, in how I view them, about helping people. Most of my other ones were based on the fact that a rich person isn't struggling to survive, and is instead seeking to squeeze as much out of this life as possible. Carpe diem. And evidence points to helping people, and having unique experiences, as being far more enjoyable than merely having possessions. So, if I picture myself as rich 20 years ago, I come up with things (for that list) that a poor person could not do today, but that would make me happy.

If you want to attempt to convince me, then why don't you try to list concrete examples of things a poor person could do today, that a rich person 20 years ago could not do. Since that's the actual topic at hand.

And fine, let's take the most charitable form of your argument - Having The Internet Is Awesome. Fine. 2 billion people have access to the Internet. That means roughly 5 billion people do not. Perhaps the agreement that you and I can make is that it would suck to be poor, among those 5 billion people today.

Not sure why I'm continuing this discussion. You seem to be too invested in having your own view of what I was saying instead of discussing what I was actually trying to say, despite any number of clarifications. I'll try one more time then give it up.

> And MOST of the problems that MOST people face, have already been solved by the time someone is rich. As in, seeking food, seeking shelter, seeking transportation, clothing, future security...

Most people think these things are granted by personal wealth. Students of history and geopolitics know better. The US is a rich country with political and economic innovations allow for a kind of security people in other countries only dream of. No amount of personal wealth can hedge against political upheaval, hell, wealth makes you a target more often than not. Personal wealth gets you the ability to fly a Mig. National wealth is having enough ambient wealth in every single community so that starvation is really rare.

I was just reading an article where the author's grandma's grandma had gotten thrown out onto the street by their landlord in the middle of the winter. The whole block banded together and chipped in a coin out of their own meagre lives so they could rent that room for one more month. Had that happened in any other country, they would have frozen to death. That's national wealth, that's what is really helping the poor. In other countries, you have to have personal wealth.

Our country has only gotten richer and richer in the last thirty years. Again, practically invisible to anyone not specifically looking for it, it's hard to see the forest for the trees. But it's there, and I'm telling you, if it were me, I'd rather lose everything and become homeless today, than to step into a time machine with a barrel full of time-appropriate cash. I'm not making that decision for everybody. Just me. Sure, it would suck for awhile to claw myself out of poverty. But over the long run, I believe I'd be better off. Barrels of cash aren't all that hard to come by. Massive national wealth isn't, and it's the national wealth that I'm basing my conviction on, along with my own understanding of my abilities.

> That's not how my life works. My daughter just had heart surgery. It cost over $50,000. My cut of that was about $2,000. It saved her life. You still think I'd rather be POOR today?

I don't want to dissect this too much because it's your daughter and I want to be respectful. But my point is that national wealth created both the option to have heart surgery and the ability to have it relatively cheaply. We can dive into that all day long if you like. These days the not-so-well-off crowdfund these kinds of major life events, it's just another way of getting wealth to where it's needed, same as passing around the hat allowed the aforementioned author's great great grandmother not freeze. Of course, you have to have insurance to get the option for heart surgery, maybe, plenty of children's charities out there, this is an open problem that the nation is trying to solve.

To cut you off, of course the not-so-well-off isn't the ACTUALLY POOR. (you really seem to have a complex over this, as if I don't know the difference or something) But again, the only thing that really solves the poor's problems is national wealth. There's not enough liquid wealth to spread around to stop poverty.

> I think my family and friends love me unconditionally.

Hehehe, good thing you live in a country where the things that can seriously test that belief in unconditionality generally don't happen. Totalitarian states insert politics into families specifically to keep these sorts of bonds from giving communities the power to resist the state.

In case you missed my point, it's that just about everything you think of as 'you', your life, your wealth, your family, your very mind, is a product of the country you live in. And it's not a sharp division between ACTUALLY POOR and whatever the opposite of that is, it's an immensely varied gradation and ecosystem of abilities, disabilities, the services that make those disabilities less onerous, the efforts to spread information about those services, government programs, communities, the well-meaning and charitable, and the options people have available to pull themselves out of poverty. There is a ton of attention being paid to the actual problems both poor people and ACTUALLY POOR people are having, and a lot of resources devoted to promising options.

> We're talking about POOR today. ACTUALLY POOR. And ACTUALLY POOR people do not have nearly as much control over their destiny as you're painting.

You are talking about that. I made an assertion concerning my own convictions that you are taking out of context. Now you are asking me to substantiate my own convictions using your weird funny logic. Nothing about being poor keeps you from helping people. Most of those volunteering in soup kitchens are closer to the people they're serving than they are to you. And the things rich people try to do to help the less well-off often boil down to ego gratification and do no real good.

> If you want to attempt to convince me, then why don't you try to list concrete examples of things a poor person could do today, that a rich person 20 years ago could not do. Since that's the actual topic at hand.

I can't even begin to try to convince you because the very way you think about wealth is utterly silly.

> The US is a rich country

And it was almost identically rich 20 years ago. Actually, since the national debt keeps going up, and we've engaged in multiple wars since then, a case could be made that we're worse off.

> National wealth is having enough ambient wealth in every single community so that starvation is really rare.

So, maybe what you meant to say was, "I'd rather be what most people consider to be poor today (as long as I got to live in the United States), than rich twenty years ago."

> Our country has only gotten richer and richer in the last thirty years.

I disagree. We had the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. People were genuinely hurting. Employment among many groups (such as "poor" laborers) hasn't rebounded. Meanwhile, 20 years ago was in the middle of a boom.

> I'd rather lose everything and become homeless today

...as long as it's in the United States. (Which you did not clarify in the first place.)

> I'm not making that decision for everybody. Just me.

Sure, but you presented your argument as rational, not just personal. And then for some reason you were BOTHERED that I tried to understand your position. Why state your position, if you don't want other people to take it seriously and try to understand it?

> Barrels of cash aren't all that hard to come by.

All evidence points to GENERATIONAL poverty being the norm. So, yes, wealth IS that hard to come by.

> Massive national wealth isn't...

Far out. So, as a rich person 20 years ago, you'd move to the nation with the greatest national wealth.

> But my point is that national wealth created both the option to have heart surgery and the ability to have it relatively cheaply.

And my point is that TWENTY YEARS AGO, the United States wasn't THAT different than it is today. In fact, relative to median income, the same medical procedures cost more today (even adjusting for inflation) than they did back then. By a LOT. And most outcomes aren't proportionally better. We're still way behind in life expectancy and infant mortality, for instance.

> as if I don't know the difference or something

No, I'm trying to understand your statement, "I'd rather be poor today than rich twenty years ago." I'm trying to actively listen, and keep asking you if I'm understanding you correctly, even to the definitions of each of those words "poor" that I use in my head.

> But again, the only thing that really solves the poor's problems is national wealth. There's not enough liquid wealth to spread around to stop poverty.

That's a great assertion to digest, and I don't buy it. There are nomadic people, to this day, living in areas of Africa we'd be tempted to call a desert, who work less than 10 hours a week gathering food, seeking shelter. They spend the rest of their days lounging, chatting, teaching their children. If there is enough food and water to provide for a population, everything else is relative, isn't it? They even take care of their neighbors when they are sick.

> Hehehe, good thing you live in a country where the things that can seriously test that belief in unconditionality generally don't happen.

Let me imagine the worst imaginable environment - I'm a Jew, living in Nazi Germany. I think my friends and family still unconditionally love me. Are you convinced they don't?

> Totalitarian states insert politics into families specifically to keep these sorts of bonds from giving communities the power to resist the state.

So, again, I think you should have said, "I'd rather be what most people consider to be poor today (as long as I got to live in the United States), than rich twenty years ago."

Because if you and I made a list of all of the poor people in the world today, I think you'd be forced to agree that MOST of them live in places you would not ever want to live. No national wealth. Totalitarian government. Warlords. Corruption. Not enough food and water. No opportunities for employment, or education. No internet.

> In case you missed my point, it's that just about everything you think of as 'you', your life, your wealth, your family, your very mind, is a product of the country you live in.

In case you missed my point, the US twenty years ago isn't THAT different from the US today, to offset the difference between being able to financially provide for my family, and NOT.

> the options people have available to pull themselves out of poverty

But they don't. All the data says you're EXTREMELY likely to have the same wealth as your parents.

I think, in order for your assertion to make any sense, you must believe that most people are poor because they're not as motivated as you are. I'm not even trying to load that statement, or put judgement on it. That's the only way I can make sense of what you've said.

> There is a ton of attention being paid to the actual problems both poor people and ACTUALLY POOR people are having, and a lot of resources devoted to promising options.

I don't buy it. Even our beloved veterans are homeless, unemployed, and suicidal. I'll think the options are promising when they start to have an impact. And I mention veterans, because even Conservatives claim to want to use government to help poor people, as long as they're veterans. But we still haven't put a dent in it.

> I made an assertion concerning my own convictions that you are taking out of context.

No, you made an assertion, and I want to discuss it, to see if it was rational, and to try to gain knowledge from whatever perspective you have.

> Most of those volunteering in soup kitchens are closer to the people they're serving than they are to you.

Most of the people stocking soup kitchens are more like me. Disposable income, secure in their career. And twenty years ago, there were more people like that (relative to population size), than there are today. The middle is shrinking.

> And the things rich people try to do to help the less well-off often boil down to ego gratification and do no real good.

A rich person is CAPABLE of doing everything a poor person can. You may be right that the rich need to be educated.

> I can't even begin to try to convince you because the very way you think about wealth is utterly silly.

/sigh

Thanks for the insult.

WHY BOTHER talking, if you don't ENJOY talking with people who think differently than you? SERIOUSLY?

> And it was almost identically rich 20 years ago. Actually, since the national debt keeps going up, and we've engaged in multiple wars since then, a case could be made that we're worse off.

I could argue against all of these points, but it seems like that would be pointless.

> So, maybe what you meant to say was,

I would rather lose absolutely everything (including things that have helped me out in the last 20 years like family assistance. the idea is that I have to go by my wits as much as possible) and stay in today's USA than step into a time machine with any amount of money to mid 1980s USA. I believe that, just by relying on national wealth, I could become as rich as I wanted to in relatively short order in a way that would have been impossible 30 years ago. You don't think the world's changed all that much but I do. We seem to lack the shared vocabulary needed for me to convey why I think that way.

> ...as long as it's in the United States. (Which you did not clarify in the first place.)

I did, in another part of the thread. I thought you would have been thoughtful enough to follow the rest of the discussion to get the missing pieces of my argument. A lot of times I'll, not just look at the whole thread, but also click to see some of the author's other conversations to see where he / she's coming from.

> So, as a rich person 20 years ago, you'd move to the nation with the greatest national wealth.

Maybe. Depends on how much I have tying myself down there. The aforementioned author's great great grandmother had brothers that died in the Holocaust rather than emigrate from Latvia because they had a thriving local business there. Elon Musk brought himself and his family over from South Africa, that's how much he believed in national wealth. I'm not sure I would come to the same conclusions so quickly, and Musk did have a really ugly childhood that he was anxious to escape. I perhaps might have found a local maximum rather than a bigger pond. Or perhaps not. I don't have the experience of growing up in an emerging market to draw on to be able to make a real guess. I can only judge based on my current awareness.

> I think my friends and family still unconditionally love me. Are you convinced they don't?

It's one of those things you don't know until you know. Or you know until you don't. Do I think it's possible you're miscalculating these feelings? Certainly. I do know that you haven't carefully considered the full breadth of things that could affect your relationships. What if part of your brain shut down and you became a different person than you were before? Read an article where that precise thing happened recently. What is it precisely that your family loves about you and what would happen if that thing were to be taken away? If you delve into that question, I think you'd find that each member of your family has different values and would react differently to each kind of stress. You'd also have to figure out what unconditional love is and how to define the event of that love going away.

Things get a lot more difficult when you apply real logic to mushy situations.

> the US twenty years ago isn't THAT different from the US today

I very much disagree.

> All the data says you're EXTREMELY likely to have the same wealth as your parents.

Data does not predict anything. It only describes what has happened. In a certain light. If you examined the data yourself and asked your own questions of it you might come to a different conclusion.

> Most of the people stocking soup kitchens are more like me.

How do you know this? Have you gone and looked? Have you asked a significant number of them their stories and how they came to volunteer? I'll admit my assertion in this regard is probably about as valid as this one. But that's how you find out.

> Even our beloved veterans are homeless, unemployed, and suicidal.

What that means is that the mental problems caused by going to war are worse than we have the ability to effectively help, at this moment in time. But there's plenty of research going into things like PTSD so that we can more effectively help these people. Suicide is an extremely difficult problem to solve.

> WHY BOTHER talking, if you don't ENJOY talking with people who think differently than you? SERIOUSLY?

I do enjoy it. There are any number of things I could have done with my morning, I chose to focus my attentions on this discussion.

> I thought you would have been thoughtful enough to follow the rest of the discussion to get the missing pieces of my argument.

I didn't take the time, this time. I let your words to me stand on their own, and they weren't standing up very well. I repeatedly asked, and you didn't clarify some of the apparently very important nuances of your view point.

> Data does not predict anything.

That's ridiculous.

The entire history of science has been gathering data, and making predictions. The predictive power of science is ASTOUNDING. Even without a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Newton and Keppler invented formulas that fit the data they had at hand, and the predictions they made were uncanny, even though they didn't understand the actual forces that were creating those phenomena.

> How do you know this?

By answering the phone call when soup kitchens were desperate for donations, by helping my family when they were stocking, by volunteering my own time and money when I had the spare time and money, and by looking at the other people who were similarly stocking the shelves.

Sure, it's anecdotal.

> I do enjoy it.

If you enjoy it, then please refrain from the negative comments ("the very way you think about wealth is utterly silly"). I doubt they increase your enjoyment, and they negatively impacted mine.

> I didn't take the time, this time. I let your words to me stand on their own, and they weren't standing up very well. I repeatedly asked, and you didn't clarify some of the apparently very important nuances of your view point.

I didn't take the time to elaborate on questions you asked that I felt like I'd already addressed elsewhere. If I had known you didn't bother to read them, I would have briefly restated them.

Oh well.

> The entire history of science has been gathering data, and making predictions.

You missed the hard part of actually testing those predictions. Data science does not bother testing, it just collects more and more data. Often the premises change right underneath, and data science just goes right on lamp posting.

An excellent blog to watch this in real time is Slate Star Codex. The author will make you reconsider everything you know about science if you listen to him long enough.

> by looking at the other people who were similarly stocking the shelves.

You just looked at them? You didn't get to know them? Appearances can be very deceiving, especially when it comes to public settings like that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've learned to not trust other people's perceptions if there's nothing more to go on.

It doesn't matter to me that it's anecdotal. I've learned that anecdote can be more trustworthy than 'scientific' analysis. But one needs to learn how to draw conclusions from anecdote and where the holes in the logic might be before relying on it.

The people at the soup kitchen may have been putting on their best faces to go out. Without knowing their stories you don't know why they're there.

I worked at the Atlanta Community Food Bank for a short time. I maybe was the only person on the team actually getting paid. I went in with one perception of the people that were working there, and left that place with a completely different perspective after talking to them and getting to know them.

> If you enjoy it, then please refrain from the negative comments ("the very way you think about wealth is utterly silly"). I doubt they increase your enjoyment, and they negatively impacted mine.

My suggestion to you, since you did say that you were here to perhaps learn from my experience, is to be a little more critical of your own understandings. It took me a long time to come to my current understanding of what wealth is, and I'm sure that understanding will evolve further as I delve more deeply into topics like economics and finance to flesh out what I feel is a strong historical understanding. I didn't gain that understanding by believing in myself, I did it by disbelieving in my own thoughts.

If someone told me that the way I think about X was silly, I'd immediately want to know why he felt that way. Hearing the rationale of people that have negative opinions of me is quite valuable to me. For someone whose been on BBSes for the last 20 years, I'd have thought you've have acquired the same thick skin that I have regarding intellectual discussions. I apologize for offending you, but as I don't think I did anything wrong, it's obviously a hollow apology.

> You missed the hard part of actually testing those predictions.

No, I didn't. "Gathering data" includes "testing previous predictions."

> Data science does not bother testing, it just collects more and more data.

You just gave yourself permission to disregard any evidence I present. That level of arrogance should terrify you, once you realize you have that blind spot.

> The people at the soup kitchen

I said "stocking." As in, paying for the building, the lights, and the food.

> My suggestion to you, since you did say that you were here to perhaps learn from my experience, is to be a little more critical of your own understandings

My suggestion to you, is to not call people "silly" when they disagree with your understandings, and disregard any evidence they present.

> If someone told me that the way I think about X was silly

The way you think about the improvements in wealth in the United States in the last twenty years is silly. Specifically, how it impacts the lives of the poor. I'd be glad to continue providing evidence, but I'm not convinced you'll be bothered to investigate it.

> For someone whose been on BBSes for the last 20 years, I'd have thought you've have acquired the same thick skin that I have regarding intellectual discussions.

When I see someone ignoring data, not responding to specific requests for clarification, and throwing insults... I have way less tolerance for the insults.

  I'd rather be poor today than rich twenty years ago.

Try volunteering at a soup kitchen sometime. You will rethink this sentiment.

I was poor for the first 7 or so years of my life. I've moved to a new city with nothing but a few hundred bucks keeping me from homelessness. The condition isn't permanent, or at least, it doesn't have to be.

Sure, there can just be 150 million jobs in the United States that all pay more than $100k/year, right? Everyone can be rich!

Poor in this country (the US) is totally different than other countries.

Most "poor" people have TV's, VCR's computers and smartphones. Most poor people can find places to sleep or crash or get groceries and handouts to survive. With all of the government plans, it's actually pretty easy to be poor in America:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishi...

You want to see real poverty? Go to Hati, go to Panama, Cuba or go to nearly any South African country ravaged by centuries of war.

People literally have NOTHING. They're thankful for clean water, and a small meal. Forget about clean clothes, basic hygiene and other multiple things we take for granted every single day.

Yes, the picture changes drastically if I'd have to consider being anywhere other than the US.

If you were rich twenty years ago, many of our modern conveniences could be purchased via labor.

Uber? Pay for a private chauffeur

Travel? Pay a top-tier travel agent

Technology has pushed more luxuries to the masses but rich in 1995 was still pretty awesome. Maybe if you'd said 50 years ago I'd be more in agreement.

Plus, there is the downside of technology. More distraction, easier for competitors know more about your business and thus catch up with you, easier for your employer to outsource your job overseas etc.

You know, I hear this quit a bit but I really don't like this position because it ignores all the very real issues and seemingly justifies the current state of things through some strange "the greater good" lens.

Sure, we are better off as a percentage, because we now have 7 billion plus people in the world. 20 years ago there were only 5 billion... but the actual numbers of people with poor living standards is, I would venture, actually higher. There were only 2 billion in 1927...

As to your original point that little improvement in living standards being a "myth caused by lamp-posting"... I don't know how you can ignore the actual numbers regarding lack of living standards reflecting productivity gains for the lower-middle class... It's not a myth at all, it's a fact that we work longer hours, for less pay adjusted for inflation, with higher-costs of living.

The industrial revolution was supposed to be about giving man the time to pursue more noble goals, but instead it became a notch in the capitalists belt of exploitation of the workers.

In short, I think your post is nonsensical.

I'm with vinceguidry here. I can be poor enough that I have to walk to the library to use a computer. Once there, though, I can Google basically all of the world's information. (20 years ago, I could have tried to look it up in the library's card catalog, I suppose, and hoped that they had a relevant book, and that I was looking under the right topic, and that the book, if it existed in the catalog, was listed under the right topic, and that the book wasn't checked out or misplaced...)

20 years ago, if you were poor and unemployed, you went through the help-wanted ads in the newspaper. Today, you can look at those same ads on-line, or you can go to craigslist.

20 years ago, if you were poor and the cops beat you up, you whined about The Man to your buddies. Today, you hope one of your buddies got a video of it, and you post it online and bring down public outrage on the PD. (Whether the PD changes or not as a result, at least your voice can be really heard - to the point that sometimes the president starts putting pressure on the PD.)

I could go on. The point is something that PG has said: Technology is a multiplier. If you've got something you want to do, technology can make it take much less effort. But if you're hopeless and adrift, with nothing you're aiming for, all the technology can do is fill your time with fluff so that you don't feel so bad. That's not much of a win for those people.

Can you elaborate on why you'd rather be poor today than rich 20 years ago (~1995) ?

Essentially, it boils down to how effective I can be with my time. I can be far more productive today, using modern information tools, than I ever could have in the mid-nineties. It's not just a function of experience, in 1995 I'd already had like 8 years of exposure to computers and programming. The main barriers I had to success were in knowing what to do and how to do it.

Now, there are practically no informational barriers at all. I've shifted from looking for options to take to sifting through all the available, great ones. The quality of what you can find on the Internet these days is just mind-bogglingly better.

What this means is that time spent 20 years ago is worth less than time spent now. And since time is far more valuable than money, there isn't an amount of money you could throw at me to make me yearn for those old days.

I use the similar logic to come to the conclusion that I'd rather be a lower-class American than a Chinese billionaire. I'd actually rather be a middle class Chinese than a Chinese billionaire, if only because that means I could move to the States. Everything I've read about these people indicate myopic, ugly personalities. The social fluidity of the US is worth more money than I could ever imagine, as increasing the value of time spent is worth more than any amount of money.

It's not even that mysterious: Productivity gains haven't been evenly distributed any more than income gains have been. Even discounting demographic changes like substantially increased rates of immigration, it's statistically suspect to compare the median wage (typically of only non-supervisory workers) or living standard with the sum total productivity of the economy.

The disparity in income growth rates across households can be related in part to productivity. Changes in technology do not have an equal impact on all workers in the economy. Over the past 30 years, improvements in technology, such as computer innovations, have led to increases in labor productivity for workers with technical skills ... These high-skilled workers experienced greater increases in compensation than lower-skilled workers.

...

For a select group of “economic superstars,” technological innovations have expanded the size of audiences, leading to strong increases in income ... The rapidly growing demand for video games has resulted in similar income growth in a narrow segment of the software industry. In the late 1990s, creators of video game software experienced average annual income growth rates estimated to be 6 percentage points higher than workers creating non-entertainment software products, such as for computer databases.

https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/1q07will....

The whole paper is well worth perusing. You'll be surprised how much of the total income gain in the U.S. is attributable to movie stars and pro athletes, and that is nearly entirely (economically speaking) a result of their exceptional "productivity". That is, being one of only a thousand or so people capable of producing something people will collectively pay billions for.

> I'd rather be poor today than rich twenty years ago.

This makes it sound like rich people 20 years ago had it pretty bad... What did technology add to their lives aside from convenience?

Nothing so drastic. I'm saying that if I had to be 30 and rich 20 years ago or 30 and poor today, I'd pick the latter.

Some days I feel like I've won the 'history lottery'. Right age at the right time in the right country.

I'm not certain I would choose the same thing twenty years from now. I think the essential reason why I would make that choice today isn't going to be all that much more compelling in the future, meaning the money is going to play a bigger role.

All-in-all, I think we vastly underestimate what the Internet has done for us. Like by a factor of millions.

How old are you? The world wasn't really fundamentally different twenty years ago. Maybe try a hundred years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com