Hacker News Reader

Comment by Swizec | Hacker News Reader

I for one support globalization because it's how me and all my friends escaped the fate of our parents. Working all your life for $20k/year in a tiny little country in Europe. Without globalization we'd all be fucked.

If we could get skills and jobs that rival Bay Area or are in Bay Area from half the world away, why can't someone from Atlanta? What's stopping them? What, realistically, are the missinh opportunities for them compared to someone who couldn't even practically communicate in English until high school or so?

Like, I'm sorry person from Atlanta, you were born in the land of opportunity. I had to not only get here first, but also realize that such a thing is even possible.

View on HN

Globalization unlocks the potential of top 5% types stuck in underdeveloped countries. At the same time, it often undermines the prosperity of bottom 2/3 types born in wealthy countries. As a matter of democratic theory, however, the political establishment's duty is to the majority of the populace in their own country, not to untapped potential in other countries.

Ethically and pragmatically, that is a fantastic idea. Maybe countries should all be walled up. Google should work only in the US and there should not be any exports or imports.

Of course, colonialism did not bring any advantages to the West or cause bad things in Asia or Africa.

It's not a matter of having more or less foreign intercourse. It's what is the guiding policy behind those policy decisions? In a democracy, the guiding policy typically should be "this policy will make the majority of Americans better off," not "this policy is dictated by economic theory," or "this policy is the right/compassionate thing to do."

The thing is if what is good for people in the short term is not what is good for people in the long term, politicians will do the former.

In a democracy, the guiding policy should be "this policy will make the majority of Americans better off in the long term"

You're both right. Long-term benefit certainly should be the guiding policy, but as Keynes observed 'in the long run we are all dead.' Because many people are selfish and because political systems are relatively easy to game, short-term self-serving strategies often prevail.

It's the same thing in dictatorships. Many dictators could use their highly concentrated authority to undertake large projects that would benefit their population significantly and leave a great legacy. But most of them don't because it's easier and more predictable to just maintain an iron grip on power and enjoy a life of luxury while suppressing any opposition.

Strategically, many people prefer to be a big fish in a small pond than the reverse.

Given the massive increases in living standards in Asia we have seen in the last 20-30 years I think that globalization has unlocked the potential of far more than 5% of the population of underdeveloped countries.

What is that really compared to? More people have cars and couches? More concrete and trash men cleaning up the streets Were the past lives of people so destitute that we needed to deliver an economic and social epiphany?

Were the past lives of people so destitute that we needed to deliver an economic and social epiphany

Yes.

Billions of people that were without shelter & adequate food (not to mention health care or any sort of shot at a good education) now have access to such things. That is progress.

So you're saying thousands of years of societies all over the world, uninterrupted by Western intervention, were all useless until their coming payday by benevolent overlords?

I'm saying that the world is a better place when more people get to live indoors & have access to a healthy diet.

But what kind of indoors, up-to-code Western kinds of indoors, or simple grass or adobe huts that the existing people are more than happy to live in? Time and time again, we Westerners look at other cultures as savage and depraved for not having the same lifestyle as we. This is going to lead us to our doom, trying to be a total savior.

I firmly believe that we in the past did not have a responsibility to "educate" the various indigenous peoples of the planet, however due to past measures existing cultural structures were completely decimated, people are totally reliant on the West. We have interjected ourselves to every facet of the globe, continually introducing technologies and economic patterns that many cultures cannot afford or scale, that is these countries end up in massive poverty (measured by Western standards), because they are trying to adapt a complete economic and technological system that they had no part in developing.

I don't think you have a clear understanding what it's like to live in extreme poverty. It's not just a different way of living. It's awful.

Children routinely die due to easily preventable diseases or starvation. Simple infections are life threatening for adults. Hunger is constant. Exposure to extreme elements is common. Life expectancies are short. Individuals lack meaningful control over their own lives and have little or no ability to improve their situation in the world.

I have been on nearly every end of the economical scale, especially the lower end. I know what it can be like to have suffered, but one solution to a problem does not mean it is the best solution

At no point in this thread have I said it was the best possible solution.

This. There is no maxim that this is the only way to increase living standards, or a good way, or a just or moral way. It benefits large corporations in the US, though, and consumers through the availability of underpriced goods, all on the backs of some faceless brown people somewhere around the world, so its anointed as the best thing since sliced bread

That's certainly true. I was thinking more in terms of globalization/immigration (in light of OP's anecdote).

So you were lucky (to be smart enough) to out-compete your peers and a bunch of Americans. By definition not everyone can achieve this success (as it's based on competition), so it does nothing to alleviate inequality on a scale that matters.

At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can always be attributed to luck and therefor you have a moral obligation to those less "lucky" than you.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with the moral obligation to help those less lucky than you. I don't always agree with the looseness in which the word "luck" is applied these days. The problem is if you look at basically anyone's life, there's always SOMETHING you can point to that was "lucky" compared to their peer(s). Yes, some more than others. But perhaps we can begin to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say they learned a difficult craft, and a new language, to lift themselves out of a shitty situation. It discounts his hard work to say it all came down to lucky brain genetics.

Why do we need to reward people just for being the winners of the cosmic lottery? If you outperform what would be expected given your parental income, early education, intellect, and various other factors that are the result of mere chance, then maybe you should get a cookie. Otherwise, why celebrate the predictable outputs of predictable inputs?

> It discounts his hard work to say it all came down to lucky brain genetics.

How many people work hard their entire life only to not be rewarded? It's not like everyone who doesn't see success is lazy or doesn't work hard. Labourers work hard, tradesmen work hard, and yes, programmers work hard too.

I live in Alberta right now, which is in the midst of an economic recession/depression. In my city unemployment is at 10%, despite being probably the youngest, most educated city in the country. All of my peers have degrees (or better), and most don't have jobs in their fields. All have worked hard, all still work hard, most are underemployed.

> At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can always be attributed to luck and therefor you have a moral obligation to those less "lucky" than you.

I personally hate the idea of a moral obligation to do anything. Shaming people into certain behaviours is shitty.

But we do live in a society amongst other people. Poverty begets crime and social unrest, and it's not in anyone's interest for this to happen. So we attempt to construct the best society we can for all our benefit. Having a highly-stratified society, even if we feel it's 'fair', isn't a good thing.

> In my city unemployment is at 10%

We can play that game.

In my country youth unemployment rate (those under 30) is 13.7%. That ignores everyone who is studying until 27 because "they're not in the labor force".

Overall unemployment rate is 9.8%. Again, discounting everyone who is "not in the labor force".

As far as I know, we've been in an economic recession for the past 10 years or so. Before that we were in a "Yeah we're growing but socialism fucked us" stage for some 15 years.

> Poverty begets crime and social unrest

We're one of the safest countries in Europe. I don't know why Americans love to lump crime together with poverty, but that's not how it works in Europe from what I can tell. Or at least in my part of Europe.

Social unrest, yes there's some of that. Demonstrations happen once in a while. Just like they do in the US all the time. That's just part of democracy.

Going from ~3% unemployment to ~10% overnight has caused a very noticeable change in the city. Yes, there are countries where this is the norm, just like it will probably be the norm here for the foreseeable future.

The point isn't that where I live is awful (it's really not), but that education and hard work doesn't guarantee success when there are macroeconomic forces working against you.

> We're one of the safest countries in Europe. I don't know why Americans love to lump crime together with poverty, but that's not how it works in Europe from what I can tell. Or at least in my part of Europe.

I'm willing to bet your country has a decent safety net, and that there's less 'poverty' than the US, even if your unemployment is higher.

I'm also European. Which group has it worst in your country, and why?

Good question!

Overall the Roma population probably has it worst. Followed closely by the immigrants.

I'm not a good judge of Why because I don't have good insight. The Roma seem to have your usual problems of being below the poverty line, a culture that heavily discourages improving your lot in life, and a strong culture of expecting govenment handouts. If you asked a Roma I'm sure their explanation would be different, this is what it looks like from the outside.

The immigrants, well, they're immigrants. New culture new life new jobs low prospects due to social standing and so on. Immigrants always seem to struggle.

That's fine, it was the shallow reaction I was after. I've had the benefits of being in the US >20 years to observe things from multiple perspectives.

Basically what inhibits a person from Atlanta is not their legal or technical disadvantages, but those perceptual ones - large parts of society, and often police in particular, holding prior assumptions of criminal disposition and unwillingness to better themselves.

I'm Irish and we have very few Roma people but we have a similar and related ethnosocial subgroup. Imagine how difficult it would be for a 'gypsy' person to attain significant political power in our home countries, and how even if elected/appointed to a position of responsibility everything they did would be undermined by attacks on their heritage, regardless of their legal or intellectual eligibility for the role.

I noticed very soon after arrival in the US that I was assumed to have much greater potential than members of disfavored ethnosocial minorities. I say ethnosocial because I'm thinking of a former roommate from Mauritius who felt that his French accent and foreign origin gave him substantial social advantages vs American blacks whose negative qualifiers were already assumed.

> It's not like everyone who doesn't see success is lazy or doesn't work hard.

Well, I never said that did I? In fact that's kind of the point of my original post. Don't discount everyone who's had success as having had it due to luck. And don't discount everyone who's had failure as having had it due to lack of luck.

> I personally hate the idea of a moral obligation to do anything. Shaming people into certain behaviours is shitty.

I agree. I should clarify that when I say "moral obligation" what I mean to say is "my own, personal, moral obligation". What you do with your life, and what conclusions you draw based on your experiences, are your own. Just don't hurt people.

> Having a highly-stratified society, even if we feel it's 'fair', isn't a good thing.

Fair point to which I don't disagree. Life is inherently not fair, nor is it kind and forgiving. To your point, that doesn't mean we should give up our ideals of peace and happiness for everyone. My only concern is that we don't write off our fellow man as having achieved all of their success because they were born in the right place, time, skin color, gender, genetics, etc. In my opinion that's a way of looking at life that is detrimental. Instead, accept that luck plays a significant role in all aspects of life, but with hard work you can change your life.

At what point do we reward human accomplishment

At the point where you start finding lots of nice houses and comfortable-looking cars. Lot so fo people already enjoy substantial rewards for accomplishment. That's great. The problem is that sometimes all the benefits are ascribed to accomplishment and luck is completely discounted.

Look, you've played Monopoly, right? You take a bunch of players of about equal skill level, put them into a game, and who is doing well after 10 rounds of the board is a matter of both skill and luck. Eventually one player will end up with all the money and the others will go bankrupt, because that's the outcome the game is structured to produce.

Now, Monopoly is just a game and so players could in a tournament play multiple games to minimize the luck factor and figure out which players have the greatest skill. But in the real world you don't get to try out a different life strategy every year and then reset on January 1 for a fresh round. If you start out with poor luck, then your disadvantages can accumulate just as your advantages can.

Further, people don't all start out with the same beginning conditions as they do in a game of Monopoly. Nobody wants to come in and join a game of Monopoly already in progress because many of the strategic options have already become unavailable. Likewise it would be a less fun game to play if initial cash allocations were random and some players started out with much more or less than others.

> So you were lucky (to be smart enough)

Sure didn't feel lucky when I was a troubled youth who failed most of his classes in high school and floundered around in college, ultimately not graduating.

I guess one thing I did have that my American peers do not, is access to high quality free education and a cultural expectation that it's okay to be a student into your late 20s. I really lucked out on that one. That is true.

For the record, I have no doubt you worked very hard and that you deserve all the success you have.

I was only stating that it's impossible for all 7 billion people in the world to do what you did. The 'system' has its limits.

There's a reason why in statistics you throw away outliers...

> There's a reason why in statistics you throw away outliers...

That's the thing. I'm not an outlier. It could be an effect of my social circle back home, but basically everyone has either moved out of the country, freelances for foreign companies, or works for foreign markets by proxy through a faux local startup/company whose investors and customers are abroad.

It's very much a "The whole generation is doing it because it's the only thing you can do"

You're not an outlier amongst your group of friends and acquaintances, but I'm willing to bet than even your circle, all combined, aren't statistically important.

I spent quite some time in my younger years thinking about the logic you've presented here. But the fallacy is presenting that intelligence is wholly dependent on luck. Sure, luck is a factor, but the winners are never going to accept the argument that they won by luck. Further, they are correct. In the general case, life's result depends on decisions. No matter where you start, you have decisions to make. Those decisions decide your outcome. Decisions are a function of ideas, action, and luck. Outcome = Decisions(ideas, action, luck). If you try to ignore the ideas and action inputs, no winners will ever accept your argument.

Disagree. There certainly are large genetic and huge environmental factors in raw intelligence, and then a whole raft of environmental and cultural factors in how a person with that intelligence is able to use it. I'm a privileged, intelligent, educated white guy but I have an intellectual appreciation for what it must be like to be born to a poor minority family in a poor area. You will point to some example of some guy who made it out of the third world or the ghetto, but the reason that dude is a story is because he's an extreme outlier. Empathy man.

I think this kind of speaks to the point made in this thread. Human progress is not a zero sum game. People constantly make it seem like you need to be "lucky" or just overall somehow smarter than other people to be able to make a proper living. But if we give everyone opportunity, in the forms of a reasonable standard of living and access to information, that doesn't have to displace others. There are so many directions for us to continue improving that grow the pie for everyone, and the more people we can set out in those directions, the more opportunities we can provide to more people to exponentially improve the standard of living for everyone. Globalism has already been doing this at the macro level: https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit...

But every culture lives differently, some people see the world that isn't represented in Western society or technologies. Just by introducing our technologies and economy, we bend these people towards our ideals and history, we erase whole languages and people, leaving a shell of economic contributors. These nations may be able to contribute from time to time, but with new immigration policies forming, we will suck up the best and brightest, leaving societies totally reliant on the Western powers for technology and economy.

I agree in a sense, but if this way of living is so attractive to the best and brightest that it takes them away from their own languages, cultures, home lands, families, etc. who can really say what is best for those people on an individual level. Are we supposed to keep these countries in the dark, and hide this way of living to essentially trick their top people into staying in the old ways for the sake of preserving the past? One solution that can help everybody is to remove some of the competitive nature and make sure that this system can actually support all the people involved in the spreading global system rather than funneling all the benefits to the best and brightest, another is to make it possible to participate in the global economy while preserving more of the old cultures, but at the end of the day the only constant is change, and these other cultures will continue evolve one way or another.

This is one thing that I don't like about HN. When a person from a different background shares his/her differing opinions on a certain issue, there are people who downvotes it for whatever reasons that they might have. Is it uncivil or unsubstantial to offer differing perspective?

I really think the moderators should add "Downvoting are not meant for expressing disagreement." in the HN guidelines.

I'm against increased globalization because it erodes national sovereignty and undermines republican governments.

Precisely why I'm for it. I'm not in favor of replacing national with corporate sovereignty, though, or rather I'm in favor of putting limits on concentrations of sovereignty. Nationalism is a Bad Thing in my view.

> Nationalism is a Bad Thing in my view.

First of all, nationalism is not national sovereignty.

The former is a social construct which an individual embraces while the latter is a principal of law which a group embraces.

The former is hardly useful, but the latter is vital to all existing nations. No nation is going to willingly give up its right to self governance.

> I'm in favor of putting limits on concentrations of sovereignty.

So, essentially, you wish to live in a world without borders where one or more unions govern many places regardless of geographical separation?

Because that worked out so well in the past...

Essentially, yes I do and I'm fully aware of the operational and philosophical difficulties of such an undertaking. I have ideas about how to implement a distributed governance approach without falling back into patterns of autocratic central control, but am still working on how to make those robust against attempts at hijacking and so forth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com