Hacker News Reader

Comment by lwhalen | Hacker News Reader

Is it bad if they just fall by the wayside? If one puts forth zero effort, they should get zero reward.

"fall by the wayside" is a bit hand wavy. Do you mean they become poor, broke, with nothing to loose, ripe for a revolution? Or that they are killed by automated drones when they come over the fence of your/my/our/their gated community?

if they were prone to revolution, you'd think "get a danged job" would be the path of least resistance (pun fully intended).

I've been thinking about this with respect to America's future. Basically, suppose people want a revolution. Well, that would require a competent leader to make the mob effective. This is the rub, if you have leadership skills then you make bank and would be in 'the system'.

The implicit assumption here is that American firms actually higher leaders based on some kind of objective leadership skills (and that the market will suck them all up).

I'm guessing whoever wrote this hasn't grown up poor/discriminated against, didn't beat their peers and find themselves never-the-less judged/ousted because they "weren't of the right background/proper means/cultural fit".

And remember, all it takes is a few key leaders. And that includes those who may have been part of the system but were unjustly ousted...(or those who just think they are getting a wiff of the winds of change and want to be on the right side)

/I'm not making any actual prediction of revolution the US incidentally. I'd be inclined against any theories of imminent revolution. Just pointing out that simple theories of "it wouldn't happen here because of our fake-meritocracy" are pretty off the mark.

There are objective things like 'people follow you'

Why are you making assumptions about me?

What if leadership isn't about beating your peers, but about using influence to bring people together?

> American firms actually higher leaders

American firms actually hire leaders.

The problem with your statement is that many people did and continue to do exactly what was stated going from rags to riches. Elon Musk is probably the most well known example. Now one of the most influential business and technological leaders in this nation, he immigrated from South Africa with little more than to rely on than his ability, motivation, and work ethic. A soft spoken immigrant with a slight speech impediment and South African accent is not exactly what you'd call 'the right background/means/cultural fit', yet it posed little issue.

More fundamentally the problem is that in America there is a very distorted sense of self. A total of 4% of Americans think they are less intelligent than the average American. [1] And so the vast majority of people in this nation who are not particularly meritorious think they absolutely are, or at the worst no less meritorious than average. Yet that, no matter how you measure it, is simply not the case.

[1] - https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/05/11/intelligence/

Elon Musk is the exception used to sell you the american dream.

The reason I chose Elon Musk is because he's a household name and most people are familiar with his story. However, 67% of all "high-net-worth" Americans are self made, with only 8% directly inheriting their wealth. [1] If you consider only men (as women have an easier time marrying into wealth) it's 76%.

I used to be more aligned with what you're saying. An eye opening paper for me was this [2]. I ran into that when actually searching information on the chiseling out of the middle class. And that paper does describe that. In 1979 the middle class controlled 46% of all income, and the upper/rich classes controlled 30%. Today (well at least today as of 2014) the rich and upper class control 63% with the middle class left with 26%. There's even been a chiseling out of the middle class as a whole declining from 38.8% of society to 32% of society.

But the eye opener is this. This is the change in the size of each economic group between 1979 and 2014:

- Rich: 0.1% -> 1.8%

- Upper Middle Class: 12.9% -> 29.4%

- Middle Class: 38.8% -> 32%

- Lower Middle Class: 23.9% -> 17.1%

- Poor or Near-Poor: 24.3% -> 19.8%

If you're concerned that partisan bias may be tilting those numbers (as such figures are certainly subject to a variety of different interpretations), wiki has a section on the political stance of the Urban Institute [3]. Beyond that, that paper is quite readable and their methodology very transparent. It's extremely eye opening.

[1] - https://www.fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--stu...

[2] - https://www.urban.org/research/publication/growing-size-and-...

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#Political_stan...

Is the "size" of the economic groups given in population or income/wealth?

Population.

This is exactly my point, the rare exceptions are the ones capable of actually pulling off a real revolution; they get sucked into the American Dream.

This leaves everyone else without effective organization. Look at all the occupy stuff that was supposed leaderless; did it accomplish anything?

That describes a ton of populist leaders throughout history though. Sometimes it is more beneficial to raise a mob and usurp power than to stay withing the system.

History has been defined more by classes and royalty and rich familes, and America has more people that have risen based on their ability to execute. My claim is that this creates a release valve of sorts where people that can execute can rise in ranks.

> History has been defined more by classes and royalty and rich familes, and America has more people that have risen based on their ability to execute.

Can you be sure that this assertion is true of both the past and the future?

One thing US politics has been phenomenal at is ensuring that there will never be organized resistance to the government. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. I do not think it's a coincidence that politicians seem to have been focusing on issues that are increasingly incendiary, arguably in lieu of more relevant issues.

When the country is split down partisan lines, it ensures that any action taken will also be cast in this light and demonized accordingly. And even better for the status quo, it can also be used to get people to even vote against their own interest. How many people voted for Hillary or Trump because they thought 'yes, this person truly represents my interests and views'? How many voted for them because they thought 'oh dear god the [other person] winning is simply unthinkable!'?

How did the American revolution happen? Aside from having a huge number of competent leaders, it was framed as a unified citizenry 'us' versus the outsider English politicians 'them'. And this is a general theme of revolutions. It is 'us' versus 'them' when 'us' is the people and 'them' is a detached government. Yet in the US 'us' means one half of the population and 'them' means the other half while the government seemingly works to further antagonize this divide.

> I do not think it's a coincidence that politicians seem to have been focusing on issues that are increasingly incendiary, arguably in lieu of more relevant issues.

I do not know whether you intend to, but "this is not a coincidence" sounds like it implies a conspiracy.

I believe it is a coincidence, but in the same way that evolution is based on coincidence. Random mutations create by coincidence an organism that is better adapted to its environment, hence it survives. There is no need for a conspiracy to arrive at a political system like ours (it's just stabler than average and thus survives), just like how evolution does not need an intelligent designer to come up with intelligent designs.

Divide and conquer is a strategy as old as they get. The US government has also been outed engaging in such in the past to help stabilize themselves. COINTELPRO is probably the most well known example of this - a program that lasted through 4 political administrations. Faced with the rising political influence of groups ranging from civil rights protesters, to the Communist Party of the USA, the FBI engaged in an extensive and far reaching program designed to "increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections". The Wiki entry [1] gives a decent intro. The program was only revealed after a number of activists burgled an FBI field office and hit the jackpot.

So, our system is already absolutely a product of exactly what I'm describing. Now let's zoom forward to today. Congressional approval in the US ranges from the low teens to the single digits. [2] Think about that for a minute. That means upwards of 90% of people are dissatisfied with the most basic functioning of our government. If we weren't so divided among one another, our government would be replaced in short order by democratic consensus. But with what..? That question even gives politicians a sort of cognitive dissonance to put themselves as the 'good guys.' It's entirely possible we could, in retribution, elect individuals that could cause immense harm to this nation.

So you're a politician. What to do when you want to help ensure you and your fellow party members continue to get elected, even when 90% of people think you're doing a bad job. What do you do? You could do a better job, but that's tough - you need and rely on "donations" to get into and stay in office and the unspoken promises of those "donations" are a large part of the reason people think you're doing such an awful job. Making people despise and distrust the other group so much that they are willing to vote against their own self interest is one very obvious solution. Let's go back to COINTELPRO and look at some of its intended effects:

- 1. Create a negative public image of activists by publicly smearing their character

- 2. Break down organization by spark internal conflicts and exasperating racial tension.

- 3. Restrict the ability to groups to protest by using infiltrated agents who promote violence and lawless behavior at protests.

- 4. Restrict the ability of individuals to participate by engaging in surveillance, false arrests, and character assassination.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[2] - https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job...

Again...

As per my other response re: your apparent implicit belief in a labor theory of value, now you're espousing the implicit belief that a labor market must tend towards full employment, and at a wage level that makes revolution unattractive.

If I might make the observation, your positions seem to be littered with false beliefs/understandings.

I'm assuming another one of those false beliefs would be that you'd be in the relative merit camp under any such meritocracy...

You must be exacerbated... so I apologize. But, what exactly is false about this. It stands to reason that getting a job sounds a lot easier than starting a revolution for most people.

Only if your economy has jobs. Let's say AI revolution brings 90% unempoyment: then it's easier to revolt than to find a job, if:

- you still can: you are not yet a slave, with the ruling class + machines not yet fully in control

- you have a reason to revolt: your life quality is low, because society does not give a damn about the losers

With those being true, a revolution should happen well before reaching those high unemployment figures.

I suspect there is a not insignificant subset of males especially that would find the idea of anarchy more exciting than the humdrum of job-seeking and (worse) job-doing.

What if they exert maximal effort, but achieve zero results?

Kind of like any venture where you try as hard as possible and yet fail ?

Kind of like an athlete in the olympics who ends up losing by a fraction of a second? Idk, they don’t get the gold right?

So, in your world, the best software developer gets paid the most (gold), the second best gets paid less (silver), the third best gets paid the least (bronze), and everybody else works as slaves because they're losers.

"As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired." - from Glengarry Glen Ross

There's capitalism in a nutshell.

Except first prize was granted by your parents and upbringing. Second prize was partially because of parents and upbringing, but with a bit more luck.

And bronze? Yeah, well they're just lazy and bad and they deserve what little they have - cause the Gold and Silver earned what they have.

And this goes all the way back to the proverbial Adam and Eve?

Don't we then all have the same ancestors and therefore all equal opportunity?

1. I didn't bring religion into this. You did. 2. I reject to what amounts to a nice story with no basis in fact. If I remember my judeao-christian studies, the woman was less than the man in those stories.

3. It is evident that even being born, not all babies are equal. And that's before we consider socioeconomic status.

Should humans be considered as equal? Of course. However its quite easily demonstrated that people aren't.

This is reductio ad absurdio.

I think you can ignore the religious mention and in good-faith (ha!) take their point to be that we ultimately have common ancestors. Then respond that your family has a strong effect but it's not the only one.

"Don't we then all have the same ancestors and therefore all equal opportunity?"

Just about every study done on the subject shows that the family you're born into has a HUGE effect on how successful you'll be in life.

Yes, and presumably some parents work hard to give their children a good future and some do not.

Is this irrelevant? Why is it not acceptable for someone that had better parents to do better?

That's because children are seen as innocent. We can blame someone in poverty of "making bad choices"... What choice is there for a newborn to make bad choices?

Yet, we have little issue,society speaking, condemning a baby and their family to a life of poverty to continue that cycle.

Or should we say that the newborn/baby deserves lack of medical care, substandard food or hunger,substandard housing, less/lacking education? If you believe they deserve that, can you explain what actions a baby can do differently?

Hard work of the parents doesn't really factor into it. It's the social standing of the parents. A single mom who works 2 jobs works harder than most of us on this board. Yet, our kids are going to have it much, much, much easier than hers would.

"Why is it not acceptable for someone that had better parents to do better?"

If your whole schtick is about "meritocracy", then having people start out better by default defeats that entire thing.

One thing about meritocracies - someone gives the merits and demerits.

Why do they deserve that power? What checks and balances exist to prevent them from entreanching themselves and family/friends?

Follow the money and power.

Suppose a average married couple had a child and also adopted a rock. By your reasoning, the rock would perform exactly as their living breathing child, right?

Please don't do this here.

What's so wrong with pointing out someone else's absurdity?

It was a tacit insult taking the form of an argument. That adds no information, it just lowers discussion quality and encourages worse from others.

Could you please not post like this? It leads to low-quality flamewars, and there's specifically a guideline against it:

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No, if you could guarantee that only people who contribute nothing would be affected by this, and there would be no edge cases (people with disabilities, etc)

Also, "zero effort" is subjective - is playing video games all day zero effort? I would say so, but some Twitch streamers would disagree.

How do you feel about China's forays into social scoring that limits the choices available to those with indiscretions (unpaid fines, etc). They can't fly, access particular services, etc.

If the limitations/rewards vary based on who is in power, I can see that becoming quickly challenging. Internet access could be deemed a reward, for example.

It never ceases to amaze me how most people in capitalist (all) countries continue to work under the folk-belief of a labor theory of value.

How much effort you put in has, at best, a second order relation to reward.

Far stronger effects are supply, demand, mechanism of action, distribution of initial resources, and social factors.

It's pretty shocking. What becomes _infuriating_ is when they say this while also defending their right to own the product of that labor because they were there first or happened to present capital in the right place at the right time.

I thought the idea of a labor theory of value wasn't related to the actual effort you put in, but more that value is related to how much average social labor would be currently invested to acquire or produce something. So if you have a machine you can pull a lever to produce 10 items in 1 second, each of those items acquires 1/10th of a human-second of value.

I get though that those other conditions matter more in terms of the actual price though. Marx distinguished between "value", "use-value", and "exchange-value", the latter being price, the second being required for value or exchange value, and the first being used as the basis of comparison between goods. I took it to mean that exchange value is like temperature while value is like heat.

Can you elaborate? I'd like to know more about how these different theories interact.

It sounds like you are not a fan of landlords or am I misunderstanding something.

Setting up a rental is actually a lot of work that is upfront and has a ton of risk. You also need to pay taxes, so it's not based on effort at steady state. Steady state is based on cashflow management.

This ignores that major developers can absorb a lot of risk and aggregate. It also ignores that foreclosures on ordinary people can be snapped up by banks and developers. It also ignores that tax abatements are very popular and often extremely undeserving. Near where I live, tax abatements are granted regularly and come out of the school budget.

If the housing market keeps going up, where's the risk? You'd have to be the dumbest man in NYC real estate to lose money like the president's son-in-law. Small time landlords are a slightly different ballgame, but it's still bizarre that we allow individuals to speculate on where people live and and extract money from the less wealthy in this fashion.

EDIT: Also, what other job requires work up-front, but then nearly none? Landlords are famous for terrible upkeep. Even in communities where problems are generally fixed, most of the time, the landlord just collects a check until a problem pops up. They only have to work for rare serious problems and for managing move-in move-out.

EDIT2: The craziest thing is that we see that they do this and still collect 25%+ of ordinary people's incomes for an invisible service that is merely holding intellectual property. It's as though people pay to live in a castle keep with no services, pay the local lord, and justify giving 25%+ taxes on top of what you give to the actual democratic government (typically less to much less) because the lord is somehow a great symbol of the economic system.

I'd suggest you do some reading on investing in and managing real estate.

It's a lot of work with a lot of risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com