Hacker News Reader

That line of thought existed for a long time. It's the same line of thought that says that gentrification is a bad result - rich people concentrating in one suburb and never having to look 2 blocks away where people are forced to sleep on the street makes them not think about people sleeping on the street. That then influences public spending where the same rich people have stronger voices about what problems to solve.

See comments from British MP recently that people who can't afford food should sell their assets like pearls. That's a complete disconnect with normal people's lives.

I'm not sure how popular/acceptable those views are, but I'm all for some form of "if you have power over X you should experience the lowest class of X". For example elected officials should not be allowed security fast track at the airports.

>When and where did this line of thought of "it's better for everyone to stay the same than everyone get better if some people get better by a bigger amount" started being socially acceptable within grown adults?

That's not at all what the author is saying. He's arguing that it would be better, easier, and provide more value for more people if instead of things like Hyperloops we invested in high speed rail. If you've ever been to the US you'll know the transport infrastructure is TERRIBLE. Compared to Europe (and from the reading the article, Japan too it seems) American public transport is embarrassing; rusty diesel locomotives and pot holed roads. Having a high speed rail network in America would most certainly not be keeping everything the same.

IMO, both the hyperloop and the boring company tunnels will evolve into something much more subway-like if they succeed. Starting out by soaking the rich is often a good way to start, though.

> "it's better for everyone to stay the same than everyone get better if some people get better by a bigger amount"

I think this falls down because things aren’t getting better, at least in the US. People are less likely to own a house than their parents were at their age, minimum wage hasn’t increased in line with inflation and has therefore effectively decreased, higher education is more expensive etc.

And then you see people who profit off of making things worse buying their third house and you start to think it’s not exactly fair.

That is an absolutely disingenuous reading of what the article was trying to say. It's more like "this will not be available to regular people in our lifetimes." It's neither "Rich people having things I can't have is bad!" nor "it's better for everyone to stay the same than everyone get better, if some people get better by a bigger amount."

Can you rephrase your critique using what the article actually said, rather than what you're reading into it?

I quoted directly from the article, and said that as a characterization of what I see the underlying problem behind his statements are.

You may interpret it differently, but I clearly and unequivocally see that sentiment behind it. And to be more specific, I could be more charitable in my interpretation should the second line I quoted not be in the article verbatim.

This

> AKA "This is for rich people! And rich people having things I can't have is bad!"

and this

> When and where did this line of thought of "it's better for everyone to stay the same than everyone get better if some people get better by a bigger amount" started being socially acceptable within grown adults?

have no basis in the article text. You made it up out of your own interpretation. Stop trying to be intellectually dishonest while pretending you did nothing.

When do you anticipate electric vehicles will become mainstream in your country?

Electric buses are mainstream in china.

Electric buses are mainstream in America, they drive past my home a dozen times a day. Of course they pull their power from overhead powerlines, but I'd guess that makes them better at handling hills and has less downtime.

That's a stretch. And China is 2nd world.

Why is it a stretch?

I didn't say china was a third world country, but they do have 421,000 electric buses, which means that it is already a country where electric vehicles are mainstream.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/in-shift-...

My brother lives in India and apparently there is a local brand of electric scooters. Very cool, imho. Lots of two wheelers in India, so it makes sense that happens first.

Within 5 to 15 years I would guess, depending on the moment cheaper batteries materialize at scale and/or the tax system either benefits EVs or penalizes ICEs.

Taxis and buses are already starting to use EVs due to tax subsidies for businesses so we know that reducing taxes works, but even with our currently "slightly less statist than average" government that's a long shot for regular people to get the same benefits anytime soon. This is in Uruguay FWIW.

I know right? I work hard and do well for my family, but I know there are folks who have much higher incomes and wealth and enjoy much more privileges. Some of them have earned it and some haven't. I spend zero percent of my life being upset about this. Why do so many young people in basically my same life station fret about it so very much? It seems very toddlerish, to be so upset just because you saw someone with a toy you don't have.

It’s not greed and looking up it’s empathy and looking down.

"Eat the rich" isn't that, no

No looking at the destitute and feeling that wealth redistribution is a good solution with a pithy slogan is not greed.

Leftists should get some better slogan writers so they don't have to constantly tell everyone that what they mean is completely different than what they're saying.

Is this level of infrastructure even viable for a few rich people?

Based on this article's argument cars, planes and paintings are a travesty.