Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenizer | Hacker News Reader

Well, everyone knows Marc Andreessen has extreme Randist views. I'd say it borders on a Machiavellian worldview, especially considering he's apart of the class which has the most influence, so it's not an evil view, but rather a pragmatic view that would benefit him.

Unfortunately for him, the idea that the middle class doesn't exist is incorrect. I know because according to some sources, almost half of the world now fits in this class. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class#Recent_growth_of_t...

When you also factor in that more and more young people are viewing excess spending and wealth after meeting ones needs as excessive and look down upon it, then you could also point to a future where we actually shift from this purely capitalist view to a more social capital view point.

Regardless of what you think, it's all speculation.

View on HN

Not that Marc Andreessen is necessarily /right/, but the argument that the middle class "definitely exists" is, like any statement in sociology, rather difficult to prove.

In fact, "middle class" means different things in different places. In Britain, "middle class" generally refers to doctors, lawyers, bankers, senior government officials and many entrepreneurs. The higher rank "upper class" is historically reserved for genuine aristocrats - if you're not a Lord, Viscount, Baronet etc. then you're not upper class, no matter how wealthy you are. Richard Branson is "middle class" by this definition. Essentially, British middle-classness is about values rather than economic status; even a poor person can be middle class if they listen to Radio 4. (I simplify, but not by much).

Marxists (again, simplifying) generally describe the "middle class" as being a fairly narrow band of people who benefit from capitalism by virtue of occupying privileged positions - bankers, CEOs and so on - without actually being capitalists (owners of capital) themselves. In Marxist analysis, this middle class is effectively bribed to support capitalism by being rewarded with power over their fellow workers, but this power is always exercised on behalf of the capitalists. Weirdly, this idea of a narrow middle class of functionaries acting in close concert with [venture] capitalists is pretty close to the Andreessen world view as described in the OP!

If we accept the mainstream American definition of middle class as being about income levels, then Andreessen can still be correct if we read him as saying that the middle class does not /inevitably/ exist, or is not /inevitably/ as large as it is now. Falling median income in the US could, if continued, result in the eventual shrinkage of the middle class, or the redefinition of 'middle class' to include poorer people.

> If we accept the mainstream American definition of middle class as being about income levels, then Andreessen can still be correct if...

That's a lot of hoops, and at the end you get a result that doesn't really say anything interesting about changes in society. :-)

In the European definition of class, the big divider between working class and middle class is the value placed on education, and the optimism of the middle class. They believe that through the power of education they will have boundless opportunities as adults to shape their lives, lead a good life, and see their own children do the same.

And that class of people is growing, those values are spreading, so under that definition he is clearly wrong.

But as you say, under the American definition, yeah median income might be falling, and that makes him technically right. But is that position useful if the values of the middle class are spreading? If I were to make meaningful predictions about society, I would place greater importance to people's hopes and dreams and visions of the future, than changes in disposable income...

"even a poor person can be middle class if they listen to Radio 4."

If I understand the British system correctly, a poor person can even be upper class if he happens to be a Viscount whose family has fallen on hard times. Is that right?

Yes. A substantial fraction of the upper classes are quite poor, for many reasons, not least the rising costs of maintaining a family home. Some even turn to TV to help defray the costs, such as Francis Fulford in the series 'The F*ing Fulfords' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fucking_Fulfords). You can probably find clips on Youtube.

The wages would only be low if the skills are in low demand compared to their supply. If we only had VCs and no entrepreneurs, or if everybody was an entrepreneur and no one actually built stuff it wouldn't work either.

If you don't want to start a company (and you don't need to) just make sure you find a trade that has demand (or adjust your skills to that which does have demand). People still need english majors - somebody has to write the documentation, to write ad copy, just make sure you don't get into a profession out of laziness.

You need initiative to get anywhere.

Randist views can be healthy, to an extent, but like anything they're best in moderation.

I agree with the libertarian ideals, and the educational ideals popularized by Montessori, but the lack of ethical consideration of others is disheartening, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Criticis....

But sometimes the ethical consideration of others can have a paralyzing effect on an individual. Being a good person can involve a lot of anxiety over one's own actions.

It's something that's very hard to keep in balance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com