Hacker News Reader

Comment by revelation | Hacker News Reader

Neocon nonsense. But this just takes the cake:

http://profoundlydisconnected.com/skill-work-ethic-arent-tab...

I don't think you know what a neoconservative is. Neoconservativism is about foreign policy, and, to the extent it engages with domestic policy and the economy at all, it has centrist tendencies; "neocon" is a label originally applied pejoratively to academic liberals who shifted to the right during the cold war regarding the US's role in the world.

Your dismissal of Rowe's post as "nonsense" would be more compelling if it was accompanied by words you actually understood.

Do you think citing the definition of it from some dictionary is of any relevance to their popular use?

It seems you are as happy to quickly dismiss something on inane reasons as I am :)

Rowe is a bit difficult to figure out. Many of the things he says are are quite sensible, but they seem to be couched in neocon notions of American exceptionalism and blame-the-poor economics.

I don't know much about him except from what I say during his appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher.

"American exceptionalism" is indeed a notion of neoconservativism. Unfortunately for your comment, it is entirely absent from the post we're commenting on. Perhaps you can find some other source to back your assertion up? Let's be clear on what "exceptionalism" means: it does not mean that the writer believes America to be a great country, because most writers believe their countries to be great; some even believe many countries to be great simultaneously! Exceptionalism means an argument that America is so great that it should function by different rules than all other countries. My bet is that you're going to have a hard time finding Rowe saying anything like that, because he doesn't write about foreign policy.

Meanwhile, "blame-the-poor economics" are indeed an (unfortunate) notion of right-wing conservatism. But unfortunately for your comment, (a) nowhere in this post does Rowe blame the poor for anything, and (b) the "neo" in "neocon" alludes to the fact that neocons do not in fact hew to the domestic policy notions of right-wing conservatives.

In what part of the linked exchange did he 'blame the poor'?

There are many causes of poverty and I don't think lack of hard work is a big one. However when it comes to young people deciding how they will make their way in the world I think a lot choose to go into debt for a four year degree that won't help them in the real world. That is not a wise decision and so we should encourage those people to make better decisions even if they don't get their dream job right out of the gate at least they would be employable.

For a few of us, it reads as him basically blaming them for not taking the jobs he references time and again.

Maybe that is unfair, but it does echo in the rhetoric to me.

I think he'd be more likely to agree that people just don't know, as in there is an information problem.

This doesn't fit with his rhetoric.

    "Doesn’t it make sense to fill those positions before we start demanding that companies create more opportunities that people don’t aspire to?"  

    "And no matter where I went, the biggest challenge was always the same – finding people who were willing to learn a new skill and work hard."

    "Because virtually every single trainee decided it was just too damn hot. I’m not even kidding. They just didn’t want to work in the heat. And so … they didn’t."

To be fair, he goes well out of his way to not directly criticize everyone. Only, it reads in the same way that I am going out of my way not to imply he is being an ass. :)

My original comments were based on reading additional pages of Rowe's web site...in particular his work pledge:

http://profoundlydisconnected.com/skill-work-ethic-arent-tab...

> 3. I believe there is no such thing as a “bad job.” I believe that all jobs are opportunities, and it’s up to me to make the best of them.

> 6. I believe that my safety is my responsibility. I understand that being in “compliance” does not necessarily mean I’m out of danger.

> 10. I believe that I am a product of my choices – not my circumstances. I will never blame anyone for my shortcomings or the challenges I face. And I will never accept the credit for something I didn’t do.

> 11. I understand the world is not fair, and I’m OK with that. I do not resent the success of others.

> 12. I believe that all people are created equal. I also believe that all people make choices. Some choose to be lazy. Some choose to sleep in. I choose to work my butt off.

On the surface his rhetoric seems reasonable, but there's a libertarian bent to his ideas that suggests he places the onus for success squarely on the individual rather than the individual and society at large.

#1 and #2 are a bit conservative and nationalistic, but I see nothing wrong with the rest.

Basically the summary: "I love America, and am lucky to live here. I'm going to work hard, because hard work is the path to success. Lazy people suck." OMG! Tea bagger!

Where do you see Rowe singling anyone out as "lazy"?

I actually agree with the linked pledge for the most part. That said, to answer your question, item #12 is:

12. I believe that all people are created equal. I also believe that all people make choices. Some choose to be lazy. Some choose to sleep in. I choose to work my butt off.

Not really seeing the problem with #2, but #3 has me mad. There are plenty of bad jobs that wear down your body and mind while offering subsistence or below-subsistence wage, and offer no or false hopes for advancement.

I'm curious what part of that pledge you think is non-sensical.

#2: I happen to believe that people should be entitled to education, healthcare, safety and respect.

#3: There are certainly bad jobs. Jobs where the employer does not pay, abuses their workforce etc.

#5: Debt you cannot afford? Sure. But sometimes debt is useful. A mortgage or a business loan for example.

#6: Safety is everyone's responsibility. It's all well and good that you behave well but if Bill decides he doesn't need to follow safety precautions it can just as easily injure, maim or kill others as well as himself.

#7: Don't I regularly see "Work smarter, not harder" plastered over HN? If the only way you can stand out is by working more, you're either at the top of your game or you can do whatever you are doing better.

#8: "The machines here are not maintained correctly, but I guess complaining is bad so I'll either put up with it or leave."

#10 (ish): Car accident breaks both your legs, you can no longer perform manual labour. Tornado destroys your business, insurance shrugs and pays you a pittance. Someone else's bad decisions cause an equipment failure that costs you an arm.

#11: These two sentences are not equivalent. I'm okay saying I agree with the latter, but not the former. I'm not okay with the fact the world is not fair and feel it's a noble cause to try and correct this.

#12: This just reeks of the blame the poor mindset I see in a lot of US conservatives (and in our own UK conservatives to be fair).

I read Mike's list and it filled me with ferver and the desire to stand up and make my life better. I read you list and it made me want to sit on my butt and mope.

In my experience, leaving emotion out of the decision making process usually yields more optimal decisions.

I couldn't care less about the warm words in that pledge. I'm fearful of the mindset of the person that wrote it.

We all fancy the "meritocracy" mindset, but we can't just ignore that there are very, very important factors at play (your gender, the color of your skin, your upbringing, the wealth of your family, the social standing of your family..) that determine a persons success regardless of their conduct, determination or other internal factors.

If an employer is dumb enough to not hire a great worker because of their gender or skin color, then that business is doomed in the long run anyways. Because somewhere out there is a competitor who will snatch up that talented person and crush them.

Capitalism is a brutal business, but it does have a way of sorting these things out.

> Because somewhere out there is a competitor who will snatch up that talented person and crush them.

Empirically, this is not always the case.

Prescriptive, not descriptive.

If you actually believed that stuff to be true about the world you'd be factually incorrect, but the guy who embraces work with that attitude will do better and be happier than the guy who doesn't. Political and economic awareness and a work ethic aren't incompatible.

who really cares what else is on their website? That kind of offtopic posting can explain some of the downvotes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com