Hacker News Reader

Comment by falcolas | Hacker News Reader

I feel stupidly lucky that I got to where I am today. I was living in a friend's apartment with about $100 in "savings" and no job prospects in a town where I knew one person.

Now, I own a house, work as a software developer and get paid nearly stupid amounts of money.

Luck, a few good people (Brian, we still appreciate the $100!), and a natural affinity for computers are all that separate me from working those same minimum wage jobs and living hand to mouth.

However, having crossed that line in both directions has also made me aware that even with all of that, I'm still only a few months of unemployment away from being homeless again. I only hope that the startup I work for doesn't go under, and that if it does I can find another good paying job.

View on HN

I too have been similarly lucky - was not able to find a job for 2 1/2 years until I taught myself programming, and the money flows like water as a hard working & smart frontend engineer. In the interim I was living off of military reserve pay and friends' apartments. I focused on long term decision making, and it paid off handsomely, but it did put some strain on friendships - I have compensated them some in return, but I still feel indebted to them.

Do you feel the need to remedy this injustice, when, as you claim, the difference between you and a poor person is luck?

Across a population this kind of 'bad luck' can have huge economic costs, and is a massive drag on innovation and productivity.

It's not just about personal stories.

Falcolas might not have been able to borrow $100, and would likely have ended up somewhere very different.

And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.

You might think 'There are others' - and you'd be right.

But the effects scale. If enough people don't get a break, opportunities shrink across the landscape.

'And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.'

Not only the startup economy.

Brief thought experiment:

Imagine two people. Person A is a car mechanic. Person B is a software developer. Neither are employed but both are more skilled and likely more efficient than each other in their respective fields.

Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other.

This is a vast oversimplification (in this case, they could just directly barter and exchange no funds, or even if they did exchange funds $50 would flow one way and right back the other).

But the economy dies with the middle class. When no-one can afford to partake in services, we all suffer.

> Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other.

If they don't have dollars, they can pay each other in IOUs (which aren't divisible, but otherwise would work fine).

Well, that's basically what credit is. You expect to be paid in the future, so you can buy things now.

Affordability is about more than simply having some means to pay, though.

I often struggle to find a word that fits well here.

The dictionary defines afford to mean: 'to be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect'.

By that standard, some people who can't afford to go to college actually do. The means are available via loans, but there are serious consequences and they will be saddled with large amounts of debt. So what's the term for that?

I don't think 'afford' as a proxy for 'strictly possible' is very useful and I'd be glad to hear of an alternative.

This is called "comparative advantage". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

This description of it by P.J. O'Rourke in "Eat the Rich" uses the respective talents of John Grisham and Courtney Love to explain it.

http://appliedabstractions.com/2004/11/30/ricardo-explained-...

This is a loaded question. Where is injustice?

Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose

I think there's a disease that infects modern thought that attributes any success to "dumb luck". It makes the pursuit of a better life seem pointless and social inequality seem like an injustice we must point the government at to remedy. I don't think this is a new thought, just the modern flavor of a cycle that repeats itself every century or so. Find the rich man, the jew, the doctor. Sack his residence and take all of his belongings.

And the premise that underlies that whole thing: It's unfair due to the wealthy having an unfair advantage because of their wealth. It's the easy answer to a chicken/egg problem, one that suits the agenda. The problem being which came first, wealth or whatever it is that "gives" wealth. Ambition, dedication, drive, charisma, you name it.

Well, in the case of the real world currently, usually wealth came first. It came first because you can inherit wealth in various forms: either through land, money or even education. Parents being able to afford a way better education for their children offer them far more than those who don't.

I think the fundamental question here is: what is the natural state, equality or inequality? If inequality is the natural state (which I think it is), it can't be a "purpose", it just exists.

That is not a fundamental question. We don't care if it is natural or not, all we care about is whether it is acceptable or not. If it is not acceptable, you need a reason to ignore it.

The first law of thermodynamics is not acceptable to me, yet it is natural and there's nothing I can do to change or ignore it (I was going to also give gravity as an example, but that one is more complicated).

So what? Small pox is natural and not acceptable to me, but hey: cured.

I'm glad that you found an excuse not to violate the laws of nature, but that doesn't mean you don't need a reason. It means you already have one.

Just because there are some things that can be fought doesn't mean that all things you/we deem "unacceptable" can be eliminated. Some things always exist, like the first law of thermodynamics (one example) and drug use (people deemed drug use "unacceptable" and initiated the "War on Drugs", and look how well that turned out).

Not everything in life is under our control.

No, but it doesn't mean they _can't be_ either. Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant.

>Not everything in life is under our control.

Who cares!? Are you going to spend your time repeating trivially useless facts? You have said nothing at all that allows you to distinguish between what can and can't be controlled. 'Naturalness' isn't it, for what should be obvious reasons.

You do not know what is under your control until you try to control it.

> Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant.

I disagree. Man-made phenomena can all be fought and reversed (so it's worth trying), but not all natural ones can (so it can be worth trying to fight them, but one must also know when to give up).

This started with the statement "Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose", which implies (or at least that's how I interpreted it) that social inequality is some man-made phenomenon, and we'd all be equal if not for some evil overlords "keeping us down". I disagree with this theory.

I'd like to add that in a state of nature, man is in a state of injustice. Social justice is by definition a byproduct of conscious thinking against a natural state of disrepair.

Not sure how to interpret the pounding of downvotes.

Do others feel that no injustice exists in a situation where comfortable living and hopeless suffering are deemed products by luck?

Is it a disagreement that the GP's situation is based on luck (I never made that claim, GP did)?

Is it disagreement that people living comfortably based on self-admitted luck should concern themselves with those who perpetually suffer because they weren't as lucky?

Something else I'm oblivious to?

The abruptness of your comment seemed to imply that it is less of a genuine question, and more of a passive-aggressive lashing out against the luck I had (or the emphasis I place on luck in getting where I am today).

But then again, I'm terrible at sensing the subtext of other people's written words, so I ended up simply taking the question at its face value.

Frankly, yes. But since I can do nothing about a person's luck, I do what I can for the person themselves.

And I do that by simply doing the same things which were done for me. When I can afford to, I will freely give money to someone who is down on their luck (I've paid many a utility bill these past few years). I recommend people for jobs and guide them on getting the skills which will pay. I open my house to people who need it, letting them stay as long as necessary to get back on their feet.

It's not much, but it's something (and more importantly, it's something I actually have the power to do). And in my limited experience, it's helped.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com