epicureanideal

Except at that point the wealthy homeowners will ask for bailouts.

If they want to pay lots of property taxes and contribute to payments for local infrastructure without actually using it, that’s probably a net good thing, IF there were enough additional homes to go around for others.

It may not be physically as hard but I think the work is more precarious, and the cost of living is much higher for basics like housing, so the stress may be higher.

IMO a substantial (not 100%) root cause of all this is that many Americans are highly stressed, in precarious financial positions, with toxic work environments, pushed to work at above 100% effort (meaning, unsustainable) permanently, so they turn to excessive amounts of calories, caffeine, prescription or illegal drugs, to try to continue to function as long as possible. This leads to all kinds of medical issues down the road, which then is handled by emergency medical services, or very severe health problems that are very difficult to treat.

From what I have heard, inside pharma companies it's often extremely dysfunctional and inefficient though.

I really wish there were a ton of drug discovery startups paying software engineer salaries. It'd be exciting to see faster advancement.

We need a way to concentrate the gains of things going in the other direction as well.

And of course, as processors improve this becomes more and more the case.

I would argue it’s because the whole economy is basically an oligopoly and there aren’t really enough opportunities for competition. Once a company reaches a certain level, it focuses on pulling up the ladder rather than climbing the ladder.

> Management does not care how or why the software does or doesn’t work - they just want 12 rules for life style platitudes and charisma.

Which clearly shows that something is wrong in the industry, or how management roles are filled, or how wealth and influence and opportunities are distributed generally.

At some point though something will happen such that they can’t keep their fist on the scale, and then the market can correct suddenly.

Unfortunately government intervention makes it even more unpredictable when that will be.

I’ll be happy to see all the dark matter, dark energy stuff explained away.

What are the specific job requirements? Have you posted on HN Who’s Hiring?

> leading to another perversion that for a significant group of people the only way to get medical care was when it was too late and most expensive

Too bad the hospitals don’t figure out some way of providing preventive care to the uninsured to reduce these costs.

Divorce, child support, alimony, and two weekends of time with your kids per month (what the majority of men end up with), can also be transformative!

If anyone reading this is thinking about having kids, be really careful who you have them with.

Any idea how far it would reach, what cities would actually be affected?

Lack of ideological capture of the public models.

Why wouldn’t the same speed of vaccine development be possible with protein vaccines?

> I'm gonna guess you're probably a sexist

I think this proves my point.

At vastly different rates. You’re talking about an extremely rare and legally and socially heavily discouraged behavior.

One could just as easily say “women kill their young children in every country”, because some mentally ill women sometimes do so. That’s not the same as societal acceptance of the practice.

Or we could generalize any negative behavior to any group that has members that do that behavior, which would obviously be an incorrect generalization.

Maybe only 10% of women stop working when they have kids, so few of them need alimony?

And again that’s separate from child support. I’d bet the child support number is 80%+, with the remainder being women that earn huge amounts of money or who decide not to be in their kids’ lives and have zero custody.

> Who would take that over a job with a 401k that moves with you?

Just going to say that the perspective of having kids and getting to spend your time not working, or stressing about work, and instead spending it with family and raising your kid, doesn’t seem like a hellish job to me, and besides that it isn’t clear to me the father would be the “employer” in that context, rather both work in the way they agree to within the context of their relationship for the benefit of their child. Many men would like to raise their kids while someone else goes to work.

> Self correcting in many ways but it is often 'corrected' by oppression and violence. Women did not forbid themselves from going outside or showing their faces.

Where in the western world is this happening?

Great points. And an interesting idea that it might be a self correcting problem on a society wide level, although I’m not sure how heritable relationship preferences might be, versus being culturally transmitted.

> if you leave or the company goes under, you may find yourself with nothing or worse

Untrue. Alimony, child support.

> Men, particularly young men, are having trouble adjusting to this.

I see just as much anecdotal evidence that men are often (who knows what the percent breakdown is) the ones no longer seeking relationships, and articles authored by women lamenting the availability of highly desirable male partners.

> 24/7, room and board only

This seems like an overly negative view. All the work isn’t done by one partner, income is spent by both, the female partner often spends a higher percent of the income statistically (not implying anything by this, they may just be the one shopping for groceries), they share in what the income buys and the lifestyle of the couple, they also keep half of the asset appreciation, etc.

Someone tell Alcor about this.

It would be great if there were certain specialized mini-doctor programs that focused on simple things like treating the least risky problems, maybe even with AI to help filter which problems need a “real doctor” vs a mini specialist.

We could theoretically have the best of both worlds, right?

No unnecessary gatekeeping, but maximum necessary quality standards (which I distinguish from gatekeeping).

Does the gatekeeping reliably ensure quality, or just filter down the quantity of doctors?

Or maybe it pushed everyone to innovate faster than they otherwise would’ve? I’m very interested to hear your reasoning for the other case though, and I am not strongly committed to the opposite view, or either view for that matter.