5 ms·

> Isn't that part of growing up though? Why have a life savings if you're only temporarily poor. You know you're going to be rich eventually, right? No, lettin

> Isn't that part of growing up though? Why have a life savings if you're only temporarily poor. You know you're going to be rich eventually, right? No, letting your dreams die is not a "part of growing up", good lord, how depressing. Think about what life savings are for a minute. It's literally a bunch of money you save over many years that you only get to spend once you're too old to work anymore. If we all just settled for this very pragmatic dream we wouldn't start companies, create art, or take any significant risks. > I think there's a implicit understanding with this quote that Americans not only have that "American dream", but we also don't expect to work for it. That's funny, because that's exactly how I would characterize Socialism; as the ability for anybody to attain the "American Dream" without having to work for it. If the Government could simply hand out American Dreams at the Bureau of American Dreams then why would anyone ever aim any higher? Why would anyone take a risk on anything or try to exceed expectations? > Part of dreaming big is understanding that you have to work towards it, or it won't happen. I don't feel like this is happening in America. (As an American) I agree completely, and that's precisely what the American Dream is. If people are misconstruing it as some handout that you don't have to work for then that's a problem and they need a big wakeup call. But I think the American Dream is still alive and well here, otherwise we might not be here on Hacker News keeping up to date with the latest happenings in the startup world and we might not be thinking of or attempting to start our own startups. But we clearly are, and we're doing it at a higher rate than any other country on the planet. The day the American Dream dies is the day we stop innovating as a country.

bduerst 11y ago
>as the ability for anybody to attain the "American Dream" without having to work for it. It's not impossible to get ahead in a socialist economy, it's just that the bar is raised for the lower classes. I think you're hitting on a bigger problem with American culture, which is the "hard working" bias. Is the employee who comes in at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better person?
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > Is the employee who comes in at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better person? No, just a more easily exploited one. I know the question was rhetorical. But I felt like answering it because you're absolutely right. Only in the US do you see people hold up themselves as better than others because they let their employer take advantage of them more. I wonder if working longer than colleagues actually does improve your chance at promotion like so many claim? Or simply means they leave you in that role longer because you're cheaper/more productive?
- marknutter 11y ago
  > It's not impossible to get ahead in a socialist economy, it's just that the bar is raised for the lower classes. Socialism is hinged upon making it harder for people to get ahead. If you get too far ahead, your gains are redistributed to those who you have left behind. By that definition, a pure Socialist system will ensure that nobody can ever get ahead of anybody else. > I think you're hitting on a bigger problem with American culture, which is the "hard working" bias. Is the employee who comes in at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better person? Ask this a different way: is the athlete who comes to the gym at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better athlete? The answer is, of course, yes. Sports are 100% meritocracies. You either perform, or you do not. The color of your skin, the disabilities you have, the socioeconomic status you grew up with; none of those things factor in. You can either perform better than the opposition, or you cannot. Full stop. There are very few people that would dispute that, yet for everything outside of sports there's a subsection of the population that has convinced themselves that hard work somehow doesn't equal success. Maybe it's because it's harder for people to relate to entrepreneurial success than it is to relate to success in a sport because the metrics for sports are very well defined. So if that's the case, to answer your question directly, we need to define the metric for success. In business, that's called profit. The hard working employee is a "better person" (your words) if their work results in greater profit for the company than the person coming in the bare minimum amount of time. If not, then yes, they're wasting their time just like the Athlete would be if their hard work didn't result in better performance in their sport.
  - papapra 11y ago
    "Sports are 100% meritocracies" - that's just very false, genetics and where you come from play a huge role.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      Genetics is part of merit in sports. Merit is how well you can perform. Genetics influences that. As for "where you come from": Can you supply some evidence for that assertion? I'll give you argument (not evidence, I admit) that your claim is false. If it were true, then someone could create a high-performing team simply by selecting people who came from the places that other teams ignore. (Or are you claiming that, for example, there aren't many hockey players coming from Hawaii, even though one would expect that the population would include some with the genetics and talent to be excellent? Well, raw talent means little. Merit means talent and preparation and discipline and coaching and genetics and drive and mental toughness and probably a few things I've forgotten. If you're not going to chase that sport because it's not culturally a thing where you are, then you aren't going to be very good at that sport.)
- kamaal 11y ago
  >>Is the employee who comes in at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better person? By some definition yes. Some body with that sort of work ethic, definitely would convey a message of discipline, commitment and a degree of attachment to one's job. I would rate that person far higher than a person who always shows up late and isn't half serious about their job. Work place isn't adult day care.
  - beachstartup 11y ago
    customers also demand it. some customers would rather be told the wrong information, at the right time of day, than the right information 2 hours later. i wouldn't have believed it until i saw it myself. people in general are insane, half of "work" is just catering to insanity.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deaddodo 11y ago
> If the Government could simply hand out American Dreams at the Bureau of American Dreams then why would anyone ever aim any higher? Why would anyone take a risk on anything or try to exceed expectations? You hate some odd quote, yet I hate this constantly perpetuated myth regarding socialism. Firstly, the most "driven" people aren't the wealthiest (though, it can occasionally be a side effect). The research scientist who forgoes money in some fortune 500 firm (or a more lucrative field of study) to instead focus on some obscure species of fauna? Probably way more driven than some sociopath focused on the bottom line. Second, socialism isn't about handouts. It's about moving the ownership of production from the hands of one central figure to the hands of those actually managing the production. Usually, this would mean shifting ownership to the employee collective, not state ownership (a la communism). It sounds like you might be making the mistake of equating "social democracy" (universal healthcare, social security, etc) with "socialism". Even if that's the case, I don't see the issue with helping my fellow man with basic health and well-being. It's pretty much the entire reason societies and nations were formed. We're advanced enough to offer it at this point. Lastly, automation is happening. At remarkable speeds. As we automate more, there's less labor to do. Period. In 50, 100, maybe 150 years; there's not going to be an option. There's a very good chance there will only be work left for the innovators and dreamers (the "Star Trek" model, ascribed to by techno-utopianists), some day. Even if that's not the case, unemployment levels are going to grow, and it's not due to people being "lazy" or "non-driven".
kamaal 11y ago
>>Think about what life savings are for a minute. They are means to buy the financial independence to free up your time, which you would have other wise spent on that job. Now you have time and resources to chase your dreams. To be able to romance with a dream, you need to be pragmatic first. Any dream of any magnitude requires ingredients most of which people neither have the drive to work for, nor the resources and most give up not long after they start when the realize the magnitude of the struggle the lies ahead in getting to it.

bduerst 11y ago

>as the ability for anybody to attain the "American Dream" without having to work for it. It's not impossible to get ahead in a socialist economy, it's just that the bar is raised for the lower classes. I think you're hitting on a bigger problem with American culture, which is the "hard working" bias. Is the employee who comes in at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better person?

Someone1234 11y ago
> Is the employee who comes in at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better person? No, just a more easily exploited one. I know the question was rhetorical. But I felt like answering it because you're absolutely right. Only in the US do you see people hold up themselves as better than others because they let their employer take advantage of them more. I wonder if working longer than colleagues actually does improve your chance at promotion like so many claim? Or simply means they leave you in that role longer because you're cheaper/more productive?
marknutter 11y ago
> It's not impossible to get ahead in a socialist economy, it's just that the bar is raised for the lower classes. Socialism is hinged upon making it harder for people to get ahead. If you get too far ahead, your gains are redistributed to those who you have left behind. By that definition, a pure Socialist system will ensure that nobody can ever get ahead of anybody else. > I think you're hitting on a bigger problem with American culture, which is the "hard working" bias. Is the employee who comes in at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better person? Ask this a different way: is the athlete who comes to the gym at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better athlete? The answer is, of course, yes. Sports are 100% meritocracies. You either perform, or you do not. The color of your skin, the disabilities you have, the socioeconomic status you grew up with; none of those things factor in. You can either perform better than the opposition, or you cannot. Full stop. There are very few people that would dispute that, yet for everything outside of sports there's a subsection of the population that has convinced themselves that hard work somehow doesn't equal success. Maybe it's because it's harder for people to relate to entrepreneurial success than it is to relate to success in a sport because the metrics for sports are very well defined. So if that's the case, to answer your question directly, we need to define the metric for success. In business, that's called profit. The hard working employee is a "better person" (your words) if their work results in greater profit for the company than the person coming in the bare minimum amount of time. If not, then yes, they're wasting their time just like the Athlete would be if their hard work didn't result in better performance in their sport.
- papapra 11y ago
  "Sports are 100% meritocracies" - that's just very false, genetics and where you come from play a huge role.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Genetics is part of merit in sports. Merit is how well you can perform. Genetics influences that. As for "where you come from": Can you supply some evidence for that assertion? I'll give you argument (not evidence, I admit) that your claim is false. If it were true, then someone could create a high-performing team simply by selecting people who came from the places that other teams ignore. (Or are you claiming that, for example, there aren't many hockey players coming from Hawaii, even though one would expect that the population would include some with the genetics and talent to be excellent? Well, raw talent means little. Merit means talent and preparation and discipline and coaching and genetics and drive and mental toughness and probably a few things I've forgotten. If you're not going to chase that sport because it's not culturally a thing where you are, then you aren't going to be very good at that sport.)
kamaal 11y ago
>>Is the employee who comes in at 7am and leaves at 7pm really a better person? By some definition yes. Some body with that sort of work ethic, definitely would convey a message of discipline, commitment and a degree of attachment to one's job. I would rate that person far higher than a person who always shows up late and isn't half serious about their job. Work place isn't adult day care.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  customers also demand it. some customers would rather be told the wrong information, at the right time of day, than the right information 2 hours later. i wouldn't have believed it until i saw it myself. people in general are insane, half of "work" is just catering to insanity.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deaddodo 11y ago

> If the Government could simply hand out American Dreams at the Bureau of American Dreams then why would anyone ever aim any higher? Why would anyone take a risk on anything or try to exceed expectations? You hate some odd quote, yet I hate this constantly perpetuated myth regarding socialism. Firstly, the most "driven" people aren't the wealthiest (though, it can occasionally be a side effect). The research scientist who forgoes money in some fortune 500 firm (or a more lucrative field of study) to instead focus on some obscure species of fauna? Probably way more driven than some sociopath focused on the bottom line. Second, socialism isn't about handouts. It's about moving the ownership of production from the hands of one central figure to the hands of those actually managing the production. Usually, this would mean shifting ownership to the employee collective, not state ownership (a la communism). It sounds like you might be making the mistake of equating "social democracy" (universal healthcare, social security, etc) with "socialism". Even if that's the case, I don't see the issue with helping my fellow man with basic health and well-being. It's pretty much the entire reason societies and nations were formed. We're advanced enough to offer it at this point. Lastly, automation is happening. At remarkable speeds. As we automate more, there's less labor to do. Period. In 50, 100, maybe 150 years; there's not going to be an option. There's a very good chance there will only be work left for the innovators and dreamers (the "Star Trek" model, ascribed to by techno-utopianists), some day. Even if that's not the case, unemployment levels are going to grow, and it's not due to people being "lazy" or "non-driven".

kamaal 11y ago

>>Think about what life savings are for a minute. They are means to buy the financial independence to free up your time, which you would have other wise spent on that job. Now you have time and resources to chase your dreams. To be able to romance with a dream, you need to be pragmatic first. Any dream of any magnitude requires ingredients most of which people neither have the drive to work for, nor the resources and most give up not long after they start when the realize the magnitude of the struggle the lies ahead in getting to it.