4 ms·

> “An Outer Party member could reach the Inner Party by chancing into an early job at a lottery-ticket company (such as Facebook or Google) or by becoming a suc

by zck 8y ago

> “An Outer Party member could reach the Inner Party by chancing into an early job at a lottery-ticket company (such as Facebook or Google) or by becoming a successful entrepreneur. But that’s rare; most of the Outer Party prefers working for the Inner Party, gradually accumulating equity through stock grants and appreciating real estate.” -If you look at the bios of VC “inner party” people, very few were born VC. Many became VC based on their work experience. The quote calls this a “lottery-ticket” experience implying that there’s no free will involved with the shift between statuses. What the author is saying is "most people in the Outer Party will not join the Inner Party", not "most people in the Inner Party started in the Inner Party". Similarly, you could say it's rare for a US citizen to become President, even though all Presidents were US citizens.

prepend 8y ago
But of course that’s true. It’s also inconsequntial that most people in the outer party will not join the inner party (or that it’s rare for a US citizen to become President). That’s perfectly fine as there are way more engineers than VCs. This is only a problem when there is low mobility, like on caste systems. While it’s impossible for someone to change castes and they are born into it, it is possible for mobility between engineer and VC. Thus my complaint that the author’s piece isn’t logically sound as a mobile system with inequality isn’t a problem as long as there is efficiency and low barriers to access. Inequality isn’t bad inherently. It’s bad when corrupt. For example, it’s not bad that 1 out of 1M wins the lotto and now has way more. It’s bad if the lotto is rigged. But I suppose if the author believes that it’s bad that not everyone gets a trophy, then that should be a different argument. And a different piece. And not incorrectly refer to castes.

by zck 8y ago

prepend 8y ago

But of course that’s true. It’s also inconsequntial that most people in the outer party will not join the inner party (or that it’s rare for a US citizen to become President). That’s perfectly fine as there are way more engineers than VCs. This is only a problem when there is low mobility, like on caste systems. While it’s impossible for someone to change castes and they are born into it, it is possible for mobility between engineer and VC. Thus my complaint that the author’s piece isn’t logically sound as a mobile system with inequality isn’t a problem as long as there is efficiency and low barriers to access. Inequality isn’t bad inherently. It’s bad when corrupt. For example, it’s not bad that 1 out of 1M wins the lotto and now has way more. It’s bad if the lotto is rigged. But I suppose if the author believes that it’s bad that not everyone gets a trophy, then that should be a different argument. And a different piece. And not incorrectly refer to castes.