5 ms·
In several fields, people at the top 1% of skill level earn many times those at top 10% and the mediocre ones may barely get by. This phenomenon is spreading be
by nopinsight 8y ago
In several fields, people at the top 1% of skill level earn many times those at top 10% and the mediocre ones may barely get by. This phenomenon is spreading because better technologies enable top performers to serve more people.
(See: the Superstar effect for the most extreme examples. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superstar_Effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superstar_Effect)
How would the average workers or even ‘semi-rads’ in generally less lucrative fields like arts or cooking save enough for their retirements if they settle for that skill level?
- godelmachine 8y agoPower law at work. Very valid question at the end. No one can afford settling at moderate skill levels these days
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- SpanishConf 8y agoLive in Europe
- nopinsight 8y agoThis assumes that the pension system there will be able to sustain itself in a few decades hence despite low birth rates and limited immigration. Also, most people in developing countries, i.e. most people in the world, do not have that option.
- SpanishConf 8y ago> This assumes that the pension system there will be able to sustain itself in a few decades hence despite low birth rates and limited immigration. Indeed, the system is not perfect and the general outlook of it is pretty bad. But you still have a higher chance of getting a pension at 65 in Europe than in the US while being mediocre. Also don't forget automation, which I'd assume will trickle down to benefit the lower and middle European Class faster than it'll happen in the US. Again, assumptions. The future is unsure for sure. >Also, most people in developing countries, i.e. most people in the world, do not have that option. Indeed. But most people on HN are usually from North America or WE, so you know... saying that is a bit disingenuous. You could say "most people are _dirt_ (emphasis on dirt) poor and cannot lift themselves out of poverty". Yes, most people in the world are like that, but we all know that for example this article is not directed at those sorts of people, but rather at "Westeners", who probably won't go hungry in their lives ever unless a major catastrophe happens.
- nopinsight 8y agoThere is a huge number of people in the world outside of the West who are between "dirt-poor" and having European-style pension. They do read such self-help articles.
- csomar 8y agoYes. Many people cites Europe/France as a good example of retirement/healthcare and forget that the pension system is a Scam. They are basically paying current retirees with what the current employees are paying. A state-lead Ponzi Scheme. The system will eventually implode.
- yesenadam 8y agoSo which countries would you 'cite as a good example of retirement/healthcare'?
- SpanishConf 8y agoFrance, Germany, Spain, etc... Are they perfect? No, though.
- Double_a_92 8y agoAs long as you have many young people and few old, that's a good system. Basically "taking care of your parents" but through the state in a collective manner.
- nopinsight 8y agoFew developed countries--the US and Australia are the only exceptions I can think of--have that population structure.
- jpatokal 8y agoWell, consider being a chef. Does it make sense to shoot to be the next cooking superstar Rene Redzepi or Ferran Adria and achieve success on culinary skills alone? Or instead be a competent cook who also knows how to balance a checkbook, hire & manage staff, design an appealing menu, negotiate with suppliers, do marketing and thus be able to survive and make money in the cut-throat restaurant biz where something like 9 out of 10 new entrants fail within a year? (Mind you, I'm pretty sure Redzepi and Adria also know how to balance a checkbook...)
- imgabe 8y agoHow sustainable is that model going to be? It's mathematically impossible for everyone to be in the top 1%.
- akvadrako 8y agoNot if we create 10 billion different specialties.
- digitalsushi 8y agoI think what makes it a 1% is the disparity of demand.