6 ms·

Yes, but even hidden, it's probably still going to appear quite significant, and I do believe that at some point, the fine size becomes nonsensical. But then a

Yes, but even hidden, it's probably still going to appear quite significant, and I do believe that at some point, the fine size becomes nonsensical. But then again, I do not think that who you are or what you have should change the magnitude of the crime you commit. I don't think it is sensible that I should get greater fines because I chose to bust my ass and suffer from stress to gain more for my family, whereas I could get a much smaller fine if I just lived a more laid back life. Granted, it's supposed to differentiate between the rich and poor, but in doing so it also differentiates between the hardworking and the lazy, punishing productivity and rewarding laziness.

monadgonad 8y ago
Oh, give it a break. People don't choose to be poor.
- cle 8y ago
  Some do, some don't. Blanket statements in either direction are incorrect and unproductive.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  I did not say that people chose to be poor. However, it does not seem fair to be punished for working harder than required.
  - askvictor 8y ago
    This is assuming wealth/income is cause by hard work; while that's true for some people, many are rich because their parents are rich (would be curious to see stats around this)
    - arghwhat 8y ago
      I cannot say much about the stats, but I only really know of rich-by-work rather than rich-by-luck. But I do not think we should design a system to cater for outliers with immense wealth. We should cater for the general population, and I believe that for non-Dubai prince wealth, it is likely that it likely came through work.
      - qw 8y ago
        You need to add social factors too. If you are born into poverty, it is not simply enough to work a bit harder than the average. The weight of all the factors against you will probably increase the workload by a magnitude compared to someone born into an average family.
        arghwhat 8y ago
        We are not working in absolutes here. Working twice as much does not make you Bill Gates, but it does double your income for an hourly paid job.
  - monadgonad 8y ago
    You're not being punished for that, you're being punished for a crime. That happens to be proportional to what you can give. What's not fair is fines that barely impact wealthy people.
    - arghwhat 8y ago
      Neither does it seem fair that I'll be fined twice as much if I work twice the hours, does it?
      - qw 8y ago
        A fine is supposed to discourage people from breaking the law. Is it fair that wealthy people can ignore the laws because they do not feel any real consequenes? I have heard drivers who constantly break the rules, because they can easily afford the fine. To them the occasional fine is just the price they have to pay for easy parking, or saving a minute on their drive. What alternative do you suggest?
        arghwhat 8y ago
        Several ideas: 1. Given a problem with people continuously ignoring the law, a simple serial-offender system should deal with it fairly. We already have that up here, with you having three "marks" on your license. Some offenses take a mark, with 3 marks costing you your license. Driving without a license has increasing penalty for repeated offenses, including jail-time after the first or first two offenses. We do not have the absurd concept of "bail", and with lifespans being roughly similar, poor and rich end up with similar pains if they are repeat offenders. 2. Given that very wealthy people being able to ignore laws appear to be outliers, with the average person not being able to do this, I would say that you could create special cases for these outliers. For example, average/rich brackets. Or even poor/average/filthy rich. 3. Just not designing laws that govern entire countries to deal with a few outliers. There will always be outliers, and people with enough money to get out of any situation, whether that is paying fines or paying good lawyers to wiggle their way out. There will also always be people parking illegally, or speeding. Hell, if I recall correctly, the Finnish government had stated that the speeding fines are important income, so you also suddenly end up with fines being necessary, rather than them being only a tool to stop an offense, which is absurd. (And for reference, for #3, I am talking about outliers within those that violate traffic laws. A serial killer is obviously an outlier which laws should be designed for, but I consider this a very different case.)
  - qw 8y ago
    I don’t think there is proof that a there is a connection between the salary level and how hard someone works. A person who works at minimum wage may work as hard as anyone else. Just look at all those who have to work two jobs to feed their family. I would think that if they had the opportunity to work harder at a single job and make more money, they would.
    - arghwhat 8y ago
      I did not say that salary = work. However, given your salary, increasing your effort increases your reward. A lazy banker earns more than a productive grocery store employee, but a grocery store employee taking twice as many shifts earns twice as much money as the regular grocery store employee. And they should not be punished for doing so. To roughly quantify a salary, it would be something like salary = base salary of trade x negotiation factor x hard work factor. Hard work should not be punished. If you want to equal out various types of work, you could say "based on average income for your position", rather than your income, but then other problems appear.
yesenadam 8y ago
It seems ridiculous to me to assume, as you seem to, that rich=hardworking and poor=lazy. Why not rich=lazy, poor=hardworking? That seems to make at least as much sense to me, to correspond to reality. No-one mentioned "changing the magnitude of the crime". The point is, if you get a $1000 fine, that could mean absolutely nothing to a millionaire/billionaire, but a lot to someone with $1000. Yet you talk as if fining a rich person more would be grossly unfair. Maybe you think everyone should pay the same taxes too. etc.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  This only holds for those that a born rich, or fell upon immense luck. For those below Dubai princes, the riches come from an entirely distorted work/life balance where you are never really off-duty, and immense responsibility. I intend to get there one day with hard work so my family can be well off. However, I do not see why it makes sense to punish me for it. Fining me twice as much because I work double the hours is unfair, and it certainly doesn't encourage growth. Also, for us small countries up in Scandinavia, a lot of business is lost to the US (technological services) and China (manufacturing), which is a big drain on our economy. Having actual local business (rather than just occasional offices of tax-evading organisations like Apple/Amazon/Microsoft that never have any income pass through here) greatly benefits our local economies. Even for those truly rich, they are usually rich because they know how to handle money (i.e. not wasting it on fines). The dickheads will do it regardless what it costs them, so setting a system to target them, while harming the common population, seems absurd.
  - monadgonad 8y ago
    > Fining me twice as much because I work double the hours is unfair, and it certainly doesn't encourage growth. Why on earth should a fine punishing you for a crime try to encourage growth? > I intend to get there one day with hard work so my family can be well off. Oh, it's almost as if your kids will grow up with wealth that they didn't have to work to earn, thus not being anything to do with how hardworking or lazy they are. Almost as if they'll be born rich, falling upon immense luck.
  - 8y ago
SquishyPanda23 8y ago
> punishing productivity and rewarding laziness. I'm unaware of any scientific evidence that wealth is the result of hard work and that poverty is the result of laziness. Can you cite empirical evidence for this claim?
- arghwhat 8y ago
  Many seem to interpret what I said as "poverty equals laziness". This was never in any way what I said. However, almost regardless of your situation, harder works gives greater results. You'll get significantly more if you work 14 hours a day instead of 8. Whether you're working a shit job and just trying to push up your work hours, you're trying to build your own company, or even if you're managing your multi-billion dollar portfolio, the more hours you put in the more you get. Should that be punished? I get that a Dubai prince racing at 300km/h through a school zone in his Bugatti Chiron is one case, but what about the guy/girl that took on much more work than average? Should their punishment be directly propertional to the life-shortening stress they're taking on? Designing laws around statistical outliers seem idiotic. The Dubai prince case is certainly not the norm. (Using Dubai prince as my general example for "absurd riches+irresponsible behavior" for no reason in particular)
  - scottishfiction 8y ago
    > You'll get significantly more if you work 14 hours a day instead of 8 That's another claim that it would be good to see some citations for. If you work in salaried position where overtime is unpaid (as many HNers will) then more than 8 hours of work will bring you no financial gain other than in those toxic workplaces where unpaid overtime is seen as a virtue.
    - arghwhat 8y ago
      In salaried positions, "overtime" is either rewarded with a raise or promotion. For the types of job you are thinking of where overtime is entirely uncompensated (such as a lot of developer gigs), you are not really working overtime. You are working exactly what was expected from your employer. Any less, and you'd risk losing your position. Different jobs have different expected baseline work. However, work above the expectation should still be compensated, and if it isn't, you're also within a group of people that is likely able to quit and find a different position at higher wage, or just a position where hard work will be rewarded. That is definitely the case for the developers here.
Entalpi 8y ago
Just working hard does not entail success implying that it does is untrue.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  That's a vast misinterpretation of what I wrote. Even for those in absolute poverty, if they work twice the hours, they will earn twice the wage. It may be an increase from $5 a month to $10 a month, but it's still double. The only time where twice the effort gives no gain is if you're doing something that has no gain at all. However, the poor work for cheap, not for free.
icebraining 8y ago
If your "productivity" leads you to drive dangerously, you're damn right we want you to be lazier. If you kill someone, or injure a child, the benefits to society from you pushing yourself too hard will be negative. If they aren't already. Don't want to be "unfairly" fined? Drive within the rules.
dang 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18529049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18529049 and marked it off-topic.

monadgonad 8y ago

Oh, give it a break. People don't choose to be poor.

cle 8y ago
Some do, some don't. Blanket statements in either direction are incorrect and unproductive.
arghwhat 8y ago
I did not say that people chose to be poor. However, it does not seem fair to be punished for working harder than required.
- askvictor 8y ago
  This is assuming wealth/income is cause by hard work; while that's true for some people, many are rich because their parents are rich (would be curious to see stats around this)
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    I cannot say much about the stats, but I only really know of rich-by-work rather than rich-by-luck. But I do not think we should design a system to cater for outliers with immense wealth. We should cater for the general population, and I believe that for non-Dubai prince wealth, it is likely that it likely came through work.
    - qw 8y ago
      You need to add social factors too. If you are born into poverty, it is not simply enough to work a bit harder than the average. The weight of all the factors against you will probably increase the workload by a magnitude compared to someone born into an average family.
      - arghwhat 8y ago
        We are not working in absolutes here. Working twice as much does not make you Bill Gates, but it does double your income for an hourly paid job.
- monadgonad 8y ago
  You're not being punished for that, you're being punished for a crime. That happens to be proportional to what you can give. What's not fair is fines that barely impact wealthy people.
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    Neither does it seem fair that I'll be fined twice as much if I work twice the hours, does it?
    - qw 8y ago
      A fine is supposed to discourage people from breaking the law. Is it fair that wealthy people can ignore the laws because they do not feel any real consequenes? I have heard drivers who constantly break the rules, because they can easily afford the fine. To them the occasional fine is just the price they have to pay for easy parking, or saving a minute on their drive. What alternative do you suggest?
      - arghwhat 8y ago
        Several ideas: 1. Given a problem with people continuously ignoring the law, a simple serial-offender system should deal with it fairly. We already have that up here, with you having three "marks" on your license. Some offenses take a mark, with 3 marks costing you your license. Driving without a license has increasing penalty for repeated offenses, including jail-time after the first or first two offenses. We do not have the absurd concept of "bail", and with lifespans being roughly similar, poor and rich end up with similar pains if they are repeat offenders. 2. Given that very wealthy people being able to ignore laws appear to be outliers, with the average person not being able to do this, I would say that you could create special cases for these outliers. For example, average/rich brackets. Or even poor/average/filthy rich. 3. Just not designing laws that govern entire countries to deal with a few outliers. There will always be outliers, and people with enough money to get out of any situation, whether that is paying fines or paying good lawyers to wiggle their way out. There will also always be people parking illegally, or speeding. Hell, if I recall correctly, the Finnish government had stated that the speeding fines are important income, so you also suddenly end up with fines being necessary, rather than them being only a tool to stop an offense, which is absurd. (And for reference, for #3, I am talking about outliers within those that violate traffic laws. A serial killer is obviously an outlier which laws should be designed for, but I consider this a very different case.)
- qw 8y ago
  I don’t think there is proof that a there is a connection between the salary level and how hard someone works. A person who works at minimum wage may work as hard as anyone else. Just look at all those who have to work two jobs to feed their family. I would think that if they had the opportunity to work harder at a single job and make more money, they would.
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    I did not say that salary = work. However, given your salary, increasing your effort increases your reward. A lazy banker earns more than a productive grocery store employee, but a grocery store employee taking twice as many shifts earns twice as much money as the regular grocery store employee. And they should not be punished for doing so. To roughly quantify a salary, it would be something like salary = base salary of trade x negotiation factor x hard work factor. Hard work should not be punished. If you want to equal out various types of work, you could say "based on average income for your position", rather than your income, but then other problems appear.

yesenadam 8y ago

It seems ridiculous to me to assume, as you seem to, that rich=hardworking and poor=lazy. Why not rich=lazy, poor=hardworking? That seems to make at least as much sense to me, to correspond to reality. No-one mentioned "changing the magnitude of the crime". The point is, if you get a $1000 fine, that could mean absolutely nothing to a millionaire/billionaire, but a lot to someone with $1000. Yet you talk as if fining a rich person more would be grossly unfair. Maybe you think everyone should pay the same taxes too. etc.

arghwhat 8y ago
This only holds for those that a born rich, or fell upon immense luck. For those below Dubai princes, the riches come from an entirely distorted work/life balance where you are never really off-duty, and immense responsibility. I intend to get there one day with hard work so my family can be well off. However, I do not see why it makes sense to punish me for it. Fining me twice as much because I work double the hours is unfair, and it certainly doesn't encourage growth. Also, for us small countries up in Scandinavia, a lot of business is lost to the US (technological services) and China (manufacturing), which is a big drain on our economy. Having actual local business (rather than just occasional offices of tax-evading organisations like Apple/Amazon/Microsoft that never have any income pass through here) greatly benefits our local economies. Even for those truly rich, they are usually rich because they know how to handle money (i.e. not wasting it on fines). The dickheads will do it regardless what it costs them, so setting a system to target them, while harming the common population, seems absurd.
- monadgonad 8y ago
  > Fining me twice as much because I work double the hours is unfair, and it certainly doesn't encourage growth. Why on earth should a fine punishing you for a crime try to encourage growth? > I intend to get there one day with hard work so my family can be well off. Oh, it's almost as if your kids will grow up with wealth that they didn't have to work to earn, thus not being anything to do with how hardworking or lazy they are. Almost as if they'll be born rich, falling upon immense luck.
- 8y ago

SquishyPanda23 8y ago

> punishing productivity and rewarding laziness. I'm unaware of any scientific evidence that wealth is the result of hard work and that poverty is the result of laziness. Can you cite empirical evidence for this claim?

arghwhat 8y ago
Many seem to interpret what I said as "poverty equals laziness". This was never in any way what I said. However, almost regardless of your situation, harder works gives greater results. You'll get significantly more if you work 14 hours a day instead of 8. Whether you're working a shit job and just trying to push up your work hours, you're trying to build your own company, or even if you're managing your multi-billion dollar portfolio, the more hours you put in the more you get. Should that be punished? I get that a Dubai prince racing at 300km/h through a school zone in his Bugatti Chiron is one case, but what about the guy/girl that took on much more work than average? Should their punishment be directly propertional to the life-shortening stress they're taking on? Designing laws around statistical outliers seem idiotic. The Dubai prince case is certainly not the norm. (Using Dubai prince as my general example for "absurd riches+irresponsible behavior" for no reason in particular)
- scottishfiction 8y ago
  > You'll get significantly more if you work 14 hours a day instead of 8 That's another claim that it would be good to see some citations for. If you work in salaried position where overtime is unpaid (as many HNers will) then more than 8 hours of work will bring you no financial gain other than in those toxic workplaces where unpaid overtime is seen as a virtue.
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    In salaried positions, "overtime" is either rewarded with a raise or promotion. For the types of job you are thinking of where overtime is entirely uncompensated (such as a lot of developer gigs), you are not really working overtime. You are working exactly what was expected from your employer. Any less, and you'd risk losing your position. Different jobs have different expected baseline work. However, work above the expectation should still be compensated, and if it isn't, you're also within a group of people that is likely able to quit and find a different position at higher wage, or just a position where hard work will be rewarded. That is definitely the case for the developers here.

Entalpi 8y ago

Just working hard does not entail success implying that it does is untrue.

arghwhat 8y ago
That's a vast misinterpretation of what I wrote. Even for those in absolute poverty, if they work twice the hours, they will earn twice the wage. It may be an increase from $5 a month to $10 a month, but it's still double. The only time where twice the effort gives no gain is if you're doing something that has no gain at all. However, the poor work for cheap, not for free.

icebraining 8y ago

If your "productivity" leads you to drive dangerously, you're damn right we want you to be lazier. If you kill someone, or injure a child, the benefits to society from you pushing yourself too hard will be negative. If they aren't already. Don't want to be "unfairly" fined? Drive within the rules.

dang 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18529049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18529049 and marked it off-topic.