7 ms·

I hate this attitude among Americans. Like there is some strategy you can play that will make sure you won't get screwed over in life, and that if you do get sc

I hate this attitude among Americans. Like there is some strategy you can play that will make sure you won't get screwed over in life, and that if you do get screwed over in life it's because your strategy was wrong. It has so much more to do with luck than I think people like you are willing to admit. Where is the compassion in your writing? This story is about people losing their jobs simply because they're old and used up by a society that doesn't give a shit. And here you are talking about strategies for success. It's gross.

achillesheels 8y ago
>> I hate this attitude among Americans. Like there is some strategy you can play that will make sure you won't get screwed over in life, and that if you do get screwed over in life it's because your strategy was wrong. That’s called life? You make it sound as though the existence of risk in life is an evil, rather than a plain fact.
dang 8y ago
Please keep nationalistic slurs far away from Hacker News, regardless of who you have a problem with. In addition, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow all the rules when posting here. They include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
ThrowMeDown01 8y ago
Also, another confusion of "anyone" vs. "everyone". The English language has those two distinct words, unlike my own native language, so English speakers should actually be at an advantage here. Any time someone comes up with an example that (in an idealized universe, but let's grant them the unrealistic assumption because it does not even affect the final result) would work for anyone, make a check if it works for everyone, meaning what would happen if everyone actually did just that. I think such huge levels of new "entrepreneurs" just means you get something like "Uber jobs". All the risk of being on your own but none of the benefits of being part of a large organization. Even if every single new entrepreneur were to cure one kind of cancer - how many such people are needed before the ROI on a cure for a cancer form is down to pennies? Just to use an extreme example where every single person actually is a genius. Now imagine what happens when most people are ordinary. Not to mention that actual monetization of cures for forms of cancer can only be handled by - large companies! It seems to me to be quite clear, given the complexity of what needs to be done in today's world economy (vs. shoe makers or smiths or XYZ makers in centuries past who could happily work alone or with just family) that most people in the economy should be employed and part of large(r) organizations. If everybody is an individual (entrepreneur) this would not fit into how modern society works, solving complex tasks in a tight network of people. To me it's like propagating a mostly bacteria world because multicellular organisms, where individuals give up most of their autonomy and prefer to be part of a big organization, are somehow "bad" (and cancer cells, breaking out of the organization to follow their own path, are somehow rebels fighting for freedom?). To me, people giving up many of their freedoms to work in a higher-level form of organization is something positive, and I think we actually need more of it. The problem is that, following the multicellular organism analogy, today's organisms (firms) are quite hostile towards their own cells (workers). Too narrow-minded. They could (allowed to) be that way - if the parent organization, the state, would jump in and provide the safety instead, on the (even) higher level. For the unbelievable wealth (in tools, knowledge, infrastructure, processes, networks) that at least part of humanity has accumulated and achieved I think we have waaayyyyy too much risk completely unnecessarily put on individuals, for no good reason. We could easily give everyone food and shelter and some basics. To me, much of that pressure on people is completely artificial. "Sure, we could feed you, but we won't because you are unworthy."
- achillesheels 8y ago
  1) most ordinary entrepreneurs can find plenty of work handling finished goods, e.g. FBA. It’s the capital that is needed for them to start which is a problem for those who would rather buy a mortgage, vacation, etc. than build a business. 2) I find your opinion of a corporate social contract terrifying. If anything, entrepreneurialism is necessary for the ex nihilo creation of labor demand to keep society stable.
  - ThrowMeDown01 8y ago
    What a strange reply. Your 1) Please read again, this does not fit to anything I wrote. Especially the main point, that inconvenient "anybody" vs. "everybody" thing that you completely ignore. Your 2) This too has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. You respond to whatever strange visions appear in your own mind. I'm very sorry for you if you find the idea that people who are down and/or out are getting help so frightening, that non-rich people don't have to live in fear. And if you want to point to the "overachievers" - again see my main point and answer those points (first you have to actually notice and acknowledge them, of which there is no sign even though it was the main point of my post, "anybody" vs. "everybody").
    - dang 8y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our many requests to stop. Could you please not create accounts to do that with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - achillesheels 8y ago
      Sorry, the quotes I address for better context: 1) “Just to use an extreme example where every single person actually is a genius. Now imagine what happens when most people are ordinary.” My capitalization caveat for ordinary entrepreneurs was to preempt the response that ordinary people can’t afford to quit their day jobs. 2) “To me, people giving up many of their freedoms to work in a higher-level form of organization is something positive, and I think we actually need more of it.” I disagreed. We need more disagreeableness in society and less conformity. Anyone can but not everyone will ;).
yayana 8y ago
I also think it is counterproductive for each to try to think the way proposed. The market gets cheap expert consultants without the higher medical costs that come with the time it took to create them and still bringing down the wages of new workers. The workers are collectively screwed because they competed on strategies rather than collectively bargaining. If I end up a well paid consultant in my retirement, then I just sold even more of my life away for the garbage the market produces to justify endless competition. I really only need my portion of the basics, like every other worker.
unixhero 8y ago
Yeah it's gross. It doesn't apply in all tiers of corporate/company life, but it certainly does in the upper (Fortune500) ones and so on. That is what I've seen so far. Very Machiavellian. To be honest, I'm about to take my hat and run, myself.
apatters 8y ago
What you've done here is create multiple strawmen, attribute them to me, and then rationalize this fictional version of me as a "typical American." It's very insulting. Nowhere did I say luck doesn't play a part. Nowhere did I say I lack compassion for the people in the article. Nowhere did I say that I think things are fine as they are. The reality of the business world today is that employment is at-will. There's nothing stopping employers doing the things described in this article. So I offered up a way that people I know have managed to improve their career outcomes. Having several consulting clients is often a lower-risk approach to the later stages of your career than depending on one employer for all of your income. This is a forum dedicated to entrepreneurship so I think my comments are appropriate here.
- bad-joke 8y ago
  > The reality of the business world today is that employment is at-will. There's nothing stopping employers doing the things described in this article. So I offered up a way that people I know have managed to improve their career outcomes. Here's a way to improve career outcomes: roll back at-will employment laws and give labor more leverage in negotiations with management.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    >roll back at-will employment laws and give labor more leverage in negotiations with management. Historically we've killed & bombed our very own citizens for trying to change things like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
mmirate3 8y ago
Compassion is overrated, at best.

achillesheels 8y ago

>> I hate this attitude among Americans. Like there is some strategy you can play that will make sure you won't get screwed over in life, and that if you do get screwed over in life it's because your strategy was wrong. That’s called life? You make it sound as though the existence of risk in life is an evil, rather than a plain fact.

dang 8y ago

Please keep nationalistic slurs far away from Hacker News, regardless of who you have a problem with. In addition, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow all the rules when posting here. They include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

ThrowMeDown01 8y ago

Also, another confusion of "anyone" vs. "everyone". The English language has those two distinct words, unlike my own native language, so English speakers should actually be at an advantage here. Any time someone comes up with an example that (in an idealized universe, but let's grant them the unrealistic assumption because it does not even affect the final result) would work for anyone, make a check if it works for everyone, meaning what would happen if everyone actually did just that. I think such huge levels of new "entrepreneurs" just means you get something like "Uber jobs". All the risk of being on your own but none of the benefits of being part of a large organization. Even if every single new entrepreneur were to cure one kind of cancer - how many such people are needed before the ROI on a cure for a cancer form is down to pennies? Just to use an extreme example where every single person actually is a genius. Now imagine what happens when most people are ordinary. Not to mention that actual monetization of cures for forms of cancer can only be handled by - large companies! It seems to me to be quite clear, given the complexity of what needs to be done in today's world economy (vs. shoe makers or smiths or XYZ makers in centuries past who could happily work alone or with just family) that most people in the economy should be employed and part of large(r) organizations. If everybody is an individual (entrepreneur) this would not fit into how modern society works, solving complex tasks in a tight network of people. To me it's like propagating a mostly bacteria world because multicellular organisms, where individuals give up most of their autonomy and prefer to be part of a big organization, are somehow "bad" (and cancer cells, breaking out of the organization to follow their own path, are somehow rebels fighting for freedom?). To me, people giving up many of their freedoms to work in a higher-level form of organization is something positive, and I think we actually need more of it. The problem is that, following the multicellular organism analogy, today's organisms (firms) are quite hostile towards their own cells (workers). Too narrow-minded. They could (allowed to) be that way - if the parent organization, the state, would jump in and provide the safety instead, on the (even) higher level. For the unbelievable wealth (in tools, knowledge, infrastructure, processes, networks) that at least part of humanity has accumulated and achieved I think we have waaayyyyy too much risk completely unnecessarily put on individuals, for no good reason. We could easily give everyone food and shelter and some basics. To me, much of that pressure on people is completely artificial. "Sure, we could feed you, but we won't because you are unworthy."

achillesheels 8y ago
1) most ordinary entrepreneurs can find plenty of work handling finished goods, e.g. FBA. It’s the capital that is needed for them to start which is a problem for those who would rather buy a mortgage, vacation, etc. than build a business. 2) I find your opinion of a corporate social contract terrifying. If anything, entrepreneurialism is necessary for the ex nihilo creation of labor demand to keep society stable.
- ThrowMeDown01 8y ago
  What a strange reply. Your 1) Please read again, this does not fit to anything I wrote. Especially the main point, that inconvenient "anybody" vs. "everybody" thing that you completely ignore. Your 2) This too has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. You respond to whatever strange visions appear in your own mind. I'm very sorry for you if you find the idea that people who are down and/or out are getting help so frightening, that non-rich people don't have to live in fear. And if you want to point to the "overachievers" - again see my main point and answer those points (first you have to actually notice and acknowledge them, of which there is no sign even though it was the main point of my post, "anybody" vs. "everybody").
  - dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our many requests to stop. Could you please not create accounts to do that with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - achillesheels 8y ago
    Sorry, the quotes I address for better context: 1) “Just to use an extreme example where every single person actually is a genius. Now imagine what happens when most people are ordinary.” My capitalization caveat for ordinary entrepreneurs was to preempt the response that ordinary people can’t afford to quit their day jobs. 2) “To me, people giving up many of their freedoms to work in a higher-level form of organization is something positive, and I think we actually need more of it.” I disagreed. We need more disagreeableness in society and less conformity. Anyone can but not everyone will ;).

yayana 8y ago

I also think it is counterproductive for each to try to think the way proposed. The market gets cheap expert consultants without the higher medical costs that come with the time it took to create them and still bringing down the wages of new workers. The workers are collectively screwed because they competed on strategies rather than collectively bargaining. If I end up a well paid consultant in my retirement, then I just sold even more of my life away for the garbage the market produces to justify endless competition. I really only need my portion of the basics, like every other worker.

unixhero 8y ago

Yeah it's gross. It doesn't apply in all tiers of corporate/company life, but it certainly does in the upper (Fortune500) ones and so on. That is what I've seen so far. Very Machiavellian. To be honest, I'm about to take my hat and run, myself.

apatters 8y ago

What you've done here is create multiple strawmen, attribute them to me, and then rationalize this fictional version of me as a "typical American." It's very insulting. Nowhere did I say luck doesn't play a part. Nowhere did I say I lack compassion for the people in the article. Nowhere did I say that I think things are fine as they are. The reality of the business world today is that employment is at-will. There's nothing stopping employers doing the things described in this article. So I offered up a way that people I know have managed to improve their career outcomes. Having several consulting clients is often a lower-risk approach to the later stages of your career than depending on one employer for all of your income. This is a forum dedicated to entrepreneurship so I think my comments are appropriate here.

bad-joke 8y ago
> The reality of the business world today is that employment is at-will. There's nothing stopping employers doing the things described in this article. So I offered up a way that people I know have managed to improve their career outcomes. Here's a way to improve career outcomes: roll back at-will employment laws and give labor more leverage in negotiations with management.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  >roll back at-will employment laws and give labor more leverage in negotiations with management. Historically we've killed & bombed our very own citizens for trying to change things like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

mmirate3 8y ago

Compassion is overrated, at best.