4 ms·

Is that a reasonable metric to use? (edit: ... to declare success?) We can have major progress and still not have sufficient progress. We can make major improv

Is that a reasonable metric to use? (edit: ... to declare success?) We can have major progress and still not have sufficient progress. We can make major improvements and still feel like we have a long way to go. Just because we're better off than our grandparents doesn't erase that some of us are relatively badly off against today's standard, and we could be doing more to help those who are at the bottom of our socioeconomic ladder.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Is that a reasonable metric to use? Yes, it is. There is hyperbole on both sides of this debate. Being able to show we've made historic progress makes future potential progress look more realistic. It shows our institutions are capable of solving this problem.
- Pfhreak 8y ago
  That's fair! Assuming you are making the argument that we are making progress. I should amend my statement to say, "Is that a reasonable metric to use to declare success?" I regularly bump into folks who say, "Well, what more should we do? We're already better than we were 100 years ago."
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > I should amend my statement to say, "Is that a reasonable metric to use to declare success?" Got it. I think there may be confusion between a metric and a threshold. The metric being certain objective measures of quality of life. The thresholds being where we were 100 years ago, where we are today, and where we should be today. More broadly, anyone "declaring success" on such a broad question is--at best--deluded. More common is people throwing their hands up at what looks like an insurmountable problem. I've found pointing out the often-unappreciated magnitude of recent historical performance to be useful in that respect.
skookumchuck 8y ago
> today's standard If you keep moving the goal posts, you'll never get there.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  Isn't moving the goal posts the whole point, though? If we didn't do that then we would declare "mission accomplished" as long as everyone wasn't sleeping on a dirt floor and dying of malaria. Social welfare success should always be a moving target relative to the ability of the society in which it exists to create it.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Is that a reasonable metric to use? Yes, it is. There is hyperbole on both sides of this debate. Being able to show we've made historic progress makes future potential progress look more realistic. It shows our institutions are capable of solving this problem.

Pfhreak 8y ago
That's fair! Assuming you are making the argument that we are making progress. I should amend my statement to say, "Is that a reasonable metric to use to declare success?" I regularly bump into folks who say, "Well, what more should we do? We're already better than we were 100 years ago."
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > I should amend my statement to say, "Is that a reasonable metric to use to declare success?" Got it. I think there may be confusion between a metric and a threshold. The metric being certain objective measures of quality of life. The thresholds being where we were 100 years ago, where we are today, and where we should be today. More broadly, anyone "declaring success" on such a broad question is--at best--deluded. More common is people throwing their hands up at what looks like an insurmountable problem. I've found pointing out the often-unappreciated magnitude of recent historical performance to be useful in that respect.

skookumchuck 8y ago

> today's standard If you keep moving the goal posts, you'll never get there.

mdorazio 8y ago
Isn't moving the goal posts the whole point, though? If we didn't do that then we would declare "mission accomplished" as long as everyone wasn't sleeping on a dirt floor and dying of malaria. Social welfare success should always be a moving target relative to the ability of the society in which it exists to create it.