4 ms·

> the fabric of society is in danger of breaking Really? That is hyperbolic to me, and I was not as interested in reading the rest of his article after that.

djrobstep 6y ago
If you think that's hyperbolic, consider that current levels of inequality are not dissimilar to that of pre-revolutionary France.
- jjsdflkjsdkkk 6y ago
  Did they have Walmart in pre-revolutionary France? Or maybe that comparison is rather misleading?
  - OpieCunningham 6y ago
    “Walmart is my Soma” would make an excellent t-shirt.
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    I have no idea what you mean.
jsiepkes 6y ago
> Really? That is hyperbolic to me, and I was not as interested in reading the rest of his article after that. That's a shame because if you had continue reading you could have judged if it was really hyperbolic or if there was some truth to it. Besides why even care about some of the conclusions in the piece if you can also absorb the information and form your own conclusions?
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  I did finish the article.
  - bigiain 6y ago
    So you saying "I was not as interested in reading the rest of his article after that" was "exaggerated statement or claim not meant to be taken literally" then?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
bonestormii_ 6y ago
This is a pervasive perspective on HN. Everyone here is so erudite in their mindset, yet they can't observe that a trend of exponential wealth inequality ends with many people being crushed and a few undeserving winners. The language "is in danger of breaking" is frankly dialed down because he is obviously self-conscious about sounding like some wild-eyed radical. The fact is, if this trend isn't checked, there certainly will be a violent break down, which is a corresponding trend that is also growing before our very eyes in the form of BLM protests and the corresponding government response. Violence is not condoned in our society. Therefore, it follows that manifestations of violence are a form of breakage. If such manifestations erupt directly from power/wealth/legal disparities, I'd say Bray's language is a rather mild flavor of perfectly accurate.
- sdfsdsddsddssd 6y ago
  "crushed", "undeserving winners" - people can still be better off than people in the past, despite there being more richer people than them. And what makes you think the winner's wins are "undeserved"? PG literally wrote an essay about it. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html (not sure if it is the one I meant, but it touches on many of the subjects here. Including the "pie fallacy") In that light, it is more surprising that so many people on HN are in favor of socialism.
  - jazzyjackson 6y ago
    Look up any lectures by Hans Rosling to understand why wealth inequality is bad. Unequal societies are less trusting and have all kinds of bad outcomes in healthcare and education. Besides, what's the use of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy a night out on the town without fear of being robbed and killed by the jealous proles? Note this does not imply socialism or expanding safety nets -- I was thinking more of very progressive taxes that fund public infrastructure, green energy, public transportation, public parks and water catchments, the kind of thing that makes the world better for everyone - rich folk inclusive.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    Well there is sufficient evidence that the pie is not getting bigger for everyone (see e.g. Thomas Piketty's research amongst others). Inequality is increasing and that is dangerous to society. To give you another example, in the 1920s 1930s economists (Keynes amongst others) made projects that by 2020 we would only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. Regarding the winners being undeserved: 1. It can be shown that just using chance (or slightly unequal starting conditions) simple economic systems develop into a state where there is one player who essentially owns all (I linked to the article earlier [1]). So yes it can be just chance. 2. Once the winners have sufficient power they will game the system in their favour. There's lots of evidence for this, just look at the Panama papers for example. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446
emptyparadise 6y ago
I suggest taking a look at American news for the past couple of months - the protests, the rising unemployment, continuing political polarization. I believe that is what the author was referring to. It is a US-centric take, but one that can be forgiven given that it is a blog post about an American developer dealing with American companies and American journalists.
Lazare 6y ago
That's your concern? Really? I'm not sure I agree with the rest of the article; it made some bad points and some good ones. And I certainly don't think it's clear that the fabric of society is in danger of breaking for the exact reasons the author listed, and that this can be solved by adoption the exact solutions the author advocates for. (Again, I'm not saying it's not true, just that I remain unconvinced.) But... ...it's pretty god damn clear that the fabric of society is in danger of breaking down, certainly in the context of the US, and arguably in the context of the West as a whole. Glance at the news, fill in your own list: Covid, antivaxxers, Portland, deficits, pension crisis at state and local government level, the increasing partisan divide, the collapse of the business models of traditional media, rampant conspiracy theories, BLM riots, anti-protect violence from the police, the balkanization of the news people consume, Trump, collapsing trust in institutions, increasing politicization of the courts, the stunning lack of Senate confirmed appointees in the current administration, etc., we could go on. At some point we're going to get a Covid vaccine, and we're going to need to launch a massive nation-wide vaccination campaign, but in the current climate literally everything is partisan, a decent chunk of the population has convinced themselves Covid is a hoax, people are resorting to violence when asked to wear a mask. How's that vaccination campaign going to go? Meanwhile the economy is lurching towwards a cliff. When Covid hit the US, it was at the end of the longest economic expansion in US history, but rather than store up resources for the inevitable contraction, the US was running unprecedented deficits. Now Covid has hit; what happens next? Especially if societal dysfunction prevents a coordinated response? And so on, and so forth. I mean, obviously everything could be fine, but if your concern is that "the fabric of society is in danger of breaking" is just too hyperbolic, I think you need to open your eyes. You can point fingers where you like (and we do, which is a big part of the problem!) but regardless of who is to blame, things are not good.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Glance at the news, fill in your own list That's the point of "the news" though: to keep you engaged by providing a daily crisis for you to worry about, because that makes you watch thew news. If one crisis goes away, or viewers get bored of it, a new one pops up and the old one is gone. Remember how we were supposedly "this close" to ww3 in February or March because of Iran? Monster Of The Week Shows need monsters or they lose their audience.
whymauri 6y ago
We are currently in: (1) A global pandemic. (2) A massive protest movement. (3) The wake of what will soon be millions of evictions, not to mention the current unemployment rate and the effects we're seeing on wealth inequality. (4) On the inevitable track of climate change displacing tens of millions to hundreds of millions of people. This branch will also lead to some supply-chain and food management issues I cannot even fathom. (5) A concerning increase in polarization and even fascism. Increasing distrust in science and decreasing certainty in our news sources. Just off the top of my head.

djrobstep 6y ago

If you think that's hyperbolic, consider that current levels of inequality are not dissimilar to that of pre-revolutionary France.

jjsdflkjsdkkk 6y ago
Did they have Walmart in pre-revolutionary France? Or maybe that comparison is rather misleading?
- OpieCunningham 6y ago
  “Walmart is my Soma” would make an excellent t-shirt.
- djrobstep 6y ago
  I have no idea what you mean.

jsiepkes 6y ago

> Really? That is hyperbolic to me, and I was not as interested in reading the rest of his article after that. That's a shame because if you had continue reading you could have judged if it was really hyperbolic or if there was some truth to it. Besides why even care about some of the conclusions in the piece if you can also absorb the information and form your own conclusions?

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
I did finish the article.
- bigiain 6y ago
  So you saying "I was not as interested in reading the rest of his article after that" was "exaggerated statement or claim not meant to be taken literally" then?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

bonestormii_ 6y ago

This is a pervasive perspective on HN. Everyone here is so erudite in their mindset, yet they can't observe that a trend of exponential wealth inequality ends with many people being crushed and a few undeserving winners. The language "is in danger of breaking" is frankly dialed down because he is obviously self-conscious about sounding like some wild-eyed radical. The fact is, if this trend isn't checked, there certainly will be a violent break down, which is a corresponding trend that is also growing before our very eyes in the form of BLM protests and the corresponding government response. Violence is not condoned in our society. Therefore, it follows that manifestations of violence are a form of breakage. If such manifestations erupt directly from power/wealth/legal disparities, I'd say Bray's language is a rather mild flavor of perfectly accurate.

sdfsdsddsddssd 6y ago
"crushed", "undeserving winners" - people can still be better off than people in the past, despite there being more richer people than them. And what makes you think the winner's wins are "undeserved"? PG literally wrote an essay about it. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html (not sure if it is the one I meant, but it touches on many of the subjects here. Including the "pie fallacy") In that light, it is more surprising that so many people on HN are in favor of socialism.
- jazzyjackson 6y ago
  Look up any lectures by Hans Rosling to understand why wealth inequality is bad. Unequal societies are less trusting and have all kinds of bad outcomes in healthcare and education. Besides, what's the use of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy a night out on the town without fear of being robbed and killed by the jealous proles? Note this does not imply socialism or expanding safety nets -- I was thinking more of very progressive taxes that fund public infrastructure, green energy, public transportation, public parks and water catchments, the kind of thing that makes the world better for everyone - rich folk inclusive.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Well there is sufficient evidence that the pie is not getting bigger for everyone (see e.g. Thomas Piketty's research amongst others). Inequality is increasing and that is dangerous to society. To give you another example, in the 1920s 1930s economists (Keynes amongst others) made projects that by 2020 we would only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. Regarding the winners being undeserved: 1. It can be shown that just using chance (or slightly unequal starting conditions) simple economic systems develop into a state where there is one player who essentially owns all (I linked to the article earlier [1]). So yes it can be just chance. 2. Once the winners have sufficient power they will game the system in their favour. There's lots of evidence for this, just look at the Panama papers for example. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446

emptyparadise 6y ago

I suggest taking a look at American news for the past couple of months - the protests, the rising unemployment, continuing political polarization. I believe that is what the author was referring to. It is a US-centric take, but one that can be forgiven given that it is a blog post about an American developer dealing with American companies and American journalists.

Lazare 6y ago

That's your concern? Really? I'm not sure I agree with the rest of the article; it made some bad points and some good ones. And I certainly don't think it's clear that the fabric of society is in danger of breaking for the exact reasons the author listed, and that this can be solved by adoption the exact solutions the author advocates for. (Again, I'm not saying it's not true, just that I remain unconvinced.) But... ...it's pretty god damn clear that the fabric of society is in danger of breaking down, certainly in the context of the US, and arguably in the context of the West as a whole. Glance at the news, fill in your own list: Covid, antivaxxers, Portland, deficits, pension crisis at state and local government level, the increasing partisan divide, the collapse of the business models of traditional media, rampant conspiracy theories, BLM riots, anti-protect violence from the police, the balkanization of the news people consume, Trump, collapsing trust in institutions, increasing politicization of the courts, the stunning lack of Senate confirmed appointees in the current administration, etc., we could go on. At some point we're going to get a Covid vaccine, and we're going to need to launch a massive nation-wide vaccination campaign, but in the current climate literally everything is partisan, a decent chunk of the population has convinced themselves Covid is a hoax, people are resorting to violence when asked to wear a mask. How's that vaccination campaign going to go? Meanwhile the economy is lurching towwards a cliff. When Covid hit the US, it was at the end of the longest economic expansion in US history, but rather than store up resources for the inevitable contraction, the US was running unprecedented deficits. Now Covid has hit; what happens next? Especially if societal dysfunction prevents a coordinated response? And so on, and so forth. I mean, obviously everything could be fine, but if your concern is that "the fabric of society is in danger of breaking" is just too hyperbolic, I think you need to open your eyes. You can point fingers where you like (and we do, which is a big part of the problem!) but regardless of who is to blame, things are not good.

luckylion 6y ago
> Glance at the news, fill in your own list That's the point of "the news" though: to keep you engaged by providing a daily crisis for you to worry about, because that makes you watch thew news. If one crisis goes away, or viewers get bored of it, a new one pops up and the old one is gone. Remember how we were supposedly "this close" to ww3 in February or March because of Iran? Monster Of The Week Shows need monsters or they lose their audience.

whymauri 6y ago

We are currently in: (1) A global pandemic. (2) A massive protest movement. (3) The wake of what will soon be millions of evictions, not to mention the current unemployment rate and the effects we're seeing on wealth inequality. (4) On the inevitable track of climate change displacing tens of millions to hundreds of millions of people. This branch will also lead to some supply-chain and food management issues I cannot even fathom. (5) A concerning increase in polarization and even fascism. Increasing distrust in science and decreasing certainty in our news sources. Just off the top of my head.