4 ms·

I think we still need to fulfill the promise of the New Deal and the Great Society, the Great Society specifically failed because of programs constructed in has

by Aloha 5y ago

I think we still need to fulfill the promise of the New Deal and the Great Society, the Great Society specifically failed because of programs constructed in haste by men with too little knowledge of the real world in which those programs would need to function. We have a huge and growing poverty problem, one the Democrats and Republicans seem to be ignoring, we have to ratchet down misery level, a failure to do so imperils our democracy in the long run. If people don't have resources all the freedom of choice in the world does little good, because you have too few options to chose from, too few paths to take.

WalterBright 5y ago
The entrenched poverty problem started with the Great Society. (The poverty rate stopped declining in 1968.) The US has never had more opportunity for people than today. Example 1: anyone can get an MIT education for free on the internet. Example 2: anyone can reach a worldwide market, for free, via the internet, and using Amazon. Example 3: anyone can make a movie, and distribute it to the world on youtube, for free. Example 4: anyone can start a band, make their own music, and distribute it worldwide for free on several platforms. Hundreds of thousands of destitute people are trying to get into the US to take advantage of American opportunity. What do they know that Americans don't?
- Aloha 5y ago
  They can't do any of those things if they have to work two jobs to keep a roof over their head. There is a point where if you're of average intelligence and ability you can't try harder because all of your try is consumed by just getting by. The US does indeed have tons of opportunity, I'm a high school dropout, who is now an engineer. Thats an American success story. But I'm luckier than most because I got real lucky in the intelligence department. For a long time, I thought I was an average guy, no smarter than anyone else, then I went out and did complex system design, and then had to write the training material and train the users when I was done, and only then I could see something I hadn't before. I'm frankly smarter than half of the population (and so are basically 100% of the people who use hacker news). People like us will find some form of opportunity when there isn't any obviously available. I'll rebut your answers: Example 1: to make use of that free MIT education, you must be of above average intelligence, more importantly, you must have time not consumed by meeting your daily essential needs. Example 2: you must have some product to sell, one that you can make and sell in volume, there are other sites that allow handicrafts, but its hard to make a living off of handicrafts, and its a big leap to go from individual production to serial production in a factory without capital. Example 3: you must have talent for doing something worth watching, otherwise it doesn't make money. Example 4: same as example 3, though, perversely, if you're really really bad, you can actually make money, but being that level of awful is a talent unto itself, and most people are not willing to subject themselves to that level of humiliation. We have massive issues with access to the legal system by the poor, we've extended the cult of personal responsibility to the extent we now just blame the poor for being poor. We also treat debt like a sacred obligation, if your wealthy its easy to discharge debts thru bankruptcy, not so much if you're poor. I wrote a huge paper about this with a friend of mine last summer. Please take the time to read it, and I think you'll understand more about why I feel so passionately about this. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bfu3pw1pid_2HcDYeAlSyj21FdQsjUnVcgpLfVs3dAY/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bfu3pw1pid_2HcDYeAlSyj21...
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > you must have talent Talent is way overrated. Talent is good for 1%, the rest is training to upgrade your skills. Of course, if you never try, failure is 100% guaranteed. BTW, I know some very successful people who aren't that smart. Being smart just means you learn faster. Not being smart doesn't mean you can't learn skills that are in demand.
    - Aloha 5y ago
      You must have natural gifts, talent, to sing, to act, to dance. No amount of technical training will turn a tone deaf person, or a person with a poor natural voice into a great singer.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > You must have natural gifts, talent, to sing, to act, to dance. No, you don't. I was involved in competitive ballroom dancing when I was young. I have way below average talent at it. I only learned the stuff very slowly. But over time, with a lot of time spent practicing, I actually did get tolerably good at it. Then there is singing. Neil Young, Stevie Nicks and Astrud Gilberto are talentless, but hugely successful, singers. I remember the scorching reviews Nicks got when she burst on the scene, with her "raspy", "unpleasant" voice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1uEy-n4IsU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1uEy-n4IsU P.S. I love all three of those artists' works. P.P.S. Fred Astaire can't sing, either, but his songs are marvelous. There's that famous early review of him: "can't sing, can't act, balding, can dance a little".
        Aloha 5y ago
        Astrud Gilberto, Neil Young, and Stevie Nicks, are all extraordinary talented people, Gilberto is quite talented, both in delivery and as a composer, but her delivery is amazing, and she has songwriting skills, mostly, she had the advantage of being pretty, and a very capable singer, and someone who was novel. Neil Young is a talented songwriter, and a master guitar player, his vocal skills are secondary to his skills as a songwriter, and guitarist. Nicks does have an unconventional voice, but with a phenomenal power to her voice. That's just natural. And Astaire? No one would call him a great singer, but he was one of the best and most talented dancers of his era, the same goes for Gene Kelly, while they were stylistically very different, they were fantastic dancers, their singing abilities were secondary to their abilities as dancers. The key for all of these, if you have a radio face, and a great voice/talent, you're probably not finding commercial success (not in the modern era - thought there are exceptions), if you have an average voice/talent and a really pretty face/body, you might find commercial success. If you have an average voice/talent and an average face, you're more than likely, not going to find success. All four examples you listed had something extraordinary about them. Giberto, Beauty - and an average talet, Young, an extraordinary talent and an average face, Nicks, a unique voice, and an extraordinary face. Astaire, a multi-talent, and a handsome man too.
- ido 5y ago
  Millions of destitute people are trying to get into any developed country - not just America - because life in the developing world is even worse. This doesn't mean the US is doing great.

by Aloha 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago

The entrenched poverty problem started with the Great Society. (The poverty rate stopped declining in 1968.) The US has never had more opportunity for people than today. Example 1: anyone can get an MIT education for free on the internet. Example 2: anyone can reach a worldwide market, for free, via the internet, and using Amazon. Example 3: anyone can make a movie, and distribute it to the world on youtube, for free. Example 4: anyone can start a band, make their own music, and distribute it worldwide for free on several platforms. Hundreds of thousands of destitute people are trying to get into the US to take advantage of American opportunity. What do they know that Americans don't?

Aloha 5y ago
They can't do any of those things if they have to work two jobs to keep a roof over their head. There is a point where if you're of average intelligence and ability you can't try harder because all of your try is consumed by just getting by. The US does indeed have tons of opportunity, I'm a high school dropout, who is now an engineer. Thats an American success story. But I'm luckier than most because I got real lucky in the intelligence department. For a long time, I thought I was an average guy, no smarter than anyone else, then I went out and did complex system design, and then had to write the training material and train the users when I was done, and only then I could see something I hadn't before. I'm frankly smarter than half of the population (and so are basically 100% of the people who use hacker news). People like us will find some form of opportunity when there isn't any obviously available. I'll rebut your answers: Example 1: to make use of that free MIT education, you must be of above average intelligence, more importantly, you must have time not consumed by meeting your daily essential needs. Example 2: you must have some product to sell, one that you can make and sell in volume, there are other sites that allow handicrafts, but its hard to make a living off of handicrafts, and its a big leap to go from individual production to serial production in a factory without capital. Example 3: you must have talent for doing something worth watching, otherwise it doesn't make money. Example 4: same as example 3, though, perversely, if you're really really bad, you can actually make money, but being that level of awful is a talent unto itself, and most people are not willing to subject themselves to that level of humiliation. We have massive issues with access to the legal system by the poor, we've extended the cult of personal responsibility to the extent we now just blame the poor for being poor. We also treat debt like a sacred obligation, if your wealthy its easy to discharge debts thru bankruptcy, not so much if you're poor. I wrote a huge paper about this with a friend of mine last summer. Please take the time to read it, and I think you'll understand more about why I feel so passionately about this. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bfu3pw1pid_2HcDYeAlSyj21FdQsjUnVcgpLfVs3dAY/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bfu3pw1pid_2HcDYeAlSyj21...
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > you must have talent Talent is way overrated. Talent is good for 1%, the rest is training to upgrade your skills. Of course, if you never try, failure is 100% guaranteed. BTW, I know some very successful people who aren't that smart. Being smart just means you learn faster. Not being smart doesn't mean you can't learn skills that are in demand.
  - Aloha 5y ago
    You must have natural gifts, talent, to sing, to act, to dance. No amount of technical training will turn a tone deaf person, or a person with a poor natural voice into a great singer.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > You must have natural gifts, talent, to sing, to act, to dance. No, you don't. I was involved in competitive ballroom dancing when I was young. I have way below average talent at it. I only learned the stuff very slowly. But over time, with a lot of time spent practicing, I actually did get tolerably good at it. Then there is singing. Neil Young, Stevie Nicks and Astrud Gilberto are talentless, but hugely successful, singers. I remember the scorching reviews Nicks got when she burst on the scene, with her "raspy", "unpleasant" voice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1uEy-n4IsU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1uEy-n4IsU P.S. I love all three of those artists' works. P.P.S. Fred Astaire can't sing, either, but his songs are marvelous. There's that famous early review of him: "can't sing, can't act, balding, can dance a little".
      - Aloha 5y ago
        Astrud Gilberto, Neil Young, and Stevie Nicks, are all extraordinary talented people, Gilberto is quite talented, both in delivery and as a composer, but her delivery is amazing, and she has songwriting skills, mostly, she had the advantage of being pretty, and a very capable singer, and someone who was novel. Neil Young is a talented songwriter, and a master guitar player, his vocal skills are secondary to his skills as a songwriter, and guitarist. Nicks does have an unconventional voice, but with a phenomenal power to her voice. That's just natural. And Astaire? No one would call him a great singer, but he was one of the best and most talented dancers of his era, the same goes for Gene Kelly, while they were stylistically very different, they were fantastic dancers, their singing abilities were secondary to their abilities as dancers. The key for all of these, if you have a radio face, and a great voice/talent, you're probably not finding commercial success (not in the modern era - thought there are exceptions), if you have an average voice/talent and a really pretty face/body, you might find commercial success. If you have an average voice/talent and an average face, you're more than likely, not going to find success. All four examples you listed had something extraordinary about them. Giberto, Beauty - and an average talet, Young, an extraordinary talent and an average face, Nicks, a unique voice, and an extraordinary face. Astaire, a multi-talent, and a handsome man too.
ido 5y ago
Millions of destitute people are trying to get into any developed country - not just America - because life in the developing world is even worse. This doesn't mean the US is doing great.