4 ms·

I mean you can say the luck argument about literally everything. It's not a reason to dismiss making choices. Not having kids/pets is a huge choice to make to

by doix 4y ago

I mean you can say the luck argument about literally everything. It's not a reason to dismiss making choices. Not having kids/pets is a huge choice to make to have flexibility. If you don't have dependents you don't need to spend time looking after them. You also don't need to make as much money so you can take a lower paying job. By being in the position to take a lower paying job, you can negotiate more flexibility etc. Obviously that doesn't apply if you were forced to drop out of highschool to get a minimum wage job to take care of your sick parents/siblings. Some people are less lucky than others, but I'd be willing to bet that a large percentage of HN readers that finds themselves with no flexibility have made many choices to end up where they are.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
On average, as related to HN, you are probably not wrong. I still hate averages, because they tend to hide the reality ( and individual plight ) based on its extremes. I have no real data to back it up other than anecdata. I count myself as ridiculously lucky that I am where I am doing what I do. Here I am mid-day, discussing non-work related items in my down time. I have the flexibility ( and a pet and a kid although that is basically like having two kids ), but I am unable to dismiss the idea that it is not just me factor that got me to that point. Looking back, there were tons of things that could have gone wrong that would put me on the wrong track ( and as is often with life, some things did ). Otoh, I am not that much smarter than my sister and yet we are in very different places despite having the same upbringing, access and so on. You could argue that she is not on HN, but I would say that is a self-selecting process..
- doix 4y ago
  Like the sibling comment, I feel like we are talking about different things. You're talking about right and wrong paths and careers. I'm talking about choices like kids, prioritizing salary over flexibility etc. I am not arguing that people in tech are there purely based on merit and no luck. I am saying people that are already in tech make choices that give them more or less flexibility. Chasing a job at FAANG to get a massive salary and then using the salary to get an expensive car and massive mortgage is the wrong choice if you want flexibility. But it probably is the right choice if you want an expensive car and expensive house.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    Ahh, yes. Sorry. It seems I misread the original post. Thank you for the clarification. I am in agreement with what you wrote immediately above.
    - doix 4y ago
      No need to apologize! All good, I got the feeling we were in agreement and I was just explaining my point poorly.
Bakary 4y ago
This sort of approach sounds useful on paper. People should indeed make better choices. In reality, however, this solves nothing because we are looking at societal problems as varied and complex as climate change, obesity, rising house prices, degree inflation, regular inflation, global uncertainty, constant digital surveillance, and so on. Even a person who has made "good" choices such as becoming a SWE is still at the mercy of macroeconomic changes. Maybe next year's AI will nuke front end work just like it's nuking other white collar job markets. Maybe the market will by nuked by actual nukes. The modern day careers depend on so many conditions that are outside of our control and can't be fixed on an individual level, even if it's still a good idea to make good choices.
- doix 4y ago
  I feel like we are talking about different things. I'm talking about not having kids/pets (which is applicable to everyone) as a choice to make for more flexibility where as you are talking about careers. Also you're talking about good VS bad choices. I don't think having kids is necessarily bad or good, it just depends on what you want or priorities are.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    Kids/pets are good example as it would make my argument a bit clearer. Today we have a sizeable portion of the population that has no dependents, made good choices (had an education, worked hard etc.) AND is still stuck financially and professionally to the point where they can't really have that much flexibility or make many more tradeoffs. It's a lot worse in countries like China or Korea but it's still pretty bad in the West. There is a reason why fertility rates are plummeting, and it goes beyond the classic demographic model of higher development for lower fertility. In other words, though it's true that outcomes are linked to choices, just the ability to make real choices (flexibility vs. salary or family, to name one) is predicated on a large dose of prior luck.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

by doix 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

On average, as related to HN, you are probably not wrong. I still hate averages, because they tend to hide the reality ( and individual plight ) based on its extremes. I have no real data to back it up other than anecdata. I count myself as ridiculously lucky that I am where I am doing what I do. Here I am mid-day, discussing non-work related items in my down time. I have the flexibility ( and a pet and a kid although that is basically like having two kids ), but I am unable to dismiss the idea that it is not just me factor that got me to that point. Looking back, there were tons of things that could have gone wrong that would put me on the wrong track ( and as is often with life, some things did ). Otoh, I am not that much smarter than my sister and yet we are in very different places despite having the same upbringing, access and so on. You could argue that she is not on HN, but I would say that is a self-selecting process..

doix 4y ago
Like the sibling comment, I feel like we are talking about different things. You're talking about right and wrong paths and careers. I'm talking about choices like kids, prioritizing salary over flexibility etc. I am not arguing that people in tech are there purely based on merit and no luck. I am saying people that are already in tech make choices that give them more or less flexibility. Chasing a job at FAANG to get a massive salary and then using the salary to get an expensive car and massive mortgage is the wrong choice if you want flexibility. But it probably is the right choice if you want an expensive car and expensive house.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Ahh, yes. Sorry. It seems I misread the original post. Thank you for the clarification. I am in agreement with what you wrote immediately above.
  - doix 4y ago
    No need to apologize! All good, I got the feeling we were in agreement and I was just explaining my point poorly.

Bakary 4y ago

This sort of approach sounds useful on paper. People should indeed make better choices. In reality, however, this solves nothing because we are looking at societal problems as varied and complex as climate change, obesity, rising house prices, degree inflation, regular inflation, global uncertainty, constant digital surveillance, and so on. Even a person who has made "good" choices such as becoming a SWE is still at the mercy of macroeconomic changes. Maybe next year's AI will nuke front end work just like it's nuking other white collar job markets. Maybe the market will by nuked by actual nukes. The modern day careers depend on so many conditions that are outside of our control and can't be fixed on an individual level, even if it's still a good idea to make good choices.

doix 4y ago
I feel like we are talking about different things. I'm talking about not having kids/pets (which is applicable to everyone) as a choice to make for more flexibility where as you are talking about careers. Also you're talking about good VS bad choices. I don't think having kids is necessarily bad or good, it just depends on what you want or priorities are.
- Bakary 4y ago
  Kids/pets are good example as it would make my argument a bit clearer. Today we have a sizeable portion of the population that has no dependents, made good choices (had an education, worked hard etc.) AND is still stuck financially and professionally to the point where they can't really have that much flexibility or make many more tradeoffs. It's a lot worse in countries like China or Korea but it's still pretty bad in the West. There is a reason why fertility rates are plummeting, and it goes beyond the classic demographic model of higher development for lower fertility. In other words, though it's true that outcomes are linked to choices, just the ability to make real choices (flexibility vs. salary or family, to name one) is predicated on a large dose of prior luck.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]