4 ms·

I'm mid 20's and it's obvious what to do. Universal child care, housing, healthcare, etc, and parents would have more time to parent their kids instead of slavi

by mptest 3y ago

I'm mid 20's and it's obvious what to do. Universal child care, housing, healthcare, etc, and parents would have more time to parent their kids instead of slaving away to make someone else enough money to buy their fifth yacht or passing their childcare off to an ipad. We have worse than gilded age inequality, 9 people own more wealth than 3.6 BILLION combined. Maybe address that first??? I'd wager we'd find 99% of problems are downstream of poverty and inequality.

zachthewf 3y ago
While I agree with the general sentiment, poverty and inequality are wildly different problems (e.g. modern capitalism tends to increase inequality but also decrease poverty).
- mptest 3y ago
  Wildly different, sure, but deeply, deeply connected which is why I include them together. There is no reason we can't decrease poverty AND inequality. In fact decreasing inequality would in turn reduce poverty if done correctly.
DecoPerson 3y ago
If you look at history, the biggest changes that allow people more free time to spend with their children or otherwise, are technological ones. Look at the mechanical loom (industrialisation), pesticides (agricultural yield increase), penicillin (life expectancy increase), painkillers (life quality increase), clean water (wide-spread infrastructure), cheap microwaves (overseas slave labour), reliable vehicles for all (fossil fuel infrastructure). We need to continue this trend to fix the problems. The billionaires aren’t blocking us. Yes, it’s unfair that they hold so much wealth and power. The world has been that way for a long time. When electric lightbulbs came to the masses, it made some rich people even richer, but that’s not the important part. The important part is that the masses’ lives were better. Next steps for us: - Find manufacturing processes that don’t require overseas slave labour - Agricultural processes that don’t need as much pesticide - Better, cheaper medicine (recent developments in quantum computing suggest we may be able to crack protein folding within 10 years, which will lead to an explosion in medical research) - Automated construction (see Hadrian X) - A replacement for fossil fuels (if we crack fusion, we can use that for the grid and we can create our own combustion juice for vehicles using the enormous amount of energy available) - Protocells that allow extremely precise manufacturing at scale (protocells are programmed cells or completely custom cells that we can equip & program for certain tasks, like “remove all the iron ore from the ground here” — they will change everything) These are the things that will bring the rest of the world out of poverty. And, depending on how we adapt to the irrelevancy of capitalism as these technologies develop, it may solve the inequality/unfairness problem too. Taxing billionaires won’t accelerate any of this.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  People had more free time before the Industrial Revolution[1]. Increases in productivity doesn't translate into more leisure time, it translates into just getting more work done in the same time frame and being paid as if you're doing the same amount of work. [1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
- mptest 3y ago
  >the biggest changes that allow people more free time to spend with their children or otherwise, are technological ones. The important bit to note here is the allocation of that gain in efficiency. I agree tech is the driver of the positive sum games we call the economy, but it's important to note that on top of technology we need a political apparatus that allocates the efficiency gain. Ie a 30% increase in productivity should yield not a 30% increase in profits but maybe a 5% increase and a 25% reduction of time spent doing labor or 25% increase in wages. Obviously the numbers are variable, but I thought it important to note this too. >The billionaires aren’t blocking us. People hoarding more wealth than BILLIONS combined aren't blocking us? You can seriously, earnestly think, in your heart of hearts, that hoarding that much wealth for yourself doesn't deprive some other more worthy endeavor of resources?? >When electric lightbulbs came to the masses, it made some rich people even richer, but that’s not the important part. Not THE important part, I can agree with you. But AN important part, still. It might not be sensible to accost the inventor of the light bulb for the effect of his invention, but it should always be carefully noted the above mentioned calculation of where the efficiency gain is allocated. Did allowance of working at night, doubling the possible working hours allow any reduction of labor or increase in wages? Or did it simply increase profit? I agree the profit itself is not the problem, the billionaires themselves aren't technically the problem, merely a symptom of an ill designed allocation of the fruits of technology. But to act like 9 people hoarding more than billions of people combined isn't detrimental to any goal other than the enrichment of those 9? I name you silly, sir. >Taxing billionaires won’t accelerate any of this. I mean, if we JUST tax them and then burn the tax money we get from them, sure... But if we spend the taxes on the above mentioned goals... You somehow think they wouldn't be achieved quicker???
- wolverine876 3y ago
nineteen999 3y ago
I'm in my late 40's and I agree with you 100%, more now than I would have at any point previously, and I certainly don't consider myself a bleeding leftie. Might be interesting to see how the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" HN/SV crowd react to your comment.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  Zero trolling: When did this become obvious to you? And why/how?
  - nineteen999 3y ago
    Slowly over the course of the last 48 years. There was no pivotal moment. Probably the key thing was the realisation that even with the very good wage i'm on, I was unlikely to be able to save enough deposit money to buy a house in my city without at least one of my parents passing away. And then the realisation that there are people that work far harder than me, earn far less, and understanding that they are in an even more fucked situation.
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      It sounds like you are in the Bay Area. Did you ever consider moving to a lower cost location? Assuming that we are talking about the US, the "flyover states" (midwest) have some insanely good value. Land and houses can be very cheap.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      If you want to think about the correlation between hard work and income, watch someone operating a jackhammer and then visit a golf course.
      - nineteen999 3y ago
        Watch the person operating the jackhammer go to a golf course, or watch someone operating a jackhammer and then visit a golf course myself? Your sentence is ambiguous. Are you trying to say that you think that some manual labor roles are overpaid? Why can't a jackhammer operator play golf if they want to? In my country an entry level jackhammer operator makes about $60K and an experienced one about $100K. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
spacecadet 3y ago
Agreed.

by mptest 3y ago

zachthewf 3y ago

While I agree with the general sentiment, poverty and inequality are wildly different problems (e.g. modern capitalism tends to increase inequality but also decrease poverty).

mptest 3y ago
Wildly different, sure, but deeply, deeply connected which is why I include them together. There is no reason we can't decrease poverty AND inequality. In fact decreasing inequality would in turn reduce poverty if done correctly.

DecoPerson 3y ago

If you look at history, the biggest changes that allow people more free time to spend with their children or otherwise, are technological ones. Look at the mechanical loom (industrialisation), pesticides (agricultural yield increase), penicillin (life expectancy increase), painkillers (life quality increase), clean water (wide-spread infrastructure), cheap microwaves (overseas slave labour), reliable vehicles for all (fossil fuel infrastructure). We need to continue this trend to fix the problems. The billionaires aren’t blocking us. Yes, it’s unfair that they hold so much wealth and power. The world has been that way for a long time. When electric lightbulbs came to the masses, it made some rich people even richer, but that’s not the important part. The important part is that the masses’ lives were better. Next steps for us: - Find manufacturing processes that don’t require overseas slave labour - Agricultural processes that don’t need as much pesticide - Better, cheaper medicine (recent developments in quantum computing suggest we may be able to crack protein folding within 10 years, which will lead to an explosion in medical research) - Automated construction (see Hadrian X) - A replacement for fossil fuels (if we crack fusion, we can use that for the grid and we can create our own combustion juice for vehicles using the enormous amount of energy available) - Protocells that allow extremely precise manufacturing at scale (protocells are programmed cells or completely custom cells that we can equip & program for certain tasks, like “remove all the iron ore from the ground here” — they will change everything) These are the things that will bring the rest of the world out of poverty. And, depending on how we adapt to the irrelevancy of capitalism as these technologies develop, it may solve the inequality/unfairness problem too. Taxing billionaires won’t accelerate any of this.

heavyset_go 3y ago
People had more free time before the Industrial Revolution[1]. Increases in productivity doesn't translate into more leisure time, it translates into just getting more work done in the same time frame and being paid as if you're doing the same amount of work. [1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
mptest 3y ago
>the biggest changes that allow people more free time to spend with their children or otherwise, are technological ones. The important bit to note here is the allocation of that gain in efficiency. I agree tech is the driver of the positive sum games we call the economy, but it's important to note that on top of technology we need a political apparatus that allocates the efficiency gain. Ie a 30% increase in productivity should yield not a 30% increase in profits but maybe a 5% increase and a 25% reduction of time spent doing labor or 25% increase in wages. Obviously the numbers are variable, but I thought it important to note this too. >The billionaires aren’t blocking us. People hoarding more wealth than BILLIONS combined aren't blocking us? You can seriously, earnestly think, in your heart of hearts, that hoarding that much wealth for yourself doesn't deprive some other more worthy endeavor of resources?? >When electric lightbulbs came to the masses, it made some rich people even richer, but that’s not the important part. Not THE important part, I can agree with you. But AN important part, still. It might not be sensible to accost the inventor of the light bulb for the effect of his invention, but it should always be carefully noted the above mentioned calculation of where the efficiency gain is allocated. Did allowance of working at night, doubling the possible working hours allow any reduction of labor or increase in wages? Or did it simply increase profit? I agree the profit itself is not the problem, the billionaires themselves aren't technically the problem, merely a symptom of an ill designed allocation of the fruits of technology. But to act like 9 people hoarding more than billions of people combined isn't detrimental to any goal other than the enrichment of those 9? I name you silly, sir. >Taxing billionaires won’t accelerate any of this. I mean, if we JUST tax them and then burn the tax money we get from them, sure... But if we spend the taxes on the above mentioned goals... You somehow think they wouldn't be achieved quicker???
wolverine876 3y ago

nineteen999 3y ago

I'm in my late 40's and I agree with you 100%, more now than I would have at any point previously, and I certainly don't consider myself a bleeding leftie. Might be interesting to see how the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" HN/SV crowd react to your comment.

throwaway2037 3y ago
Zero trolling: When did this become obvious to you? And why/how?
- nineteen999 3y ago
  Slowly over the course of the last 48 years. There was no pivotal moment. Probably the key thing was the realisation that even with the very good wage i'm on, I was unlikely to be able to save enough deposit money to buy a house in my city without at least one of my parents passing away. And then the realisation that there are people that work far harder than me, earn far less, and understanding that they are in an even more fucked situation.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    It sounds like you are in the Bay Area. Did you ever consider moving to a lower cost location? Assuming that we are talking about the US, the "flyover states" (midwest) have some insanely good value. Land and houses can be very cheap.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    If you want to think about the correlation between hard work and income, watch someone operating a jackhammer and then visit a golf course.
    - nineteen999 3y ago
      Watch the person operating the jackhammer go to a golf course, or watch someone operating a jackhammer and then visit a golf course myself? Your sentence is ambiguous. Are you trying to say that you think that some manual labor roles are overpaid? Why can't a jackhammer operator play golf if they want to? In my country an entry level jackhammer operator makes about $60K and an experienced one about $100K. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

spacecadet 3y ago

Agreed.