6 ms·

At any one given instant in time, the planets have just one position around the sun. Does that mean orbital paths are a lie? The amount of carbon dioxide in th

At any one given instant in time, the planets have just one position around the sun. Does that mean orbital paths are a lie? The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at any one point in time is fixed. At a particular instant in time, there is an exact number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. And that number is fixed and doesn't change, unless you pick a different timestamp. Does that mean we can just keep burning fossil fuels and the amount of carbon dioxide doesn't change? No, because time isn't frozen. We don't live in a world where time is fixed. Seriously, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this.

dventimi 2y ago
> Seriously, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this. Then let's cut out fanciful stories of the planets and the birds and the bees and cut to the chase. In the 8 years between its IPO and Elon Musk taking it private again, Twitter (now X) made a profit in only two, according to Wikipedia. Meanwhile according to Glassdoor it has a median total comp for a Twitter Software Engineer in SF at $250k. But the median restaurant worker in SF makes about $40k according to Ziprecruiter. All of these people, Twitter engineers and regular restaurant workers, are generally competing for housing in the Bay Area. Tell me. Who's typically going to win those bids for housing, the Twitter engineer or the restaurant worker?
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Sure, the tech workers are going to be able to afford better housing. But what happens if tech workers move out, and stop generating revenue for the city? Life would be even worse. That restaurant worker may lose their job because there's not as many customers. The city will have to raise taxes or cut services to make up for the budget shortfall from the exodus of higher paid (and thus higher tax paying) residents. This isn't speculation, this is actively happening: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budget-picture-worsens-as-cuts-loom-in-2024/article_115ad370-b4c9-11ee-b308-abaf8af11cbc.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge... This is one of the more pernicious aspects of zero sum thinking: people engaging in zero sum thinking assume that reducing the wealth of some people means it'll end up redistributed to others. The reality is that it often just results in everyone being worse off.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    > But what happens if tech workers move out, and stop generating revenue for the city? Life would be even worse. No, a different mix of workers will move in. If they flatten the income distribution then life will be better for the non-tech workers who already live here. San Francisco's economy wasn't always so focused on tech, just as other vibrant cities in the U.S. aren't so focused on tech. > That restaurant worker may lose their job because there's not as many customers. The different mix of workers that would move in may go to restaurants just as much, and if they don't then sure, some restaurants will go out of business. So what? Some of the restaurant staff can adapt to other jobs, and they'll have longer to do so because their rent won't be so high. > This isn't speculation, this is actively happening: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge... That article doesn't even mention tech. What it says is: The snowballing shortfall is primarily caused by formerly reliable streams of revenue — namely, taxes generated by tourism and a once-thriving downtown — sputtering amid the post-pandemic recovery. Sure, the once vibrant Manhattan-like downtown is now a ghost-town, but that's largely due to remote work to which the tech sector is acutely vulnerable. Ironically the City actually would've been buttressed against the remote work sea change had it had a more diverse, less tech-dependent economy. > This is one of the more pernicious aspects of zero sum thinking: people engaging in zero sum thinking assume that reducing the wealth of some people means it'll end up redistributed to others. The reality is that it often just results in everyone being worse off. If reducing the wealth of some people and creating a flatter income distribution "just results in everyone being worse off" then evidently increasing the wealth of some people and creating a skewed income distribution will have the opposite effect. Suppose you lived in a place and a time with a highly-skewed income distribution with severe winners and severe losers and you're the loserest loser of them all. Suppose as luck would have it everyone else makes more money than you do. Evidently that would "just result in everyone being [better] off" even you, right? In that case, you should be thrilled with that arrangement. What do you say? Would you be thrilled to have the lowest income in your city?
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      > If they flatten the income distribution then life will be better for the non-tech workers who already live here. This, right here, is the crux of your incorrect worldview. No, a flatter income distribution is not inherently better. Which is better: 90% of people with $60,000 income and the top 10% with $600,000, or 100% of people with an income of $10,000? The latter is flatter, but even the poorest people were still much, much wealthier in the former than the latter. > Suppose you lived in a place and a time with a highly-skewed income distribution with severe winners and severe losers and you're the loserest loser of them all. Suppose as luck would have it everyone else makes more money than you do. Evidently that would "just result in everyone being [better] off" even you, right? In that case, you should be thrilled with that arrangement. What do you say? Would you be thrilled to have the lowest income in your city? Again: I care about my own material conditions. If a genie gave me the choice to double my income doubling (in real terms, as in the actual value of goods and services accessible to me doubles), while everyone else's income increases tenfold of course that's be a good thing. Why would I forego an improvement to my own conditions, just to keep everyone else's conditions from improving proportionally more? The fact that others benefit more doesn't change the fact that I'm left strictly better off. To do otherwise is the epitome of the crab mentality: It's better to harm everyone just to maintain your relative position.

dventimi 2y ago

> Seriously, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this. Then let's cut out fanciful stories of the planets and the birds and the bees and cut to the chase. In the 8 years between its IPO and Elon Musk taking it private again, Twitter (now X) made a profit in only two, according to Wikipedia. Meanwhile according to Glassdoor it has a median total comp for a Twitter Software Engineer in SF at $250k. But the median restaurant worker in SF makes about $40k according to Ziprecruiter. All of these people, Twitter engineers and regular restaurant workers, are generally competing for housing in the Bay Area. Tell me. Who's typically going to win those bids for housing, the Twitter engineer or the restaurant worker?

Manuel_D 2y ago
Sure, the tech workers are going to be able to afford better housing. But what happens if tech workers move out, and stop generating revenue for the city? Life would be even worse. That restaurant worker may lose their job because there's not as many customers. The city will have to raise taxes or cut services to make up for the budget shortfall from the exodus of higher paid (and thus higher tax paying) residents. This isn't speculation, this is actively happening: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budget-picture-worsens-as-cuts-loom-in-2024/article_115ad370-b4c9-11ee-b308-abaf8af11cbc.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge... This is one of the more pernicious aspects of zero sum thinking: people engaging in zero sum thinking assume that reducing the wealth of some people means it'll end up redistributed to others. The reality is that it often just results in everyone being worse off.
- dventimi 2y ago
  > But what happens if tech workers move out, and stop generating revenue for the city? Life would be even worse. No, a different mix of workers will move in. If they flatten the income distribution then life will be better for the non-tech workers who already live here. San Francisco's economy wasn't always so focused on tech, just as other vibrant cities in the U.S. aren't so focused on tech. > That restaurant worker may lose their job because there's not as many customers. The different mix of workers that would move in may go to restaurants just as much, and if they don't then sure, some restaurants will go out of business. So what? Some of the restaurant staff can adapt to other jobs, and they'll have longer to do so because their rent won't be so high. > This isn't speculation, this is actively happening: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge... That article doesn't even mention tech. What it says is: The snowballing shortfall is primarily caused by formerly reliable streams of revenue — namely, taxes generated by tourism and a once-thriving downtown — sputtering amid the post-pandemic recovery. Sure, the once vibrant Manhattan-like downtown is now a ghost-town, but that's largely due to remote work to which the tech sector is acutely vulnerable. Ironically the City actually would've been buttressed against the remote work sea change had it had a more diverse, less tech-dependent economy. > This is one of the more pernicious aspects of zero sum thinking: people engaging in zero sum thinking assume that reducing the wealth of some people means it'll end up redistributed to others. The reality is that it often just results in everyone being worse off. If reducing the wealth of some people and creating a flatter income distribution "just results in everyone being worse off" then evidently increasing the wealth of some people and creating a skewed income distribution will have the opposite effect. Suppose you lived in a place and a time with a highly-skewed income distribution with severe winners and severe losers and you're the loserest loser of them all. Suppose as luck would have it everyone else makes more money than you do. Evidently that would "just result in everyone being [better] off" even you, right? In that case, you should be thrilled with that arrangement. What do you say? Would you be thrilled to have the lowest income in your city?
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    > If they flatten the income distribution then life will be better for the non-tech workers who already live here. This, right here, is the crux of your incorrect worldview. No, a flatter income distribution is not inherently better. Which is better: 90% of people with $60,000 income and the top 10% with $600,000, or 100% of people with an income of $10,000? The latter is flatter, but even the poorest people were still much, much wealthier in the former than the latter. > Suppose you lived in a place and a time with a highly-skewed income distribution with severe winners and severe losers and you're the loserest loser of them all. Suppose as luck would have it everyone else makes more money than you do. Evidently that would "just result in everyone being [better] off" even you, right? In that case, you should be thrilled with that arrangement. What do you say? Would you be thrilled to have the lowest income in your city? Again: I care about my own material conditions. If a genie gave me the choice to double my income doubling (in real terms, as in the actual value of goods and services accessible to me doubles), while everyone else's income increases tenfold of course that's be a good thing. Why would I forego an improvement to my own conditions, just to keep everyone else's conditions from improving proportionally more? The fact that others benefit more doesn't change the fact that I'm left strictly better off. To do otherwise is the epitome of the crab mentality: It's better to harm everyone just to maintain your relative position.