
Unremarkables - SQL2219
https://www.profgalloway.com/unremarkables
======
jhoechtl
> the innovators (lords) capture the majority of the gains, and the 99%
> (serfs) get an awesome phone, a $4,000 TV, great original scripted
> television, and Mandalorian action figures delivered within 24 hours.

It's striking that the Bread and Games of the Roman Empire works out so well
even today after that many more people are are comparatively well educated and
should know better.

What makes be particularly sad is that 15 years ago I was confident that
social media and smart phones will bring the printing press to the least
advantaged, resulting in a more homogeneous society. The contrary has come
true.

~~~
lotsofpulp
I think part of the blame lies with people themselves. Few are motivated to
partake in civics, read studies, be literate in math and logical analysis. I
understand that many aren’t given the opportunity, but I see that even those
who are, few desire to take advantage of their freedom and would rather leave
the operation and advancement of society to others.

~~~
bsanr2
I think it's less a matter of motivation than of means, which is itself not
merely a matter of access to resources, but also of risk tolerance.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Simply educating one's self requires no risk, just time. But no one wants to
read the minutes of a city council meeting, or delve into the numbers behind
issues. For example, it's telling to me that only a handful of US states offer
parental leave, when I ask my family members in child rearing ages if they
voted are not, they say no.

I know there were candidates who supported laws that would have benefited my
family members, such as sick leave, parental leave, etc. I informed my family
members who these candidates were. I even asked them what kind of life would
they want for their daughters. But nevertheless, on voting day, none could
muster the will to visit a polling booth or request an absentee ballot via
mail. Yet it's not as if they are wealthy enough to forgo having jobs.

Therefore, I must surmise it's simply laziness.

~~~
bsanr2
Time is money, so betting on action with no immediate benefit (reading a book,
voting for the "correct" candidate from the wrong party) versus action with
immediate benefits (the dopamine rush from playing a video game, or skipping
voting to go to work/enjoy your day off) is risky, at least as far as Scumbag
Brain is concerned.

In that vein, I don't believe laziness exists; just misaligned incentives.
Intellectual, even emotional appeals tend not to work when people are
insecure. You have to alleviate the insecurity somehow.

------
jefftk
This article includes a chart that compares NASDAQ's performance to the
federal minimum wage on the same scale: [https://api.profgalloway.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/Char...](https://api.profgalloway.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/Chart-NasDAQ-Performance-vs.-Federal-Minimum-
Wage-6.2020-01-03-13_15_01.gif)

Comparing relative changes is reasonable, but comparing $7.25 to NASDAQ 9,000
is nonsensical.

~~~
sokoloff
The same author calculates the "degree ROI" of higher education by dividing
the first-year salary by the annual tuition so the overall mathematical rigor
is, to use the article's terminology, unremarkable.

~~~
ALittleLight
And the comparison over time is between the author's offered salary at
graduation in 90 versus the median salary today.

------
sct202
Some people who were previously unremarkable are now remarkable like a whole
slew of social media influencers and YouTubers. My favorite YouTuber has a
normal unremarkable job but makes silly nail art videos with millions of
views. There's little niches like of old Indian people making large amounts of
food for poor kids.

------
dmd
> Affixing your own oxygen mask before helping others is a decent tagline for
> capitalism.

Not the point of the article, but this is a _terrible_ tagline for capitalism.
You put on your O2 mask before helping others not out of selfishness, but
because if you don't, you _literally won 't be able to help others_ \- you
could be unconscious in a matter of seconds.

It is not necessary to be that economically selfish just in order to help
others.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Isn't it similar to trickle down theory, though? Give the wealthy money first
and then it will fall to others.

~~~
empthought
No, trickle-down would be one passenger affixing an entire airplane’s worth of
masks and only then maybe detaching one or two for his favorite fellow
passengers to use.

~~~
bsanr2
Theory vs practice.

------
sokoloff
> It’s never been easier to become a billionaire, or harder to become a
> millionaire.

I think this is factually incorrect on the second point. The US mints a net of
about 300K millionaire households per year. (This means more than that on a
gross basis as millionaire households who die off or who fall below the
threshold are all replaced plus an _additional_ 300K.) About 1 in 12 of US
households are millionaire households up from about 1 in 20 in 1997. (In both
figures I attempted to exclude the value and debt on primary residence)

The sad part is that being a mere millionaire household doesn't mean that much
anymore. It provides around $40K per year in safe income or about 1.5x the
federal poverty level for a family of 4.

~~~
xref
That also assumes you’ve got a “liquid million” throwing off interest you can
tap and spend. I bet a lot of those millionaire households don’t have liquid
cash, but rather home equity, IRAs, and 401ks that total up to over $1mil but
unless you’re of retirement age you can’t tap

~~~
kangnkodos
A liquid million which is invested 100% in the S&P 500 has historically been
enough to provide somewhere between 30K and 40K spending per year.

It all depends on how many years you plan to draw money out.

------
asdfman123
Is it bad that now when I see a list of policy solutions for a problem, I
automatically assume that even if it does have enough support, it will be
hijacked and distorted by special interests to make problems with inequality
and dysfunction even worse?

~~~
crocodiletears
Only if pattern recognition is immoral.

------
bsanr2
Please change the title back. While the new one is the same as the source, it
is less descriptive of the content of the actual article.

------
rattlesnakedave
-Why are the number of seemingly remarkable people growing? It’s a moving window. As society’s body of knowledge grows, the youth will always be ahead because they can stand on the shoulders of those before them. When compared to their peers, the gap between what is remarkable and what is not is smaller.

—I disagree with the idea that the economy has any “goals.” I think it exists
naturally, and what we call an “economy” is actually just the sum total of
individuals deploying capital to get things they want.

Insisting we can engineer the economy (which is really just individuals,
perverse incentives and all examined as an aggregate) in some way to solve a
crisis of meaning for “unremarkables” misses the point, and I would even argue
is very dangerous. Dangerous because as soon as the bottom 51% realize they
can vote themselves the wealth of the top 49% we slide right down the slippery
slope into socialism. Which has done nothing but decimate the human spirit of
everyone who’s lived under it for centuries.

-Which brings up the next bit: the author correctly identifies a crisis of meaning (rising deaths of disparities) but incorrectly asserts that the issue is economic. The lack of social fabric in the western world is causing the despair spiral. You don’t get into dire emotional straits leading to opiate addiction if you’re simply broke, the key catalyst is often a lack of hope for the future & a lack of social support system in the community.

~~~
petermcneeley
The purpose of "engineering" the economy is to avoid certain kinds of game
theory issues that you end up with when you lack coordination. This isn't an
ideological issue it's purely algorithmic.

Second to your point of "issue is economic"; final causes are tricky. But one
of the reasons why people move is for economic reasons. Moving breaks up
families in multiple ways. Money is the leading cause of divorce. Not to sound
old school, You can have a pretty strong social fabric when there is a large
middle class of the style of The 50s. Take away that steady single earner
income and you might get a "lack of social fabric".

Given your use of retorical phases my guess is that your world view is founded
on videos of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. There is a whole outside that
shallow stream and I would encourage you to stick your toes in some deeper
water.

------
programminggeek
We have a collective based system, not an individual based one. So everybody
goes to the same schools with the same curriculum with the same baseline
opportunities.

It's not optimized for individual success at all. So the people who win are
those who take individualized action above and beyond the norm.

If you do what everybody else does, you get what everybody else gets.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Except that schools are drastically different depending on your neighborhood,
so poor kids have far less exposure to knowledge and mentoring that would
allow them to succeed individually.

I taught science across the Chicago school system. One of my worst schools
literally had 3 kids exceeding standards...only 3 out of 500. It's simply not
on the children's shoulders alone, they need force multipliers like good
teachers, computers, home stability, even food and sleep and safety from gang
violence are not assured.

So, individual action is multiplied by opportunity and mentoring.

~~~
Waterluvian
I'm convinced that the single most important issue is a stable home where the
parents have the time and energy to engage in their kids education.

But any time I try to unpack this issue it becomes a seemingly impossible
systemic problem. How can you possibly have time for your kids if your
marriage isn't stable or you're working multiple jobs?

This leaves me equally convinced that we need to raise children as
communities, tribes, villages, and not as individual families. But I have no
idea how to make that happen.

