Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | tonyedgecombe's comments login

It's a shame they don't have different names, so many people get confused between the two.

The justification for allowing immigration is the shortage of skills. If you use a random process then you won't get the skills you need.

Not that I agree with this, right now we need nurses and programmers, in a couple of years the situation will be completely different.

I thought the justification for allowing immigration was that it is a human right.

No. If western countries let in 'everyone' who wants to come, they'd be horribly, horribly over-populated and huge swaths of the world would never develop.

The problem is (if you like game theory), that it's in everyone's personal interest to migrate somewhere richer. However, if everyone does that, wherever they came from experiences such massive drain that it'll be worse off. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, unlimited immigration is a poor 'equilibrium' for all involved. 'Developing' nations will never develop, and developed nations will face massive over-crowding.

The reason the west currently allows immigration in the numbers we do is because it's an easy way to get skilled, motivated labour - at once allowing for economic growth as well as driving down the relative cost of labour.

Freedom to travel/migrate should be a human right, however there are many problems with that, considering the current state of the world.

Which is why all of America lives in Atherton and New Haven and nobody is left in Mississippi or Alabama.

I know you're being sarcastic, but California and NY combined have nearly 20% of the population of the US.

In the US, the most prosperous states are definitely also the most populous.

I think that is the justification for allowing in refugees and asylum seekers (i.e. protecting them from human rights abuses), but not usually used for economic migrants.

If that was the justification, then a lottery doesn't achieve that. Nothing short of completely open borders achieves that.

I've found the opposite, its been rock solid for me.

I'd like to think that someone who is smart enough to write good C++ is also smart enough to know when it is overkill for a project.

"Apple's major competitive edge right now is supply chain and economies of scale."

This is interesting because it wasn't why people started switching in droves, it was because customers perceived the product to be much better than the competitions.

Part of that IS supply chain... You can't make a great phone with shitty components.

Many things that Apple does in the supply chain are completely out of reach for it's competitors either because of resources or culture.

'its competitors'

Their supply chain is why competitor can't make phones that come close in terms of fit, finish and quality. Everyone else is stuck with second rate parts because Apple has the supply chain on lock.

Yes, it seems the more mainstream the program the more they feel they need to simplify it.

I guess you can have declining or stable national GDP and per-capita GDP growth at the same time.

General Motors and Chryslers competitors didn't win from the bailout.

Rather than spending their time clearing out their rubbish I think most people would be better off learning to be more discerning about what they allow into their lives in the first place.

Yes. But clearing out your rubbish and learning what it's like to live with your not-rubbish is one good way to do that. This is one of the reasons she says you only need to go through the major tidying process once, ever.

One thing I like about the book is that she didn't write it until after years of experience helping people solve the way-too-much-junk problem, so it's based on what actually worked for a variety people who were failing to solve the problem on their own, unlike many self help books that are written only based on the author's experience of being naturally good at something.

It's important to put her focus on getting rid of stuff into context: Ms. Kondo is a "tidying consultant" whose clients are mostly affluent people that can't even get started on tidying up in any meaningful way because they simply have more stuff than storage. She tells stories of people throwing out 20, 30, 50 bulging full-size garbage bags of excess stuff - these are people with a lot of money and a lot of accumulated clothes and possessions, and who live in homes large enough to contain it but not organize it. They are also affluent enough to be able to err on the side of getting rid of too much stuff during an enthusiastic round of cleaning. Ms. Kondo exhorts her readers not to buy in bulk in order to avoid clutter - it's not like you need to be super-wealthy to pass up the cost benefits of buying in bulk, but her advice is not meant for people who are just scraping by or for whom the tradeoff of space-for-money makes sense.

I'm not sure why you've been greyed out. This is a fantastic point. This is by no means a book for every person. This is hardly even a book for every culture (though it's a huge best-seller in Japan).

I agree with your sentiment, but what do you do with all of the stuff you already have? Almost nobody reading these books is starting from a position of zero stuff; they're starting from a position of X stuff, with X being an amount higher than they'd like. The real appeal of these books and the philosophy they espouse is that they allow you to whittle down the number of things you already have whilst also learning healthy habits to avoid ending up in the same situation later.

The trouble is if people don't deal with the root cause then they will just fill their newly empty homes with junk again.

China's 'demographic cliff' was already happening before the one child policy was introduced.



Applications are open for YC Summer 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact