= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ygert comments on Open thread for December 17-23, 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (301)
I think the point was government handout programs. This is a massive external control on many people's incomes, and it is part of how the world is not a meritocracy.
(Please note, I ADBOC with CellBioGuy, so don't take my description as anything more than a summary of what I think he is trying to say.)
You what with CellBioGuy..?
Should be "ADBOC" -- "agree denotationally, but object connotatively". (ygert is probably thinking of "disagree" instead of "object".)
Ah, thanks. I usually think of such things as "technically correct but misleading" -- that's more or less the same thing, right?
Yes.
Yes, my mistake. I was in a rush, and didn't have time to double check what the acronym was. Edited now.
I think I could make an argument that "object" has a semantic advantage over "disagree" but one advantage is that "adboc" can be pronounced as a two-syllable word.
He might also be saying that most people don't have an obvious path for marginal increases to their income.
This is closer to what I was getting at. Above someone mentioned government assistance programs, which is also true to a point but not really what I meant (another 'disagree connotatively').
I was mostly going for the fact that circumstances of birth (family and status not genetics), location, and locked-in life history have far more to do with income than a lot of other factors. And those who make it REALLY big are almost without exception extremely lucky rather than extremely good.