QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
Policy professor, pollster say hard work stopped paying off, they have the data to prove it. Dr. Paul Kershaw: “The data really are beyond contestation. Hard work doesn’t pay off for a young adult today.”
The hardest part is that because there’s no loyalty from companies and resume submission is so automated, it’s now more about who you know than what you know.
Not to this extreme. Like you could at least put in a resume and know it was at least going to a job or a trash bin, not some fucked up data collection thing.
My whole career has been sending in a resume and never hearing shit back. You send in the resume and then you start hunting down people who work there however you can and make yourself known.
I've worked at some cool places but sending in a resume has never been a direct pipeline to a decent job on its own in the last 20 years.
Same - every job I’ve had was through a friend and they got it from their friend. Blind submits have never really worked for me in my decades of work experience.
Someone on Reddit made a comment years ago that has stuck with me during the long tail end of the Great Recession when I was looking for a job for 2 years.
I lamented the resume submission thing.
And they asked me if I was a white dude.
I said yeah.
And they were like, "that's not for you. You're supposed to have a network where we find you through our network of people. We are not looking for you in that stack. We're looking for the candidates we can't find from our own network."
Ie, women and non-white men.
That hit hard because I did not have that network but it was an important lesson about how to sell myself to employers.
I do think in some cases if you are the group at the moment that the company needs to hire to look like they have whatever diversity they need the resume route can absolutely work.
But, I think even that one kinda edge success case is less in 2026.
I'm really glad you bring this point up because every time "it's now what you know, it's who you know" gets brought up I think about how that works for everyone but white men in a society that has model minorities and self segregation.
What is the difference between an AI tool trashing your resume that is configured for what they as an individual would be scanning for? Hint, there isn't a difference. It just makes the process that much quicker.
It's always been like this to some degree but I really do think it's getting worse with continued proliferation of the job market by college graduates (including international students) and more automation in the hiring process
Yup but knowing someone who works there and can recommend you vets you for a culture and personality fit - the kind of thing that can’t be vetted through an interview process. From there it’s just seeing if they’re capable of doing the job competently.
Being a hiring manager is about way more than just seeing if the person can do the job. It’s about seeing if you want to manage them and if they’ll be a good fit for the team - and a recommendation can give them that vetting.
Yeah but it’s like the lowest bar of the hiring process.
It’s shockingly easy to find competent people once you’re hiring for non-entry level roles.
You’re often not looking for a cream of the crop world beater. Those people get bored quickly and are expensive as hell. Instead you want someone who can do the job well enough.
It's definitely not the lowest. That's an absurd take. I don't give a shit how nice you are or how good of a fit you would be for the "team". If you aren't competent those other things mean absolutely nothing unless you work at a country club.
Dude I’ve been on a hiring team before in a white collar position hiring for 6-figure positions. After the first or second interview rounds we’ll have whittled the candidate pool to 6-10 people who could literally all do the job competently. From there the decision is literally made based on if they’re a culture fit and if we like them as a team.
You spend a minimum of 40 hours a week with them, of course them not being an asshole or an energy vampire or overly sensitive or a million other things is important - all of those are things that can make working with them soul sucking.
You can say I’m wrong all you want but it’s to your own detriment.
Edit: ah, of course, hidden profile. I have a feel you’ve only ever worked low level jobs or are still in college.
>Dude I’ve been on a hiring team before in a white collar position hiring for 6-figure positions. After the first or second interview rounds we’ll have whittled the candidate pool to 6-10 people who could literally all do the job competently. From there the decision is literally made based on if they’re a culture fit and if we like them as a team.
Ok so what you are saying is competency is literally the highest bar that is set JUST TO BE CONSIDERED to be in the group of 6-10 people. That's hardly the lowest denominator when you are claiming it's a prerequisite to even get to the second phase in the interview process. This completely contradicts your original statement.
>You spend a minimum of 40 hours a week with them, of course them not being an asshole or an energy vampire or overly sensitive or a million other things is important - all of those are things that can make working with them soul sucking
Never disagreed with any of this.
>You can say I’m wrong all you want but it’s to your own detriment.
Buddy, you can't be speaking of an interview process and claim that the lowest bar is being competent while on the same breath claim that it is literally the first thing you must pass before you can get to the next phase. Maybe word it differently next time.
>Edit: ah, of course, hidden profile. I have a feel you’ve only ever worked low level jobs or are still in college.
I probably make more than you do and I have hired people whose salaries surpassed six figures as well. Don't sit here and act like you're special because you have hired people in that salary range. Furthermore, gloating about something such as that either means you are insecure or lying, and from 2020 -2026 its nothing special. I certainly don't need to sit here and speak of the salaries of who I've hired to prove a point about competency and its importance in the hiring process.
Also, the fact that you are more worried about what my post history is instead of just arguing the points shows you are full of shit. No one who claims to do what you do would have to go through someone's post history to debate their position. Weirdo.
I think also because of various ways scam applications have become more effective. You hear about farms out in India where the computers use AI to apply to every job posted online and then one face on camera and another dubbing and some other idiot entirely showing for work, so being the in-law of a current employee at least confirms you're a single person.
Capital is winning against labor and AI will just supercharge this trend. At which point do we as a society recognize that the justification for concentration of wealth (hard work, risk taking, etc) doesn't hold anymore? Of course you'll always find people who worked hard and "made it" but we're reaching a point where inheriting even a modest real estate portfolio from your parents will do more for you financially than becoming a surgeon. Hard to defend that system.
What is going to even happen when "labor" doesn't exist anymore because it was replaced by AI and robots? I think if it were up to AI, it's probably 50/50 that we all live in a paradise or it kills us all. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be up to AI. I think it will be up to the trillionaires that own AI and robotics companies. I think with them, the odds are more like 98% that they just all treat us like disposable garbage or kill us all.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What could be more powerful than hitting the singularity first? I doubt whoever does it will allow others the chance to catch up.
Did anybody read the article? Why is this allowed here? It’s a piece of crap clickbait say-nothing piece that does not include any supporting arguments for the headline at all lol
It doesn’t even link to an argument! Just have a random tweet for people to react to, it’s the same thing and would at least be honest that it’s backed by nothing
>
Why is this allowed here? It’s a piece of crap clickbait say-nothing piece that does not include any supporting arguments for the headline at all lol
I reported to have it removed. Articles like this, with an intention to outrage but without any substance to discuss, take away from what I believe this sub could be about.
I don't intend to say every submission has to be a peer reviewed piece but at least let whatever it is you share put some effort into the topic they're trying to highlight
Hard work used to mean raises/accolades/job security, now it means no acknowledgement other than a pat on the back, and then more work when people get laid off. And then if you are there a bit too long that means you're being paid too much and therefore let go in the next layoff.
Shocking. I saw the writing on the wall back in 2010! It's not about working hard as much as it is about working smart. Statistically you will make more money jumping from job to job than you will staying loyal to one company. Those days are over. You're not getting a pension. There is no incentive to stick around.
I feel lucky that I am one of the outliers that actually will be rewarded for loyalty in the form of a pension. Granted, I have to put up with 20 more years of bullshit from an employer who is actively trying to get legacy employees to leave so they don't have to pay out full pensions and post-retirement benefits. But it's worth it if I can leave at 55 and never have to work again unless I want to.
The notion that we were ever living in a meritocracy is just foolish. All the indicators of "hard-work" are directly related to the pedigree of social network to which one has matched. This has been true since the dawn of mankind. "Born with a silver spoon in the mouth" is not just some colloquial yarn.
I’m still pissed at myself for getting a BS degree. Biggest waste of time and money in my life thus far. Had I just saved all the money and put it into ETFs, I would be in a much better place today…
I don’t believe it ever did. Hard work alone never paid off, except maybe the 50s and that’s just because everything was booming. But I don’t think there has ever been in a point in history where hard work alone would lift your social status.
Hard work with brains with discipline with the right profession or business or unique skill set…. That still works. It’s proven over and over. But it’s always a combination.
Yep. I don’t know why people always spout nonsense like that. As you said, hard work is just one component of success. You also need to make good choices. I know people who work very hard at making stupid decisions, and guess what? They are not successful.
The analogy I always use is comparing hard work to water. While water is absolutely necessary for survival, water alone is not enough to keep you alive, and in fact, it never has been. You also need some sort of nutrition, shelter, etc.
In the same vein, hard work is necessary for success, but hard work alone is not enough to be successful. You also need to make smart / wise decisions on top of working hard.
I mean, I'd LOVE for this reversal of roles and rewards to FINALLY be done with, but you'd be hard pressed to find examples of this WORKING beyond extremely isolated self-reported incidents.
I'll just say it: Hard work doesn’t pay off for a young adult
It hasn't since the story in Genesis about Jacob offering 7 years of indentured servitude to marry his daughter.
This NEVER should have been taken as factual, proven, and CERTAINLY not an Economic functioning. Rather, the exact opposite is generally true.
Extremely brutal, life-shortening, dangerous work predominantly is farmed out to immigrants, outsiders, and the young so that they can die for your country in exchange for little or no wage.
In summary: No shit. It's been that way for thousands of years.
You have to contort and bend over backwards to find examples where hard work DOES pay off for a young adult.
EDIT - OKAY FOLKS, LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU - WE DON'T USE REWARDS FOR FICTIONAL CHARACTERS AS ECONOMIC INDICATORS. Mmkay?
Mmkay.
If you went straight to "Well, astuallllyyy~!", and downvotes... it's because you missed the joke.
There was a brief window between ww2 and the 1980s in America where labor had enough power so that as long as someone made the effort to just show up to their factory job, they could have a pretty decent life.
Honestly one of americas biggest issues is that many people treat that period as the status quo when it was an anomaly that required decades of effort to setup. Recent generations have just fallen for the propaganda that the middle class is self sustaining and that unions and the government just need to get out of the way.
YES~! The American Golden Age! I'm always happy when folks remember this actually existed!
A period of EXTREME anomoly in the global markets, as the United States was the only major industrial base NOT bombed to absolute rubble during the War.
There's an even more sad twist on exactly what you've said - Remember that Boomers were children growing up during this time. They weren't at a point where there was any understanding of what they were experiencing.
That's not an excuse. It's just... why they think it's Normal.
Because for that tiny, itsy bitsy period of time, from 1950 - 1970 is WAS normal. Briefly.
And then all the industry the whole world over came roaring back into the void that the US had eagerly filled... and 10 years later we find ourselves priced out of the manufaturing of almost any durable industrial goods. Cars, electronics, etc. We instead pivot to a Service industry of Music, Movies, Software, Services, Research, and other non-durable goods.
> There was a brief window between ww2 and the ~~1980s~~ 1970s
but, yes. Late 70s, early 80s is when the when the wheels came off. Jack Welch became a VP at GE in 1968 and vice chairman in 1979. Reagan was elected president in 80, taking control in 81. Enshitificication since.
To blame it all on Jack Welch & Regan is crazy while ignoring the oil embargo and the damage it did, Nixon opening up manufacturing in China which started the off-shoring trend, and the rise of Japan which started in mid-1950's and made them major competitors in the international market.
Those three factors led to a downturn in American manufacturing and forced a pivot to a service based economy which required labor with a higher skill level I.e. college & above.
But American manufacturing was already pivoting... because it was being REPLACED by Global Manufacturing that had remained dormant during the Reconstruction era after the war.
Which is to say - The system was normalizing back to the way it had been pre-WW1/WW2.
America got to enjoy unprecedented success filling-in the void during that transition...
...but we didn't treat it like a temporary thing, did we? These huge, global forces moving. We treated it like the new normal. We bought and lended like it was the new normal. We recorded history like it was the new normal. We treated our allies and enemies like it was the new normal.
One should not attribute Enemy Action when simple Ignorance or Stupidity will suffice -
We misunderstood.
Rather than correcting our misunderstanding... we double-down, creating the OPEC crisis.
Rather than correcting, we doubled-down again.. and again... and again...
...and now we're here.
We EVEN committed the Cardinal Sin of teaching the idealized version to the next generation, so they'd accept it as factual when none of the numbers actually supported that interpretation.
In short - We decided History and The World really DOES, unironically, revolve on its axis around The United States, and acted accordingly. Sun revolving around the Earth, too.
Though we are mixing things people EXPERIENCED with Economic Indicators.
It started sharply in the early 70s... but only quietly, on the Business side.
By the mid-70's it was motivating public discourse around Economics and Policy decisions. By the late 70's, it was getting increasingly desperate.
So when we roll into the 80s and it reaches the Presidential Election, and is highlighted for everyone to see ~ That's what they remember.
Which is why I try to gently remind folks that these are timeline incidents that bumper-car into each other, and none were the Providence of this incident. Far more like a sliding scale of gray.
I remember looking up something like... electronics manufacture over just a couple of decades. 60s, 70s, 80s. Not really THAT long of a time, but consequential for a nerd like me. And the pattern was plainly sad - We didn't upgrade/update/modernise, Japan did.
Brutal arithmetic.
They reacted to the micro-transistor faster and better than those companies in the US were able. To the point where SHIPPING them was cheaper and more efficient than building them here, and for a better quality.
...obviously that pattern just deepened over the next few decades...
So really: NOT getting bombed-to-rubble was extremely profitable in the short term, but not necessarily the right move immediately before a giant microtechnology boom.
Doesn't have to be Malice or Conspiracy to still be a bad idea, and result in.. well.. **gestures**
Just remember - Those are reactions you're describing.
Absolutely correct, to be clear. But the milk was already starting to sour, and Business wanted SHIT DONE to 'make it better'. By the time Reagan rolled around, it was a full panic. They were willing to sacrifice anything and everyone to get the profits flowing again.
Yes. Everything you said. It feels intentional that the set up to that time period is somewhat suppressed in our classrooms. People do not understand how good the average person had it after WW2 and it was absolutely not the norm.
You're describing the liquid-logic surrounding Rationalization. Everybody priorities something different... even the workers, even the Owners, even the books and the writers of books.
Sure, the one you're responding to is being dismissive. But it demonstrates a real, functional rigidity.
The truth is that we've both accepted, and refused to ACT, simultaneously. Collectively, as a people.
Definitely not true. America had a golden age, labor has had less and less negotiating power as it related to employers. But there are plenty of examples of successful young people. Just not the “get a degree and go blindly into the workforce” route. I’ve been self employed since 16 and busted my ass disproportionately, paid my way through college, and continued with the self employed line of work. Was hard, but the work definitely paid off
A golden age that lasted exactly 20 years. Never existed before, won't exist after.
During that time a whole new generation of fucked-up was born that HONESTLY believed that The Golden Age was the new normal for America, and they worked, invested, and gobbled up opportunity accordingly.
That's not hard work.
That's abundance.
They THEN went and SOLD the idea of Hard Work off onto the NEXT generations, as a substitute for Abundance, with diminishing returns as the lie continued to run more and more thin...
...right up to this discussion now.
Success? Yes.
But not success due to hard work. Due to extreme, anomalous abundance instead, which that generation waxes poetically about as if it was due to hard work.
Remember - Humans are unreliable narrators, and kids doubly-so.
If you think success is not strongly correlated with hard work I have fake snake oil medicine to sell you.
Competence, IQ, and hours worked are probably the largest correlated variables as linked to income. Do you think NOT working hard scales with income? You gotta work smart not hard papi. The trick to working smart is the pre-requisite experience which comes from… working
Far more correlation is being born-to and inheriting wealth from a previous generation. Accelerate 'Hard' or 'Work' or 'IQ' with generational wealth and you have nearly every example of a Billionaire, and every example of a Trillinaire.
Working 'smart' is specifically NOT working hard.
Conclusion - Evidence that Generational Wealth breeds the legitimate opportunity for more wealth, including a heavy predominance of all available examples.
No evidence that Hard Work, especially independent of IQ or Pre-existing Wealth, is anything but an outlier primarily suited for Folklore, Religion, and stories about pulling yourself over a fence by your bootstraps.
Holding all things constant. Let’s say 2 *completely* identical rich kids. Who is going to see better outcomes?
The one with the qualities that correlate to higher incomes or the lazy stupid useless one with no skills or career prospects?
Nobody said anything about diminishing returns. It’s a simple statistical fact that those variables are correlated with better economic outcomes. Just because it’s harder to get ahead doesn’t mean it’s impossible nor under the individual’s control. With interest rates as high as they are, most people in this generation are saving & building wealth in the stock market as opposed to through owning a home.
As soon as you say things like 'all things being equal' and 'totally static', not just regarding humans, but whole Macro-demographics?
You're not talking about Economics at all. BUT!
I'll answer your question if you answer mine -
You preface EXACTLY identical rich kids, and ask who gets a better outcome. Economically, I assume. Hand-waving that they'll immediate become not-identical:
The one more adaptable to change.
Thats not IQ, that's not Digging Ditches, or 80 hour weeks.
Fallacy of Composition.
A scenario that includes 'Rich' in the background doesn't necessitate a positive outcome, any more than IQ does, or ability to throw bales of hay.
Each and every variable comes with a sliding scale.
As long as you measure your static tin soldiers - Yes, IQ is statistically likely to have a POSITIVE outcome. Yes, the willingness to work long hours is the same.
IF they were identical, injection-molded products being mass produced, those kinds of trends are useful.
With humans... less so. Far less so. Without digging into History, Warfare, or Social Inequity... JUST immediate opportunity? A Father working for a big company that lands you a job with a golfing buddy is far, far more likely to yield reruns than a thousand steps, a thousand job applications, or a thousand hours peddling a bike uphill.
The things you are mentioning are grossly out-of-proportion with the reward allotment. Not quite to the point of Mythology and Astrology... but you're getting close.
These equations are more about Civil Engineering than mass production of identical examples. Hydrodynamics, Sustainability, Weathering, and Extreme Events.
Hell, I could make a more compelling argument that Dick and/or Breast size, or Contentional Attractiveness correlates better with Success. I could pprroobbaabbllyy make a damn good argument on hair color, or tattoos... still with a (slightly) higher correlation with 'hard work'.
Or, to put it another way - Safety 7th.
...Sure, you can claim 'Safety First', but the reality is that it sits underneath things like -
Betterment of Humanity
Saving Lives
Necessary Sacrifice
Entertainment
The Possibility of Sex
and Boredom
The real, actual reality behind human safety priorities.
I can't say 'But if we ignore all of those overwhelming Florida Man Urges... it's Safety First, right?'.
So yeah.
When was the last time you saw a pair of identical twins, both grossly successful? Well, I can answer that - Chris and Mark Kelly.0
We have plenty of twins out there - And if all things are identical...? But they're not, are they? I just listed an extreme outlier.
There's also the fact that Capitalism had to demonstrate itself to be the better alternative to Communism. Once the competition was gone via USSR falling, there was no more need to give into labor as there were no viable alternatives anymore. We put out the competition.
...and the Soviet Union collapsed in the late 1990's, remember?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
That's far, FAR too close on the timeline to be declaring victory while the United States is suffering a far more consequential trajectory... just on a slower path.
Do you think the History books will remember it as a Competition that was Worth The Cost?
My point was not that the United States isnt on a path to collapse. My point was that the Soviet Union falling made the capitalists stop treating their employees well and stop investing in them.
Exactly. Though we were already an economic powerhouse and honestly in the context of the world, the USA is prime real estate. It’s like playing CIV on easy mode
One of the biggest variables correlated to income is experience, which is a function of work.
The other strongest variables include cognitive ability, occupation/skill type, and education.
Statistically work pays off, the anecdotal part is when it doesn’t and people claiming that’s the norm. If you bust your ass in a low skill job or the wrong type of job then no, it wouldn’t pay off. If you’re in a career with upward trajectory and relatively competent, yes working hard statistically does lead to better career outcomes
>It hasn't since the story in Genesis about Jacob offering 7 years of indentured servitude to marry his daughter.
Wait, what?
How didn't it?
Jacob or Israel was rewarded by God by being the literal father of the 12 tribes of Israel. That's a pretty amazing reward if you're a believer in the Abrahamic religions.
And John Henry chopped a hundred trees a day with his giant blue ox.
I apologizing for dipping into your specific preferred mythology for your example... should I use one from a hundred other mythical examples? Would that make you less argumentative?
WE DON'T USE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS TO ILLUSTRATE ECONOMIC MECHANICS THAT DON'T EXIST.
That's why they're fictional.
And this isn't Rewards from Heaven, this is Economics, specifically Macroeconomics.
Not Mythology.
...that you might mix those up and be angry about them isn't even half as surprising as I wish it was...
But please! Go on. Please tell me more about your fictional historical idols who were rewarded later in heaven...
...and how that translates to Hard Work Paying Off For Young Adults Economically.
Let me guess? Reward after death?? Divine intervention?
I checked my Economics textbooks, and emailed the Fed, but they couldn't find that Economic indicator either.
>And John Henry chopped a hundred trees a day with his giant blue ox.
Uh, John Henry is the folk tale about the train tunnel digger. Paul Bunyan had the axe & Blue Ox.
If you're gonna take an arrogant & condescending stance on this matter, then you should get your examples correct.
>I apologizing for dipping into your specific preferred mythology for your example
You do realize we're talking about this specific mythology, because you literally brought it up, right?
We can talk about characters in Buddhism, Shinto, Greek, Native American, etc. mythology instead if you prefer, but I guarantee you'll lose this argument.
>WE DON'T USE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS TO ILLUSTRATE ECONOMIC MECHANICS THAT DON'T EXIST.
Cool buddy, you brought it up. You also doubled-down when challenged on your fallacious interpretation of the story of Jacob. Point being, if you didn't want to talk about mythologies then you shouldn't have brought it and you certainly shouldn't have doubled-down on it.
>That's why they're fictional.
Again, you brought it up, but by all historical accounts - Paul, from the Bible, did in fact exist. The "debatable" fact about him is whether or not he received the reward he preached about, but he was certainly not a fictional person.
I think I'll mix them up intentionally as equally irrelevant, thank you kindly.
That's two times now the joke DEFINITELY didn't go over your head, because you're too fast and you'll CATCH it.
...and I brought it up for all the reason you just demonstrated. So thank you for that. I can't make the point by just saying "People can't discuss this impartially without using fictional goalposts as economic indicators".
It takes you busting in here like the Kool Aid Man going "NUUHH UHHH~!!!" to really hammer that point home about objectivity.
So again. Thank you. You demonstrated it perfectly.
This is why we can't have an honest discussion about it. Because the Objectivity of the participants is already poisoned with fictional statistics, evidence, and rewards... and there's always SOMEBODY who can't resist the temptation.
That, my friend, is you.
~ ~ ~
On an unrelated note - You really ought to go talk to your local Priest or Rabbi about the Historical anchors in Genesis. Mostly because you'll find almost none.
They are NOT the non-fictional examples you're looking to support your argument.
>Again, you brought it up, but by all historical accounts - Paul, from the Bible, did in fact exist. The "debatable" fact about him is whether or not he received the reward he preached about, but he was certainly not a fictional person.
JACOB (not Paul) almost certainly did not exist, and you quick-swapped him in there in your rush to find a biblical character that Probably-Maybe existed... forgetting that I never mentioned Paul at all.
Definitely something to talk to your local Religious Advisor about, before you go drag it into another Economics discussion...
...unless by 'Paul', you really meant Paul Bunyan, who obviously was a historical figure from the Bible.
Pointless nonsense considering the article doesn't actually say what's the "data" nor what "hard work" means
Most of the article seems to be about social security for the older generation, which obviously is bad when there's more old people and less young people, which is a real problem, but not sure does that have to do with hard working paying off or not
Did you even read the article? He said right there that the data is, quote, "beyond contestation". You don't trust the guy with an ambiguous PhD that is a professor of an undefined topic?
Well I disagree and even if hard work doesn't net you what you feel it should have doesn't mean you don't continue with having that mindset because I can guarantee the opposite will be worse.
I'll work harder when I see my laziest co-workers get fired or whipped into shape. Until then, I'll be getting everything done in 6 hours and relaxing in my spotless department.
Small rant before commenting on the substance of the article. Am I incompetent or is it strangely difficult to determine what Paul has his PhD in, or even what he teaches? He can have valuable economic insight without being an economist, but I'm not comfortable with what I perceive as a subtle implication that he has more authority on the topic than is appropriate. Anyway...
> Dr. Kershaw wants to ask the wealthiest 20 per cent of retirees to accept a smaller Old Age Security benefit, which would free up billions to lift seniors out of poverty, cut rents for young people and expand student grants.
I assume this would mean that the government retains those funds and allocates them elsewhere? I'm curious if he gives any real estimates for how much saved revenue this would be for the government, and how this would impact rent in particular. I specify real estimates because "billions" freed up is pretty broad.
> Canseco’s own path ran through Tampico and Mexico City, where his father was elected to Mexico’s Senate, before landing in Vancouver in 2000 for a master’s in journalism at UBC.
The fact that they're transparent about Canseco's education is making me even more uncomfortable with the lack of clarity on Kershaw.
This article leaves me with a feeling of "That was a whole lot of nothing", which I hate feeling. I don't know anything about economics, so if I'm reading an article and not taking anything away, I should assume it's because I missed something rather than the article lacking substance.
With that acknowledged, the best interpretation I can present for this is that it's main purpose is to inform people of the upcoming debate. Even if that is the case, the lack of data presented, combined with the ambiguous presentation of Kershaw's credentials, combined with the highly pessimistic presentation of the future, combined with the lack of comments from the optimistic view...all add up to feel very unsatisfying to me. Especially since a few of the comments I've seen under this post have already accepted the negative premise despite the article not presenting any data for it.
Worked HR for a bit. Typed resumes and applications go on top. Of those.. anything with a misspelled word gets thrown away. Then anything that’s not filled out completely is thrown out. Then education came next. Experience was next. Of the few who filled all the boxes, the top ten percent were sent upstairs!
Like I didn’t live through the S&L
Crisis, the Dot-Com meltdown, 9-11-01, The Great Recession, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, COVID and what ever the fuck ditch Trump is trying to put us in?
And here I thought us Gen-X'ers were the most cynical generation.
This country has always been fucked.. get your head out of your ass.
Reddit will always downvote this sadly, don’t let it get to you, because the demo here is teens and 20 something’s. I have a similar situation/ trajectory (less the immigrant story, but paid my way), and I graduated right as the 08 collapse happened. Yes, situation is different today but let me tell you in 09 the sky was falling and I was happy for my back office $30k/yr job using my finance degree doing data entry.
change jobs every 2 years until you get to the level you want, literally always be job hunting.
if you can’t get to the level you want jumping from corporate to corporate, try consulting to build relationships with a variety of clients and then jump to one you like
25% of your time should be spent with AI building something for yourself. What niche do you know best? What business can you create? What has someone missed?
be likeable, climbing any ladder requires a network and a layer of bullshit you have to deal with
always be learning, certs, utilizing tuition reimbursement, whatever, plenty of top tier schools offer plenty of options to then add to your LinkedIn profile
LinkedIn sucks now though sadly, it used to be a good resource, but has been enshittified, content is mostly bullshit and the amount of invites from people I don’t know about any and everything is insane.
I’m sure others have tips for what worked for them.
It’s the only way to legit keep up with inflation frankly. My title didn’t change with every move, but I’ve quadrupled my income in the 12 years since graduating college.
LinkedIn is the “personification of the corporate ladder”, lots of bullshit to deal with, but that is the reality for most to reach a level where the money is real.
It’s because mass immigration has made it impossible for entry level hires to find work. They undercut wages and do more work for worse working conditions. Common sense 101. Offshoring and outsourcing is bad for the domestic worker. Nobody can be pro worker but mass immigration in a job market defined by scarcity.
I’m glad to see that you want to be first in line to work the fields and wipe old peoples’ asses. /s
For real though, there are many jobs that we can’t find enough American workers to do, especially not for the low wages places want to pay for those jobs. While I’m sure those jobs should be paid better, I really don’t know how to make that happen on the scale that is needed, especially when it comes to caring for the elderly. I’m all ears if someone has ideas on how to balance those needs in a realistic manner.
Offshoring and visas for tech workers when we have plenty of unemployed tech workers here, though, that we can agree is an issue. I have no problem with folks from other places getting jobs, but it’s the companies lying saying they can’t find workers here so that they can bring in workers whose visas they hold over their heads in order to get them to submit to abusive workplaces and extreme overwork.
There are surely some niche roles in tech or more likely specific types of engineering outside of tech that we can’t find enough skilled domestic labor for, but most of it is companies and recruiters lying.
>Dr. Kershaw and Canseco will face Troika Developments CEO Renee Merrifield and UBCO alumna Shreya Saxena, who are arguing the “yes” side of the debate.
>Despite his confidence, Dr. Kershaw says the case isn’t about winning an argument on stage, but about what happens after.
>“I have intergenerational love working on my side,” he says. “That’s a beautiful starting point for making change.”
Upstairs_Baby8424 | 9 hours ago
The hardest part is that because there’s no loyalty from companies and resume submission is so automated, it’s now more about who you know than what you know.
Imaginary_Zone_4319 | 9 hours ago
Always has been dude
unknownpoltroon | 9 hours ago
Not to this extreme. Like you could at least put in a resume and know it was at least going to a job or a trash bin, not some fucked up data collection thing.
alilhillbilly | 8 hours ago
Not really.
My whole career has been sending in a resume and never hearing shit back. You send in the resume and then you start hunting down people who work there however you can and make yourself known.
I've worked at some cool places but sending in a resume has never been a direct pipeline to a decent job on its own in the last 20 years.
Retired-Yam8988 | 8 hours ago
Same - every job I’ve had was through a friend and they got it from their friend. Blind submits have never really worked for me in my decades of work experience.
alilhillbilly | 8 hours ago
Someone on Reddit made a comment years ago that has stuck with me during the long tail end of the Great Recession when I was looking for a job for 2 years.
I lamented the resume submission thing.
And they asked me if I was a white dude.
I said yeah.
And they were like, "that's not for you. You're supposed to have a network where we find you through our network of people. We are not looking for you in that stack. We're looking for the candidates we can't find from our own network."
Ie, women and non-white men.
That hit hard because I did not have that network but it was an important lesson about how to sell myself to employers.
I do think in some cases if you are the group at the moment that the company needs to hire to look like they have whatever diversity they need the resume route can absolutely work.
But, I think even that one kinda edge success case is less in 2026.
solomons-mom | 7 hours ago
In more recent years in some tech departments, the network changed to caste, but same idea.
LysolSaw | 8 hours ago
I'm really glad you bring this point up because every time "it's now what you know, it's who you know" gets brought up I think about how that works for everyone but white men in a society that has model minorities and self segregation.
unknownpoltroon | 8 hours ago
What the hell kind of white privilege uno reverse card are you trying to play here skippy?
trampled_empire | 7 hours ago
You really misread that comment huh
unknownpoltroon | 8 hours ago
I didnt say you heard shit back, i siait it was going to a job or the trash.
maztron | 8 hours ago
What is the difference between an AI tool trashing your resume that is configured for what they as an individual would be scanning for? Hint, there isn't a difference. It just makes the process that much quicker.
Scooter_McAwesome | 8 hours ago
No - resumes were always thrown away
Retired-Yam8988 | 8 hours ago
Haha our business gets people coming in regularly to hand in paper resumes in person. Most go directly into the trash.
Yellowdog727 | 9 hours ago
It's always been like this to some degree but I really do think it's getting worse with continued proliferation of the job market by college graduates (including international students) and more automation in the hiring process
Imaginary_Zone_4319 | 8 hours ago
Yup but knowing someone who works there and can recommend you vets you for a culture and personality fit - the kind of thing that can’t be vetted through an interview process. From there it’s just seeing if they’re capable of doing the job competently.
Being a hiring manager is about way more than just seeing if the person can do the job. It’s about seeing if you want to manage them and if they’ll be a good fit for the team - and a recommendation can give them that vetting.
Kermit_the_hog | 8 hours ago
But competency is still in consideration as a determinate right?.. right??
Imaginary_Zone_4319 | 8 hours ago
Yeah but it’s like the lowest bar of the hiring process.
It’s shockingly easy to find competent people once you’re hiring for non-entry level roles.
You’re often not looking for a cream of the crop world beater. Those people get bored quickly and are expensive as hell. Instead you want someone who can do the job well enough.
maztron | 8 hours ago
It's definitely not the lowest. That's an absurd take. I don't give a shit how nice you are or how good of a fit you would be for the "team". If you aren't competent those other things mean absolutely nothing unless you work at a country club.
Imaginary_Zone_4319 | 7 hours ago
Dude I’ve been on a hiring team before in a white collar position hiring for 6-figure positions. After the first or second interview rounds we’ll have whittled the candidate pool to 6-10 people who could literally all do the job competently. From there the decision is literally made based on if they’re a culture fit and if we like them as a team.
You spend a minimum of 40 hours a week with them, of course them not being an asshole or an energy vampire or overly sensitive or a million other things is important - all of those are things that can make working with them soul sucking.
You can say I’m wrong all you want but it’s to your own detriment.
Edit: ah, of course, hidden profile. I have a feel you’ve only ever worked low level jobs or are still in college.
maztron | 7 hours ago
>Dude I’ve been on a hiring team before in a white collar position hiring for 6-figure positions. After the first or second interview rounds we’ll have whittled the candidate pool to 6-10 people who could literally all do the job competently. From there the decision is literally made based on if they’re a culture fit and if we like them as a team.
Ok so what you are saying is competency is literally the highest bar that is set JUST TO BE CONSIDERED to be in the group of 6-10 people. That's hardly the lowest denominator when you are claiming it's a prerequisite to even get to the second phase in the interview process. This completely contradicts your original statement.
>You spend a minimum of 40 hours a week with them, of course them not being an asshole or an energy vampire or overly sensitive or a million other things is important - all of those are things that can make working with them soul sucking
Never disagreed with any of this.
>You can say I’m wrong all you want but it’s to your own detriment.
Buddy, you can't be speaking of an interview process and claim that the lowest bar is being competent while on the same breath claim that it is literally the first thing you must pass before you can get to the next phase. Maybe word it differently next time.
>Edit: ah, of course, hidden profile. I have a feel you’ve only ever worked low level jobs or are still in college.
I probably make more than you do and I have hired people whose salaries surpassed six figures as well. Don't sit here and act like you're special because you have hired people in that salary range. Furthermore, gloating about something such as that either means you are insecure or lying, and from 2020 -2026 its nothing special. I certainly don't need to sit here and speak of the salaries of who I've hired to prove a point about competency and its importance in the hiring process.
Also, the fact that you are more worried about what my post history is instead of just arguing the points shows you are full of shit. No one who claims to do what you do would have to go through someone's post history to debate their position. Weirdo.
CommitteeofMountains | 7 hours ago
I think also because of various ways scam applications have become more effective. You hear about farms out in India where the computers use AI to apply to every job posted online and then one face on camera and another dubbing and some other idiot entirely showing for work, so being the in-law of a current employee at least confirms you're a single person.
Gougeded | 8 hours ago
Capital is winning against labor and AI will just supercharge this trend. At which point do we as a society recognize that the justification for concentration of wealth (hard work, risk taking, etc) doesn't hold anymore? Of course you'll always find people who worked hard and "made it" but we're reaching a point where inheriting even a modest real estate portfolio from your parents will do more for you financially than becoming a surgeon. Hard to defend that system.
Dest123 | 7 hours ago
What is going to even happen when "labor" doesn't exist anymore because it was replaced by AI and robots? I think if it were up to AI, it's probably 50/50 that we all live in a paradise or it kills us all. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be up to AI. I think it will be up to the trillionaires that own AI and robotics companies. I think with them, the odds are more like 98% that they just all treat us like disposable garbage or kill us all.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What could be more powerful than hitting the singularity first? I doubt whoever does it will allow others the chance to catch up.
veryupsetandbitter | 7 hours ago
I'd more welcome Skynet killing us all than us becoming actual slaves to billionaires in their carved out fiefdoms.
Darth_Annoying | 8 hours ago
Sounds like how I've heard the economies of 18th century Europe worked.
sarges_12gauge | 8 hours ago
Did anybody read the article? Why is this allowed here? It’s a piece of crap clickbait say-nothing piece that does not include any supporting arguments for the headline at all lol
It doesn’t even link to an argument! Just have a random tweet for people to react to, it’s the same thing and would at least be honest that it’s backed by nothing
A-Bone | 8 hours ago
> Why is this allowed here? It’s a piece of crap clickbait say-nothing piece that does not include any supporting arguments for the headline at all lol
Seriously
Clickbate works, I guess.
FreeMarketFlora | 8 hours ago
> Why is this allowed here?
I reported to have it removed. Articles like this, with an intention to outrage but without any substance to discuss, take away from what I believe this sub could be about.
I don't intend to say every submission has to be a peer reviewed piece but at least let whatever it is you share put some effort into the topic they're trying to highlight
StrebLab | 7 hours ago
Agreed. There are enough subreddits already for circlejerking
twenty_three_three | 7 hours ago
Go and start your own economics sub. So fucking annoying hearing complaints when its as easy as putting in your own work.
Aselleus | 8 hours ago
Hard work used to mean raises/accolades/job security, now it means no acknowledgement other than a pat on the back, and then more work when people get laid off. And then if you are there a bit too long that means you're being paid too much and therefore let go in the next layoff.
Worldx22 | 8 hours ago
Shocking. I saw the writing on the wall back in 2010! It's not about working hard as much as it is about working smart. Statistically you will make more money jumping from job to job than you will staying loyal to one company. Those days are over. You're not getting a pension. There is no incentive to stick around.
unexpectedhalfrican | 8 hours ago
I feel lucky that I am one of the outliers that actually will be rewarded for loyalty in the form of a pension. Granted, I have to put up with 20 more years of bullshit from an employer who is actively trying to get legacy employees to leave so they don't have to pay out full pensions and post-retirement benefits. But it's worth it if I can leave at 55 and never have to work again unless I want to.
SomeDeafKid | 7 hours ago
Hello fellow government employee lmao
Spaduf | 7 hours ago
Wild how you're totally wrong about the cause and conclusion. Late by almost 15 years too
sarges_12gauge | 7 hours ago
How is staying with one company “working harder” than jumping job to job?
Due_Information_1332 | 8 hours ago
The notion that we were ever living in a meritocracy is just foolish. All the indicators of "hard-work" are directly related to the pedigree of social network to which one has matched. This has been true since the dawn of mankind. "Born with a silver spoon in the mouth" is not just some colloquial yarn.
Spaduf | 7 hours ago
The term meritocracy comes from a dystopian scifi novel. It's just about capitalists justifying their position in a way that sounds scientific
User299651 | 8 hours ago
I’m still pissed at myself for getting a BS degree. Biggest waste of time and money in my life thus far. Had I just saved all the money and put it into ETFs, I would be in a much better place today…
LuckyPlaze | 8 hours ago
I don’t believe it ever did. Hard work alone never paid off, except maybe the 50s and that’s just because everything was booming. But I don’t think there has ever been in a point in history where hard work alone would lift your social status.
Hard work with brains with discipline with the right profession or business or unique skill set…. That still works. It’s proven over and over. But it’s always a combination.
emoney_gotnomoney | 8 hours ago
Yep. I don’t know why people always spout nonsense like that. As you said, hard work is just one component of success. You also need to make good choices. I know people who work very hard at making stupid decisions, and guess what? They are not successful.
The analogy I always use is comparing hard work to water. While water is absolutely necessary for survival, water alone is not enough to keep you alive, and in fact, it never has been. You also need some sort of nutrition, shelter, etc.
In the same vein, hard work is necessary for success, but hard work alone is not enough to be successful. You also need to make smart / wise decisions on top of working hard.
LuckyPlaze | 8 hours ago
Perfect analogy.
KazTheMerc | 9 hours ago
Are we... just now realizing this somehow...?
I mean, I'd LOVE for this reversal of roles and rewards to FINALLY be done with, but you'd be hard pressed to find examples of this WORKING beyond extremely isolated self-reported incidents.
I'll just say it: Hard work doesn’t pay off for a young adult
It hasn't since the story in Genesis about Jacob offering 7 years of indentured servitude to marry his daughter.
This NEVER should have been taken as factual, proven, and CERTAINLY not an Economic functioning. Rather, the exact opposite is generally true.
Extremely brutal, life-shortening, dangerous work predominantly is farmed out to immigrants, outsiders, and the young so that they can die for your country in exchange for little or no wage.
In summary: No shit. It's been that way for thousands of years.
You have to contort and bend over backwards to find examples where hard work DOES pay off for a young adult.
EDIT - OKAY FOLKS, LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU - WE DON'T USE REWARDS FOR FICTIONAL CHARACTERS AS ECONOMIC INDICATORS. Mmkay?
Mmkay.
If you went straight to "Well, astuallllyyy~!", and downvotes... it's because you missed the joke.
AR475891 | 9 hours ago
There was a brief window between ww2 and the 1980s in America where labor had enough power so that as long as someone made the effort to just show up to their factory job, they could have a pretty decent life.
Honestly one of americas biggest issues is that many people treat that period as the status quo when it was an anomaly that required decades of effort to setup. Recent generations have just fallen for the propaganda that the middle class is self sustaining and that unions and the government just need to get out of the way.
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
YES~! The American Golden Age! I'm always happy when folks remember this actually existed!
A period of EXTREME anomoly in the global markets, as the United States was the only major industrial base NOT bombed to absolute rubble during the War.
There's an even more sad twist on exactly what you've said - Remember that Boomers were children growing up during this time. They weren't at a point where there was any understanding of what they were experiencing.
That's not an excuse. It's just... why they think it's Normal.
Because for that tiny, itsy bitsy period of time, from 1950 - 1970 is WAS normal. Briefly.
And then all the industry the whole world over came roaring back into the void that the US had eagerly filled... and 10 years later we find ourselves priced out of the manufaturing of almost any durable industrial goods. Cars, electronics, etc. We instead pivot to a Service industry of Music, Movies, Software, Services, Research, and other non-durable goods.
It was normal for them.
1900grs | 8 hours ago
> There was a brief window between ww2 and the ~~1980s~~ 1970s
but, yes. Late 70s, early 80s is when the when the wheels came off. Jack Welch became a VP at GE in 1968 and vice chairman in 1979. Reagan was elected president in 80, taking control in 81. Enshitificication since.
klingma | 8 hours ago
To blame it all on Jack Welch & Regan is crazy while ignoring the oil embargo and the damage it did, Nixon opening up manufacturing in China which started the off-shoring trend, and the rise of Japan which started in mid-1950's and made them major competitors in the international market.
Those three factors led to a downturn in American manufacturing and forced a pivot to a service based economy which required labor with a higher skill level I.e. college & above.
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
Still an indicator, though.
Yes, it's wrong to blame Nixon/Reagan
But American manufacturing was already pivoting... because it was being REPLACED by Global Manufacturing that had remained dormant during the Reconstruction era after the war.
Which is to say - The system was normalizing back to the way it had been pre-WW1/WW2.
America got to enjoy unprecedented success filling-in the void during that transition...
...but we didn't treat it like a temporary thing, did we? These huge, global forces moving. We treated it like the new normal. We bought and lended like it was the new normal. We recorded history like it was the new normal. We treated our allies and enemies like it was the new normal.
One should not attribute Enemy Action when simple Ignorance or Stupidity will suffice -
We misunderstood.
Rather than correcting our misunderstanding... we double-down, creating the OPEC crisis.
Rather than correcting, we doubled-down again.. and again... and again...
...and now we're here.
We EVEN committed the Cardinal Sin of teaching the idealized version to the next generation, so they'd accept it as factual when none of the numbers actually supported that interpretation.
In short - We decided History and The World really DOES, unironically, revolve on its axis around The United States, and acted accordingly. Sun revolving around the Earth, too.
And then were shocked when it didn't work out.
1900grs | 6 hours ago
> To blame it all on Jack Welch & Regan
I never said that.
>while ignoring the oil embargo and the damage it did
Absolutely, which is my main point that the "golden era" OP noted was ending well before the 80s.
KazTheMerc | 6 hours ago
Though we are mixing things people EXPERIENCED with Economic Indicators.
It started sharply in the early 70s... but only quietly, on the Business side.
By the mid-70's it was motivating public discourse around Economics and Policy decisions. By the late 70's, it was getting increasingly desperate.
So when we roll into the 80s and it reaches the Presidential Election, and is highlighted for everyone to see ~ That's what they remember.
Which is why I try to gently remind folks that these are timeline incidents that bumper-car into each other, and none were the Providence of this incident. Far more like a sliding scale of gray.
I remember looking up something like... electronics manufacture over just a couple of decades. 60s, 70s, 80s. Not really THAT long of a time, but consequential for a nerd like me. And the pattern was plainly sad - We didn't upgrade/update/modernise, Japan did.
Brutal arithmetic.
They reacted to the micro-transistor faster and better than those companies in the US were able. To the point where SHIPPING them was cheaper and more efficient than building them here, and for a better quality.
...obviously that pattern just deepened over the next few decades...
So really: NOT getting bombed-to-rubble was extremely profitable in the short term, but not necessarily the right move immediately before a giant microtechnology boom.
Doesn't have to be Malice or Conspiracy to still be a bad idea, and result in.. well.. **gestures**
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
Just remember - Those are reactions you're describing.
Absolutely correct, to be clear. But the milk was already starting to sour, and Business wanted SHIT DONE to 'make it better'. By the time Reagan rolled around, it was a full panic. They were willing to sacrifice anything and everyone to get the profits flowing again.
Anything. Anyone.
justherefor23andme | 8 hours ago
Yes. Everything you said. It feels intentional that the set up to that time period is somewhat suppressed in our classrooms. People do not understand how good the average person had it after WW2 and it was absolutely not the norm.
HerroCorumbia | 9 hours ago
Yeah but neoliberal economists physically couldn't accept this fact without "data" because they refuse to listen to actual working people.
NonReality | 8 hours ago
They still won't accept it lol
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
...yeah, there's a whole list of things we refuse to accept:
Humans are Unreliable Narrators.
Humans tend towards Tribalism and Self Preservation over Society and Cooperation.
Humans tend to be inversely rewarded for Hard Work.
**cue endless clamoring and debate**
Petrichordates | 8 hours ago
Well no economist should accept facts without data, so..
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
I've got CPI numbers back to before America was a country.
...this runs deeper than that...
sarges_12gauge | 7 hours ago
How many working people in the 1960s and 1970s are available to talk to? Nobody has a Time Machine to go back 50-60 years lol
KazTheMerc | 6 hours ago
Uhhhhhhh.
Well. Um. Yeah. We, umm.
Books.
The answer you're looking for is 'books'. So in short - As many as we bothered to write down.
sarges_12gauge | 4 hours ago
Sorry, that makes it data which he said is not allowed
KazTheMerc | 4 hours ago
Nah, I mean...yes. To both of you.
You're describing the liquid-logic surrounding Rationalization. Everybody priorities something different... even the workers, even the Owners, even the books and the writers of books.
Sure, the one you're responding to is being dismissive. But it demonstrates a real, functional rigidity.
The truth is that we've both accepted, and refused to ACT, simultaneously. Collectively, as a people.
UsernameNSomeNumbers | 9 hours ago
Definitely not true. America had a golden age, labor has had less and less negotiating power as it related to employers. But there are plenty of examples of successful young people. Just not the “get a degree and go blindly into the workforce” route. I’ve been self employed since 16 and busted my ass disproportionately, paid my way through college, and continued with the self employed line of work. Was hard, but the work definitely paid off
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
A golden age that lasted exactly 20 years. Never existed before, won't exist after.
During that time a whole new generation of fucked-up was born that HONESTLY believed that The Golden Age was the new normal for America, and they worked, invested, and gobbled up opportunity accordingly.
That's not hard work.
That's abundance.
They THEN went and SOLD the idea of Hard Work off onto the NEXT generations, as a substitute for Abundance, with diminishing returns as the lie continued to run more and more thin...
...right up to this discussion now.
Success? Yes.
But not success due to hard work. Due to extreme, anomalous abundance instead, which that generation waxes poetically about as if it was due to hard work.
Remember - Humans are unreliable narrators, and kids doubly-so.
UsernameNSomeNumbers | 4 hours ago
If you think success is not strongly correlated with hard work I have fake snake oil medicine to sell you.
Competence, IQ, and hours worked are probably the largest correlated variables as linked to income. Do you think NOT working hard scales with income? You gotta work smart not hard papi. The trick to working smart is the pre-requisite experience which comes from… working
KazTheMerc | 3 hours ago
Competence is not necessarily 'worked'
Hours are not necessarily 'hard'
IQ is neither.
Far more correlation is being born-to and inheriting wealth from a previous generation. Accelerate 'Hard' or 'Work' or 'IQ' with generational wealth and you have nearly every example of a Billionaire, and every example of a Trillinaire.
Working 'smart' is specifically NOT working hard.
Conclusion - Evidence that Generational Wealth breeds the legitimate opportunity for more wealth, including a heavy predominance of all available examples.
No evidence that Hard Work, especially independent of IQ or Pre-existing Wealth, is anything but an outlier primarily suited for Folklore, Religion, and stories about pulling yourself over a fence by your bootstraps.
UsernameNSomeNumbers | an hour ago
Feels like you just ignored everything I said.
Holding all things constant. Let’s say 2 *completely* identical rich kids. Who is going to see better outcomes?
The one with the qualities that correlate to higher incomes or the lazy stupid useless one with no skills or career prospects?
Nobody said anything about diminishing returns. It’s a simple statistical fact that those variables are correlated with better economic outcomes. Just because it’s harder to get ahead doesn’t mean it’s impossible nor under the individual’s control. With interest rates as high as they are, most people in this generation are saving & building wealth in the stock market as opposed to through owning a home.
KazTheMerc | 26 minutes ago
I'm definitely not ignoring you.
As soon as you say things like 'all things being equal' and 'totally static', not just regarding humans, but whole Macro-demographics?
You're not talking about Economics at all. BUT!
I'll answer your question if you answer mine -
You preface EXACTLY identical rich kids, and ask who gets a better outcome. Economically, I assume. Hand-waving that they'll immediate become not-identical:
The one more adaptable to change.
Thats not IQ, that's not Digging Ditches, or 80 hour weeks.
Fallacy of Composition.
A scenario that includes 'Rich' in the background doesn't necessitate a positive outcome, any more than IQ does, or ability to throw bales of hay.
Each and every variable comes with a sliding scale.
As long as you measure your static tin soldiers - Yes, IQ is statistically likely to have a POSITIVE outcome. Yes, the willingness to work long hours is the same.
IF they were identical, injection-molded products being mass produced, those kinds of trends are useful.
With humans... less so. Far less so. Without digging into History, Warfare, or Social Inequity... JUST immediate opportunity? A Father working for a big company that lands you a job with a golfing buddy is far, far more likely to yield reruns than a thousand steps, a thousand job applications, or a thousand hours peddling a bike uphill.
The things you are mentioning are grossly out-of-proportion with the reward allotment. Not quite to the point of Mythology and Astrology... but you're getting close.
These equations are more about Civil Engineering than mass production of identical examples. Hydrodynamics, Sustainability, Weathering, and Extreme Events.
Hell, I could make a more compelling argument that Dick and/or Breast size, or Contentional Attractiveness correlates better with Success. I could pprroobbaabbllyy make a damn good argument on hair color, or tattoos... still with a (slightly) higher correlation with 'hard work'.
Or, to put it another way - Safety 7th.
...Sure, you can claim 'Safety First', but the reality is that it sits underneath things like -
Betterment of Humanity Saving Lives Necessary Sacrifice Entertainment The Possibility of Sex and Boredom
The real, actual reality behind human safety priorities.
I can't say 'But if we ignore all of those overwhelming Florida Man Urges... it's Safety First, right?'.
So yeah.
When was the last time you saw a pair of identical twins, both grossly successful? Well, I can answer that - Chris and Mark Kelly.0
We have plenty of twins out there - And if all things are identical...? But they're not, are they? I just listed an extreme outlier.
Smart-March-7986 | 8 hours ago
Yeah but what percentage of the population are you?
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
Irrelevant.
Every success story wants to talk about how they busted their ass.
Every failure story gets shoved under the rug as inadequate Team Spirit, and Go Getter Attitude.
They wouldn't compare their Success to the Failures even if they could. It would break the illusion.
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
But WHY did American have a Golden Age?
Because it wasn't Hard Work.
justherefor23andme | 8 hours ago
There's also the fact that Capitalism had to demonstrate itself to be the better alternative to Communism. Once the competition was gone via USSR falling, there was no more need to give into labor as there were no viable alternatives anymore. We put out the competition.
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
...and the Soviet Union collapsed in the late 1990's, remember?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
That's far, FAR too close on the timeline to be declaring victory while the United States is suffering a far more consequential trajectory... just on a slower path.
Do you think the History books will remember it as a Competition that was Worth The Cost?
justherefor23andme | 8 hours ago
My point was not that the United States isnt on a path to collapse. My point was that the Soviet Union falling made the capitalists stop treating their employees well and stop investing in them.
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
Yeah, I'm not sure the Global War on Communism/Terrorism was ever really going to be a winning strategy for the American Worker.
I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it a distraction... but... I wouldn't argue if somebody else said it...
UsernameNSomeNumbers | 4 hours ago
ELI5? Post war headwinds, Pax Americana, baby boom
KazTheMerc | 4 hours ago
The rest of the world was bombed to rubble.
UsernameNSomeNumbers | 3 hours ago
Exactly. Though we were already an economic powerhouse and honestly in the context of the world, the USA is prime real estate. It’s like playing CIV on easy mode
KazTheMerc | 3 hours ago
And, like Civ, all you have to do to fuck up a post-conflict Golden Age is build and develop like it'll never end.
fenderputty | 8 hours ago
In your schooling did they teach you about anecdotes or statistics or logic? Lol
UsernameNSomeNumbers | 3 hours ago
One of the biggest variables correlated to income is experience, which is a function of work.
The other strongest variables include cognitive ability, occupation/skill type, and education.
Statistically work pays off, the anecdotal part is when it doesn’t and people claiming that’s the norm. If you bust your ass in a low skill job or the wrong type of job then no, it wouldn’t pay off. If you’re in a career with upward trajectory and relatively competent, yes working hard statistically does lead to better career outcomes
klingma | 8 hours ago
>It hasn't since the story in Genesis about Jacob offering 7 years of indentured servitude to marry his daughter.
Wait, what?
How didn't it?
Jacob or Israel was rewarded by God by being the literal father of the 12 tribes of Israel. That's a pretty amazing reward if you're a believer in the Abrahamic religions.
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
And I think I'd make a pretty solid argument that he was the last... assuming he existed at all. See the conundrum there?
Our last 'real' success story very likely didn't exist at all.
That's the power of Legendary Heroes, and the stories we tell about their hard work and rewards.
klingma | 8 hours ago
Well, then your argument would fall apart.
Moses worked hard and was rewarded by being the closest person to God on Earth, and literally getting to speak to him.
Joshua worked hard and was rewarded with getting to be the head of the Israelites and the glory of beating the city of Jericho.
David worked hard and was made a king.
Those are three off the top of my head from the Old Testament. To say Paul wasn't rewarded for his hard work in the New Testament is crazy as well.
KazTheMerc | 8 hours ago
And John Henry chopped a hundred trees a day with his giant blue ox.
I apologizing for dipping into your specific preferred mythology for your example... should I use one from a hundred other mythical examples? Would that make you less argumentative?
WE DON'T USE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS TO ILLUSTRATE ECONOMIC MECHANICS THAT DON'T EXIST.
That's why they're fictional.
And this isn't Rewards from Heaven, this is Economics, specifically Macroeconomics.
Not Mythology.
...that you might mix those up and be angry about them isn't even half as surprising as I wish it was...
But please! Go on. Please tell me more about your fictional historical idols who were rewarded later in heaven...
...and how that translates to Hard Work Paying Off For Young Adults Economically.
Let me guess? Reward after death?? Divine intervention?
I checked my Economics textbooks, and emailed the Fed, but they couldn't find that Economic indicator either.
klingma | 8 hours ago
>And John Henry chopped a hundred trees a day with his giant blue ox.
Uh, John Henry is the folk tale about the train tunnel digger. Paul Bunyan had the axe & Blue Ox.
If you're gonna take an arrogant & condescending stance on this matter, then you should get your examples correct.
>I apologizing for dipping into your specific preferred mythology for your example
You do realize we're talking about this specific mythology, because you literally brought it up, right?
We can talk about characters in Buddhism, Shinto, Greek, Native American, etc. mythology instead if you prefer, but I guarantee you'll lose this argument.
>WE DON'T USE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS TO ILLUSTRATE ECONOMIC MECHANICS THAT DON'T EXIST.
Cool buddy, you brought it up. You also doubled-down when challenged on your fallacious interpretation of the story of Jacob. Point being, if you didn't want to talk about mythologies then you shouldn't have brought it and you certainly shouldn't have doubled-down on it.
>That's why they're fictional.
Again, you brought it up, but by all historical accounts - Paul, from the Bible, did in fact exist. The "debatable" fact about him is whether or not he received the reward he preached about, but he was certainly not a fictional person.
KazTheMerc | 7 hours ago
Nope.
I think I'll mix them up intentionally as equally irrelevant, thank you kindly.
That's two times now the joke DEFINITELY didn't go over your head, because you're too fast and you'll CATCH it.
...and I brought it up for all the reason you just demonstrated. So thank you for that. I can't make the point by just saying "People can't discuss this impartially without using fictional goalposts as economic indicators".
It takes you busting in here like the Kool Aid Man going "NUUHH UHHH~!!!" to really hammer that point home about objectivity.
So again. Thank you. You demonstrated it perfectly.
This is why we can't have an honest discussion about it. Because the Objectivity of the participants is already poisoned with fictional statistics, evidence, and rewards... and there's always SOMEBODY who can't resist the temptation.
That, my friend, is you.
~ ~ ~
On an unrelated note - You really ought to go talk to your local Priest or Rabbi about the Historical anchors in Genesis. Mostly because you'll find almost none.
They are NOT the non-fictional examples you're looking to support your argument.
>Again, you brought it up, but by all historical accounts - Paul, from the Bible, did in fact exist. The "debatable" fact about him is whether or not he received the reward he preached about, but he was certainly not a fictional person.
JACOB (not Paul) almost certainly did not exist, and you quick-swapped him in there in your rush to find a biblical character that Probably-Maybe existed... forgetting that I never mentioned Paul at all.
Definitely something to talk to your local Religious Advisor about, before you go drag it into another Economics discussion...
...unless by 'Paul', you really meant Paul Bunyan, who obviously was a historical figure from the Bible.
Plastic_Key_4146 | 8 hours ago
If hard work paid off, the donkey would own the farm.
Here are some additional characters to contain at least 140 characters in this comment body.
fx2600 | 8 hours ago
Can't come up with a good analogy, too lazy to write enough characters to meet the ridiculously low bar, hard to imagine why you're downwardly mobile
teerre | 7 hours ago
Pointless nonsense considering the article doesn't actually say what's the "data" nor what "hard work" means
Most of the article seems to be about social security for the older generation, which obviously is bad when there's more old people and less young people, which is a real problem, but not sure does that have to do with hard working paying off or not
ControversialQuerier | 6 hours ago
Did you even read the article? He said right there that the data is, quote, "beyond contestation". You don't trust the guy with an ambiguous PhD that is a professor of an undefined topic?
maztron | 8 hours ago
Well I disagree and even if hard work doesn't net you what you feel it should have doesn't mean you don't continue with having that mindset because I can guarantee the opposite will be worse.
tsukubasteve27 | 7 hours ago
I'll work harder when I see my laziest co-workers get fired or whipped into shape. Until then, I'll be getting everything done in 6 hours and relaxing in my spotless department.
ControversialQuerier | 6 hours ago
Small rant before commenting on the substance of the article. Am I incompetent or is it strangely difficult to determine what Paul has his PhD in, or even what he teaches? He can have valuable economic insight without being an economist, but I'm not comfortable with what I perceive as a subtle implication that he has more authority on the topic than is appropriate. Anyway...
> Dr. Kershaw wants to ask the wealthiest 20 per cent of retirees to accept a smaller Old Age Security benefit, which would free up billions to lift seniors out of poverty, cut rents for young people and expand student grants.
I assume this would mean that the government retains those funds and allocates them elsewhere? I'm curious if he gives any real estimates for how much saved revenue this would be for the government, and how this would impact rent in particular. I specify real estimates because "billions" freed up is pretty broad.
> Canseco’s own path ran through Tampico and Mexico City, where his father was elected to Mexico’s Senate, before landing in Vancouver in 2000 for a master’s in journalism at UBC.
The fact that they're transparent about Canseco's education is making me even more uncomfortable with the lack of clarity on Kershaw.
This article leaves me with a feeling of "That was a whole lot of nothing", which I hate feeling. I don't know anything about economics, so if I'm reading an article and not taking anything away, I should assume it's because I missed something rather than the article lacking substance.
With that acknowledged, the best interpretation I can present for this is that it's main purpose is to inform people of the upcoming debate. Even if that is the case, the lack of data presented, combined with the ambiguous presentation of Kershaw's credentials, combined with the highly pessimistic presentation of the future, combined with the lack of comments from the optimistic view...all add up to feel very unsatisfying to me. Especially since a few of the comments I've seen under this post have already accepted the negative premise despite the article not presenting any data for it.
redheadedandbold | 4 hours ago
Boomers not even going to read the article.
We all knew this, anecdotally. Nice to see the data supports the younger generations too concern.
Aggressive_Speech_89 | 8 hours ago
Worked HR for a bit. Typed resumes and applications go on top. Of those.. anything with a misspelled word gets thrown away. Then anything that’s not filled out completely is thrown out. Then education came next. Experience was next. Of the few who filled all the boxes, the top ten percent were sent upstairs!
klingma | 8 hours ago
So literally the people who worked hard on their resumes & applications made it ahead of those who didn't work hard?
IamInternationalBig | 8 hours ago
No matter how hard you work, there is some third world immigrant willing to do the same work for a quarter of the price.
Got to do the work that H1b’s can’t do.
A-Bone | 8 hours ago
Be me:
Born into poverty in the mid 1970s.
Start at the bottom.. literally plumber's apprentice drilling holes all day long
Go to college & manage to get a decent education
Work hard
Weasle your way into the office
Work hard
Go to grad school
Work hard
Get into leadership
Acquire assets & add sweat equity
Work hard
Become a multi-millionaire by 40 years old
Work hard
Look to retire at 55-60 years old
Even if the stats are against us ... It's out there guys..
I know it's not a popular narrative in the age of the Orange-Moran... but it still happens every gawd-damned-day..
Edit: love the down votes.. Doesn't match your narrative?
FatGayTexan | 8 hours ago
Uh yeah it’s not 1980 anymore. That’s what this article is about.
A-Bone | 8 hours ago
> Uh yeah it’s not 1980 anymore.
Math really isn't your thing is it..
justherefor23andme | 8 hours ago
Mid 1970s you still had the benefit of time. Your story is increasingly vanishing.
A-Bone | 8 hours ago
> Your story is increasingly vanishing.
Agreed... but that doesn't mean there's no hope for those that came after me..
There's money to be made if that's what you want to do..
justherefor23andme | 8 hours ago
Yeah, way to not understand the subject at hand.
A-Bone | 8 hours ago
Please feel free to explain the subject at hand.
Kokkor_hekkus | 7 hours ago
Ok Boomer
A-Bone | 7 hours ago
Ha.
Like I didn’t live through the S&L Crisis, the Dot-Com meltdown, 9-11-01, The Great Recession, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, COVID and what ever the fuck ditch Trump is trying to put us in?
And here I thought us Gen-X'ers were the most cynical generation.
This country has always been fucked.. get your head out of your ass.
Kokkor_hekkus | 7 hours ago
Usually not, but in your case yes, seeing as how you are too disingenuous or obtuse to acknowledge that we don't have the same economy anymore.
CornbreadRed84 | 8 hours ago
Nice anecdote
10thflrinsanity | 4 hours ago
Reddit will always downvote this sadly, don’t let it get to you, because the demo here is teens and 20 something’s. I have a similar situation/ trajectory (less the immigrant story, but paid my way), and I graduated right as the 08 collapse happened. Yes, situation is different today but let me tell you in 09 the sky was falling and I was happy for my back office $30k/yr job using my finance degree doing data entry.
10thflrinsanity | 9 hours ago
Young workers:
I’m sure others have tips for what worked for them.
GoldenFox7 | 9 hours ago
Your top bullet is the key. If someone does nothing else but follow that religiously they’re way ahead of most people.
Any_Narwhal_4437 | 7 hours ago
It’s the only way to legit keep up with inflation frankly. My title didn’t change with every move, but I’ve quadrupled my income in the 12 years since graduating college.
CornbreadRed84 | 8 hours ago
Before I got to the last bullet point I was thinking you sound like the personification of LinkedIn.
10thflrinsanity | 3 hours ago
LinkedIn is the “personification of the corporate ladder”, lots of bullshit to deal with, but that is the reality for most to reach a level where the money is real.
Running_Gamer | 8 hours ago
It’s because mass immigration has made it impossible for entry level hires to find work. They undercut wages and do more work for worse working conditions. Common sense 101. Offshoring and outsourcing is bad for the domestic worker. Nobody can be pro worker but mass immigration in a job market defined by scarcity.
k1ttencosmos | 8 hours ago
I’m glad to see that you want to be first in line to work the fields and wipe old peoples’ asses. /s
For real though, there are many jobs that we can’t find enough American workers to do, especially not for the low wages places want to pay for those jobs. While I’m sure those jobs should be paid better, I really don’t know how to make that happen on the scale that is needed, especially when it comes to caring for the elderly. I’m all ears if someone has ideas on how to balance those needs in a realistic manner.
Offshoring and visas for tech workers when we have plenty of unemployed tech workers here, though, that we can agree is an issue. I have no problem with folks from other places getting jobs, but it’s the companies lying saying they can’t find workers here so that they can bring in workers whose visas they hold over their heads in order to get them to submit to abusive workplaces and extreme overwork.
There are surely some niche roles in tech or more likely specific types of engineering outside of tech that we can’t find enough skilled domestic labor for, but most of it is companies and recruiters lying.
Ashendarei | 7 hours ago
>Dr. Kershaw and Canseco will face Troika Developments CEO Renee Merrifield and UBCO alumna Shreya Saxena, who are arguing the “yes” side of the debate. >Despite his confidence, Dr. Kershaw says the case isn’t about winning an argument on stage, but about what happens after. >“I have intergenerational love working on my side,” he says. “That’s a beautiful starting point for making change.”
What kinda dumb bullshit is THAT?