You sound like some kind of redneck with that "go back to your country" bullshit. Someone is making very good points and that's the best thing you can say.
no its not. its pointing the the strong point: gee my country was worse, i moved to this other country where my situation is better, but this new country should do everything like my old country because it was so great that I left it in the first place.
enabling entrepreneurs is what makes america successful. people like them want all the success while crushing businesses. it dont work like that.
Some people like to look out for more than their own interests.
I moved from Australia to the USA because it's the world leader in technology, but if I was in ANY other profession (including starting my own company) I would have stayed in Australia.
The USA is great if you're in the top 1% or work in technology, but other than that there's little reason to migrate. That's why he's proclaiming that employees are basically slaves, general quality of life and job happiness for everyone else is far better in Australia.
And business success rates and the economy is doing just as well in Australia as it is in the USA. You can have the best of both worlds, you just have to look at the data instead of being stuck in ideology.
It's totally ok if you think the USA should favour the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else, but you're doing a disservice to yourself and your fellow Americans if you refuse to even look at the data or consider the possibility that there could be a better way.
person a says: i have a unique perspective into a part of this issue, here are my experiences and how they differ in two societys. I prefer society a's method of handling process x.
person b: go back to your own country if you hate it so much here!
yeah, we are headed for a really productive and intelligent debate here.....
But the topic of discussion at hand is a contrast of launching a business in the person's home country or their current country. In that context the response makes a relevant point that deserves a considered response (or acknowledgement).
The comment was phrased in a way that could be construed as a personal attack and that's not ideal, but it can equally be read as a genuine point if we don't jump to the immediate conclusion that it was a personal attack - The point being: if conditions are more favourable in the home country wouldn't a rational actor move back to their home country and launch there, instead?
I don't agree with the OP by the way, but I interpreted the comment first in the way I described, rather than as 'grr if you don't like it go home'.
That's not the point, most people have the impression that the trending news is automated and generated by some sort of algorithm. It's highly misleading. The trends should really be called "Facebook's Top Picks" instead.
Do intelligent people believe this? That's as nieve as thinking hacker news' front page is determined solely by the up arrow. Or that product hunt isn't controlled by insiders.
Children believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Is it shocking that they're wrong?
Are intelligent people the only people worth looking out for?
Trending implies humanity cares about it, which to the lowly average-joe means humanity cares about it, so s/he should too. This is the part that feels disingenuous on Facebook's part.
Of course even average-joe knows (though probably can't express) that everything around him just wants to consume his attention, so I'm also not overly concerned about it.
Are you crazy or in denial? Are you not aware of the many publications released about how we are no longer even close to the prosperity of the 1940s-1970s as regular Americans?
Measured by the amount of labour required to live a comfortable life? You say we're better off now but can a typical skilled or semi skilled worker today support a family in a secure home as was the case in previous generations?
Measured by the amount of labour required to live a comfortable life?
How do you define a "comfortable life"? I'm thinking the goal posts are constantly moving and that's why people think things were better back in the 1970's. Not blaming anyone for it, it's the human condition to always want things to be better.
Let's see:
1940's - WW2, America is just coming out of a 15 year recession
1950's - Constant threat of nuclear war, Korean War, economically things are looking up
1960's - Numerous race riots, economy is still doing relatively well
1970's - Rampant inflation, rather stagflation, gas shortages
I've asked my family (older generations) and they agree things are way better now. And they aren't what you'd even call middle class.
Yes. I can support a family and own a house with an average income in the Midwest. I also don't have to work in a factory or destroy my body physically.
I can do it all from the comfort of a temperature controlled office.
Many people seem to think they need to live in New York or San Francisco to live the good life.
Were you not able to make the connection that he wasn't talking about income inequality causing suicides? He was talking about people having less money than before, financial problems, stagnating wages.
inflation means that today's $1 can buy less than yesterday's $1. If your wages are not increasing at least at the rate of inflation then you are steadily getting poorer. After all, 50 years ago you could buy a house in my neighbourhood for about $60k, now it's at about $500k (without any significant changes to demographic/gentrification pushing prices up).
Hey since you love authority, you realize that NPM decided to change the ownership of the kik module without asking his permission right? Life isn't black and white.
Revolution? Drinking the kool aid much? My team has it. We've had it for a month or two now. There has only been a handful of posts and most of them are "TGIF" posts.
I realize you're skeptical too, but I'm saying I wouldn't even go as far as to call it a revolution. Call it a trend if you'd like, that's giving it too much credit.
Capitalism is only troublesome for our dear CEO when it directly affects him. Let's forget the labor laws/licenses many startups avoid by classifying themselves outside of traditional industries. Let's not forget about the older non technology savvy immigrants that typically could make a living with taxis that have now been put out of a job since they may not know how some app works. "Innovation" works both ways.
> Let's not forget about the older non technology savvy immigrants that typically could make a living with taxis that have now been put out of a job since they may not know how some app works.
Seriously, LA cabs suck. I've had one good ride that was the Santa Monica Green Cab.
One time a cabbie tried to take me to Burbank from Koreatown by going south on the 101! Everyone knows that you take Wilshire to Vermont, letting you skip the traffic on...
But seriously, it's the people I would bet fall into that category that usually resulted in the worse cab rides. They even anecdotally generally result in the worse Uber rides, only the communication is less of an issue because I can just put in an address and everything after that is entertaining gestures and failed attempts at communication, but I still get where I'm going.
1. It assumes you don't need to be technically savvy to drive a taxi (where?))
2. It assumes you can make a living (where?) driving taxis
3. It assumes the reason some people might be out of a job is because they can't adapt to one particular kind of app (hint - Uber isn't the only "taxi" app).
Couple things come to mind. Throughout my time, I've seen that women have their fair share of not wanting to marry down either. You want to say generalizations generalizations. Sure, but I think the age old stereotypes do have a hint of truth to them and the Bloomberg page here also states, "High-earning women (doctors, lawyers) tend to pair up with their economic equals, while middle- and lower-tier women often marry up."
You say problem in quotation marks and I don't know why that is? If people are not finding their partners, that's a huge problem.
Here's the anecdotal:
My sister and her friends are all pretty educated women. Unfortunately, their standards have really gone up since receiving said education. I'm not saying this to bash, it's simply my observation. These days, they're all still single and reaching/past 30 and no man can scratch their itch. The whole thing is problematic.
Of course you'll find some males that "marry up", but the data proves what many of us have known forever - as a man, you should strive to be elite in something, preferably something useful and sexually attractive. Otherwise you're just another brick in the wall.
Where this is all going to blow up in society is the fact that women are now better-educated, and will soon make more money than their male counterparts, who are slowly getting more discriminated against (see Yahoo lawsuit) and less engaged in the proverbial rat race.
A case in point is looking at highly successful black females. They have a rough time in the dating scene, and this is extremely well-documented. Over the course of the next generation, I see this spreading to other females as well.
What effectively is going to happen is that you'll see more men dropping out of the marriage pool, the pareto principle in dating will become stronger than ever, and reliance upon the nanny state to help single mothers raise their children will likely go up too.
Hate it all you want, but these are three extremely well-established trends and I don't see them getting any better. Tinder is the canary in the coalmine. This is where we're heading.
A country needs strong, highly-engaged men who act as leaders. America is losing that more each and every day, and it saddens me.
At least in North America, Black females, like Asian men, have a harder time in the dating scene partially due to their gender/ethnicity combination. Both sets endure media representation and stereotypes that play against their sexual desirability. I'm sure people here will profess that they are immune to any images cultivated by the media and I'm not going to discount their experience. However, I think it's naive to believe that images we consume on a daily basis, such as the gender/ethnicity makeup of desirable lead characters or negative representations in the news don't unconsciously affect us. Anecdotally, I have met more black men who said they would never date a black women and Asian women who said they'd never date Asian men compared to white people who say they'd never date a white person. Online dating stats from eHarmony, okCupid, and coffeemeetsbagel reinforce that observation.
On top of that, people generally have a statistical preference for those within their own race. And if black men have a higher tendency to be imprisoned than other men, that puts black women at an additional disadvantage to finding a partner.
I guess my overall point is issues black women face are very different and unique to what Hispanic/White/Asian women face.
I have seen and experienced this, from the inside.
I'm an educated black man (MS Degree) with a good job (Fortune 500 company) and my female relatives, many of whom are also educated and successful have difficulty with establishing and maintaining relationships.
Obviously not all, but many black women have unrealistic expectations. As other have already pointed out, women are adverse to marrying "down" so when a woman reaches a certain level of education/career advancement, it's extremely difficult to find a mate that meets her criteria. Lists of things, like Over 6 feet tall, lots of muscles, Bachelor's degree or higher, Churchgoing Christian, no children, good relationship with his mother, not domineering but not too passive, earning at least 6 figures and other wish-list type stuff. There are women who won't give a man the time of day unless he meets all of them. They, as you can well imagine, are lonely.
There are cultural taboos against black women becoming romantically involved with non black or hispanic men. I have only personally known one black woman who was involved with an asian man(his family came here from Vietnam and he grew up in "the 'hood") and only a few who are involved with white men.
I have never been in a relationship with a black woman. A date here and there. A fling here and there but never a relationship. Where I live, a video game playing, Dungeons and Dragons fan, comic book collecting, politically active guy doesn't tend to get much romantic interest from black women. Then, there's also the phenomenon of the black women who don't want anything to do with you getting upset because you're dating outside of the race.
I have also noticed that as we approach and pass 40 years of age, these women with their stratospheric standards are forced to carry on alone and bitter or drop their standards. Some of them get rid of them entirely just to get a man. I have even heard a fair bit of professional women getting involved with street dudes.
I guess my overall point is issues black women face are very different and unique to what Hispanic/White/Asian women face.
Agreed. Some of the issues are cultural, some are societal and some are of their own making.
As an Asian man - If I was single and I "hit on" a woman on the street once a day, it's more likely than not I'll be in a relationship within the month. It's not that hard, I often wonder how easy it is for non-Asian men. Do you just turn on Tinder and find yourself sleeping with women within 24 hours?
You've got more bravery than most to just walk up to a lady during the day and say hi. That more than makes up for any disadvantages your race may put you at.
> I have met more black men who said they would never date a black women and Asian women who said they'd never date Asian men compared to white people who say they'd never date a white person
Anecdote: a second-gen-immigrant Italian friend of mine said her mother declared that my friend was not allowed to marry an Italian man, the reasoning being "I didn't raise my daughters to be mothers to their husbands". My friend said that from what her mother saw, Italian-culture men behaved like other men when married to a non-Italian woman, but when married to an Italian, there was a cultural expectation similar to mothering involved.
> as a man, you should strive to be elite in something, preferably something useful and sexually attractive. Otherwise you're just another brick in the wall.
The way you phrase this, the more probable cause would be that women don't want to marry down, hence men are motivated to be better (and they know that by being "just another brick in the wall" won't get them the partner they want").
This agrees with my observations of the world. Men don't care about accomplishments, they (we) just want a woman that is beautiful; whereas women care much more about a man's social status (warning: this is a very broad generalisation and of course doesn't hold for everybody).
> A country needs strong, highly-engaged men who act as leaders. America is losing that more each and every day, and it saddens me.
Literally every president in US history has been a man, 80.6% of Congress are men, 95.5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are men, and you're sad that it's getting marginally harder for men and that the country is lacking in strong male leaders?
Men-as-homogeneous-group fallacy. Given a high variance, it's entirely possible that the top [small-percentage]% of men hold presidencies, CEO positions, etc, while the large majority of men are suffering a degradation in status, respect, resources, etc. (And objectively so -- look at earnings trends in inflation-adjusted terms for men vs. women over the past 40 years.) The way these two are conflated seems to be at the root of a lot of animosity in the Gender Wars lately.
I'd tend to agree with GP that while existing as a white male today is still "easy mode" in many ways when you do push yourself, there's definitely this feeling that society is celebrating everyone else while you're sort of left on your own without much encouragement.
I find it rather interesting that people advocate for such things as basic income (wherein a basic level of financial incentive is obviated), all the while steadfastly grasping at the notion that sexual/ marital incentive is essential for a thriving country.
Well, anecdotal evidence to match your anecdotal evidence: I'm a female with a master's in software engineering and am marrying a guy with one semester of music school who's been a social worker for 10 years, in the spring.
But less anecdotally: for the first time in history, the percent of couples in which the woman has obtained a higher level of education than the man is higher than the other way around: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/12/record-share... Keep in mind that this is ALL couples, whether they were married last month, or 50 years ago, so the trend can be expected to lag behind current graduation trends. So both men and women seem to be figuring it out, your sister aside.
"Does marrying someone with less education mean “marrying down” economically? Not necessarily. When we look at the newlywed women who married someone with less education, we find that a majority of these women actually “married up.” In 2012, only 39% of newlywed women who married a spouse with less education out-earned their husband, and a majority of them (58%) made less than their husband."
Right, my interpretation of other comments about education, was that women were marrying down based on education level. But economically this isn't true. They still marry up.
I'd be surprised if degree level was a major factor by itself. E.g. If the woman has a masters but the man has only a bachelors, she would discount the man as a potential mate. He may still be socioeconomically on par or better.
My wife has a PhD, and is a Senior Data Scientist (why not Chief, who knows), and belongs to a noble Swedish/Finnish family.
I am P.O.C. trash, from a (mostly) poor town in S Tacoma, WA.
I hit the jackpot.
> Unfortunately, their standards have really gone up since receiving said education. I'm not saying this to bash, it's simply my observation.
I suspect that part of it has to do with the circles you hang out in. If you are a non-professional man, you are less likely to interact with professional women. If you do, you will have more chance to pair-wise bond. Anecdotally, a guy I train Krav Maga with, works at the maintenance crew at a local hotel. His wife has a degree in Aerospace Engineering. They met at a gym.
In marriage intelligence is more important than status. Men normally don't want to marry a smarter woman then them and the opposite on women. 1600 karma gives you some relationship potential and places you above trash..
Height for men is like weight for women. Women want taller and men want lighter.
No no no no no. Height for men is like age for women. A woman can lose weight if she wants a particular man, but, just like men cannot make themselves taller, women cannot make themselves younger.
Also, some men like a BBW. I suspect this is much more common than women who actively prefer short men. (I have been a BBW. Some men really, really like that.)
> 1600 karma gives you some relationship potential and places you above trash.
First time I've heard that spending more of your time posting comments to the internet raises your dating potential. Karma comes from comments. More comments, more karma.
Nice. Growing up, I loved going swimming at the PLU pool.
Also it's a small world when an HN reader that attended college in the small town I grew up in, would find my comment and correctly guess that small town.
> My sister and her friends are all pretty educated women. Unfortunately, their standards have really gone up since receiving said education.
Once you reach a certain level in earnings you will have a very hard time finding someone that earns approximately the same amount.
I'm sure that this is currently even harder for men.
In this situation you really only have the choice to either marry down or never have a family of your own and stay alone for the rest of your life.
The thing is, you don't really "marry down". Usually people in the US/EU don't have to fear that they will have to face starvation or anything like that if they marry the wrong women/man so what is marrying down even about?
If one partner already has a lot of resources, why would he/she then require the other partner to be his/her equal in this regard?
When you remove economic resources from the equation you'll find that there are many perfectly fine potential partners out there with all the attributes that one could hope for.
Not really, if you read between the lines and realize that they are not just claiming fact, but also cause ("men don't want to marry up" vs "women don't want to marry down").
And which one is the cause here? I don't see why anyone wouldn't WANT to marry up.
I'm pretty sure that there are much fewer women in the high status category than men, so these men make the only rational decision (if they don't want to stay alone) - they marry down.
If you're a man trying to marry up, you're facing extra challenges if the woman values her family's opinions at all. Not too long ago in pretty much all the civilized world the Father controlled who his daughters wed, you had to impress him even more so than the woman.
I can't speak for him but I'm a bit over 40 and single again, and looking. What I'm seeing in the DC metro area is a ton of single women in my age range who are single and never married, and all of a sudden now they want to get married and have kids. (Some of them want kids, some don't.) So not "pushing 30", but "pushing 40". Other data I've seen shows that there's a big surplus of single women in both the NYC and DC metro areas. OTOH, in Seattle and the Bay Area, there's a big surplus of single men. (There's a smaller surplus in Portland.)
My problem is that I don't live quite in the DC area, I'm about an hour away from downtown DC. And what I'm finding is that the desirable single women all live right in downtown DC, and do not want to date a man who lives an hour away. Now, if there were a healthy market of compatible men, this attitude would be quite understandable. But we're talking about a bunch of women who are bitching that they can't find any decent men to date, but then I come along and I'm told, "you look great, but you're too far away!! Sorry, but give me a ring when you move closer."
So IMO, these women are extremely picky and unrealistic. If I find someone I really like and might want to marry, I would move to be closer to her, just like married couples routinely move long-distance because one of them got a new job. I've even stated this up-front, as I do not plan to stay in my current location long-term (I'm a software engineer like probably half the audience here, our jobs don't last that long and we move around a lot). So as far as I can tell, many of these women have done this to themselves by being way too picky and having overly high expectations. They think they're going to find a guy who looks like George Clooney or whatever, has a $250j/year career, and lives across the street from them.
Ha, same area here, but exploring the pushing 35 range.
From what I've seen, I don't think they actually expect to meet George Clooney. After living with their independence and high paying job, 100% of which they can spend on them-self, usually enabling tons of international travel. They don't actually want to settle down and put work into a relationship, but their friends and family constantly pester them to do so.
So they settle for appearing desperate to keep their friends and family happy, but keeping standards high so that either the sacrifices to have a relationship would be worth it to them or they don't get a relationship they didn't want anyway.
I'm not sure about all that, but I will vouch for the tons of international travel bit. In fact, it's so bad I feel like a lot of these women are woefully ignorant about anything in the US that's outside of a few major cities, because they never go anywhere outside their city; any time they have a little vacation time they're flying to Argentina or Africa or something.
I disagree about them not wanting to actually be in a relationship, but I think what's happened is that they're so used to being single and free, and never having been in a serious relationship for that long, that they really have no idea how to do it, and it's probably a lost cause. They're now realizing they have to get started right now if they want to have natural kids, but they're not prepared to make the sacrifices you have to make in order to be in that kind of relationship.
In addition to my last comment regarding these ~40yo women now wanting to have kids, what's even worse is that it seems a ton of them are getting themselves inseminated (artificially or otherwise, probably artificially for these high-income women so they can screen the genetics of the donor more accurately) and deciding to become single moms.
As someone who was raised by a single mom, it's a horrible experience, and prepares you for a life of never being able to be successful in an adult relationship, because you've never seen such a relationship except maybe on TV (which we all know is not reflective of reality at all).
I do not see a good future here for our society. I'm not a social conservative in most ways (I'm a big believer in poly relationships for instance), but what I'm seeing with the 30-45 women makes me very worried for the future of our society. Maybe the Millenials and Gen-Zers will do a better job than us stupid Gen-Xers; they seem to be much more open-minded and willing to try out different relationship styles, rather than not having relationships at all.
Might be related to how inflated the praise for higher degrees is. I mean, I know a JD or medical degree is no small feat, but it doesn't mean you're suddenly only good enough for the best of the best or are in some privileged genius tier (that goes for men and women).
Sadly, there are plenty of people in the world who are great at memorising but are actually horrible at applying their knowledge. While such degrees can be impressive achievements, it says very little about a person. I've met brilliant high school graduates and plain stupid people with phds. A lot of it depends on the person.
Yes, they include PhDs, DDS, Architecture, Mech Engineering. Their rejected list is guys that don't have much all the way to degrees in mining engineering. Software engineering tends to be what they "settle" for or are ok with. One, because software engineers make decent enough money and if they discounted them, they'd be throwing away a huge and competent group of men.
The sad bit is that guys are more interested in their youth (or lack of thereof at 30) and looks rather than education... Hence CEOs marrying young secretaries. Cruel joke.
perhaps one reason people don't marry up or down often is that they do not tend to frequently interact. In a professional environment how often do you meet up with people not as the same or nearly the same level as you? Do many workers fraternize with their bosses when many are just more likely to complain upper management doesn't understand?
I would put most marry up/down on those who have frequent non professional outside activities. Whether its religious, a particular hobby, or simply a circle of friends whose careers all diverged.
