A distressingly large percentage of them want to go join a financial consulting firm or hedge fund and make as much money as they can right out of school.
Why is this distressing?
Few people really want a true "classless society". I'd assume that few of the founders on HN plan on donating 100% of all income they earn above the median level.
This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd say it's distressing because the financial sector has been artificially stimulated by the government for decades. Resources which would have been directed to more productive uses were instead sent to finance. Who knows how much we've lost because some smart people were screwing around on Wall Street instead of doing something more useful?
I don't think that's true. I know many people who work towards a classless society, which isn't segmented into groups with antagonistic interests. After all, no one believes in the class societies of the past, like under the pharoahs, feudalism, slavery; which took generations to overthrow. (And during those times, persuasive justifications were offered for those systems.)
I'm personally interested in Participatory Economics (Parecon for short), which is a model for a decentralized classless economy, which offers properties that I think many people want from their economic system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
"Few people really want a true "classless society". I'd assume that few of the founders on HN plan on donating 100% of all income they earn above the median level."
There's a difference between believing that a classless society is a worthy goal and, noticing that one is not currently in a classless society and that being in an above average class has certain benefits, seeking to achieve an elevated class for the time being.
I would like to think I am a fairly strong believer in a classless post-scarcity utopia, but giving away most of what I own is not going to bring that any closer - all I'd be doing is reducing my own power to act. Better to retain it for now and use it to work towards the long term goal.
Not at all. You can be a happy capitalist with lots of money without being different in a "qualitative" way from your poorer neighbors. At least in principle.
Actually, that's really not true. A classless society refers to a society which lacks any distinctions of wealth, income, education, culture, or social network.
I would certainly not want communism, especially not as it's been classicly implemented. I don't believe a classless society worth living in will be possible before a true end to scarcity; this may or may not be possible with the advent of MNT; some have high hopes.
It's important to note that I refer mainly to material classlessness here; obviously classes of intellect and culture will still exist and you wouldn't want to eradicate them anyway. I would imagine political classes would also exist but hopefully determined by will to participate, not material means.
And why? Well, egalitarianism, basically, and the belief that material means of one's parents should be neither benefit nor hindrance in life.
This is the stuff of essays, not little comments like this, but I hope you get the idea : D
Comments
A distressingly large percentage of them want to go join a financial consulting firm or hedge fund and make as much money as they can right out of school.
Why is this distressing?
Few people really want a true "classless society". I'd assume that few of the founders on HN plan on donating 100% of all income they earn above the median level.
This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd say it's distressing because the financial sector has been artificially stimulated by the government for decades. Resources which would have been directed to more productive uses were instead sent to finance. Who knows how much we've lost because some smart people were screwing around on Wall Street instead of doing something more useful?
I don't think that's true. I know many people who work towards a classless society, which isn't segmented into groups with antagonistic interests. After all, no one believes in the class societies of the past, like under the pharoahs, feudalism, slavery; which took generations to overthrow. (And during those times, persuasive justifications were offered for those systems.)
I'm personally interested in Participatory Economics (Parecon for short), which is a model for a decentralized classless economy, which offers properties that I think many people want from their economic system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
"Few people really want a true "classless society". I'd assume that few of the founders on HN plan on donating 100% of all income they earn above the median level."
There's a difference between believing that a classless society is a worthy goal and, noticing that one is not currently in a classless society and that being in an above average class has certain benefits, seeking to achieve an elevated class for the time being.
I would like to think I am a fairly strong believer in a classless post-scarcity utopia, but giving away most of what I own is not going to bring that any closer - all I'd be doing is reducing my own power to act. Better to retain it for now and use it to work towards the long term goal.
Sounds self-serving, maybe, but what can you do?
Why would you want a classless society? Isn't that communism?
Not at all. You can be a happy capitalist with lots of money without being different in a "qualitative" way from your poorer neighbors. At least in principle.
Actually, that's really not true. A classless society refers to a society which lacks any distinctions of wealth, income, education, culture, or social network.
I would certainly not want communism, especially not as it's been classicly implemented. I don't believe a classless society worth living in will be possible before a true end to scarcity; this may or may not be possible with the advent of MNT; some have high hopes.
It's important to note that I refer mainly to material classlessness here; obviously classes of intellect and culture will still exist and you wouldn't want to eradicate them anyway. I would imagine political classes would also exist but hopefully determined by will to participate, not material means.
And why? Well, egalitarianism, basically, and the belief that material means of one's parents should be neither benefit nor hindrance in life.
This is the stuff of essays, not little comments like this, but I hope you get the idea : D