abetterday

Aside from fixed costs and aspects like coordination efficiency, companies have to raise pay more than linearly to get people into high hours jobs. Those disproportionate gains should be given back at cut hours, but too many employees would claim this is unfair.

I wrote about this a while back: https://www.growwiser.com/2011/11/27/less-work-for-less-pay-...

We had animal-like answers based on conceptions of the human telos. We had bee-like answers based on conceptions of societal progress. Pomo, globalization, and prosperity made them feel unworkable. Meaningness is trying to develop a conception that can work.

There is a whole mindset that has invigorated growth investing and has been invigorated by it: success is more luck and social proof than correctness or work + winner will take all = illusion management is key work + valuations don’t matter, but getting in does.

It underpins major perspectives on investment, monetary and gov policy, and individual agency. It is infuriating, but it has worked spectacularly for a long time and has just enough truth in it to keep people building castles in the air.

Totally. We were making massive amounts of progress on our own and virtual school curriculum mostly gets in the way. We've largely stopped going to the video sessions and are just doing some of the school work on top of our own. Thankfully the teacher has been accommodating / letting it go so far and the school work itself has been minor.

From behind Rawls' veil of ignorance, how many children would choose not to be born if given that choice? It is at least as reasonable to say that they've been given a most precious of gifts as it is to say that they were forced in to it. And if they'd really rather not exist no one can take away from them the choice to end their life. That few would say this is really an option should balance the perspective that being born is a forced burden.

The perspective of life as an infinite gift gives parents some justification for authoritarianism which some will abuse. The perspective of being forced into it gives children some justification for entitlement which some will abuse.

I think it is harder to get children to not abuse a free pass and I think that parents have a better claim overall. But parents using it is a terrible practice that will backfire. Parents need to earn respect and compliance without relying on the trump card of 'i made you'. It is up to the children to decide what obligations they have towards their parents later on. And this should mostly be a function of raising considerate and capable people with maximal possible buy-in.

I agree that the bulk of children's debt is to society and their own children. But this requires a sense of fairness to notice the debt and the capability to repay it. Parents have a crucial role to play in developing these.

>vote against “socialism” and then collect Medicade, social security and disability.

Much like people rally against sprawl, but move the burbs for their kids; or rally against global warming, but don't live minimalist lifestyles.

It is reasonable to optimize your life around the world as it is. And if you use the extra resources this world provides to move things in a direction you consider better, then it isn't even necessarily hypocritical.

While I heartily agree in not forcing the child into a method, it very much matters when they learn to read. Reading is a tool more than a skill. Having the tool earlier is hugely valuable (provided they don't hate it as a consequence.)

A reading child can begin to write and type earlier. They can be exposed to complex computer use instead of simplified apps. They can use more advanced materials to learn other skills earlier. They can gain a ton of knowledge from the extra years of reading. And even if they cannot understand much at 4 (which of course depends on the kid), they can at 7 or 8 - being fluent readers by then gives them the advantage of consuming many extra books and richer ones.

There are also psychological components. Until school starts the parents have significant influence over 'cool' skills, important values, 'fun' things to do, etc. Schools rarely breed love of learning and peers often push away from it. Learning at 7 creates risks of it being perceived as less cool or being consumed by other activities and not catching. The time before school is hugely valuable imo. And reading earlier gives the parent another tool to teach by providing books.

It is true that the earlier you start the more time teaching takes. But this time isn't only teaching reading. It is excellent bonding time if you don't turn it into an authoritarian war zone. It teaches focus, overcoming obstacles, etc. On the whole, I think it at least holds its own with other activities parents spend time on with their toddlers. The bulk of the challenge is getting the kid on board. Buy-in and motivation matter far more than any specific method since without them the risk of the effort hurting the relationship or their love of learning is too high.

I used a method of my own making. It probably wasn't the most efficient, but it was always tuned to the kid. My oldest was fully decoding in late twos and reads a ton now in late sevens. He naturally memorized words and we added phonetics later. My youngest is decoding short words with basic sounds in the early threes. He is not a fan of memorizing, but took to phonics naturally.

I recently read Searching for Bobby Fisher and Joshua Waitzkin's childhood seemed intense, but not broken. Would you consider him an exception or is that level of intensity itself dysfunctional in your view?

I do agree that integrity and sportsmanship - along with the game's beauty - should be placed higher than defeating opponents and that it often isn't. At some point this may just be the nature of competing at the highest levels, but early scholastic chess shouldn't be that point.

Perhaps part of it is cultural. I grew up playing in Russia as a kid (I showed promise, but didn't go nearly as far as you). Chess was deeply woven into the culture and into my family. I have warm memories of an inspiring game that only encouraged development of integrity and perseverance. I've been hoping my child gets into it. He did, but watching chess in the U.S. leaves me cold. Obsession with ratings, winning, trophies, pragmatism, and plain cheating at ages when these kids should be imagining themselves as honorable warriors is disheartening. I try to guide him through it - and point out the exceptions - but it always feels like swimming against the tide.

I am curious how they funded the tournament play. It tends to cost about $10/rated game.

You can find Top 100 lists at http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_top_players/Item... and his play history at http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?16649696 .

It is almost precisely a year since his first tournament game so there is no exaggeration. Going to 1473 in one year is extremely impressive especially since early tournaments show loses so it isn't like he excelled but simply wasn't rated.

For reference, Magnus Carlson played since 5 (though not too enthusiastically) and was ~900 at age 9. But he was a 1900 a year later.

Or at least not consider buying a house as some kind of a necessity. The rent to buy ratios in these places tend to heavily favor renting. Plus they often have tenant protections and rent control which remove many benefits of ownership. And renters have significant political power in some of these cities.

No matter how much money one has, renting typically makes a lot more financial sense. The life-script expectation of buying a house may or may not be outdated in the country as a whole, but home ownership in the major cities is definitely a pure luxury good.

But it's the same thing in the other direction. Countless people claim that they've done their best and were just unlucky - or even that no one could have succeeded in their particular situation. Yet, I often encounter people not making efforts/decisions/sacrifices I consider basic. And they also discount all the help and good fortune they are getting.

Strictly speaking, both "I got no help" and "I've done my best" are hyperbole, delusion, or lies. Both are tiring and frustrating. They are also a fairly natural, though crude, way to direct a conversation: "I think you are making excuses" and "I think you are underestimating the challenges".

It seems to me that worker productivity gains come primarily from better technology and processes - from business investments - rather than from workers themselves. The rewards flow accordingly. Workers who enhance their own productivity actually do provide more value and hence gain a competitive advantage. Plenty of individuals could improve their productivity and value.

I've never understood the claim that higher productivity somehow entitles workers to the surplus. The key component of actually being substantially responsible for productivity gains is missing.