If wages are to rise, workers need more bargaining power - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/06/02/if-wages-are-to-rise-workers-need-more-bargaining-power <comment><USER2> Speaking as a full time lead maintenance mechanic at a local auto repair shop, The tradecrafts have kept a pretty reasonable grip on bargaining power. The shop owners understand that if its not an honest days work for an honest days pay, I will leave. strong unions in the past have worked hard to ensure I could, if i chose to, open my own shop in about 3 days time. My local automotive mechanics union would even cover the cost of shipping new tools to my shop, and maybe run an ad or two in the paper.

Mr H. if you're reading this, im certainly not quitting anytime soon! :)

Ive worked in aerospace as well, where tradesmen are frequently paid more than managers. hassling an engine tech here, or casually second guessing one, is unthinkable and has gotten good managers demoted or fired. I was basically on- par with a surgeon as far as my respect and authority was concerned.

Im not saying ive never been part of a strike. Most of my union jobs have been rewarding and fulfilling, with a level of transparency rarely seen in big shops. Ive had C level accountants sit down in a hanger with us to go over why we need to trim down on expenses, and make sure we understand it in plain english. To me, that speaks a lot.

As for people in the Amazon shipping trenches, all you need to do is be brave, stay motivated, and push for a union. You regional and long haul amazon truckers also have a lot more bargaining power than you realize.

<comment><USER3> Great read. But your last line about amazon and truckers is interesting because we all know that there is a drive to automate these positions.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Still a long ways out. In the meantime, there is a significant trucker shortage and wages are rising quickly.

<comment><USER4> There will continue to be rising wages and trucker shortages as no one sees a great future in that line of work.

Sure, jobs will remain. People will be paid to sit on trucks while they drive themselves across the country. People will be paid to sit in air conditioned offices and watch trucks as little dots as they travel across the country.

They will have to _find_ people to do those as well. The whole industry is boring unless you are management/executive level. Truckers today will have first dibs on all those positions, also, leaving new truckers completely screwed as their relatively new high paying trucking job leaves them with nothing.

<comment><USER5> There was a story on the trucker's shortage recently, that went into reasons for the shortage. A large part of what's causing it is that, for one, it's a crappy job, but for two, companies are not raising the wages, especially as one would expect if there's a shortage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> PSA: "Real pay" means nominal pay adjusted for inflation. So if pay went up by 3%, and inflation was 2%, you'd get something like a 1% "real" pay increase. Please reserve comment about the "cost of living" or inflation, as those are (technically) accounted for in this number.

<comment><USER7> I am not an economist, so anyone more familiar with this please educate me on this matter, but surely a single number like inflation can't capture difficult issues like rent going up very quickly, or any other issue that basically affects specific subsections of society disproportionately? (and I'm not even mentioning the issue of housing shortage)

EDIT: I probably should have used "express" rather than "capture", apologies.

<comment><USER8> Rising rent will absolutely be in the inflation number. Sure, it might not be correct if you live in a big city where rents have risen way beyond inflation numbers, but it's good on average.

Every European capital / big city has seen absolutely massive increases in rent and house prises since the ECB started printing money. (Housing sector if very 'close' to the banking sector and so more directly affected by the availability of cheap credit). Not causes by the ECB 100%, but accelerated by it nonetheless.

But if the cost of all other goods has stayed the same, plus the rent and house prises in rural areas has been normal or even dropped, inflation on average will be ok.

(And then the ECB says: inflation is less than 2% _on average_ so no problem here. print. print.. print...)

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry but this statement is full of FUD.

Printing money is what central banks _do_. It's what every Eurozone nation used to do with their own money as well before switching to the Euro. So unless you can explain what the ECB does differently that makes this worse than the central banks before it, you don't really have much of an argument.

Is it printing money faster than the central banks before it did? If so, give some numbers and sources please.

And in general, be explicit about your claims, because as written you're practically suggesting that the Eurozone is acting like the Weimar Republic.

<comment><USER9> ECB, FED and the Swiss National Bank have been "printing" money but not the same as before. They're only using it to buy securities, first bonds, and now even stocks/index ETFs.

Search "FED balance sheet vs S&P" or something similar. E.g. [http://whattheythink.com/data/84893-feds-balance- sheet/](http://whattheythink.com/data/84893-feds-balance-sheet/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Real wages increasing means that living standards aren't just steady, but growing in real terms - ie, people have more stuff and services than they did last year.

Now, picking on the US, primary energy production has risen by less than 1% /edit: per annum/ since the year 2000 [1]. I suspect manufacturing growth is of a similar magnitude [2]. There was a report making the rounds a while ago saying that US infrastructure isn't in a great place. It isn't obvious how you could generate real increases without an increased real production to back it up, no matter how good your strongarm negotiating.

I don't see how the Economist came up with a position of the problem being disorganised labour. The issues in America are that whatever people are doing isn't creating real wealth. Maybe they're finally hitting resource limits, maybe there are capital allocation issues.

[1] [https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/#summary](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/#summary) [2] [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS)

<comment><USER11> Organized labor can demand that a greater share of profits be shared with workers far more effectively than individual workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder how much empowered workers would bargain for wages vs other things they might want. For example, in the US, we public employees do bargain for higher wages, but we also go pretty hard for pensions, job security and lower health co-pays. Increasingly we are also bargaining for childcare help due to the insane increases in the cost of childcare (this is a genuine mystery to me: in the 80's early 90's my broke parents could easily afford to put me in full-time, quality childcare from like 3 months onward). In European countries with strong bargaining, workers demand more vacation time.

In short, I don't think it's right to imagine wages going up enormously with more bargaining power; I think it's more accurate to imagine benefits and terms of employment (job security, vacation, autonomy) going up. Not a normative point but more of a positive one.

I believe this happens because of how the union works. People who care a lot about some issue (e.g., parents caring about childcare) will push hard on the union to bargain for their particular benefit. Wage increases, by contrast, are spread over the whole union and thus expensive in total but not huge for any individual, so there is a sort of collective action inertia even within the union. A small wage increase would cost as much as a huge increase in childcare help, so the parents will be able to mobilize more easily. Personally, this arrangement me benefits me a lot as I care more about those benefits than salary.

<comment><USER13> Your last point is a really interesting and undervalued one. I think "dedicated interest groups care way more than the bulk of people" is an under- appreciated factor in all kinds of negotiations; we know it happens in politics, but it ends up shaping everything from workplace benefits to product design.

As for specific benefits, healthcare is a very obvious example of why people push for benefits, and how it distorts earning charts. Per capita healthcare spending has grown _much_ faster than inflation. A worker who forgoes healthcare for a salary hike will either fall behind immediately, or need to negotiate a present-value benefit that will quickly become an awkwardly large number. (And that's before we take into account the ability of employers to get good healthcare at a discount.)

The price of healthcare, college, housing, and childcare have skyrocketed compared to inflation. Anything an employer can offer that either covers those costs (healthcare, on-site daycare) or helps reduce them (flexible hours or a shuttle to improve commutes) is going to become steadily more valuable to employees for as long as that continues, and consequently more important to lock in _now_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The glass is half full. In other words: high standard of living has been preserved in the western world over the last three decades, despite a rising population and the rise of Chinese manufacturing.

<comment><USER15> Yea, it's great that housing and healthcare have only grown by 1% per year in costs since 2000 as well.

<comment><USER16> The article is about real pay growth of 1% per year. You are commenting as if it were about nominal pay growth of 1% per year.

Accepting that housing and healthcare costs have outpaced wage growth, that mathematically implies that costs of other goods and services were outpaced by wages by an even larger (appropriately weighted) margin.

<comment><USER17> First no, it was "at most 1%" which means it could be negative.

> costs of other goods and services where outpaced by wages

You're implying that all people consume the same basket of goods as calculated by the article. Wage growth and spending is not even across society, so most people could be worse off while all of the above math holds true. _labour productivity rose by 75% in America from 1973 to 2016, while average pay rose by less than 50% and median pay by just over 10%._ which is largely because _between 1979 and 2016, pay adjusted for inflation for the bottom fifth of American earners barely rose at all._

Further, many goods like computing power have gotten vastly cheaper, but that savings mostly end up with people who have disposable income. Spend a lower percentage of your income on such goods and the benifit decreases. This means the the bottom half of the work force is worse off than you might think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Meanwhile my rent has certainly risen faster than inflation!

</comment><comment><USER19> I have major issues with many of the points in the article. Stronger unions, for instance, have been shown to just send jobs overseas to human rights abuser companies. Raising the minimum wage has been shown to be regressive to the poor, and it just increases their cost of living and devalues their savings. And then there are the moral implications of a UBI funded by forced taxation.

I'll propose two alternatives: If wages are to rise, people need to be more fluid about their job situation. How this happens could manifest itself in many ways. The most idealistic case is that people save money instead of living month to month, giving them the confidence to invest in a job search or absorb the expenses of moving to an area that pays better or has a lower cost of living. I'd entertain ideas to move to improve the possibility of people moving jobs or locations.

The second is basic money management skills. I think there's an entire class of people in the USA that could be paid several thousand a month and they would still be in debt. We overuse credit and salespeople on everything from cars to cell phones want you to talk about affording monthly payments rather than paying the lowest possible price.

</comment><comment><USER20> A great bargaining chip for unskilled workers would be the viable alternative of unemployment backed by universal health care and basic income.

EDIT: this idea is in the article:

 _More radical ideas like a universal basic income—a welfare payment made to everyone regardless of work status—or a jobs guarantee, which extends the right to a government job paying a decent wage to everyone, would shift power to workers and force firms to work harder to retain employees._

<comment><USER21> Wouldn't any publicly financeable UBI be around $10k per year? Plus it would replace many other welfare programs? That doesn't seem like it provides much better quality of life for unskilled workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Affordable hi-tech is one of the results of stagnant salaries, isn't it?

People have same salaries but can afford supercomputer with a great camera in their pocket. I could only dream about it in 2000.

<comment><USER23> A supercomputer in your pocket doesn't put food on the table, or fix the car, or reduce crime in your neighborhood, or make sure there isn't lead in your water...

<comment><USER24> Perhaps not, but it does allow you to learn to grow your own food and fix your own car, and all manner of other things.

Most people use it for entertainment but we really are spoiled with the amount of information at our fingertips. The good will of professionals sharing their know-how online has helped my career grow and made me much more self- sufficient in other areas.

Tangentially regarding wage growth, sure growing some of my food or fixing my car is a net-loss in terms of potential earnings because of the invested time, it's well worth it in other respects. Also, developed countries have a pretty good standard of living already. Needless consumption is a greater problem IMO.

<comment><USER3> "grow your own food" If you believe in commonly accepted economic thinking like efficiency of large scale production and comparative advantage and specialization, then you must conclude growing your own food does not make economic sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The data on this topic really changed my entire worldview. I ran into this [1] when actually searching information on the chiseling out of the middle class. And that paper does describe that chiseling of the middle class. In 1979 the middle class controlled 46% of all income, and the upper/rich classes controlled 30%. Today (well at least today as of 2014) the rich and upper class control 63% with the middle class left with 26%. There's even been a chiseling out of the middle class as a whole declining from 38.8% of society to 32% of society.

But the eye opener is this. This is the change in the size of each economic group between 1979 and 2014 as a percent of the total population:

\- Rich: 0.1% -> 1.8%

\- Upper Middle Class: 12.9% -> 29.4%

\- Middle Class: 38.8% -> 32%

\- Lower Middle Class: 23.9% -> 17.1%

\- Poor or Near-Poor: 24.3% -> 19.8%

Such tremendous progress in just 35 years is absolutely remarkable. Statistics like this are certainly subject to biased interpretation and 'massaging'. If one is curious about the source, wiki has a section on the political stance of the Urban Institute [2]. Though the paper itself is very transparent in their methodology and extremely readable. I found it all eye opening to the point that it actually changed my worldview.

[1] - [https://www.urban.org/research/publication/growing-size- and-...](https://www.urban.org/research/publication/growing-size-and-incomes- upper-middle-class)

[2] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#Political_stan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#Political_stance)

<comment><USER26> Eh, so by this calculation we should all be doing great?

How do you square that with the fact that most families couldn't spare $500 in an emergency? That is absolutely "poor" in my opinion.

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of- americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#2e5010464e0d)

<comment><USER25> The problem with relying on media is that they're prone to sensationalism and hyperbole. Your link is no exception, though fortunately they had the courtesy of linking to their source [1]. Generally it's probably a good idea to rely on the first party over the third party.

Key points:

\- What is stated is not what was asked. The question asked, 'How would you pay for an unexpected expense?' 37% said use savings, 23% said reduce spending, 12% use credit cards, and 21% would borrow from family/friends. Presumably that remaining 7% answered other/do not know. That was converted into "63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover $500." Thanks Forbes, thanks.

\- The question was not asked of Americans families, as implied. It was asked of millennials. Income is obviously strongly linked with age. It's self selecting to a young demographic that will not only be earning much less but also be less inclined to save.

That said, Americans certainly aren't saving as much as they should be but that's probably more of a social than an economic issue. A relatively large percent of Americans have $0 savings when the current median household income is a hair above $59,000. Even just saving $1000 a year would be a game changer in the longrun, but people are of course not doing that - even though most have the ability to do so if they tried.

<comment><USER26> So I'll give you that the bankrate study is garbage.

But regardless, it's my understanding that American wealth and savings are actually lower than the 1970s, even if the income is higher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Yes, obviously. This is why protestations of 'there is full employment and a job being offered for every jobless person!' are disingenuous, manipulative garbage.

If you cannot afford to work and live, it doesn't count as a job. And that's where things are, for most people, so the 'jobs' are lies.

<comment><USER28> I don't follow. Evidently, people could "afford to live" in 2000--almost all are still around to collect a paycheck. And now, they can live 19.6% (1.01^18 - 1) better than that! Real, not nominal. So why are the jobs "lies?"

<comment><USER29> Cohort effects are real.

During that time, something like a sixth of the population will have retired and now be collecting a pension (ie living off asset wealth). Another sixth will have come of age (roughly "millenials") and entered the workforce. The latter group also starts with an increased educational debt (in the US and UK) and faces a steep cliff of affording housing.

A lot of the jobs _are_ "lies" \- the famous zero-hour contracts, where people are technically employed but not guaranteed to be given any shifts at all during a week. There are also a lot of people who are technically self- employed but not able to earn a reasonable income. Is sitting in an Uber waiting for a job "employed"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The majority are a lot poorer and the rich have gotten a LOT richer. We've seen what happens before when we don't redistribute _opportunity_ effectively haven't we.

EDIT: Seriously the down voting! Here are some resources for you to think about:

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty- First_Ce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty- First_Century)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_\(book\))

I suggest the rise of populism is caused by increases in wealth going to the very richest while _in real terms_ the majority of people are poorer than ever.

<comment><USER31> On a global level, the rich have gotten richer, but the poor have gotten a LOT richer. Three decades ago, as a kid in Eastern Europe, I could taste oranges once a year, at Christmas time, with some skipped years here and there. Now everybody can eat as much as they can, and obesity is a growing problem. Maybe you don't care that much about the world outside the US or Western Europe, but literally billions of people have seen their living standards rise from the subsistence level to a decent level.

<comment><USER32> > Maybe you don't care that much about the world outside the US or Western > Europe

I don't think that's a fair reaction. It's possible to care about the rest of the world and recognise context. Workers looking for greater bargaining power in the US shouldn't accept "but things are much better in Eastern Europe these days" as a reason for them to not organise - the two are entirely separate issues, and can happen independent of each other.

<comment><USER33> They're not entirely separate issues. One of the big reasons for rising living standards in the rest of the world has been the offshoring of work from the US and Western Europe, which is also one of the things reducing worker bargaining power.

<comment><USER34> But it's got nothing to do with the decimation of unions and the rise of more and more worker hostile policies in general.

<comment><USER35> I think they are related. If a factory is in the US, and unions drive cost of employment higher, then the factory owners look to move the factory overseas to be more competitive. Now it's important that we also recognize that the factory owners also have to be competitive in a global landscape and against new entrants into the market, new entrants that can spring up from countries where the cost of employment is much less, so they have a strong incentive to move factories when costs rise.

Now at its disposal, a government can implement tariffs and protectionism to level the playing field, but those can have disastrous long term effects (see the history of India's protectionism).

So, an excellent way for wages to rise is to make employees extremely efficient, and to increase the demand in labor. Make no mistake though, the gains in other countries have effected US and European workers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> As far as bargaining power goes, a UBI that fully covers subsistence would definitely be the most effective thing. Because then it would be possible to say "no". Whole sectors of the economy would have to actually present a value proposition to employees.

<comment><USER37> I haven't studied UBI a ton, but it seems to me like prices on non- discretionary goods would increase to absorb the additional income and the people who set those prices would be the ones benefiting i.e. the people already benefiting now. Rent seems like it would be a big one. I bet if you just up and gave everyone an extra $500/month then rents would rise by $500/month and house prices would increase commensurately, which is great if you're a homeowner but not so great if you're a renter (and many of the people who we are trying to help with this are renters).

<comment><USER38> There are multiple studies of Alaska's Permanent Fund which supplies much less than you are quoting, only around a thousand to a couple of thousand a year per resident, and it's making a slight increase in people seeking work, counterintuitively it causes no increase of people working less than before which some opponents hypothesized. Obviously Alaska is special case compared to lower 48:low population/hard to get certain goods/not a lot of immigrants.

[https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/14/universal- basic...](https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/14/universal-basic-income- policies-dont-cause-people-leave-workforce-study-finds)

Also, there appears to be no effect comparable to any of the overheated lower 48 coastal housing markets as well.

[https://www.zillow.com/ak/home-values/](https://www.zillow.com/ak/home- values/)

<comment><USER37> Whether it results in seeking work is different from how prices respond, in fact, an increase in those seeking work may be a direct result of the cost of living increasing.

The subsidy in Alaska is per person, thus two families in identical apartments may receive different levels of subsidy. If at any point the management company observes that their tenants are receiving more subsidies (say the average family size per apartment increases) then they could choose to raise rental rates to try to capture this. But it raises the rates on all family sizes, so a 2-person family is now paying more as a % basis than a 4-person family, so it would make it more likely that someone from the 2-person family may need to work more/get a part-time job.

Obviously that's a drastic simplification, but I think it illustrates the problem with stimulating demand without trying to control supply or pricing directly.

<comment><USER38> Yes, those are all true and the per person thing is pointed out in the article. However, we do not see a big negative from Alaska level UBI so it seems it's worth experimenting with it in other places and at other levels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I believe this is because the domestic markets of most rich countries are saturated for stuff non-technical workers can supply. We have transportation, we have food, we have energy, we have sanitation, we have retail stores all within our grasp. The stuff we still will always need more of, such as automation and better health care, require highly specialized and skilled individuals and that's something very hard to adjust to.

Meanwhile, the other economies of the world has a huge demand for the basic services and goods and thus their economies have risen dramatically.

I think we are seeing a levelling off of the world's richest economies because a lot of our growth has been from capital investments into broadening international trade and leveraging. I have actually moved my investments away from Europe for now because the interest rates are so low, the innovation is so low and the political climate is becoming more and more polarized that I just think it's too risky for now.

<comment><USER40> I don't think we actually have some of those things. See: Flint, MI.

<comment><USER39> What happened in Flint was a scandal because that's not supposed to happen in a rich country, that sort of water supply is an eye sore that someone should've done something about years ago. The sentiment that things like these can and should be dealt with swiftly is so engrained in us because of all the benefits we enjoy.

Meanwhile, in some places where millions of people live cholera in the main water supply is Tuesday. You can make boatloads of cash if you satisfy that market demand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "And unions look like monopoly sellers of labour—cartels, intended to leech rents from society as a whole."

That's what they are.

<comment><USER42> I think there is a balance when it comes to unions - a point where they are very much necessary, and a point where they are a burden upon society.

If workers in general are being underpaid, I think they are justified. But then you have other industries where they have a good grip on it and then take things a bit too far.

<comment><USER37> I always though of this as unions being very important for safety and quality of work. That is what is often touted as the benefits of unions, the 40 hour week, OSHA, minimum wage, the end of child labor, etc...

But once an industry is generally pretty safe and relatively fairly structured, unions begin to lack a certain sense of purpose. Union leadership is elected and "keeping us safe and fairly paid" won't get you re-elected. Promising to extract better compensation for your members (even beyond just 'safe' and 'fair') will get you votes, so that is naturally what happens.

There's just no objective way to tell a union that they have accomplished their goals and aren't really needed until/unless there is a threat to those goals, but nor is there a way to tell a company that they are operating unfairly and their workers need a union...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The premise of this article is simply addressing the symptoms and not the cause. Any first year Economics Undergraduate learns that prices rise when quantity demanded outstrips quantity supplied.

Wages are simply the price of labour. For the price of labour to rise, there must be less workers willing to do work at the market clearing price.

It is just not possible to do this at this time due to societal factors that Economists, and this article, have largely failed to address—due to the sensitive nature of the these factors.

Foremost, the addition of women in the workplace has effectively doubled the labour supply. IMHO quite rightly as well, freedom is a fundamental civil rights issue... but the global economy did not outgrow the additional labour supply and wages have been flat as a result.

Secondly, globalisation has brought about the shifting of jobs from higher cost centres to lower ones. This reduces the demand side for labour in the West, resulting in a lower price equilibrium (but has increased the demand side for labour in the East, where wages have been forced to rise, albeit from a very low place). It's also obvious that this issue has been a political hot potato as most moderate political parties in the West have accelerated globalisation at the same time as they largely ignored its consequences. I think it's fair to say that this has now given rise to extreme political views, and parties, on both the left and the right.

Lastly, it is hard to argue that immigration movements have not also brought about an over supply of labour to the West. Legal or illegal it doesn't really matter, the net effect is an increase in the labour supply which will push down price equilibrium.

And as a bonus, most Economists fail to think about the impact inflation (AKA stealth tax) has on real (AKA inflation-adjusted) wages.

IMHO, productivity and growth are the real only solutions, but I'm afraid that political uncertainty caused by social upheaval will mean that productivity and growth are stymied for years to come.

<comment><USER44> You should re-read the article. We've seen an increase in productivity, but no matched increase in wages (a 75% increase in worker productivity in America from 1973 to 2016, while average pay rose by less than 50% and median pay by just over 10%).

As for the rest of your comment, you should look into the Lump of Labour fallacy[1].

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I had to negotiate working several days a week remote, because my job doesn't pay enough to live in or within 45 minutes of the city it's in. Starting this July I'll be working in-office 2 days a week and commuting over an hour. This is so I can afford housing. I basically offered my employer a very gentle ultimatum - I explained that my rent was going up and I'm being priced out of the city, that I like my job and would like them to invest in me, and offered them the two solutions of a raise or working more time remote so I could live somewhere more affordable. They picked the latter. I feel less invested in to be honest.

I am ambivalent about this solution. On one hand, even if I were to lose my job, I'd be able to afford my house just with unemployment pay, and even if I take a job that pays less after, it will likely still remain affordable. On the other hand, it ties me more to my employer because not all are willing to allow remote work and if I have to take a new job in the city, it may require a very long commute 5 days a week. But not all, or even most employers in the city pay enough to live in or near it. That's just the way it is.

I understand many people are not lucky enough to have either choice.

</comment><comment><USER46> Inflation is not measured correctly because it does not include housing and shrinkflation, and probably other things.

By excluding these things, the inflation figure is smaller. This smaller figure is then used by your employer to justify your small pay rises.

E.g. "real pay has grown by 1%" when in reality it might be "real pay has fallen by 5%"

<comment><USER26> Interesting. Could you suggest a good source that would explain why houses aren't included in inflation, and what the inflation figure might really look like if they were?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> What matters most is economic mobility, and my definition of that is what percent of poverty level 20 somethings end up in the top income (and savings) brackets by their 30s and 40s. Because it's kind of OK if the bottom fifth of earners is just college baristas and bartenders, or financially independent people just picking up side jobs. I'm pretty sure that's not what is occurring in the US though, because pensions are now nonexistent and our average savings rate has always been horrible.

</comment><comment><USER48> > In most rich countries, real pay has grown by at most 1% per year, on > average, since 2000.

> in America from 1973 to 2016, while average pay rose by less than 50% and > median pay by just over 10%.

Wild mix of numbers. Each one in isolation I would draw different conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER49> Inflation only measures price for certain products but it doesn't cover quality or quantity decrease which decreased considerably for most products over the years.

<comment><USER50> Companies find ways to reduce the cost of things, that has nothing to do with how much money the government prints every year.

Btw, this thread only reminds me why I believe in Bitcoin.

Government money is only as responsible as the government behind it. After decades of American politics and corruption, I'll take BTC>USD long.

<comment><USER51> BTC for transactional!?!?

Most people don't stockpile USD; they use it for transactions...salary, rent, groceries, stock etc.

<comment><USER50> I used my Shift card to buy taco bell. No fees, instant. Feels like a regular credit card.

the only thing I pay in USD is my mortgage. I DCA my salary into BTC and pay for groceries with BTC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Socialism and Capitalism both rely on an outdated assumption: that demand for human labor will always be high.

Capitalism says you will always find an employer who values your work. But whereas your grandfather worked for decades as a company man, had a pension and was able to support a family on one paycheck, today productivity per capita is 4-10x higher and people are doing 2 year stints, part time jobs, gig economy, etc.

Socialism says collective bargaining power will get workers what they want because they are valued collectively. But as much as oxen and horses unionized the fields would still be turned into parking lots.

People have needs like food and rent. A Universal Basic Income captures

<comment><USER53> For the time being, workers do collectively have potential (if we were better organized) bargaining power. Otherwise unemployment would be a lot higher. Which is why we need to organize _now_ if we want a future where everyone benefits from technology and not wait for the rich to control everything with an army of robots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> The bargaining power of workers is being undermined by large-scale immigration and by trade policy. The National Academy of Sciences report on immigration found that current immigration policy diverts a shocking 500 billion dollars a year away from wage earners (and a net benefit to the economy of about 50 billion dollars a year from immigration). I suspect trade policy has an even bigger impact.

Everything else is lower order.

</comment><comment><USER55> We have been convinced taxes are the problem, while wages stagnate.

</comment><comment><USER56> Why not just concede to the fact that the role of 'broad' labor in the economy has irreversibly fell and not going to return?

I mean, share of labor in the economic pie is probably not falling, but it's the top 10% who wins anything, and most goes to top 1% - and these are actual labor, employees, not some corruptioners, or business owners. Broad labor - 'the masses' \- has lost it and it's not going to return.

Why trying to break the neck of economy by introducing artificial redistributive policies, which will skew things closer and closer to communism? I grew up in the Soviet Union and i definitely don't want to see any of that shit, ever again.

Why not look for solutions in non-economic means such as better propaganda, better ways to spend time, and better law enforcement?

</comment><comment><USER57> Again an article about the economist magazine...

</comment><comment><USER58> There's something painfully ironic about this article being behind a paywall

</comment><comment><USER59> paywall, but did they say mean pay or median pay?

Just wondering if the real pay growth was evenly distributed.

<comment><USER60> The full sentence from the article says "on average", which I take as "mean", because later they make a distinction between "average" and "median".

> In most rich countries, real pay has grown by at most 1% per year, on > average, since 2000.

Later:

> Thus labour productivity rose by 75% in America from 1973 to 2016, while > average pay rose by less than 50% and median pay by just over 10%.

But the article is largely an opinion piece; the statistics are not completely fleshed out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Cant read the article due to paywall. How much of these wage increases can be attributed to the minimum wage increases?

</comment><comment><USER62> I don't disagree, but is the economist libertarian anymore?

<comment><USER63> It never was libertarian in the first place. Here's what they have to say about their stance:

> What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? > "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as > belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is > as true today as when former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in > 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and > predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and > Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has > also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of > liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while > favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun > control and gay marriage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> How exactly can workers gain more bargaining power when the system allows corporations to move production overseas in search of cheaper labor and encourages poor migrants ( legal and illegal ) to move to wealthier nations to undercut wages?

The modern world economic system makes it easy for capital to move overseas by removing barriers ( legal, national, borders ) while keeping labor bound to particular nations and regions.

And in regards to the US, we allow corporations to keep money offshore untaxed while if I moved overseas to work, I have to pay taxes on my earnings.

The economist along with most media has pushed the neoliberal agenda of the wealthy elite for decades while large swathes of the nation turned to the rust belt. The days of me taking anything from the economist or much of the media seriously has long passed. I consider the economist and much of the media as I do facebook, just information pollution.

</comment><comment><USER65> > The reason, economists reckon, is power. New hires generate a surplus, > reflecting the fact that both worker and firm expect to gain from the > transaction. Wage bargaining is a negotiation over how to split this > surplus.

Hello Marx.

> If firms have the upper hand, because a new job is harder to find than a new > worker, employers capture most of the surplus, creating a gap between the > value created by workers and what they are paid.

US has full employment, so this explanation does not take into account that finding a job is super easy. Im skeptical.

The plea for unions is so unique coming from The economist.

<comment><USER66> Full employment? What about all the people that have dropped out of the workforce?

<comment><USER5> There are lots of people who don't participate in the workforce, for various reasons. You have to decide how many of them are doing so because they can't find a job, and how many of them are for other reasons (retired, student, stay at home parent, disabled, etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> This information is useless, unless the rise of costs of living are stated

</comment><comment><USER68> Real pay going up 1% per year for 18 years means that it has gone up 19.61% since the year 2000. Another great example of statistics being framed to elicit a certain response.

<comment><USER69> I wonder how it stakes compared to the real GDP growth during the same period.

<comment><USER70> Or the inflation rate.

<comment><USER71> It's real, not nominal. Real growth takes in account inflation to find real growth, while nominal includes the effects of inflation</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Launch HN: Easily find who is responsible to pay attention to GitHub PRs - <AUTHOR> https://prattention.com <comment><AUTHOR> Author here, I built the Pull Request Attention app after discussing with a friend about the Google Attention Set tool, we agreed it can be quite useful to have something similar for our current project, and here I'm launching it.

I have been using it for some months, and it has definitely helped, hopefully it can help you as well.

I'm still considering whether a browser extension (like Google Attention Set) is needed because Github just released their new notifications dashboard which has lots of useful filters.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks!</comment>


Ask HN: Any good collaboratively built documentation on good parenting? - <AUTHOR> Lastly, I wonder whether there is a good collaborative resource providing consensus-based good parenting practises and guidelines, from a general point of view: Which, of course, would include, techniques, methodologies or guidelines depending on the age, type, culture or context where children grow up.
Am I requesting for a kind of an impossible-to-find asset?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. <comment><USER2> I'm not against parenting advice in general--sometimes it's invaluable, like when you have a specific problem that's impacting you/your child's life, and you need to find a solution.

In terms of long-term parenting philosophies, though, I'd strongly suggest reading Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids by Bryan Caplan: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004OA64Q6/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004OA64Q6/)

It's a book length treatment of the fact that twin studies have demonstrated _extremely_ convincingly that as long as you meet a pretty low bar for decent parenting (you aren't such an obviously bad parent that you would get rejected by adoption agencies) the impact of your parenting on your kids' lives is minimal at best. You won't make them smarter, you won't change their personality to be more adventurous or cautious, you won't succeed in molding them with all the life lessons you've learned, and you won't put them on a path to happiness (or unhappiness) when they grow up.

This may sound somewhat bleak if you're hoping to tiger-mom your children to Harvard. But it's also freeing--you can stop worrying, enjoy the ride more, and maybe most importantly, give your kids a fun childhood they'll look back on with pleasure.

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't tiger moms be a counterpoint to that thesis though? They obviously have a huge impact on their children's lives.

<comment><USER4> The twin studies suggest that you can "break" your kids (and damage their outcomes to some degree) if you go too far in most directions, but that as long as you don't do this and you stay fairly moderate, their outcomes depend far more on nature than nurture.

In the case of tiger moms, the confounding factor is that along with their overbearing parenting they probably passed along some highly effective genes, though the kids probably would have been just as effective (maybe even more- so) with a more relaxed upbringing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Best parenting practise - ignore most advice from people you don't know. It tends to be totally subjective, contradictory, and faddish.

Give your kids loads of love, in whatever way feels right to you and your family.

<comment><USER6> There is lots of room for variation, but there are also things that are well established scientifically to have a known effect.

Talking to babies more helps them learn language faster.

Reading to children helps them become stronger readers.

spanking children makes them more likely to have problems with aggression. Later in life it's a risk factor for criminality and problems with mental health.

<comment><USER7> > spanking children makes them more likely to have problems with aggression.

I don't spank, but up until 30 or 40 years ago, spanking was a perfectly acceptable form of punishment, and probably most kids were spanked at one time or another. And it wasn't like society was significantly more aggressive than it is now. So I don't know how you can make that sweeping generalization -- at least post links to some studies.

Here is one study that found that the link between spanking and aggression is greatly determined by the context in which the spanking occurs: [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED415019.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED415019.pdf)

<comment><USER8> To be fair, society _was_ significantly more aggressive than it is now:

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts- abou...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime- in-the-u-s/)

Violent crime rates both in America and within the developed world at large are way down. This is usually overlooked because we've now become hypersensitized to remaining acts of violence - a "mass shooter" that kills nobody but themselves is now all over the Internet in real time, while when I was a kid in the 80s, everyday violence within large swathes of American society would just be a "just another homicide in a blighted urban area, don't go there". But by the statistics, America today is _a lot_ safer than 30 years ago.

Now, I have no idea whether this is because of spanking or not, and drawing a causal connection is much harder in the face of all the conflating changes within society since then. But it's factually incorrect to say that "society wasn't significantly more aggressive than it is now", because it _was_.

<comment><USER9> > Violent crime rates both in America and within the developed world at large > are way down.

Except they're still higher than they were in 1960 (and kids raised in the 1930s and 1940s certainly got spanked).

<comment><USER10> Citation needed.

<comment><USER8> He's correct on a factual level:

[https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/americas-faulty- perceptio...](https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/americas-faulty-perception- crime-rates)

There's a wider context, though, where violent crime during 1940-1960 was abnormally _low_ compared to the earlier part of the century (which had violent crime rates similar to today), and then it shot up in the 1970s. And the 1900s in general has been quite low to historical homicide rates in colonial times.

[http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/docu...](http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf)

All of this fits my point that you can't really draw conclusions one way or another from the crime rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think different parents have different goals, so probably the best is to read a bunch of books and pick out the ones you like.

Some suggestions:

The Gardener and the Carpenter

Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the- war...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against- boys/304659/)

The Well-Behaved Child: Discipline That Really Works!

How to Talk So Kids Will Listen

Raising An Emotionally Intelligent Child

And Baby Makes Three

The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity

Parenting With Love And Logic

<comment><USER12> All great suggestions.

I'd also like to add Janet Lansbury [1] as a great resource

[1] [http://www.janetlansbury.com/](http://www.janetlansbury.com/)

<comment><USER13> I also want to add the resources from [https://www.handinhandparenting.org/](https://www.handinhandparenting.org/). The techniques mentioned like Special Time and staylistening have helped a lot with my child.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Creating collaborative parenting documentation sounds like an invitation to endless flamewars. People are intensely emotionally involved in their decisions, and the outcomes are very noisy, hence difficult to measure the effect of parental decisions.

You're probably better off asking for collaborative documentation on the relative benefits of Democratic and Republican polices.

<comment><USER15> agreed, you should only allow editing by people you know. not random internet strangers

<comment><USER16> But then you'd be stuck in a bubble of people who already think like you.

While there would be flame wars, you might get some good ideas from people outside your network.

<comment><USER15> but then you'd have to do some curation and deleting unwanted comments by trolls and people that just want to comment, turning it into a full time job

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like ask and answer at [https://parenting.stackexchange.com/](https://parenting.stackexchange.com/) \- there are some good advice there.

<comment><USER18> I was going to mention this as well. I don't know about "good" but it's definitely collaboratively built.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My personal thoughts.

1\. Treat them with love. 2\. No hitting that damages them. 3\. Appreciate them like you appreciate an adult. 4\. Dont lie, ever, even if it was a joke or making them fooled. (Like saying ill buy you candies if you stop crying, yet you didnt actually buy the candies). 5\. Be there, and listen. 6\. Never argue with your spouse in front of them, or in front of anybody. 7\. Dont lecture them in public. 8\. They are smart, dont let them do the mistakes that you once did. 9\. What they eat shapes them. 10\. Help them fix their mistakes, no need to blame them. (Broke the glass? Help them fix it. 11\. If you have multiple children, if you buy a present, buy for all of them.

<comment><USER20> > 2\. No hitting that damages them.

hoo. what? No. Hitting is a hardline. I understand that it is popular in some cultures but I have yet to see any studies that confirm its usefulness. If anything, it was morally damaging for me.

So no, please. Don't your child, or any other kid. Or anyone for that matter (excluding self defense)

<comment><USER19> If you imagine hitting here as me forming fist and hit them, then maybe i chose the wrong word. Its more like tapping them, hands open. I usually do it when im in crowd and my kid fools around that might disturb people. I'll tap them twice to get their attention, usually on their shoulder, but never on their head. Then tell them what is wrong with their behaviour. If they do it again ill tap them again and they will know what it means. I never hit my kids with a fist.

I mostly avoid shouting or speaking loudly, so the best way for me to get their attention is usually by "hitting" them.

No hitting that damages them includes moral damage, but then again its hard to measure.

<comment><USER21> No, people know what you mean. They're telling you that all forms of hitting children are wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm reading a lot of these comments that say "good parenting is too subjective" \- I must say i STRONGLY disagree - and am a little surprised to see so many comments like those from the HN crowd. I wonder how many of those are actual parents?

I think there are MANY pieces of parenting wisdom that are VERY accepted. For instance:

\- giving kids 'structure' i.e. repetition, nighttime routines, bedtime to ensure they sleep well, etc

\- consequences for negative actions <\--- big one

\- creating spaces and norms for activities, i.e. reading, eating, etc

\- playing in certain ways including imaginative games, etc, that are age- appropriate

\- ensuring lots of exercise and play that encourages dexterity, use of all body muscles, etc

anyway, i could go on and on.

<comment><USER23> \- consequences for negative actions <\--- big one

And probably more important, rewards for positive actions. Positive reinforcement is pretty powerful in general.

<comment><USER24> Parent of 2 (8 and 3 yo).

Rewards for positive actions have a few side-effects that I have observed though:

1) Individuals start expecting positive reinforcement for everything they do. Doing it for the external reward instead of finding the intrinsic reward for doing the right thing on their own. This is probably extensively researched already, although i don't have sources handy right now.

2) Along time, positive reinforcements behave in accordance with the "law of diminishing returns". i.e. If you always reward positive actions with some standard reward, it will lose effect over time. With the danger of the positive action not feeling worthwhile anymore.

I thus became a great believer in the importance of negative consequences for bad behavior. I mostly apply (within reason) Shame and Restriction of freedoms to punish my kids for bad behavior (reserving the occasional physical slap for very serious offenses). Shame is a motivator that interests me a lot as a parent. I think it is an essential motivator in society in general, but the most delicate one. Too much Shame can also make you socially inept.

In the end I think its always about the right balance...

<comment><USER25> Your children are young, and the tools that are working for you now will not be as effective as they get older. In particular, if you are leaning on shame and restriction of freedom to punish, you are sowing the seeds of teenage rebellion. You can only restrict so much freedom from a teenager, and shame only matters in as much as your opinion of them matters to them; abuse either of these, and you will find yourself with a teenager who dedicates themselves to distancing themselves as much as they can from you.

In my experience, you should rather focus on building character by developing the intrinsic rewards for good behavior: we do the right thing because it is the right thing, even if it is a more difficult path. No amount of shame and punishment can get a child to do that; it has to come from something deeper and more positive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Not a parent (yet), but there's a great book for dealing with kids (aged 2-99) by Faber & Mazlish titled, "How To Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk" that I would strongly recommend.

<comment><USER27> Totally agree, a fantastic book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm not a parent so take this with a grain of salt.

There are so many fads in parenting and they change all the time. Fads are, IMHO, dangerous and kids are not something you want to experiment on (too much). Finding someone who has raised happy children into the sort of people you'd like your kids to be would be the best way to go. Might be tricky to do in the modern world but if you can find a community of like minded people you'd be surprised how many people love to pass on their wisdom to a younger generation.

<comment><USER29> You know, before I had a child, I would upvoted this and likely written a comment about how much your opinion matches mine. But, now I have a two year old and, let me tell you, these little people develop strong personalities at a young age.

My Mom and Dad were great parents, but I have to raise Lauren differently. It isn't that my Mom and Dad raised my sister and I wrong, it's just that my sister and I were our own little people with our own personalities.

If you ever want a wonderful guide to this (in real time), you should come experience bath time at the Hluska household. It's something else...

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's hard to arrive at a consensus of what constitutes good parenting. For example, my sister wants her kids to be doctors, and so all activities and goals are oriented toward that. I prefer my kids choose a career path that brings personal happiness and freedom of time. As such, my methods and KPIs are different. Parenting is sort of one of those things that can easily degrade into a constant stream of fomo.

<comment><USER31> > my sister wants her kids to be doctors

Thats such an Indian stereotype :D. Source: me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> People commenting on this post, please state if you have kids or not. The reason is, people who don't have kids tend to be extremely naive about parenting.

My take: there's no such thing as universal "good parenting" advice. Kids are different, and what works well for one can wreck another for the rest of her life.

Full disclosure: I'm a father of a "difficult" 15 year old.

<comment><USER33> OK: got more kids than fingers, and no amputations yet!

You may be dealing with toxic friends, failed perfectionism (can't meet a possibly self-imposed standard so just give up entirely), social rejection due to cluelessness, depression, an inability to picture a future self and work toward satisfying the needs of that future self...

The kid has also had 15 years to learn how to manipulate you.

Give it your best shot, but be prepared to let go. Besides the possibilities of "not your fault" and "you were awful", there is the "ordinary imperfection". At some point, sooner or later, you have to kick them out the door and hope they manage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> [https://www.parentingscience.com/](https://www.parentingscience.com/)

"Founded by an evolutionary anthropologist, this parenting resource is for critical thinkers -- people who want to understand child development from the perspectives of psychology, anthropology, evolution, and cognitive neuroscience.

I've got opinions. But who cares? You might be a scientist, physician, or teacher. Maybe you're an educated, skeptical layperson who loves science. Whatever the case, you don't need a sermon. You need evidence. You can draw your own conclusions.

So here it is: No folk theories. No preachy advice. No authoritarian pronouncements or pseudoscientific political dogma. Instead, you'll find my analysis of the research, fully-referenced so you know where to go if you want to dig deeper yourself."

</comment><comment><USER16> I love this idea. While every family and child is different, having all the opinions in one place might be helpful. Even if some of the opinions are conflicting, at least they would all be there so that you could read through them all and choose for yourself what you think is best for you and your family.

I don't know of any such resource. I know there are a lot of "mommy groups" on Facebook where they pass around articles and stuff, but those groups tend to have a bias towards one type of parenting or another.

But at the end of the day, there is no "right way" or "best way", there is only "your way". It's kind of like product management -- you do a bunch of research, choose a path, then gather data as to the outcomes, and change tack if necessary.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I understand the potential conflicts on different approaches at so many different discussions.

However, as you've mentioned, it would be awesome to have a resource putting different opinions together.

As per in one of the comments below suggested, I've created this repo: [https://github.com/davidpelayo/awesome- parenting](https://github.com/davidpelayo/awesome-parenting) so I'll be tracking all the info posted here and others findings.

Thanks for reading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> [http://fallibleideas.com/taking-children- seriously](http://fallibleideas.com/taking-children-seriously)

<comment><USER36> +1, this article spells out what I think is a major miss in parenting. I wrote some small thoughts on it here: [https://whoami.sh/thought/taking-children- seriously](https://whoami.sh/thought/taking-children-seriously)

<comment><USER35> I like the style of your blog.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Probably an impossible-to-find asset. Such a collaborative effort is likely to attract the most vocal and opinionated people, many of whom do not have children of their own. I am simply extrapolating from the median author of the parenting books I've read (and thrown away afterwards).

You may find that successful parents who balance two or more kids with full- time jobs and some measure of sanity will not have the interest or energy to put into such a project. The more enlightened among them may also hold their tongues, having realized that what works for their kids is not universal.

</comment><comment><USER38> [https://winnie.com/](https://winnie.com/)

Favorite books:

How to Talk so Kids Will Listen. And Listen So Kids Will Talk.

Smart But Scattered

<comment><USER39> "How to Talk so Kids Will Listen. And Listen So Kids Will Talk" is a fantastic book. It's clearly (and compassionately) written and has cartoons which depict exchanges between parent and child.

<comment><USER40> You should really try the original that book is based on: Between Parent and Child - H. G. Ginott

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> No, but that's actually not a bad idea. I agree with what most commenters here have said: don't listen to advice from strangers on parenting. But at the same time, I would expect that advice to regress to some sort of mean if enough contributors were involved.

Why not make an "awesome-parenting" GitHub repo? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I created it a few days ago, with another name. But I really liked your proposal. Find it here: [https://github.com/davidpelayo/awesome- parenting](https://github.com/davidpelayo/awesome-parenting)

Feel free to add stuff. Really, I'm just asking this to get different opinions from people worldwide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I am working putting a form together to target learning activities. I guess this would be more focused on learning and not parenting in general. My sister-in-law is an OT and she always gives us great learning techniques and I figured it would be helpful to put this all together in one place.

</comment><comment><USER43> No. There is no consensus on anything. People argue a lot. If you have problem, read multiple things and try them to see which works.

Rule of thumb, if it looks like extreme it likely is. If it makes you insecure or is a lot of tiring work to _your_ family then it is bad advice.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know if it works for your or not. But, to me, it makes lot of sense to gather as much info as possible so that when I have doubts on doing something, I can query first what info says and maybe the decision-making process is better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I also want to add the resources from [https://www.handinhandparenting.org/](https://www.handinhandparenting.org/). The techniques mentioned like Special Time and staylistening have helped a lot with my child.

</comment><comment><USER44> I recommend finding books based on actual parenting research, rather than collaborative or consensus-based sources. Consensus does not mean truth. There are countless parenting myths bandied about that are based on nothing more than idle blog posts or simple social inertia. Parenting advice is especially susceptible to "feel good" myths which sound like common sense, but aren't actually true. (I've found that most "consensus" advice is just rationalization validating the giver's choices, e.g. saving for college, bedtime routines, etc.)

In my experience, pediatricians often have good advice on relevant books and topics.

<comment><USER45> This is the comment I came to write.

I'm a father of a newborn. And I agree with people who say that universal advice doesn't work. You find what works for you, and as long as it's safe you roll with it.

I also agree that generalized non studied consensus is not useful if you want at the truth. It's a fallacy: just because many people believe it, doesn't make it true.

Besides, advice from non parents/people without skin in the game is "taken under advisement". Unless you're there all night dealing with baby, your sleep advice can suck it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I have no idea if the asset you want exists.

I think the best thing you can do is keep in mind that you are raising future adults. That detail seems to frequently be overlooked. I found it a very valuable metric by which to measure my parenting decisions.

Best.

</comment><comment><USER47> I don't think you could have this without it devolving into what is essentially a religious debate but I'd be very interested in a collaboratively built wiki of age appropriate challenges or documenting developmental milestones vs skills they unlock (similar to tropes vs stories on tvtropes)

For example I've heard kids can go to school when they can reach the ear on the opposite side by reaching their arm over the head. Also at some age they start to understand non-literal meaning i.e. sarcasm but until then they are oblivious. This would be very useful knowledge to concentrate into a wiki.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everybody. I didn't expect this massive amount of reactions. I've tried to update the github repo gathering the info you all provided me (mainly references, websites and books).

If anyone wants to raise a PR fixing english errors (non-native speaker here) I'd be much appreciated ([https://github.com/davidpelayo/awesome- parenting](https://github.com/davidpelayo/awesome-parenting)).

I'll also add a spanish version soon.

</comment><comment><USER48> There is definitely useful parenting knowledge that's not intuitive to many parents.

I'm building a site to collaboratively document topics like this. I just created a "Good Parenting" topic in case you and others in this thread would like to pool their knowledge into something concise and useful.

[https://grok.how/24/Good-Parenting?source=hn](https://grok.how/24/Good- Parenting?source=hn)

</comment><comment><USER49> I find the advice not to listen to strangers bizarre. Maybe it's because the following is assumed, but since it hasn't been stated yet:

Try to practice evidence-based parenting.

Instead of having arguments about parenting, try to understand what the science says, and if the science doesn't say anything conclusive, critically evaluate the anecdotes you receive from other parents.

<comment><USER50> The problem is there is very little good science available about parenting, because it is considered unethical to experiment on children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> No new parents' bookshelf is complete without _der Struwwelpeter_ :

[http://store.doverpublications.com/0486284697.html](http://store.doverpublications.com/0486284697.html)

Spoiler: It's a terrible parenting book by modern standards, but good for cheering up the parents after the kids are in bed.

</comment><comment><USER52> There is no consensus on parenting. Every family and every child is different.

The one piece of (still opinionated) advice I give is to keep in mind your goal - it is not to raise "good children". It is to raise 'good' adults, capable of living their own lives, with success, and adapting to all life may throw at them.

</comment><comment><USER53> If you judge by reactions of a large number of parents across the world, "Parent Effectiveness Training" book (and training!) seems like a great resource. Interestingly, his approach to parenting has applications in daily life with adults in general :)

</comment><comment><USER54> There's [https://parenting.stackexchange.com/search?q=resources](https://parenting.stackexchange.com/search?q=resources)

Other than that - it's a fundamentally political question.

</comment><comment><USER55> Consensus based parenting seems like a good idea when you've got one kid and think you have the game figured out. Then you have a second child and see that much of what you learned gets tossed out the window. That's when you realize, every child is different, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. It's also a divisive topic, with two camps (nurture/caring vs tough love/discipline) which makes a consensus all but impossible.

All I can tell you is what has worked for me:

* Lose the goo-goo talk and chat with them like people from day one. They will learn to hold a conversation a lot earlier and talk circles around their classmates. If possible, expose them to a second language early - they will pick up other languages later in life with ease. It also helps them to think in different ways.

* Hitting and aggressive behavior scares and confuses a child so much that the lesson you are trying to teach them is often lost. There are other forms of discipline which are more effective in the long term (isolation, taking away something they like). But most important what you want to do is foster a sense of understanding about right vs wrong. This is why kids favorite question is "why?" We often take what we know for granted and expect this new mind to pick things up the way we did, even though that's not how it works. Be firm and don't roll over every time, but also be flexible and pick your battles. Not every hill is worth dying on.

* Empathy is your greatest tool and most important lesson. Use it often. Even when you are angry, resist the urge to scream till you are red in the face. Take a deep breath and get down to their level, eye-to-eye. Find out what's upsetting them and vocalize how it affects you as well. Show by example what it means to feel what others are feeling.

* Use positive reinforcment. Reward them when they do well. Shower them with affirmation and praise, especially in the early years as it shapes emotional health. Inspiring them to do well is far more effective than scaring them into it.

* Socialize them early. Regular trips to the parks, play dates.. whatever it takes. The sooner they learn to be around other kids the faster they will gain the social skills that will aid their success later in life.

* Make time for them. Feeding, clothing, sheltering them are just the beginning. They need to play, talk, explore and there is no greater gift you can give a child (or anyone) than your time. All too often bad behavior is their way of turning your head, because any attention is better than no attention.

There's probably more but those are the basics which work for both of my kids, who have very different temperaments. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER56> Does anyone have a good list of websites that provide educational content (Math, Writing, etc.) and let you track your kids progress? For example, Khan Academy is pretty good, does anyone know of some other resources?

Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER57> Yeah its talk to your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, teachers, neighbours. Which is why there are many different cultures that do things different ways and most people turn out great.

</comment><comment><USER58> A course called Scientific Secrets for Raising Kids Who Thrive, available through Great Courses Plus.

A less scientific approach is a reference book called The Pocket Parent.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the info!

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Not a collab resource but the best resource I know of: Between Parent and Child - H. G. Ginott

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your recommendation!

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Don't overthink things. Just do your best, and you'll be setting them up better than 90% of children.

</comment><comment><USER60> "good parenting" seems incredibly subjective. Say your 3 year old takes an interest in opposite gender clothing/toys. Do "good parents": a) encourage this behavior and buy more opposite gender toys/clothes, b) discourage this buy not buying more c) do nothing, wait and see if child grows out of it

</comment><comment><USER61> I don't know. Can't we just use common sense instead?

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course we can. But maybe it's not bad to have extra resources, books, opinions, techniques and methodologies you might want to look at to reflect on whether your common sense makes actual sense or not? I think it's healthy to be open to listen other opinions and evaluate your owns.</comment></comment>


Name-letter Effect - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name-letter_effect <comment><USER2> Do people also use letters that they like more than other letters?

If so, an interesting proof of concept might be to reconstruct a person's full birth name from a corpus of their writing.

<comment><USER3> I don't really know why I'm sharing this but I hate the letter M. When I start sentences, I tend to avoid it on a whim, to the detriment of being expressive.

I realize starting sentences with "my" or "maybe" would be much more expressive, but I irrationally refrain from it.

<comment><USER4> muphobia is the fear of the letter m.

<comment><USER3> Just like dyslexia ought to be easier to spell, I don't think I'll be using that word.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've discovered that many, many people will choose a (Android) lockscreen pattern that will closely resemble the first letter of their name.

<comment><USER6> I may be an exception, I preferred 59273 because it reminded me of the Federation's logo (from Star Trek), but my name does not have an A in it.

<comment><USER7> Probably not a great idea to post your phone password on a public forum...

<comment><USER8> The likelihood that anyone who sees this will also ever have physical access to their phone is astronomical.

My disk encryption password is 1223334. Doesn't do you much good when you have to be sitting in front of my computer to use it.

<comment><USER9> What about the following scenario?

An associate (personal, professional, business, etc.) of yours knows your HN handle and has read your post, above.

At some point, that associate is with you when you are using your computer. You briefly leave your machine unattended and unlocked for whatever reason (e.g. restroom).

Your associate now may be able to compromise your security.

Extending the above scenario: what happens when the above post draws the attention of people who decide to become an associate of yours _after_ the fact (aka "spearphishing")?

<comment><USER8> You're right, I'm going to track him down and befriend him in person now that I know his passcode. That's worth my time and money instead of, I don't know, just beating him with a shovel until he tells me his password. Or picking a victim I already know. Or any other number of far more likely and easily executed schemes.

<comment><USER9> Social engineering has the "advantage" that the compromise may go undetected longer than with cruder methods such as torture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How much you like the letters in your name is used as an indirect method for measuring self esteem. If I really don't like the letters e,o,a,s,r, and d... then I probably don't like myself either.

What's really in a Name-Letter Effect? Name-letter preferences as indirect measures of self-esteem: [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10463283.2014.980...](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10463283.2014.980085)

<comment><USER11> How can you like or dislike a letter?

<comment><USER12> While I don't have a dislike for any letter, I do dislike a couple of decimal numbers, one of which is a birthday number. I prefer odds over evens.

<comment><USER13> > I prefer odds over evens.

A few years ago someone told me that for anything other than within a especially formal garden design, most people prefer the visual of odd numbers of similar plants grouped together - from small bulbs planted at the scale of several centimetres, up to large trees planted at ten metres or more apart.

Of course, how you identify what most people 'prefer' is challenging - it may be more a reflection of what looks natural or random.

But, like how red cars are often spotted in groups of three, once I started noticing numbers of like plants clumped together, at various scales, it does seem to hold true.

Your preference may be more deep-seated than at a purely integer level. :)

<comment><USER12> On the other hand the negative spaces are even.

<comment><USER13> Do you mean between every pairing of items?

Apparently this 'odd numbers look better' stands regardless of proximity between each item. Keep an eye out for occurrences - it's a pretty subjective interpretation, I'm sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My name just uses all of the best letters.

Objectively.

<comment> crooked-v Ah, so I presume your name is Squdgy Fez Blank Jimp Crwth Vox?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> In a similar vein, research has found a positive correlation between the number of right letter QWERTY keys in a word and the positivity felt towards those words. Source: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3348452/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3348452/)

</comment><comment><USER16> > Most people like themselves

[Citation Needed]

<comment><USER17> seriously

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The study method seems to be "rate the letters by how much you like them".

While it looks like the study has been repeated enough to not be total quackery, there is still the question of what's the point. Does your preference for a particular letter has an effect on your choices?

I doubt the research about people preferring brands with the names in their letters has properly ruled out other variables, or would prove to be significant.

How many people actually give thought about what letters they like the most? I'm guessing the study was the first time the subjects were ever exposed to the thought of liking a letter. As such, ot seems reasonable to go for some point of reference that is simple and available, auch as your own name.

<comment><USER19> The article also mentions study of charity donations.

<comment><USER18> Skimming the article for that study, I don't find anything wrong with it superficially, but while the effect might be statistically significant, they are tiny - I.E. from 4.2% of donors to 5.5% had K initial in Katrina, and 10% to 12% in Hurrican Mitch (though the data might be bad, since the actual data did not contain the exact information they needed).

Also the effect was apparently not noticeable in Hurrican Rita.

There is also no mention of the percent of people starting with the letter from the given population - since the dataset for before the hurricane was much smaller (Katrina- ~300 before, ~4000 after), it's very likely that the proportions of named individuals drifted to the average, as what happens in larger datasets.

The number of hurricanes tested was also small - I.E. 3 , I'm not sure an effect can be inferred from such small numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > subjects are not aware that they are choosing letters from their name

This seems unlikely to be true as stated.

<comment><USER21> I created an account just to give you a vote.

> Crucially, subjects are not aware that they are choosing letters from their > name.

That is asinine. By what mechanism can a researcher make someone forget how to spell their name?

This is simply a theory that says "People are most comfortable and familiar with things which they are comfortable and familiar with." It's an essentially meaningless psychological observation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can you imagine personalized ads choosing words with a prevalence of letters from your name?

</comment><comment><USER23> I wonder how this works with people who have gotten legal name changes, or people who regularly go by a non-legal name or a pseudonym.

<comment><USER24> It's actually in tfa - both the original and chosen names show the effect.

<comment><USER25> It addresses name change by marriage; I'd be curious to know if it holds where the reason for the change was to expressly disavow the old name (e.g. changing away from the family name of an abusive parent).

Edit: typo fix (it'd -> I'd)

<comment><USER23> I am interested in this as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is there a test I can take online for that?

</comment><comment><USER27> LBJ

</comment><comment><USER28> What about A E I O U

<comment><USER9> You posed a question without a question mark which makes me wonder presently, and sometimes, why?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I asked somebody to give me three letters, they picked ABC. So much for that theory, I thought. Then I read a bit more and it said that it doesn't work on people who don't like themselves. It sounds like pop psychology, actually.

<comment><USER30> > _It sounds like pop psychology, actually._

Not if it's actually studied psychology and has been verified again and again in experiments.

Besides, it doesn't work that way "gimme 3 letters", where ABC is a very easy and probable answer. And one random exchange with a sample of one and no controls ("I asked somebody") is not how you disqualify a theory ("so much for that theory").

<comment><USER29> Sure, I wasn't entirely serious. I wonder how the test should be done. If somebody asked me for a few random letters, I'd have to ponder for some time about how to generate letters randomly. It would be easier if there was some (semi?)random input available, such as cars going past with various number plates.

<comment><USER31> _Whether subjects are asked to rank all letters of the alphabet, rate each of the letters, choose the letter they prefer out of a set of two, or pick a small set of letters they most prefer, on average people consistently like the letters in their own name the most._

Second sentence of the first paragraph.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mobile Friendly or Mobile Foe? Top Obstacles to Mobile Shopping - <AUTHOR> http://mobile1st.com/mobile-friendly-or-mobile-foe-top-obstacles-to-mobile-shopping/

<comment><USER2> Mobile rules in local search!</comment>


The dangers of unlicensed engineering - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/964781/citizen-activist-grates-on-state.html

<comment><USER2> Licensed engineer here (Massachusetts). I don't know WTF Lacy is smoking. I've been in a position where community groups have performed their own analysis to challenge my work and that's fine - either their analysis is wrong and I can point out their errors, or (in the rare occasion) I have indeed missed something and I revise my report. But going after the group who prepared the analysis because it looks "engineering-level work"... I don't know where to begin.

For one, it's not necessarily improper for a non-licensed engineer to do "engineering-level work" - the way you _become_ a licensed engineer is to do "engineering-level work", typically under the supervision of a licensed engineer, but some of your experience has to come on your own ("responsible charge"). But more importantly, just doing engineering work isn't the problem, it becomes a problem if you represent yourself as a licensed engineer when your not.

Quite frankly, Cox should file his own complaint with the NC engineering board against Lacy (assuming Lacy is licensed, his name didn't come up in a license search).

<comment><USER3> The article claimed Kevin Lacy was "chief traffic engineer for the [North Carolina] state DOT". I assume that makes him a bureaucrat rather than a working engineer. And bureaucrats have all sorts of "interesting" ways of working.

Edit: This is not the first time Mr. Lacy has faced criticism either: <http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=453>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
      > He said there is a potential for violation if DOT
      > and the public were misled by "engineering-quality
      > work"- even if the authors did not claim to be
      > engineers.

Isn't this essentially saying that you _can_ be too smart/thorough for your own good, and that the government is going to punish you for not getting a license to use your abilities? What the hell is 'engineering-quality work' anyways? Talk about an amorphous term...

<comment><USER5> You're refuting the weakest possible interpretation of his statement. "This" is essentially saying, that it is possible to mislead the public by producing work that has some of the qualities of engineering work, but is _not_ actual engineerng work. The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put together some official looking research to support it ... one of the many things you learn not to do in engineering school.

<comment><USER6> However, it's the first thing you learn in law school. Petitioning the government is law, not engineering.

<comment><USER4> Ah. So he was practicing law without a license.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The punchline:

"If Cox is found to have practiced engineering without a license, Ritter said, the likely action would be a letter telling him not to do it again."

<comment><USER8> If my brother has a headache and I give him an aspirin, am I practising medicine?

<comment><USER6> Don't do that again.

Love, The AMA

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This should get laughed out of court. You only need a PE license to approve drawings and design work on an official level, not to perform studies.

<comment><USER10> Seeing as that the potential punishment is just a strongly-worded letter, I don't think anything will be going to court.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It appears as though Mr. Lacy is trying to do "Lawyer Level Work". Someone better make sure he has registered with the NC Bar.

<comment><USER12> It's legit in his case, he's clearly doing such a bad job of it that nobody could mistake him for a real lawyer ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The title of this post is inaccurate. The article is discussing how someone (who is not an engineer) provided "engineering-quality work" which could mislead the DOT and the public that it was done by an engineer.

If anything, this article is highlighting how licensing is more often used to protect a select few rather than showing the "dangers of unlicensed engineering."

<comment><USER4> Considering the forum, I think that the title is sarcasm.

<comment><USER14> That's certainly possible, but I personally find sarcasm very difficult to detect on the web. I generally avoid it when communicating online and via text.

<comment><USER15> Funny how good your comment is if you are being sarcastic. But now I can't tell if it is sarcasm or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Crazy talk. In Canada this computer scientist would be invited to chat with the engineering firm, not brought in front of a licensing board. Writing a report, even a very technical one, that is political in nature should always be protected. What shouldn't be allowed is people passing themselves off as if they had a license then people _building_ things based off of their plans.

<comment><USER17> Canada has wackos too. If Canada has no engineering managers/administrators who are willing to pull some stunt like this, I guarantee there's one there _somewhere_ who will pull something else equally silly.

Don't compare the US's extreme case to Canada's normal case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> _He said there is a potential for violation if DOT and the public were misled by "engineering-quality work"- even if the authors did not claim to be engineers._

I might be too literal here, but if you did not intend to mislead anyone, why should you be responsible for how "the public" interprets your work.

<comment><USER19> Exactly. I can't even begin to see how making a case to a third party deciding authority _instantly thrusts you into taking full responsibility for public safety_. What an absurd concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't want to defend the idiocy discussed in this article, but it's useful to try and understand where Cox is coming from.

Traffic engineering is one of those fields where there probably haven't been a lot of hobbyists, until recently, when the Internet has allowed geeks to become expert on pretty much any subject with a few weekends of study. I would also imagine that the PE licensing rate among practicing traffic engineers is pretty close to 100%, whereas I have yet to meet a PE-licensed software engineer... I'm sure the half-dozen or so licensed engineers at NCDOT were probably pretty freaked out to see a study like this from an amateur. Who knows, maybe the group did blow a lot of the conclusions -- it's almost certain that Cox's team disagree with the report, since it is counter to their recommendations. Anyway, the last thing the state engineers want to do is to validate the standing of the community group by engaging with them on the issues, even if it's to educate them on where they made mistakes, so they're going to look to discredit them.

As an analogy, practicing medicine without a license is a crime, even if you're really good at it, and even if all of your patients know you're not licensed.

Again, I think this is a terrible way to try to solve the problem, even if it is supported by laws or regulations. Professional fields of all kinds need to cope with the fact that organized groups of laypeople are going to be able to mount credible challenges to their opinions, on their turf and using their tools.

<comment><USER21> I think this touches on an interesting point: A few weekends worth of study can produce a short term "unlicensed" practical grasp on pretty much any subject.

In the startup world this is almost taken for granted. For example, I needed to learn how to collect money from customers and didn't want to use PayPal. One weekend later I had a basic understanding of payment gateways, merchant accounts, PCI compliance, etc... The next, I had working code processing customer transactions that has been running for years now without a single issue.

I've learned a lot about payment processing since then but I _still_ trust that code and by extension my former self that was able to quickly get up to speed on a specialized topic.

I imagine the NCDOT engineers had ascribed a lot of value to the time spent obtaining their degrees and licenses ...instead of the practical benefits obtained. They anchored that pride and sense of accomplishment to the specialized format of the reports they work in.

It's interesting to see these two world views collide and certainly this won't be the last time it happens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Ha, funny seeing this on Hacker News. I live a half mile from the intersections they're talking about. Will definitely need to drive by and do some "unlicensed engineering" of my own.

</comment><comment><USER23> More like the dangers of unapproved thinking.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is fairly interesting, in the Jan-Feb 2011 edition of "American Scientist" [2] (The magazine) there's an article entitled "A troubled tradition" that outlines a few issues in academia with reviewing papers.

Peer reviewers traditionally have 5 main rules to follow when reviewing papers and one of them is "Fairness" which essentially states: "Avoid biases based on gender, institution affiliation, nationality, and career status."

Interesting to finally have proof that this doesn't only apply to academia but also to "real-life" engineering and that people discriminate no matter what.

Considering that the definition of engineering is: "The discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems" — I can't even imagine why one wouldn't have the right to do "engineering" studies.

I digress, my point is made and I'm sad to still see such reaction to well put studies—Assuming it was well put [1]

[1] David M. Cox — PhD: <http://bit.ly/hyf5Lj> The aforementioned assumption is made based on the academic knowledge of Dr. Cox and that he would know how to make a study and make an elaborated point explained in details.

[2] American Scientist — Volume 99 — Number 1 — January-February 2011

</comment><comment><USER25> i was once turned down on a pay raise because "it was not like i was an engineer, i was just savvy" (highschool degree here)

</comment><comment><USER26> Based on the version of events presented in this article, Lacy should be ashamed of himself.

/ringed BASc (non licensed)

</comment><comment><USER27> What's that, Mr. Doe? You found a weird lump on your balls? Better keep that to yourself. You wouldn't want anyone thinking you're a doctor!

Better not make that research for small claims court TOO thorough Mr. Smith. You wouldn't want anyone thinking you're a lawyer!

</comment><comment><USER28> was it started by DMCA? I mean the practice of limiting, even outlawing, of analytical thinking.

<comment><USER29> I think software industry is slowly headed this way: that there will come a point when you cannot let a member of the public use something based on your code without you being a licensed SE.

<comment><USER30> I think the uncertainties inherent in writing software that depends on many other complex libraries/frameworks will tend to discourage strong liability for bugs. The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath.

In certain highly restricted domains (typically embedded systems), liability for bugs becomes somewhat more realistic.

<comment><USER31> _The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath._

That, divorced from further arguments, is not an extraordinarily strong argument against liability for defects. After all: the engineer who builds upon such a stack has presumably, more or less consciously, made the decision that defects are acceptable - otherwise they would have chosen something less complex. Is there any particular reason someone should not be held accountable for that decision?

<comment><USER32> The question is, would we expect authors of libraries to indemnify other developers against liability if the fault is in the library itself?

<comment><USER26> If it's life critical software, then yes.

You don't get to blame civil engineers for structure failure if the steel provided had material faults (that couldn't be detected by said engineers exercising due diligence).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The U.S. of A., land of freedom. Roflmao.

</comment><comment><USER34> The problem is they're all union, and you can't do their job, that's stealing work. Those guys need that work, and if you want it done, you have to pay them to do it. Now stop stealing work, and go back to your own job! </sarcasm>

On a serious note, I have no idea if unions are involved, I'm just reminiscing about dealings with union members in my old job.</comment>


Show HN: Turn your smartphone into a 3D controller with only a web app - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/konaraddio/web-riimote <comment><AUTHOR> I built a web app that turns your smartphone into a 3D controller (think Wii remote). No need to install a mobile or desktop app.

Just visit [https://web-riimote.herokuapp.com](https://web- riimote.herokuapp.com) on a smartphone (it'll be your controller) _and_ a laptop/desktop (it'll be your display). Works best in Chrome.

Here's a video showing it in action: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2r1-lR6Xq8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2r1-lR6Xq8) .

This project was inspired by the 2016 Android Experiments Winner ([https://experiments.withgoogle.com/3d-controller](https://experiments.withgoogle.com/3d-controller)). The 2016 Android Experiments winner turns your smartphone into a 3D controller using Chromecast and an Android app. But `web-riimote` demonstrates that it's possible to do the same with only a web app.

Built with Vue.js and Node.js</comment>