chrishallquist's comments

We live in a world where a lot of people are still living on $2 a day or less. And you consider $10k/year on soccer and music lessons a necessary living expense? Gimmie a break.

I'm friends with a married couple who's got one kid, planning on having more. Husband works in tech, wife doesn't work. Their finances end up looking a lot like mine, except they live in an area of Palo Alto where my rent gets them a decent-sized apartment. (Both I and they are saving for retirement.)

As someone who recently quit a six-figure tech job in SF... 100k/year does not "barely" cover cost of living. When I first got the job, I decided I wanted to live close to where I was working in SOMA, which meant paying quite a bit more in rent, but I never had any illusions that what I was paying for was a necessity of life.

Though I mainly picked it out for the location, it was easy to tell the building was built explicitly to cater to the wealthy (because that's the kind of building that's getting built in SF right now). When I first moved in, I felt everything about the place was conspiring to tell me, "Yup, you're a rich asshole now."

Even with that expense, I still had plenty of money. Even if you feel like you're too good to pack a lunch, and need to eat at a hip restaurant for every single meal, I have no idea where this "barely covering living expenses" is coming from.

"This is how success is distributed in almost any profession."

No—only in professions where the marginal cost of serving an additional customer is low.

I find this completely unsurprising. Maybe because I'm someone who used to (kinda sorta) make a living as a writer?

Writing software is more profitable than writing prose (or poetry), because fewer people can do it, but at the end of the day the economics are the same: the fruits of your labor are easily copied, so making something that 10 million people read or use is not inherently much more expensive than making something 100 people read or use. Under those circumstances, it's easy for everyone to read the best content, and use only the best apps. People's differing tastes, need for variety, and imperfect awareness of their choices means the authors of the "second best" thing aren't completely screwed in either case, but it's still pretty close to winner-take-all.

(Also, social proof—people's tendency to use what other people are doing as a proxy for quality—amplifies winner-take-all tendencies, even when there are no obvious network effects.)