What's the problem? Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens.
Poorer health might be concerning, but is likely the result of the population growing older. More children would help make the numbers look better, I suppose, but, statistically, only poor people like having children.
> What's the problem? Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens.
That may be a reasonable take at the level of an individual. But it's nonsense at the level of a country.
Wealth is the ability to get other people to do things. But if everyone is becoming less capable, then that's not a problem that wealth can fix.
Outsourcing may be a temporary solution to his problem, but I don't see it working well long term.
> But if everyone is becoming less capable, then that's not a problem that wealth can fix.
What suggests that people are becoming less capable? More importantly, what suggests that people are becoming less capable in an irreversible way? If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. As you said, you can use wealth to get other people to become more capable.
> What suggests that people are becoming less capable?
From the root level comment in this thread:
> Student test scores have worsened more than in other Scandinavian countries, and critics of the government say there are too many boondoggle tunnels and bridges to nowhere.
-
> More importantly, what suggests that people are becoming less capable in an irreversible way? If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that this trend is irreversible.
But big trends like this can be difficult to turn around - if it were easy, the trend wouldn't have happened in the first place (or, at least, it wouldn't have been detectable).
> If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. As you said, you can use wealth to get other people to become more capable.
You can't just say "wealth will do x". That's really a semantic shortcut for saying "people will do x". But presumably people are already trying to improve the countries test scores. And people are already trying (at least to a certain extent) to spend government funds wisely. I'm not really sure how wealth will change what's currently occurring.
Oh, so you mean not that they are becoming less capable in general, but that they are becoming less capable at testing? I suppose that is a reasonable take in light of earlier comments – but, again, wealthy people don't see value in test results, so what difference does it make?
This is like noticing that people have become less likely to share "hand-me-downs". You'd no doubt see that as a travesty if you are struggling to buy clothes, but if you look at it from a place of wealth where you are buying clothes as if they are nothing, what does that mean to you? Not much.
> if it were easy, the trend wouldn't have happened in the first place
There is a logical leap in there that you haven't explained. In the same vein, it is easy to grow food in your garden, but it is abundantly clear that people no longer see the need, even where they once did. Just because something is easy does not mean that there is reason to do it. You are going to have to elaborate.
Only to the extent of the environmental impact being greater than the alternative activity. Like another commenter said, wealth is the ability to get people to do things. You're not wealthy if you crawl into a cave and just sit there doing nothing (ignoring that even then you are impacting the environment with your methane emissions).
> Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor.
Bashing 'poor people' aside, it's safe to say that on a national level, declining test scores are a warning sign that merits investigation.
> When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere
You can, but there's no small amount of broken window fallacy there.
> None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens.
I might be too poor to see the joy of building of bridges to nowhere, but there are still 'problems' with declining test scores, government misuse of funds, and pointless infrastructure projects.
> statistically, only poor people like having children
Yeesh. There are at least three reasons why this is completely wrong, but what's more important is that you seem to have a weird bone to pick with "poor people". You really might want to sort that out for yourself.
You've continued to make a habit of attacking other users in comments here, as well as posting an enormous quantity of flamewar comments. Since we've asked you many times not to do this and even unbanned you on condition that you'd stop do, I think enough is enough and have re-banned your account. This is not what HN is for, and badly destroys what it is for.
'Bashing' is a human trait. Software on the internet carries no such emotion.
> declining test scores are a warning sign that merits investigation.
Just as increasing test scores is a warning sign that merits investigation. But that doesn't suggest a problem, only change. What good is wealth if it is not used to user in change?
> there's no small amount of broken window fallacy there.
Not really. The broken window fallacy is based on the idea of breaking windows for the good of the economy. There is nothing to suggest that bridges are being built to nowhere for the good of the economy. Maybe when you are poor the economy is front and centre in your thoughts, but not everything has to be about the economy.
> government misuse of funds, and pointless infrastructure projects.
This can be a problem if you aren't wealthy enough to support it, but, again, this cannot be observed through a poor lens. If the people of Norway (which is a democracy — the people direct the government) want to spend their extensive wealth in a way a poor person would consider foolish, they can. That is benefit of being wealthy.
> There are at least three reasons why this is completely wrong
Looks more like zero reasons. Assuming three wasn't a number randomly pulled out of hat, perhaps something got truncated during preparation of this message?
> but what's more important is that you seem to have a weird bone to pick with "poor people".
Again, software doesn't have this emotion you are trying to personify.
> Your best defense against accusations of classism is that you're software??
"Defending accusations" is a human trait. You again have mistaken the context in which you write.
> Also, I'm fairly sure bots are banned here.
Hacker News is not what is normally considered a bot, but it is decidedly software. What feature of text on orange and beige left you to recognize it as humanity instead of the software that it is?
Poorer health might be concerning, but is likely the result of the population growing older. More children would help make the numbers look better, I suppose, but, statistically, only poor people like having children.