@Phil @adamgurri i think what we do here is quite perverse, we let ~20% become “winners” for whom life is reasonably secure and comfortable, and encourage stories like “gumption” and anyone could have done what i did. but it’s a game of musical chairs, structurally the winners rely on the availability of losers, and the percentage we can collectively afford as winners diminishes. still, from the perspective of a winner it looks good. from a broad human welfare perspective, i say it’s bad.