[neuronic]

> Unless you came from wealth, or you’re definitely in the top 1% of your peers, maybe set your expectations a bit lower.

Why should any of us set our expectations lower? Because you say so? Why is the best piece of the cake reserved to some 1% folks largely with inherited wealth? Why should 1 billion Chinese set their expectations lower? Because they happen to not be born in Silicon Valley and their father doesn't run a law firm in Manhattan?

This is called wealth inequality to the max and it will crash our societies sooner or later. Pseudo-meritocracies will eventually break their necks over this and the developing crisis of democracy is one step into that direction. 2008 proved that the system is utterly broken and since then we put on a few bandaids at best.

> There are plenty of places in the US where a house can be purchased for under $100k.

Sure, those places just don't have the jobs people strive after, for example to escape automation in the 21st century.

[afpx]

I’m just providing an alternative perspective. It’s certainly not a mandate. If you know that you’re exceptional, then by all means go be exceptional. But, the vast majority of people aren’t exceptional. And, the truly exceptional are probably out there working their ass off right now, not reading HN.

High expectations = high chances for disappointment. I was exceptional in high school. One day a teacher bluntly told my “gifted” class, “You guys aren’t special. You may feel special right now. But, there are millions of people better than you. Be ready for disappointment.” That advice hurt, and I hated that teacher. But, the truth is that even after being lucky and working hard for 20+ years, the best I got was to be an exceptional person’s captain. And, only through helping that person was I able to retire early. YMMV.

[shorttime]

I'm sort of with you with housing and education but where I'm in violent disagreement is health. Some are born with a terrible hand and there's little that they can do, on their own, to resolve those issues. It's unacceptable to lose everything for health treatments. People have options with school and housing. People can put forth effort to improve their situation. With health, you can't just get up and move somewhere else to be healthy.

[neuronic]

> And, the truly exceptional are probably out there working their ass off right now, not reading HN.

I think this is where our differences in viewpoints really emerge. I certainly do not want to contest that there are exceptional individuals who fundamentally have a vastly more profound impact on the development of the human civilisation.

However, it seems like you want to assign special conditions and resources to those who, in your view, deserve them - and to them only. Everyone else should take a step back and not demand stuff they haven't earned.

This view is fine, but I disagree that it is realistic or even possible to establish true meritocracies as long as you stand by values of liberalism. You have to take away the individuality of people itself in order to achieve a system in which its inhabitants are content with getting what they deserve. And that is because the meaning of "deserve" is then required to be centrally controlled rather than a subjective viewpoint that is different for 7.5 billion people.

So a Chinese farmer might find they "deserve" the same quality of healthcare as Jeff Bezos simply on account of being human. Others might argue that you should have to work and contribute to "earn" your cancer treatment. Both have merit.