Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fuck you, Money

adgrok.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: Fuck you, Money

#61

Post by krschultz »

binaryfinery wrote: post #30
arvinjoar wrote: post #21

I stopped reading at "wage-slave". Let's not use language that implies that working for a wage is slavery. Slavery is always forced on you, you have no choice but to work, not because you need to eat, but because the man with the whip says so. It's offensive to compare the situation of a slave and someone who earns a salary. Slavery is force, not from nature, but from another human being, if you can't see the the dis…

Hierarchy of needs: air, food, shelter. If you live in the USA and want food and shelter, you cannot get it without paying the man taxes. Even if you own your own land, you must pay taxes on it. The counter argument (that one could be a homeless person), is no more useful than pointing out that a slave could choose to die: yes a hard choice, but a choice non the less. So the creation of a tax system, whereby a person…

If you don't make any money, you won't have to pay taxes. If you don't have any bills, you won't need to make any money.

Taxes are not what creates the issue you refer to, bills are.

The individual really controls those expenses. That is why any comparison to slavery is asine, out of touch, and offensive. Rolling in TAXES == SLAVERY is the icing on the cake.

You control your own expenses. I've lived very cheap. Give up your car, your house, your savings, your retirement account, you restaurent budget, your going out budget. The only thing left is rent and food. I lived for a whole winter as a ski bum with a couple guys, you split up rent in a cheap cabin and shop at the grocery store and it becomes almost free.

There is a reason people can ski all day and get by just by waiting tables or cleaning toilets - it is because they have found out that the thing holding most people into day to day salaried jobs are self imposed. If you give all of that up to do something you want, you are completely free.

So don't say it can't be done, because I have lived through it and enjoyed every minute of it.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#62

Post by kscaldef »

steveklabnik wrote: post #48
kscaldef wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, I respect that you're willing to admit that. But please don't call me a "wage slave" because of your fears and uncertainties.

"wage slave" is a pretty well-known, long-standing term for someone that works for another. It's not intended to be depreciating towards those enslaved, it's attacking the idea of using your labor to enrich someone else's life rather than your own. Now, you may disagree with that, and that's fine...

"Wage slave" is always, in my experience, used in one of two derogatory ways:

1) In the original usage, as a condemnation of the whole capitalist system, or

2) In the sense that's more common in this crowd, to describe anyone who doesn't want to be a startup founder.

Applied to technology workers (typically privileged & upper middle class), the term is offensive on multiple levels.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#63

Post by scott_s »

jacquesm wrote: post #57
scott_s wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some circumstances - if you're being exploited - it's the appropriate response.

Yes, but how many people reading HN are truly exploited. Only if you let them... Exploited to me smacks of child labor and indentured servitude. I highly doubt there are child laborers and true slaves reading HN. But they do exist, and in larger numbers than you probably thought possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Current_situation That's more than the population of many countries.

exploited

to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploited

Some people are exploited in ways that are horrific compared to how other people are exploited. But until we have words specifically to describe white-collar workers, I'm going to use the available words that I think are most apt.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#64

Post by geebee »

kscaldef wrote: post #16

I have to say, I nearly threw this article across the proverbial room after reading the second paragraph: > Before that point, you’re just adding frosting on the lifestyle cake of your wage-slave existence. Beyond that point, you can forget about aspirational consumer buying of 48-inch flat-panel TVs. You suddenly confront the most existential questions in human life: what do I do with my life? What’s a good life? No…

This line irritated me too.

Every now and then, I read another article about how we're slaves to money. Has anyone else noticed that these articles almost always use some variant of a television (plasma, 48 inch, etc...) as an example of an unnecessary material comfort that distorts a person's view of what is truly important.

I'm definitely a wage slave, and I assure you, I don't do it for a big tv. I don't have a big tv. I don't want a big tv.

What I do have is a family that depends on my continued employment for such trivialities as a place to live (my two small children share a room with a bunkbed in our small 2br house), trips to the pediatrician, and preschool (education isn't "free" in the US until kindergarten, though one of my children now in public elementary school).

The "stuff" like tv's isn't even a rounding error in the brutally high cost of living in SF. I could have the "big tv", nor not, makes no difference in my life. A bigger difference would be leaving San Francisco and moving to a cheaper place, but by living in SF, I get to live where I grew up, and my kids and I get to visit my parents and siblings almost daily. That's worth it.

But no, it's not the tv. I don't think anyone puts up with this for a tv. These writers need to stop about the tv.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#65

Post by steveklabnik »

kscaldef wrote: post #62
steveklabnik wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"wage slave" is a pretty well-known, long-standing term for someone that works for another. It's not intended to be depreciating towards those enslaved, it's attacking the idea of using your labor to enrich someone else's life rather than your own. Now, you may disagree with that, and that's fine...

"Wage slave" is always, in my experience, used in one of two derogatory ways: 1) In the original usage, as a condemnation of the whole capitalist system, or 2) In the sense that's more common in this crowd, to describe anyone who doesn't want to be a startup founder. Applied to technology workers (typically privileged & upper middle class), the term is offensive on multiple levels.

Even if tech workers are upper middle class, that doesn't mean that they're not bound to their job. The conditions may be better, it's true, but if they lost their job, they'd end up just as destitute.

I only say this because it's something I've though a lot about recently, mostly while investigating the arguments of usage #1 up there. My parents are solidly middle class; but for most of my childhood, they basically lived paycheck to paycheck. When times get tough... things start to get ugly. Granted, not as ugly as 'real' slavery... but I think that the analogy is a good one.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#67

Post by kscaldef »

steveklabnik wrote: post #65
kscaldef wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wage slave" is always, in my experience, used in one of two derogatory ways: 1) In the original usage, as a condemnation of the whole capitalist system, or 2) In the sense that's more common in this crowd, to describe anyone who doesn't want to be a startup founder. Applied to technology workers (typically privileged & upper middle class), the term is offensive on multiple levels.

Even if tech workers are upper middle class, that doesn't mean that they're not bound to their job. The conditions may be better, it's true, but if they lost their job, they'd end up just as destitute. I only say this because it's something I've though a lot about recently, mostly while investigating the arguments of usage #1 up there. My parents are solidly middle class; but for most of my childhood, they basically…

I could quit my job right now. I'd need to get another one eventually, maybe in 6 months, maybe in a year, depending on how tightly I budgeted myself. I've chosen to live within my means; to build up enough savings that I don't need to be terrified of losing my job. I'd venture to say that virtually any other tech worker could do the same. If you feel bound to your job, and that you're at imminent risk of becoming destitute if you lose it, that's because of your own choices. The slavery exists only in your head.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#68

Post by rfrey »

steveklabnik wrote: post #56
afterburner wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can leave anytime though. Slaves can't.

You can leave your job, sure. And then default on your mortgage. Or be unable to pay your rent. And not be able to buy food. (or, if you mean "leave America," then you can move somewhere else... and you _still_ have to either work for yourself, or for someone else.) There's an illusion of choice, but choosing to work between McDonalds and Burger King isn't really a choice.

Freedom is not the same as having no responsibilities. Slavery is not the same as having responsibilities. Environmental constraints are not the same as having no choices. Consequences for one's choices are not the same as oppression.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#70

Post by enjo »

revorad wrote: post #37
jdietrich wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the world of high-stakes poker, it is commonly understood that the only way to make a million dollars playing poker is not to want to make a million dollars. If you care about the money, your lizard brain takes over and stops you from taking the risks you need to take. As soon as you see the chips on the table as dollar bills, you're finished. Practically the definition of greatness in poker is the ability to play…

I think it's no coincidence that the likes of Page and Brin and Zuckerberg never really intended to start businesses. I think it's no accident that Warren Buffett still drives an old Cadillac and lives in his old suburban house. I can think of a few counter-examples - Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Felix Dennis.

There are a lot of examples on an even much larger scale. I know two folks who have sold businesses and now live in Hawaii doing practically nothing. It's really not that uncommon. It's just that those folks fade into memory while the workaholics continue to work and increase in overall profile.

It really feels a lot like the 90 hour work week insanity of the tech boom. For years after that I encountered business-types who would enthusiastically tell me during interviews that they're "the type of company where developers keep a sleeping bag under their desk". Apparently that's the key to success, except that very few of the startups I've encountered actually operate that way.

Post reply on HN