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

Being frugal is for the rich

theoutline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 305 posts

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#241

Post by jiveturkey »

vorpalhex wrote: post #75
falcolas wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, your proof that decline is a myth is that you can buy cheap, moderate quality, mass-manufactured furniture that didn't exist in your grandparents age? Something seems awry there.

My grandmother couldn't afford a chair. Most people today have reasonably furnished apartments, smartphones, some kind of vaguely functional computer with (low speed) internet access, and probably a car. Food went from being very expensive (people actually died of starvation not that long ago!) to being so cheap that obesity is a major epidemic among the poor. Since 1940, the percent of the US with a high school degr…

> Food went from being very expensive (people actually died of starvation not that long ago!) to being so cheap that obesity is a major epidemic among the poor.

Food being cheap is not the reason for the obesity epidemic. It's because food has become of such poor quality. Also, it is engineered to cause you to overeat.

Otherwise, I agree with your overall point.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#242

Post by jimbokun »

rout39574 wrote: post #214
jacobush wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potentially wealthier . If they find within minutes where their opiate supplier is, the new cat video and talk to anybody about what the Kardashians (sorry, Kardashians) were up to... are they really wealthier than when these sorts of things took longer?

So, let's say that their choice of media consumption indicates, or creates, their not-wealthier. If they can tap into the entire universe of education and experience an Internet connection implies, and pick cat videos... what would you say is the critical link in their paupery? I mean, horses to water and all that, and it's a matter of choice.

We ALL pick the cat videos.

Phones and mobile software are exquisitely engineered to be as addictive as possible. And it works.

Here I am, having this largely pointless Hacker News conversation, instead of completing a Deep Learning course or something.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#243

Post by jimbokun »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #150
T2_t2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they also had less. This is the ... I'm not sure of the right word, paradox? duality? ... anyway, the problem/benefit of globalisation, that it leads to cheaper stuff. We all have more today, even on less money. Thought experiment: ask yourself when it was better to be poor: 1950, or 2018. In 1950 you could... go to the library? In 2018, even the very poor likely have a mobile phone, the internet, a games cons…

More entertainment, maybe, but "more" overall? Would you rather live in a world with no smartphones where you afford a house/apartment, or one with smartphones where you can't?

I suspect I was a lot happier before I got so addicted to my phone.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#244

Post by lghh »

ericmcer wrote: post #220
lghh wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even the very poor likely have a mobile phone, the internet, a games console, This isn't true for a lot of impoverished areas. Most of the students my wife works with at her elementary school do not have any of these.

Anyone on welfare can receive a cell phone with a data plan in this country. Part of the whole Obama phone thing.

Can get != has, unfortunately.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#245

Post by FussyZeus »

peacetreefrog wrote: post #238
FussyZeus wrote: post #142

I get so tired of these narratives that paint anyone who isn't wealthy as just lazy, and I especially get tired of millennials like myself being derided as just not willing to give up enough in order to succeed. You know what, it's true. If you took a robot and gave it a ground floor job, that robot could work that job 7 days a week, 9 hour shifts, without missing a beat. It would never get sick, it would never need…

The thing is, most humans are not doing those types of jobs for YEARS like robots. Humans can learn on the job and acquire skills and impress their boss and get raises and maybe become the boss and apply to other jobs or find something like better. That's why it's called "ground floor", because you can move up, and most people eventually do. The % of people making minimum wage at any given time is a snapshot, and it…

If an employer expects you to be available at any time for any shift, regardless of the job, then you should be paid enough to live off of that paycheck. Full stop. Whether you’re feeding cats, flipping burgers, tending wounds, or just answering a phone, we have entire lines of work now where despite the fact that you’re expected to always be available and never turn down a shift, you get paid bare minimum wage, and never get enough hours for benefits. It’s disgusting and immoral.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#246

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

T2_t2 wrote: post #93
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #54

The word missing from this discussion is "structural" - there are deep structural changes to how the job market and economy now works that limit the economic prospects of millennials (as a group) in ways that can't readily be overcome with thriftiness and hard work. Here's an excerpt of the article that really clarified this for me: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in…

Except they also had less. This is the ... I'm not sure of the right word, paradox? duality? ... anyway, the problem/benefit of globalisation, that it leads to cheaper stuff. We all have more today, even on less money. Thought experiment: ask yourself when it was better to be poor: 1950, or 2018. In 1950 you could... go to the library? In 2018, even the very poor likely have a mobile phone, the internet, a games cons…

Ah yes, the "The poor aren't poor because they have refresher"-argument, straight from Fox News.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#247

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

manigandham wrote: post #206
s73v3r_ wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who's working two jobs would disagree with you.

Disagree with what? That there are 24 hours in a day? They choose to spend that time working 2 jobs. I've done the same in the past. I've decided between buying dinner or getting gas to drive to work to earn enough to cover the commute in the first place. Eventually you make decisions to get you out of that life and into a better one. There's luck involved sure, but I absolutely reject any excuses as if it's complete…

I highly doubt you did those things you claim, because if you did you wouldn't say people "choose" to work two jobs and that it's just a matter of "deciding" to stop being poor.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#248

Post by lsc »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #54

The word missing from this discussion is "structural" - there are deep structural changes to how the job market and economy now works that limit the economic prospects of millennials (as a group) in ways that can't readily be overcome with thriftiness and hard work. Here's an excerpt of the article that really clarified this for me: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in…

I don't think that's the entirety of the problem. I mean, that may be part of the problem; those temp agencies take a nasty cut, but I am a temp worker going through an anonymous body shop, and I make pretty good money, like I can't contribute to a ROTH IRA good money. I mean, sure, I'd be making another 40% if I were a direct hire, but I interview pretty regularly for that sort of thing, and while I can reliably get contract gigs at top-tier companies, so far it appears that I don't meet the direct-hire bar for top-tier companies, and I'd kinda rather stick with the contract gig at a top tier company than a direct hire at the third tier down. Similar money, and the food and the company is better here. Also, they don't expect you to drink the kool-aid as much as a contractor, and I am kinda bad at consuming company kool-aid. (Note, that is a little bit of sour grapes... I think the primary thing keeping me out of direct hire positions at top-tier companies is my technical ability, which is improving... but the kool-aid factor is a big part of why I'd prefer to contract at a top-tier company than be a direct hire at some place that is not.)

My point is just that the temp agencies are not the whole of the story here; for some reason, there's not enough demand for most kinds of labor to lift wages much above the statutory minimum. Why is this? We've got an oversupply of labor, why hasn't the market figured out how to use said labor?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#249

Post by lsc »

jimbokun wrote: post #242
rout39574 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let's say that their choice of media consumption indicates, or creates, their not-wealthier. If they can tap into the entire universe of education and experience an Internet connection implies, and pick cat videos... what would you say is the critical link in their paupery? I mean, horses to water and all that, and it's a matter of choice.

We ALL pick the cat videos. Phones and mobile software are exquisitely engineered to be as addictive as possible. And it works. Here I am, having this largely pointless Hacker News conversation, instead of completing a Deep Learning course or something.

>Here I am, having this largely pointless Hacker News conversation, instead of completing a Deep Learning course or something.

so... there is something deeply addictive about hacker news... but I personally think? it's the same thing as talking to someone for hours at the pub. same reward mechanism. I mean, the pub closes, and that helps; and most people at most pubs are... difficult to relate to. but I can remember just last month I was hanging out front of my local computer club talking to someone until like 4am.

I think the difference here is that hacker news is more like my computer club than it is like a random pub, just because the people I meet are more likely to hold my interest.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#250

Post by concrete-faucet »

thelibrarian wrote: post #219

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots…

> The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

This really isn't as crazy as it may sound. When my spouse was working in BigLaw, we rarely paid anything for weekends out. A typical case was a "charity gala" at a downtown hotel. A law firm partners would buy the tickets for an entire table but would inevitably be working and couldn't go. Even if he could, he still needed 6 or 8 other people so his table didn't have empty seats, which would be very embarrassing. So the call would go around - who has time to attend a free party? Me, that's who. The bar would be stocked with top-shelf liquor only, food was provided and excellent. The catch? You have to know people to get invited. And you have to be able to show up in a perfectly-fitting tuxedo with only a few hours notice. So you buy one, and it needs to be pretty good because you're going to wear it 20-30 times a year. Amortized out, an Armani costs a fraction of a rental.

Post reply on HN