Someone is stealing your life (1990) • Hacker News Board

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#151

Post by grammaton » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 4:08 AM UTC

rick888 wrote: post #97

rbarooah wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see a list of these 'many' different systems that have been tried. It seems to me as though we've tried 'kings/dictators' lots of times, and we've watched communism devolve into 'kings/dictators', and we may very well be in the process of watching capitalism devolve into 'kings/dictators' as wealth and political power seem to being concentrated more and more in the hands of a small group. I personally agr…

"It seems to me as though we've tried 'kings/dictators' lots of times, and we've watched communism devolve into 'kings/dictators', and we may very well be in the process of watching capitalism devolve into 'kings/dictators' as wealth and political power seem to being concentrated more and more in the hands of a small group." Why is it concentrated into a small group? Everyone seems to think the answer is to take the…

"Why is it concentrated into a small group? Everyone seems to think the answer is to take the money by force from the people that earned it and give it to the people that "need" it."

Not 'everyone' thinks this. It's good to be cognizant of Marx and Smith et al., but sooner or later you have to stop thinking in dichotomies and take off the training wheels.

"Anybody can start a company and make money (and not work for anyone), but much fewer choose to go down this path. It's because it takes too much work. Sacrificing your free time for something that may or may not succeed isn't easy. I've been doing it for the past 5 years and I'm only now actually making a profit."

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself here? How can anyone start a company and make money, and yet it's hard work and may fail? How can anyone start a company when many people barely have the free time you talk of sacrificing?

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#152

Post by astrofinch » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 5:31 AM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #103

astrofinch wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-sacrifice isn't the only way to survive. It's just the only way to achieve the median modern standard of living. If you're happy with a lower standard of living it's not hard to survive without working. http://www.couchsurfing.org/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/frzzq/iama_prolific_du...

I don't think couchsurfing and dumpster diving would scale to the masses.

Fair enough, but the fact that their limits are not being pushed shows that most want to work for a higher standard of living. (Or at least that is their revealed preference.)

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#153

Post by Muzza » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:47 AM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #144

nhangen wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a socialist?

No. Why do you suspect that I am?

The slightest suggestion that there are problems with capitalism => poster is socialist.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#154

Post by Tycho » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 1:53 PM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #149

Tycho wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to get drawn into a really long debate, I just have two things to say: 1. People aren't born developers, plumbers, etc., it's a career you choose 2. The technology that enables these things is not going to disappear, of that we can be pretty sure

" 1. People aren't born developers, plumbers, etc., it's a career you choose" I didn't imply that they are, but ignoring that people have innate abilities - and by extension, innate weaknesses - that shape their choices is simplistic. "2. The technology that enables these things is not going to disappear, of that we can be pretty sure" I didn't say it would. However, the economic conditions that make working in field…

One point though is that if you follow the economic system that produces the greatest technological progress, then at least you get to keep those advances forever, whereas if you count on something that's suppossed to keep the economy steady and fair to all, and then that doesn't work out, what are you left with?

Anyway I agree, 'does it scale' is a totally valid point and I often think it myself when people give life lessons on Hacker News. Social scalability I call it. But like I said, the ins and outs of how to apply the principle to the argument at hand are just too long to get into here.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#155

Post by jterce » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 3:12 PM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #148

rick888 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Did I suggest I had any such idea? Did I suggest limiting anyone's success or taking exorbitant amounts of money through taxes?" No, but I'm waiting for it. "The problem is that "coming out on top" now means you control a hugely disproportionate sum of wealth" ...that you've earned. I don't see a problem. "and thereby exert a disproportionate influence on society, invariably to the expense of others." Then let's not…

"No, but I'm waiting for it." Keep waiting then, because it's not going to happen. I would never suggest anything of the sort. It's not nearly creative enough of a solution, for one thing. "...that you've earned. I don't see a problem." Just because you don't see a problem, doesn't mean that there isn't one. So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earn…

A couple of issues...

First, your CEO, it's true, did not likely put financial risk on the line to take the position obtained. But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?

Secondly, your point on coercion. Yes, you can certainly argue that the engineer was "forced" at some level to take a job, and thus some salary. But in a world living with people you will never be free of all influences or coercion. Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#156

Post by jterce » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 3:21 PM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #84

istari wrote: post #75

I walk into a restaurant. They charge me $10 for a meal. Yet they only paid $2 for the ingredients! Now I don't know a lot of math, but even I know that 2 goes into 10... FIVE times! They are charging me FIVE times what it cost them to make that meal! Sure, they came up with the money to open the restaurant, and the time to make the meal, but does that give them the right to rip me off? Because I spent my life earn m…

False analogy. You can choose not to go to a restaurant if you don't want to pay the markup. You cannot choose not to work if you enjoy not starving.

Not at all. The analogy was completed with the reference to cooking at the end. If you are not willing to cook for yourself and have no one to cook for you, you cannot avoid going to a restaurant. You'll die of starvation! If, however, you are willing to cook for yourself, as with work, your options are nearly limitless.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#157

Post by Calamitous » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 3:24 PM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #80

Calamitous wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in life is a choice. Often it's a choice between two bad options-- that's life. Covering your ears and humming loudly at the problem doesn't eliminate your responsibility to address it; nor the consequences for doing so.

Sorry, this one is a tad ambiguous. By "humming loudly at the problem," are you talking about addressing problems in your own life, a'la the dominant theme of this thread, or addressing the problems of capitalism as suggested by the author of the article?

Sorry, yes, I was referring to personal choice. Although I do think that there are many more options in any given situation (personal or otherwise) than people are willing to consider-- comfort and inertia are deceptively powerful forces.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#158

Post by Calamitous » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 3:24 PM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #80

Calamitous wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in life is a choice. Often it's a choice between two bad options-- that's life. Covering your ears and humming loudly at the problem doesn't eliminate your responsibility to address it; nor the consequences for doing so.

Sorry, this one is a tad ambiguous. By "humming loudly at the problem," are you talking about addressing problems in your own life, a'la the dominant theme of this thread, or addressing the problems of capitalism as suggested by the author of the article?

Sorry, yes, I was referring to personal choice. Although I do think that there are many more options in any given situation (personal or otherwise) than people are willing to consider-- comfort and inertia are deceptively powerful forces.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#159

Post by rick888 » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 6:10 PM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #148

rick888 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Did I suggest I had any such idea? Did I suggest limiting anyone's success or taking exorbitant amounts of money through taxes?" No, but I'm waiting for it. "The problem is that "coming out on top" now means you control a hugely disproportionate sum of wealth" ...that you've earned. I don't see a problem. "and thereby exert a disproportionate influence on society, invariably to the expense of others." Then let's not…

"No, but I'm waiting for it." Keep waiting then, because it's not going to happen. I would never suggest anything of the sort. It's not nearly creative enough of a solution, for one thing. "...that you've earned. I don't see a problem." Just because you don't see a problem, doesn't mean that there isn't one. So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earn…

"So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earned" the right to 40x more salary than the people who actually make the products? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Do they work forty times harder? Forty times more? Neither is physically possible. Do they assume forty times as much risk? Having seen more than a few golden parachute deals, I think it's obvious that they don't."

It's not for you to decide, because it's not your money. Why do you think you should have the right to decide how someone else (company or person) spends their money? If you don't like this fact, work somewhere else and don't buy their products.

"Most business people are saavy enough to start their businesses with other people's money. "

Many people also don't need VC. See: every company that's bootstrapped.

"He must agree to a salary somewhere if he wants to eat and have a place to live. This is not choice. It's not overt force either, but it does have something of coercion about it."

You seem to have lots of opinions on our current system, but no idea how you could make it better.

"Most people could not afford such equipment even if they are inclined to use it. They therefore have no choice but to work for someone else."

It depends on the industry. Have you heard of bank loans?

"This is an ad hominem. I have not stated anywhere that I or anyone else are entitled to anything, nor would I ever."

I don't need you to state it. I can see it all over your posts. Using words like "ad hominem" doesn't change this fact.

"This much is blatantly obvious. And?"

you probably haven't actually looked into it. If you had, you might not

"More ad hominem. Also the issues being addressed by the author are bigger than his own life. He states as much if you actually read it carefully."

I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what that word means. I read the article carefully. He's trying to make it look like the world is a terrible place based on his own experiences. If you based our entire system on his experience, it will look bad. However, when you take a step back and look at it as a whole, it's pretty damn good.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#160

Post by rick888 » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 7:25 PM UTC

grammaton wrote: post #110

rick888 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Again - you don't know what his internal process was for picking these jobs. You can't mind read and impute motivations for his selections." Well, it's obviously not working for the guy. He has clearly voiced his dissatisfaction with his life, which includes the jobs that he has taken. Someone that is doing what they love, even if it isn't making that much money, will be happy.

"Well, it's obviously not working for the guy. He has clearly voiced his dissatisfaction with his life, which includes the jobs that he has taken." Yes, but it does not follow that he is therefore directionless or lacks ambition. Plenty of successful doctors and lawyers have the same problem. "Someone that is doing what they love, even if it isn't making that much money, will be happy." Over simplification. I have kn…

"Plenty of successful doctors and lawyers have the same problem."

Taking random jobs to put yourself through medical school is much different than taking random jobs with seemingly no direction. If he does have some ambitious life goals, he doesn't make it very apparent in this article.

"I have known numerous people who loved what they where doing without being very happy about the things that came along with that."

If you are doing what you claim to love, yet you hate everything that comes along with it..I don't think you are doing what you really love.

I suppose from the article, we can surmise that the author loves being a hospital orderly or the guy that runs the drive-thru at jack-in-the-box and is just unhappy about the things that come with it. Right?