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

Men Without Work (2016)

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 471 posts

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#351

Post by dbingham »

yucky wrote: post #263
dbingham wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, the fact that they are successful in Capitalism presents the possibility of building the entire economy around them. It would be a free market of independent businesses, but those businesses would be governed by the workers involved in them. Financing would happen through loans and crowdfunding, rather than equity. This economic system wouldn't be Capitalism, but it would be a Free Market. It would involve "so…

What would be the advantage of removing sole proprietorships, partnerships etc though? If worker coops are already one existing type of business in a capitalist system, why would we limit ourselves to just that type and remove others?

Because the goal of the system described above would be a more equitable distribution of economic gains (profits) and control - to avoid the concentration of wealth and power that comes from letting equity (capital) own and control businesses. Concentration of power is corrupting and the concentration of wealth is the concentration of power. It harms society at large.

On top of that, work is where most people spend most of their lives. Right now, most people work at businesses that are governed in an autocratic way. Which means, on a very practical level, we're asking most people to spend most of their lives operating in an autocratic context.

With respect to Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships. There are some pretty big sole proprietorships and partnerships out there - with lots of employees. The bigger they get, the smaller the contribution of the sole owner or partners to the business vs the rest of the employees and the more the current system gives an unjust distribution of rewards.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships wouldn't vanish entirely. They'd just be limited to businesses where the sole owner or partner really could do all the work (or most of it with some of it maybe contracted out to other cooperatives).

It's true that the Free Market Socialist system described above probably would undervalue the contributions of founders. But the current system massively undervalues the contribution of the average worker. So it's a net gain in terms of justly and accurately valuing contributions. And Free Market Socialism would result in a much more even distribution of wealth, and therefor power.

It wouldn't be perfect, but - personally - I think it would be an improvement.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#352

Post by light_cone »

lordfrito wrote: post #336
xg15 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, we're making pretty good progress with gene editing and understanding how the brain works on a neurological level. If biology is the problem, we might have an actual chance to solve this :)

Wow build a better human and all that. Eugenics all over again. Are you serious or is this sarcasm?

I don't know why, but the word 'eugenics' is enough to trigger a thought-terminating cliché. Maybe the GP was being tongue-in-cheek, maybe not, but it's always a strong reaction to this word.

I understand it was used as an excuse to justify genocide, but I don't understand why the concept of eugenics is viewed as profoundly immoral by itself. I get that it's a slippery slope, and that's a valid reason to ban it, but I never see it formulated that way, only a "NO! NEVER!!" non-argument.

We've always been fighting diseases, tried to better our condition, but if we're using genetics to prevent lethal diseases it's suddenly immoral? (Not saying it's what was talked about above, just using a clear cut example here). I really don't get it. I find on the contrary that not preventing horrible painful diseases on purpose, on the basis of us not wanting to feel uneasy, is what could be called immoral. I think that at least for clear cut cases, it should be debated.

It's a little bit like transhumanism: a lot of people use glasses, or prosthesis without any issues. It's already transhumanism IMO, but people do not label it that way, so that's accepted, while the word transhumanism itself is vehemently rejected.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#353

Post by WhiteBlueSkies »

deterministic wrote: post #321

I am not surprised really. If the alternative to not working is to have a minimum wage job where you get treated like shit by customers and management every day.

I had an almost minimum job in early twenties. It was lots of hard work but I don't regret it. The boss was a total jerk but I made some friends. You've no idea of the camradarie that comes up when you've a shitty boss and a list burgers that you have to cook ASAP.

Gets your blood flowing. Definitely that would've been preferable than just sitting at home idly playing video games and becoming more and more depressed.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#354

Post by opportune »

chasd00 wrote: post #47
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this exact experience as well. Returning to my career was strange. People were half glad to hear that I prioritized my family, and half disconcerted that I’d set my career aside. Our culture wants men to be extremely productive and committed to wealth generation. Women are increasingly treated this way too though. Women were shunned for choosing their career. Now if they choose family, their career still suffer…

> Women were shunned for choosing their career in my experience raising two kids women are much more looked down on for choosing family over career. My wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom but many of her friends, and especially online, thought she was "too good for that" with some even being hostile to the very concept. If a woman has an established career and then chooses to be a stay-at-home mom she's likely to pa…

Depends heavily on your social group. If your social group are all college educated liberals then I’d expect this. If they were conservative MRS degree holders or lower income they’d likely envy your wife

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#355

Post by [deleted] »

reducesuffering wrote: post #297
tonightstoast wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please check out the Vox article linked by the other poster. I want to preface with saying I’m pro choice. But are you really going to argue the 5 men and 1 woman that vote to affirm Dobbs is representative of the nation? People (including me) have been complaining about how the court hasn’t had a majority blue nomination since the 50s even though the political pendulum has swung multiple times since then. And groupi…

Those 5 mens' and 1 woman's actions would be moot if the conservative states upheld abortion rights. But we all know that when finally given the choice, those states, with representatives run on anti-abortion platforms by popularity, took away those womens' rights. There were tens of millions of men in the South and Idaho involved in those decisions.

[deleted]

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#356

Post by mint2 »

pnf wrote: post #319
UncleOxidant wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some men change their own tires. Some men call AAA when they get a flat. Some women change their own tires. Some women call AAA when they get a flat. All of these people are real.

Yes, they are all real people but masculinity means changing your own tires unless old or otherwise enfeebled. Otherwise being a man or a woman means nothing but chromosome delivery mechanisms.

According to 90s canned food commercials, being masculine meant eating copious amounts of food that looked like dog food.

Masculinity means not being so insecure enough to need broad arbitrary rules to proscribe what being masculine means. A real man may wear a pink flower shirt or he may not. A real man would not care. Same with changing a tire. Sure It’s a useful skill, but it’s totally unrelated to masculinity.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#357

Post by hatefulmoron »

lazide wrote: post #261
hatefulmoron wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's merely a practical consideration. Besides, the difference between "ignored" and "directly attacked by" is mostly rhetorical when your psychological or physiological needs are unmet.

Hah, ‘merely practical’ is high praise for a concern IMO? It does matter. Plenty of subcultures have done stuff that is technically illegal, or at least could be prosecuted/or would be made illegal if noticed, but was quite beneficial to them in their own view, by not getting enough attention to be worth directly attacking! Or having folks be distracted enough elsewhere to not go after them. I’m guessing most in the…

> Hah, ‘merely practical’ is high praise for a concern IMO?

I'm not sure that you're following exactly what I mean. I'm saying that once any ethical barrier involving 'obligation' to society is overcome, it's a problem to be calculated like any else. What are the risks, what are the returns.

As for the second part, it doesn't matter when the result is the same. I don't care if I'm being persecuted or ignored when my life is still shit. I'm not willing to sit on my hands under some false belief that turning the other cheek is pious when the only life I'll ever live is slipping through my fingers.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#358

Post by pnf »

mint2 wrote: post #356
pnf wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are all real people but masculinity means changing your own tires unless old or otherwise enfeebled. Otherwise being a man or a woman means nothing but chromosome delivery mechanisms.

According to 90s canned food commercials, being masculine meant eating copious amounts of food that looked like dog food. Masculinity means not being so insecure enough to need broad arbitrary rules to proscribe what being masculine means. A real man may wear a pink flower shirt or he may not. A real man would not care. Same with changing a tire. Sure It’s a useful skill, but it’s totally unrelated to masculinity.

It meant having a good appetite and not fussing about your food. What's the problem with that? It seems like you don't get what it means to change your own tire. Try it sometime. It's not about caring about what other people think. It's about having some self-respect and doing for yourself when you can. It should be embarrassing to call another man to do for you what you can reasonably do for yourself.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#359

Post by pnf »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #333
pnf wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are all real people but masculinity means changing your own tires unless old or otherwise enfeebled. Otherwise being a man or a woman means nothing but chromosome delivery mechanisms.

> but masculinity means changing your own tires Does it? Does it also mean not cooking & cleaning? Never crying? Watching sports? Not changing diapers? Never eating quiche?

I've seen plenty of male chefs so not sure what you're getting at. It's not about not doing something, it's about doing something when you can. No man should shy away from changing a diaper or cleaning. What are you even talking about?

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#360

Post by yucky »

dbingham wrote: post #351
yucky wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the advantage of removing sole proprietorships, partnerships etc though? If worker coops are already one existing type of business in a capitalist system, why would we limit ourselves to just that type and remove others?

Because the goal of the system described above would be a more equitable distribution of economic gains (profits) and control - to avoid the concentration of wealth and power that comes from letting equity (capital) own and control businesses. Concentration of power is corrupting and the concentration of wealth is the concentration of power. It harms society at large. On top of that, work is where most people spend m…

In your worker co-op utopia, when say you envision the workers as the owners, how exactly does one change jobs then? Would I be forced to sell my ownership any/every time I wanted to leave a job? If not, wouldn't I just be an outside capitalist investor in my old company at that point? If yes, then am I bought out by the existing owners in an equitable manner? Or do new employees get my share of ownership? If they don't get my share of ownership, where does their share of ownership come from? Since companies will generally expand/contract at some point, how are ownership percentage changes handled there?

I have so many questions, but this should get us started.

Post reply on HN