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

431–440 of 471 posts

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#431

Post by dbingham »

yucky wrote: post #422
dbingham wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue with "one worker one vote" is that it assumes an egalitarian world that couldn't be further from reality. That egalitarianism already exists in every democracy in the world, and everyone just accepts it. The guy working the McDonald's counter gets the same vote as the PhD in Public Policy. It's a feature of democracy and people, historically, will sometimes complain about it but generally accept it as a n…

> The guy working the McDonald's counter gets the same vote as the PhD in Public Policy. That is a very naive view of how elections work, wouldn't you say? > Your choices for business structure (in the US) are sole prioritorship, partnership, LLC, S-corp, or C-corp. You missed some. And really you can structure a business however you want as long as taxes get paid. > You may not hire an employee to work more than 40…

> That is a very naive view of how elections work, wouldn't you say?

Pardon me, but I'm going to make a mild appeal to authority for a moment. I have run for office, served on a mayoral transition committee, worked closely with elected officials on a range of policy issues (many of which got implemented), and my family are professors in public administration at the top public affairs school in the US (specializing in mediation, dispute resolution, and collaborative democracy). So... uh... I feel pretty confident I know what I'm talking about when I say, that's not naive... that's exactly how elections work.

> You missed some.

Fair enough, B-corp, and Co-op are formal structures in other states. The ones I listed are the ones available in my state, but the point stands. I wasn't counting non-profit, since it's somewhat of a different thing.

> And really you can structure a business however you want as long as taxes get paid.

The LLC is an enormously flexible structure, but there are still limits. Either way, the point stands. There's no reason we couldn't change those limits.

> Salary workers everywhere are laughing.

Agreed, and that's a failure of our labor laws. But again, the point stands. There are structures, laws, and limits. The fact that capitalist businesses are constantly trying to find ways around them isn't an argue in favor of capitalism.

> Forcing everyone at the point of a gun to give up any interests in starting a private enterprise putting their own talents to work - sounds like freedom to you? That explains a lot.

It's not forcing them to give up any interest in starting a private enterprise. They're still perfectly free to start a private enterprise. The difference is that once they hire someone, they have to give that person an equal voice in the enterprise. And yes, that increases freedom.

If you don't want to live in an authoritarian society, you have to give up the freedom to become a dictator. The dictator loses a freedom, but everyone else gains a lot more.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#433

Post by lordfrito »

abdabab wrote: post #427
lordfrito wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel for you brother. For your kids to be successful, their life strategies have to take into account the environment they're living in. Basic game theory stuff. Play chess, not checkers. The world I was hoping my kids would live in no longer exists, and so those old strategies no longer work. In fact, they put you at a disadvantage. This is why people who "play by the rules" feel left out, disenfranchised, whateve…

> Keep your head down and weather the storm. This certainty a good way to survive but not a good way to live.

It's about learning to live smaller. Not trying to change the world, but building a small world around you. Hiding in plain sight. Etc.

Plenty of joy to be had even if you choose to disconnect from the nonsense around you.

Something about Buddhism and suffering in there as well.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#434

Post by yucky »

dbingham wrote: post #431
yucky wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The guy working the McDonald's counter gets the same vote as the PhD in Public Policy. That is a very naive view of how elections work, wouldn't you say? > Your choices for business structure (in the US) are sole prioritorship, partnership, LLC, S-corp, or C-corp. You missed some. And really you can structure a business however you want as long as taxes get paid. > You may not hire an employee to work more than 40…

> That is a very naive view of how elections work, wouldn't you say? Pardon me, but I'm going to make a mild appeal to authority for a moment. I have run for office, served on a mayoral transition committee, worked closely with elected officials on a range of policy issues (many of which got implemented), and my family are professors in public administration at the top public affairs school in the US (specializing in…

    > So... uh... I feel pretty confident I know what I'm talking about when I say, that's not naive... that's exactly how elections work.
That's adorable, but it's simple naive to think the guy on the McDonalds counter has as much input in elections as the PhD in public policy. Which is for the best because why in the fuck would we want a system where anybody no matter how stupid, gets equal say in how society runs? We put limits on "democracy" for a reason.

   > The difference is that once they hire someone, they have to give that person an equal voice in the enterprise. And yes, that increases freedom.
Again, why in the fuck should the guy running the counter at McDonalds get an equal voice when he doesn't have equal knowledge or ability?

Oh wait, are you one of those people who pretends everybody is equally capable?

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#435

Post by mint2 »

pnf wrote: post #428
mint2 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_ru... “ In what Fowler describes as the "most objectionable" variation of the phrase,[1] this sort of use comes closest to meaning "there is an exception to every rule", or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; these uses Fowler attributes to misunderstanding.[1]”

I enjoy such etymologies as much as anyone but not sure I agree with you or Fowler's on this one. I mean, if you want to police grammar around HN, fine, but you're going to wear out the tips of your fingers. But aside from that there is also a kind of linguistic luddism in refusing the accept popular usage of idioms. Imagine demanding the same scrupulosity of someone learning English. They would be deprived of such l…

Logic isn’t a popularity contest. The reference showed the usage was the logically flawed usage pattern of the term. You are right that nearly 100% of the term’s usage is the logically flawed one, that doesn’t make it persuasive, exactly the opposite: it’s a discourse red flag.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#436

Post by pnf »

mint2 wrote: post #435
pnf wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I enjoy such etymologies as much as anyone but not sure I agree with you or Fowler's on this one. I mean, if you want to police grammar around HN, fine, but you're going to wear out the tips of your fingers. But aside from that there is also a kind of linguistic luddism in refusing the accept popular usage of idioms. Imagine demanding the same scrupulosity of someone learning English. They would be deprived of such l…

Logic isn’t a popularity contest. The reference showed the usage was the logically flawed usage pattern of the term. You are right that nearly 100% of the term’s usage is the logically flawed one, that doesn’t make it persuasive, exactly the opposite: it’s a discourse red flag.

Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? Now I got to cut ya.

It may be the case that most of the popular usage runs afoul of Fowler. But that was only to point out that, leaving aside some more or less confusing idioms, language doesn't stay put for the grammarians and dictionary writers, embrace change. My point was an aesthetic one.

Regardless, abusus non tollit usum. In my own usage, I don't see the logical flaw you do. I gave special leave for surgeons and pianists to leave off changing their own tires. Consider if my post were in a legal code or on a sign. "Surgeons and pianists are exempted from tire-changing duty." Does that make it clearer? How is that different from what you're claiming is the "logically" correct use?

I like Bacon's formulation:

"In Lawes and Statutes of a compendious stile, extention may be made more freely; but in those Lawes which are punctuall in the enumeration of Cases Particular, more warily: for as exception strengthens the force of a Law, in Cases not excepted; so enumeration weakens it, in Cases not enumerated."

I punctually enumerated the limited exceptions (surgeons/pianists), thereby strengthening the force of the compendious rule (change your own tire, if reasonably able) in cases not excepted (able-bodied men). QED.

On a meta-argument level, I agree logic isn't a popularity contest but I don't need to point out to you your logical sins of commission here:

Appeal to extremes (reductio), appeal to false authority (verecundiam), slippery slope (reductio), ridicule (ridiculum), tradition (antiquitatem), intensional fallacy, false distinction...what else?

I would add it's a "discourse red flag" when people confidently try to weaponize logical forms and legal maxims they can't handle. It's like watching a child fighting with a stick he can barely lift. It quickly becomes comical. Maybe you are missing your mistake because you're engaging in open-ended exceptionalism, the form that weakens the rule in cases not enumerated. In other words, because you proposed hypothetical disconfirming evidence (a bit ham-fistedly, tbh), maybe you are mentally carrying that forward in your own mind thinking you could come up with other examples that would further strengthen your case, but without making them explicit (minimal enumeration -- you proposed a list of exceptions with one element). Not very persuasive and actually a particularly obnoxious way to argue which I didn't point out initially because it's so common and has to be worked around in a spirit of charity (pro tip: you can't cavil with every objectionable point, there isn't time). Somehow people think pointing out instances of exceptions wins the day when all it does is suggest the need for enumerated exceptions. It may be a particularly American instinct because of a general bias to universalism (not possible in practice) consistent with ideals of egalitarian justice: One rule to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. The Decalogue is another good example of the American ideal law (Constitutionalism). Theoretically, you should be able to derive an entire legal code from such a short list of universal laws. But then why did they write Leviticus? I guess it wasn't enough. You can also see this spirit at work in the legacy of the English constitutional tradition of 'everything not forbidden is permitted' and the convention debates over whether or not to enumerate the Bill of Rights or fall back on the English tradition, yada yada yada...

Thankfully, persuasive speech is a broader field than logic so I won't hold any of this against you. The fact that you like to try to argue credits you with me. All is forgiven. No harm, no Fowler. Ite in pace.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#437

Post by annyeonghada »

lordfrito wrote: post #419
WhiteBlueSkies wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a middle aged man strangers I meet expect the worst from me, why should I try? Is there something in your appearance which intimidates people?

Oh boy this question is a hornets nest, but I'll poke it. Of course it's how I come across. If I looked and acted like Tom Cruise I'm sure first impressions would be much different. That's what this is about by the way, first impressions, and only first impressions. We're talking about pre-judgment. We're talking about people assuming I'm something that I'm not. We're talking about stereotypes. You know, cultural ste…

>I know how I come across is my problem

No, it's not: it's theirs. We are constantly being told that stereotyping is "very very bad": against women, gays, blacks, jews, asians and so on and on... but somehow negative connotations of white men - generally falsehood - are exempted from the possibility of being seen in a charitable light.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#438

Post by annyeonghada »

badpun wrote: post #380
scottLobster wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it seems like there used to be a cultural value of putting people to work. Generally speaking you had to be a real fuck-up to not get a job. Maybe the jobs available weren't the best, but you could get something to pay for basic food/housing with little effort or credentialing. The attitude was, if you were a decent person and willing to work, "come by and we'll find something for you to do". Now the zeitgeist i…

> Now the zeitgeist in the job market seems to be "Why should we give you the gift of this job? Speak quickly and well, lest we cast you back into the void! You are a piece of shit until proven otherwise!" Last I heard, there's plenty of businesses that are deseprate to hire people (restaurants etc.).

Are they sufficiently desperate to pay a reasonable wage with reasonable vacations? Not in my experience.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#439

Post by annyeonghada »

drc500free wrote: post #285
JKCalhoun wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I seriously felt like "society had no interest in me". I'm pretty sure society is not obligated to have an interest in you (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth however). I think you become truly actualized only when you decide what it is you want, what you imagine for yourself. If what you want is in conflict with what society wants of you, you have to decide then whether it is important enough to you to take…

I found this video, "Edgelord Movies and the Men who Love Them " [1] by sociologist F.D Signifier, to be a particularly interesting exploration of this specific disappointment. His thesis is that young white men are more attracted to edgelord movies like Joker, Falling Down, American Psycho, or Fight Club that portray a sudden violent break from social norms because they start with an elevated expectation of how soci…

This is just the usual pseudo-academical sneer again white males to say that everything that happens to them it's their fault. No white male that I know - and considering the suicide rates, no statistically significant portion of white males - has ever had the impression that someone looked out for them: this starting in kindergarten where "teachers" made very clear that females were preferred.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#440

Post by annyeonghada »

WhiteBlueSkies wrote: post #342
whatshisface wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a basic human need to be valued by others and to be part of a community, and the system we have now grades people according to traits that are mainly genetic and casts them aside if they aren't seen as desirable enough. As for what the cut is, well, it's many-faceted, but the waterline is rising and as you age all of your desirable traits are fading. If you have real personal relationships (either career or f…

You know it's always the intellectuals who fret so much about life. I've seen construction workers succesfully dating and being happy and enjoying life. Maybe we overthink things too much. We'll be fine.

Your lived experience is irrelevant. Statistical trends are.
Post reply on HN