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

Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

klangmag.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 286 posts

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#131

Post by CPLX »

toast0 wrote: post #128
CPLX wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel about having the exact song playing on repeat every day of your life? Every movie, every scene. Same song in the background. Every first dance at a wedding, same song. Before a baseball game, standup and put your hand on your heart, same song. You’re indifferent right?

In the case that it's only one song, I'll be a little more picky. Same thing if you have to eat the same apple every day. I'd probably just stop listening to music at that point. Or find some work where they're still running large collated copy jobs; those copy machines make some good beats.

If I had to eat the same banana every time I chose to eat a banana I wouldn’t give a shit, at all.

In fact if you told me that my understanding of physics was wrong, and that I had in fact only eaten one banana ever in my life, which had been reconstituted and delivered to me each time, I wouldn’t have anything to say. Because I wouldn’t be able to tell if that was true.

Because bananas are all the fucking same from a practical standpoint.

That’s what a commodity looks like.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#132

Post by nradov »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #93
nradov wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way UBI will become the norm. I'm certainly not willing to pay higher taxes so that other people can pursue their passions. They can get a job like the rest of us.

The point of UBI is that it is universal, so you also would be getting the basic income, so presumably, you can also pursue your "passions".

Under any conceivable UBI proposal I would receive less additional income than I pay in higher taxes. So no thanks. People who want to pursue their passions can find other sources of funding instead of my taxes. I will certainly vote against any UBI scheme.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#134

Post by jujube3 »

gibbitz wrote: post #121
aidenn0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see a list of jobs for which: 1. We generally value as a society 2. Two people both working the job and married to each other cannot afford to raise two children. There are some jobs which we romanticize as being this way (musicians and other artists being a big example), but are we okay with e.g. social workers all either starving, or from wealthy backgrounds?

Raising two children is a job in and of itself. Considering our children are the future's consumers, you'd think it would pay better. Teaching in public schools would definitely fit in this category.

Teachers can afford to raise children.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#135

Post by lotsofpulp »

nradov wrote: post #132
lotsofpulp wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of UBI is that it is universal, so you also would be getting the basic income, so presumably, you can also pursue your "passions".

Under any conceivable UBI proposal I would receive less additional income than I pay in higher taxes. So no thanks. People who want to pursue their passions can find other sources of funding instead of my taxes. I will certainly vote against any UBI scheme.

Of course, the whole purpose of UBI is to provide a floor for quality of life by reducing the wealth gap. Therefore, everyone on the higher end, whether deserved or not, have to be brought lower.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#136

Post by nradov »

aidenn0 wrote: post #103
softfalcon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, similar situation with: - My brother who is a writer while his wife works at an industrial job that pays exceedingly well - My friend who is an artist, whose husband owns an engineering firm with big medical device contracts - My other friend who is a nature photographer, whose husband works in tech - Yet another friend who is a musician, whose wife works in tech - Another friend who runs a dog shelter, whose h…

I'd like to see a list of jobs for which: 1. We generally value as a society 2. Two people both working the job and married to each other cannot afford to raise two children. There are some jobs which we romanticize as being this way (musicians and other artists being a big example), but are we okay with e.g. social workers all either starving, or from wealthy backgrounds?

In most places in the USA, two married social workers can afford to raise two children without starving. It's only a few expensive areas where this is impossible.

Employers in high cost areas take advantage of the informal subsidies being discussed here to underpay social workers (as well as other socially valuable occupations such as teachers). But that won't change until the workers move away or switch occupations. There's just no incentive for employers to pay living wages as long as workers are willing to accept less.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#137

Post by akomtu »

digging wrote: post #112
WalterBright wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honor is what separates men from animals. We all get to choose which we are.

if that's true, then the animals are in charge. you'll be miserable for the honor of being enslaved by beast? the GP hit the nail on the head saying, > If you start looking at the law in terms of "how much does it cost to do whatever I want", then you are now effectively playing by the same rules as those who seek to control your life. laws are for the powerless.

The real power is in writing the laws. Legal business isn't very profitable because everyone is doing it, but illegal business can be quite dangerous. This problem goes away if you can write laws to stifle your competitors, while keeping all the freedom to yourself. Example: the insider trading laws.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#138

Post by bluefirebrand »

viscanti wrote: post #125
bluefirebrand wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's a marriage for except creating the circumstances from which to grow This is absolutely not in line with how most people I interact with seem to view marriage nowadays, especially not my fellow university students back when I attended. From my perspective I think younger people mostly seem to view marriage as restricting, or backward and outdated, not an opportunity for something better. I especially think yo…

> younger people don't like the idea that in order to have freedom to pursue the things you love, you might need to marry someone who supports you financially. How many people have ever liked it? Hasn't it been one of the few avenues available for lots of people to pursue things they couldn't without financial help? What's a viable alternative?

I don't know about if people "liked" marrying in order to have financial support.

My point was just that marrying someone to financially support you used to be culturally accepted, maybe even expected, and now it is less so.

Especially since most marriages can't afford to keep the household on a single income anymore anyways.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#139

Post by digging »

WalterBright wrote: post #120
digging wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if that's true, then the animals are in charge. you'll be miserable for the honor of being enslaved by beast? the GP hit the nail on the head saying, > If you start looking at the law in terms of "how much does it cost to do whatever I want", then you are now effectively playing by the same rules as those who seek to control your life. laws are for the powerless.

Trying to justify acting like an animal means making that choice.

yes, I'm happily making that choice. it is the only sane choice.

if you really think the kingdom can be neatly divided into wolverines, nuthatches, and happy people on one side, and "honorable" people on the other side, you do you. aren't you amazed that an animal like me can argue with you though?

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#140

Post by digging »

akomtu wrote: post #137
digging wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if that's true, then the animals are in charge. you'll be miserable for the honor of being enslaved by beast? the GP hit the nail on the head saying, > If you start looking at the law in terms of "how much does it cost to do whatever I want", then you are now effectively playing by the same rules as those who seek to control your life. laws are for the powerless.

The real power is in writing the laws. Legal business isn't very profitable because everyone is doing it, but illegal business can be quite dangerous. This problem goes away if you can write laws to stifle your competitors, while keeping all the freedom to yourself. Example: the insider trading laws.

oh most definitely. you break the laws you can afford to and you repeal the ones you can't.
Post reply on HN