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

241–250 of 286 posts

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

#241

Post by chmod600 »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #114
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What do you call a drummer without a girlfriend?" "Homeless."

I had to constantly remind myself, when my college friends were going off to do startups that they wouldn't be sleeping under a bridge if they failed. Even something as simple as a supportive family is a huge leg up compared to those who don't have it.

“Even something as simple as a supportive family“

That’s a strange wording, isn’t a supportive family widely known to be an absolutely huge benefit?

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

#242

Post by solarmist »

JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote: post #219
solarmist wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't view keeping your word or not cheating against a unilateral agreement as a virtue. Doing the moral thing in many of those situations requires going against the laws or rules of those unjust systems. In other words, it requires cheating for the purpose of changing the system. Civil rights disobedience, Gandhi's fight for independence in India, fighting against monopolies, and unionizing all require rejecting o…

Sir, you appear to be arguing with the Arch-Boomer. The rules were written (and re-written, and re-re-written) for him for the better part of a century - do you think he's open to any other way?

I envy him in a way. Everything’s so black and white. I wish everything had been stacked in my favor that way.

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

#243

Post by boring_twenties »

CPLX wrote: post #106
Hermitian909 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's some talking past each other going here. I think it's useful to bisect music into commodity/non-commidty categories. Category 1 is things like Taylor swift's music which is not a commodity. Category 2 is the music playing on lofi hip hop radio[0] is a commodity. 28,000 people are listening to the music on that channel as I type this and and approximately zero people know or care who made that music. T…

Just because they themselves have outsourced the selection of the music doesn't make it a commodity. It's like saying Michelin-starred restaurants are a commodity. They aren't. Once they are on that list they might be sort of interchangeable to a specific sort of person who just wants a generic "nice" restaurant and picks one off the list when they get to a city. But they're all unique and different in really substan…

> If recorded music was a commodity there would only be one playlist because you would not be able to tell one playlist from the other.

No, because ...

> Can your car tell Exxon from Sunoco? Can you drink a glass of milk and know which dairy it came from? Of course you can't.

I can't, and yet Exxon and Sunoco both exist.

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

#244

Post by jkingsman »

chmod600 wrote: post #241
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to constantly remind myself, when my college friends were going off to do startups that they wouldn't be sleeping under a bridge if they failed. Even something as simple as a supportive family is a huge leg up compared to those who don't have it.

“Even something as simple as a supportive family“ That’s a strange wording, isn’t a supportive family widely known to be an absolutely huge benefit?

I think the implication is that, as opposed to starting a romantic relationship with someone who can support you or a side hustle or etc., having a supportive family is much more passive (and somewhat a roll of the dice, but generally speaking if you were lucky/privileged enough to be born into a family who can emotionally and/or financially support you, there probably isn't much labor/effort you had to put into to make it that way).

It's for sure a huge benefit; I think their point is that it's a huge benefit that doesn't require effort (just chance, or maintenance of good communication/relationship).

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

#245

Post by solarmist »

CPLX wrote: post #225
solarmist wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not asking what it's not. I'm asking what it is. If an option were removed, something (not a random substitution, but eventually a substitute would be found) else would take its place and fulfill the same function even though it isn't the same it's close enough to fulfill the purpose.

That’s called a substitute good. Every good has a substitute good. That doesn’t make it a commodity, words have meanings. The distinction is important. The original thread here posited that music wasn’t a lucrative field because it’s an interchangeable commodity. That’s just flat wrong. It’s the opposite. It’s not lucrative because it’s very highly differentiated and the popularity follows a power law distribution an…

Cheers for the terminology, but being pedantic and purposely missing the point isn't useful or helpful.

You could've avoided this whole digression by providing the word people were searching for and doing a mental search/replace then moving the conversation forward.

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

#246

Post by lotsofpulp »

barbazoo wrote: post #231
lotsofpulp wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cannot be piloted without an entire country being subject to it. The whole point is that ALL the lowest income workers (janitors/fruit pickers/nursing home workers/etc) can quit their job, causing a massive re-pricing of labor and re-allocation of labor. It would cause lots of things to increase in price that are currently priced low simply because someone's parents happened to be from a poorer country that did no…

> It cannot be piloted without an entire country being subject to it. I mean, that's you changing the definition of what a pilot is. Have you looked into how they were conducted in those countries and how they determine success/failure?

I do not need to look into how they were conducted. Universal is a condition of universal basic income, without which the dynamics of the labor market cannot change, and hence the benefits cannot be observed.

Only once all the lowest paid workers (who ostensibly are doing their job because they have no other option) can drop their jobs and negotiate better compensation can the effects of UBI be seen.

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

#247

Post by DoughnutHole »

balfirevic wrote: post #235
bluefirebrand wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Man marrying his wive to financially support him was accepted and expected? Really?

It absolutely was accepted - not in terms of being supported by her labour, but “marrying up” ie marrying someone from a family of higher social standing and wealth to improve your own station was a common aspiration of a middle class man.

Before the 20th century marriage and inheritance was practically the only way to climb the social ladder and acquire meaningful wealth. It’s basically half of what Balzac wrote about.

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

#248

Post by nomaxx117 »

I mentioned OSS in a different comment, but it's not the only thing I've noticed this with. Politics at any level in the US (local, state, or national) falls into the same situation regardless of party.

Activism takes time and resources to be successful and get your name out, and the moral status attached to it creates a similar set of incentives such that you end up with the same pattern of lifers who are perpetually broke, independently wealthy folks who can be heavily involved and live decently at the same time, and folks with a dayjob who are involved but never really wield much influence on any level.

It's an interesting problem and I'd argue it serves as evidence that this happens to anything with attached status. Journalism I've heard has the issue as well.

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

#249

Post by wing-_-nuts »

chmod600 wrote: post #241
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to constantly remind myself, when my college friends were going off to do startups that they wouldn't be sleeping under a bridge if they failed. Even something as simple as a supportive family is a huge leg up compared to those who don't have it.

“Even something as simple as a supportive family“ That’s a strange wording, isn’t a supportive family widely known to be an absolutely huge benefit?

Everyone in silicon valley is familiar with founders that got seed money or connections from friends and family. My point is that even having a safe place to sleep isn't assured for some people, and folks should remember that when they pat themselves on the back for 'taking risks' founding a startup. Some people would be taking much larger risks than others.

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

#250

Post by yetanother12345 »

stinkytaco wrote: post #97
eastbound wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is a bane because it kills meritocracy. The reason most people are successful is because they risk a lot if they weren’t. Surprise: Stress is a factor of excellence. You say it yourself: If UBI is introduced, then none of the hard jobs gets done.

> Stress is a factor of excellence. So is having a rich family. The article provides a long list of examples of great artists who's success is largely enabled by already being wealthy, not necessarily being the best. Even just being lucky enough to already be established puts you far ahead of people trying to break in. I can walk out the door and likely find a job in my industry because I have lots of experience to p…

> I needed someone who was a known quantity more than I needed someone who was possibly great.

There's also an economic side to this: Higher skill most often has higher costs, so it would not be rational to overshoot in a business setting.

In an Art setting higher skill very rarely commands a higher price. At least for the Visual Arts (painting, sculpture, etc) producer skill is hardly the most requested property. IOW it's mostly a matter of provenience and history of the artwork in question, not much the skill required to produce it. Also, for Music, Visual Arts, Performative Arts (excluding Sports!) personal preferences seem to dictate a substantially larger proportion of the price level than performer competence.

Post reply on HN