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

271–280 of 286 posts

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

#271

Post by WalterBright »

solarmist wrote: post #202
WalterBright wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tell me what standard of conduct do you ascribe to if fairness or equity aren't included? I never said that being honorable was the only thing I aspire to. Fairness and equity are different topics. It shares some aspects with morality, but is not interchangeable with morality. Honor is things like keeping your word. Not taking things from others that aren't yours. Not trying to trick or force others into doing thin…

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…

I did not say honor had anything to do with the law. I've explicitly said it was different from the law. You're simply not reading what I did write.

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

#272

Post by WalterBright »

solarmist wrote: post #242
JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you develop a reputation for integrity and honor, things will stack in your favor.

If you go around telling people that it's fine to steal from them, do you think they'll consider doing business with you? I wouldn't.

I had a conversation once with the contractor who was fixing my roof. He said that he'd have a customer now and then who didn't pay. He said the roofing contractors all knew each other, and they kept a list of those customers and would refuse to bid on jobs for them.

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

#273

Post by skissane »

boring_twenties wrote: post #228
e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "U" part means everyone would get it, so you don't have to opt for it, and everyone would still pay taxes Another way to think of it is as a negative income tax - as a simple example the equation could be ((income * 0.2) - 20000), so if you make no money you get 20k, if you make 100k you pay no taxes and get nothing, if you make 200k you owe 20. This is using a flat tax rate for simplicity but then everyone get t…

The question is how many people making 200k will, given the option, take the free 20k and not work, therefore paying no taxes.

> The question is how many people making 200k will, given the option, take the free 20k and not work, therefore paying no taxes.

A lot of people making 200k+ have grown accustomed to the kind of lifestyle that income enables (nice house, nice car, nice restaurants, foreign vacations, sending their kids to private school, etc)-and couldn’t afford to keep doing that on 20k. Given the choice between 200k job and 200k lifestyle, and no job and 20k lifestyle, I think the majority of people already accustomed to the first option would choose to continue in it. Also, a lot of people on 200k+ already have more than 20k of savings/investments, so if they are willing to run those down, they could choose the no job/20k lifestyle today, no need to wait for UBI-yet few do.

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

#274

Post by digging »

WalterBright wrote: post #177
olddustytrail wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not, even with caps lock engaged.

Yeah, they are. A true story: A friend of mine years ago worked at Microsoft. He noticed that one of his colleagues was pilfering things in the office, and when asked about it said it was ok to steal from Microsoft because it was a wealthy company. One day, he found a stack of 4 hubcaps on his chair. He asked around, and my friend said "oh, I put those on your chair. I figured I'd give you a hand so you don't have to…

That's a very stupid story, but it does perfectly demonstrate the total lack of understanding you and your friend have.

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

#275

Post by digging »

mrguyorama wrote: post #195
digging wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nope, you're still in grave danger if you're not wealthy. but it does give the insight that we don't have to play by their rules when we realize most of those rules only exist to make it harder for us to play.

"Not playing by the rules" can't help you if not playing by the rules requires resources. That's the WHOLE POINT of the system as designed. You as an individual cannot do anything outside the system even if you know it's rigged unless you already had the resources required to play outside the system. It allows you to maybe optimize for a different state within the system, but that state will still be one that you are…

I don't know what your point is. We both agreed the system is bullshit. In response, you can either steal from Walmart or not.

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

#276

Post by softfalcon »

specproc wrote: post #230
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 worry there's a bit of HN bias here. I don't know anyone whose partner owns an investment management firm or similar. I know a fair few day jobbing musicians and creatives of other stripes though, only one of which with parents of any real means. One is a manager at a theatre, one does care work, one does WordPress and a bit of JS for small companies. The most full-time musician I know did have the richest parents…

Oh, you’re not wrong. There are lots of day-jobbing creatives that I know as well.

I’m one of them. I work a good tech job and do photography as a hobby.

Forgive me if I seemed overly focused on these folks and their lucky circumstances. If I’m being honest, I’m a bit jealous they get to spend all their time focused on their creative interests when I only get to do it part time.

If money wasn’t a requirement, I’d be out photographing every day instead of writing web code.

All in all, life is good though, so even if I’m a teeny bit jealous, I’m grateful for how good I have it in life. I’m pretty lucky, all things considered!

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

#277

Post by JSavageOne »

hguant wrote: post #46
JSavageOne wrote: post #39

Great, practical advice. I do think however that by 2030, UBI will be the norm in many wealthy countries, and thus more people will be able to pursue their passions rather than having to sell their soul as dayjobbers to make money for corporations and rich people.

In 7 years? I think the current crop of pilot tests for UBI are set to finish up in 7 years. No way meaningful UBI gets well enough established in 7 years to be considered "a norm." UBI is this generation's fusion - it's going to be 10 years away until the late 2070s, if at all.

Completely disagree. In 5 years AI will be so advanced that most humans will be economically irrelevant and unable to compete, forcing governments to implement UBI to avoid societal collapse. By 2030 I would be willing to be money that UBI or something resembling UBI will be the norm in most advanced wealthy countries.

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

#278

Post by JSavageOne »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #185
JSavageOne wrote: post #39

Great, practical advice. I do think however that by 2030, UBI will be the norm in many wealthy countries, and thus more people will be able to pursue their passions rather than having to sell their soul as dayjobbers to make money for corporations and rich people.

I think you might be underestimating the fantastic power of the market to adjust. Once this UBI hits, every single landlord will have the same idea..

UBI would ideally be funded by a land value tax (see Henry George's "citizen's dividend")

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

#279

Post by JSavageOne »

nradov wrote: post #81
JSavageOne wrote: post #39

Great, practical advice. I do think however that by 2030, UBI will be the norm in many wealthy countries, and thus more people will be able to pursue their passions rather than having to sell their soul as dayjobbers to make money for corporations and rich people.

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.

In 5-10 years most humans will be economically obsolete because AI will be vastly superior, making UBI inevitable to avoid societal collapse. At that point it will be funny to look back at the arrogance of statements like this.

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

#280

Post by JSavageOne »

eastbound wrote: post #52
JSavageOne wrote: post #39

Great, practical advice. I do think however that by 2030, UBI will be the norm in many wealthy countries, and thus more people will be able to pursue their passions rather than having to sell their soul as dayjobbers to make money for corporations and rich people.

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.

> UBI is a bane because it kills meritocracy.

How does UBI kill meritocracy?

> none of the hard jobs gets done.

Hard jobs that society doesn't value won't get done by humans, but hard jobs that society does value will certainly get done. UBI does not remove free markets, and if anything increases the reward of working hard if large swaths of the labor force do decide to drop out.

Post reply on HN