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

I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

itsmevox.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 528 posts

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#341

Post by inigyou »

everdrive wrote: post #181
inigyou wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh my god can we stop acting like the only possibilities are american "capitalism" or soviet "communism", it's exhausting

>oh my god can we stop acting like the only possibilities are american "capitalism" or soviet "communism", it's exhausting No way -- I threw in 1600s Europe as well as subsistence farming in there. I think the Patreon point is really interesting. I really don't like Patreon or anything like that, but is a bit miraculous. There's some really, really, niche art up there. That sort of art would have NEVER found an audie…

Patreon only works for famous people making products that are free to copy. You couldn't fund a statue that way.

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#342

Post by inigyou »

overfeed wrote: post #255
inigyou wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a very common trolling tactic to imply a controversial thing while overtly saying a less controversial thing

Anyone who thinks that it's "controversial" to discuss where the benefits from productivity gains go isn't worth talking to: they are either ideologues set in their ways, or underinformed on recent economic history.

> imply

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#343

Post by inigyou »

senordevnyc wrote: post #226
inigyou wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a fish unable to see water. Yes, you need food. Guess what, we have plenty of food. But the system for allocating food says this guy doesn't get any because he's disabled.

Guess what, we have plenty of food We have plenty of food because of capitalism (particularly the fact that we have plenty of incredibly cheap food grown by a tiny fraction of our population).

And the sky is gray. I'm not seeing the relevance of either statement.

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#344

Post by inigyou »

senordevnyc wrote: post #227
inigyou wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well right now there isn't a food shortage so what should we do while there isn't a food shortage? Should we perhaps say, that we only jettison the disabled people once we're actually running out of food and are forced to make a tough decision about who to keep alive, instead of doing it 20 years in advance just because there might be a shortage one day?

Whether we as a society support those who cannot productively contribute is orthogonal to capitalism. Capitalism itself has nothing to say about what we do with the increases in productivity. You can see this in many developed countries, which have wealth and surplus thanks to their capitalistic markets, but they also have high taxes and a strong safety net.

Capitalism means resource allocation is primarily decided by billionaires. Why would they give resources up in any way that doesn't make them even richer?

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#345

Post by dmitrygr »

hogehoge51 wrote: post #317
Telaneo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have enough excess in society that we can spare enough of those things to those who are unable to take care of themselves.

You are failing to analyze the system corectly. "Have enough" is a static steady state. "Produce enough" now and in the future is a dynamic constraint. The mechanism is economic surplus, to have the producers (productive people who produce needed goods and inputs to such) create more than they need. This generally requires increasing and maintaining productivity to have surplus. Once you have a surplus the absolute m…

> why people come to a technologist forum without a basic understanding of system dynamics.

Cognitive dissonance, they understand but refuse to admit it because it conflicts with their world view.

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#346

Post by nate_meurer »

Telaneo wrote: post #336
nate_meurer wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we're not. It just seems like there's excess because the costs of running social programs are being paid with runaway debt. Those bills will eventually require settling, and it will become obvious how much excess there really is.

There are truckloads of perfectly good food and clothes being incinerated every day since that's somehow cheaper for the owners of capital. The excess is there. It's just not ending up in the pockets of those who need it.

Food and clothing are actually an argument against you here. Sure we waste a lot of both, and yet food insecurity is rare in the First World, and lack of clothing is pretty much the least significant part of poverty. Plus, government-forced redistribution reliably increases prices overall due to the increased costs of logistics and administration. There is no free lunch.

If you want to argue your point, you have to address the real fiscal burdens on modern societies, and the real drivers of debt across the West. The biggest components of government debt are medical care and pensions (including Social Security in the US). These are the things that are bankrupting us, not food and clothing.

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#347

Post by senordevnyc »

inigyou wrote: post #343
senordevnyc wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess what, we have plenty of food We have plenty of food because of capitalism (particularly the fact that we have plenty of incredibly cheap food grown by a tiny fraction of our population).

And the sky is gray. I'm not seeing the relevance of either statement.

Are you familiar with the expression “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”? Or killing the goose that laid the golden egg?

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#348

Post by joquarky »

WarmWash wrote: post #274
daishi55 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not trolling. They are stating the simple, undeniable fact that there is more than enough to go around and if we had a more equitable distribution of resources, we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare.

The problem is that when you get more for less, it kills the incentive to do more. This is a really glaring problem, and people go to really great lengths to either sweep it under the rug or hand wave it away.

Why do we need an incentive to do more?

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#349

Post by Havoc »

OutOfHere wrote: post #195

hEDS and POTS, which is what the author claims to suffer from, are not good reasons for a disability. hEDS is responsive to particular supplements, especially methylfolate, etc., so build up your stack. For me, POTS was caused by a PPI drug, and eventually remedied upon discontinuation of the drug in combination with daily exercise. Afaik, there is no genetic basis for POTS, and if it there were one, it would be unli…

Yeah seeing these all over the place as if it spreads via social media

Re: I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore

#350

Post by arjie »

zem wrote: post #294
techteach00 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about this mythical "excess". I can't afford housing. Millions like me can't. There is no excess. Unless it's being hoarded by the capital class.

I mean, it is very obviously being hoarded by the capital class! there has been tons of writing on the subject, no one can credibly deny that that's what's happening right now.

Certainly, and notably the 'capital class' that's 'hoarding' the housing he's talking about are what look like normal people. You'd make more money taxing half of the value of those who own SFHs in Santa Clara alone than you would Elon Musk - and hurt productive capacity and jobs far less. The disconnect between the desire to extract what people describe as a fair share from the 'capital class' comes up rapidly against the wall of realizing they themselves are the 'capital class' in question. Everything else then becomes a war of definition as they try to narrowly constrain the scope of this such that they can send their kids to Monta Vista while simultaneously having everyone else pay much higher taxes.
Post reply on HN