101–110 of 477 posts
I feel like too many people get sucked into the idea of furthering their career, to the point that they forget to further their own life. What is the point of existence if we never get around to experiencing it? "It's not the things we do in life that we regret on our death bed, it is the things we do not." - Randy Pausch
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference, to me, is that the lack of freedom you describe is simply a part of the human condition (food and shelter require work, which has been true as long as life has existed) as opposed to what you call "traditional slavery" which is man-made.
>>"traditional slavery" which is man-made. So is capitalism. So is the corporate hierarchy. Heck, the society we live in right now is man-made. Why does that matter as an evaluation criteria? Yes, food and shelter have always required work. The difference is that they have required work by the person for the person. Or by the person for their family. Or by the person for their tribe. This meant that you worked only a…
You do know that in agrarian societies this meant 12 hours a day 7 days a week with no holidays ever? And that children worked in the fields instead of going to school?
People don't subsistence farm because they don't want anything more than the bare minimum for survival. They subsistence farm because the bare minimum for survival is the best they can manage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've missed the point of the letter entirely. It's not about people who are obsessed with their work, it's about people who have no choice in the matter.
No, it's about a system, capitalism, that gives most no choice in the matter.
I feel like too many people get sucked into the idea of furthering their career, to the point that they forget to further their own life. What is the point of existence if we never get around to experiencing it? "It's not the things we do in life that we regret on our death bed, it is the things we do not." - Randy Pausch
Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until you're age 65, then you flip 180 degrees in the other direction and retire into a life of full-time leisure. So if you live long enough, it really won't be a waste; you cash it in all at the end! A Scandinavian psychologist somewhat recently proposed a typically Scand…
A few folks I've known worked until they simply couldn't, then died a few months later.
I'm reminded of my own father, who worked like a dog since he was a pre-teen, and simply hasn't been able to come to terms with retirement, choosing to start another job in his elder years instead of writing, painting and fishing which he has an obvious talent and interest in.
I tell myself that I won't succumb to this failure to live life and try to overcompensate a bit by traveling a lot, photography and many stalled attempts at writing. I wonder what would happen if I got fuck you money and if I could discipline myself to follow up to my passions instead of trying to fit them into my free time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>"traditional slavery" which is man-made. So is capitalism. So is the corporate hierarchy. Heck, the society we live in right now is man-made. Why does that matter as an evaluation criteria? Yes, food and shelter have always required work. The difference is that they have required work by the person for the person. Or by the person for their family. Or by the person for their tribe. This meant that you worked only a…
This meant that you worked only as much was actually needed - i.e. subsistence - and no more. You do know that in agrarian societies this meant 12 hours a day 7 days a week with no holidays ever? And that children worked in the fields instead of going to school? People don't subsistence farm because they don't want anything more than the bare minimum for survival. They subsistence farm because the bare minimum for su…
I have two questions for you that you should think about.
Question 1: Why is it that, as our productivity increases, we find more things to "fill up" our workday, instead of working fewer hours for the same output (which would satisfy our needs)?
Question 2: Forget about need. Do people actually want the things they are working for today? Or is it that we are socially conditioning them, from the moment they are born, that a consumption-based lifestyle is one they need to strive for?
>>You know my old saying, "Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended to include all the colors." Some people balk at the idea of "wage slavery," primarily because they think it is so different from the traditional slavery that it should not be called that. But the question is, if you are doing something and the alternative is starvation and death, are you really a free human being? If you think about it for a…
Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with you. His idea of America was the idea that there would be many small farms where people could be more or less self-sufficient and work would have instrinsic meaning. Of course, he had actual chattel slaves to help out. Hamilton had the idea that the US would become a trading nation. By their time, the industrial-capitalist revolution had not really gotten underway world-wide but the Hamiltonians won out in the end. The notion of 'work' as we know it now had also not really come into existence. Most people in the US worked on farms or otherwise for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are taking the value of a tangible asset from 1969 and comparing it to todays value of said tangible asset. This in no way illustrates the inflation rate. All it shows (assuming your numbers are right) is the increase in the perceived value of gold in that time frame. The original comment's $650 number is close enough to be considered accurate
What's the distinction between "perceived value" and just normal value?
Using the gold example- suppose industrial demand for gold to fuel the semiconductor industry tripled the price of gold compared to 1969. Now suppose the price of milk, bread, gasoline, electricity, water, clothing, and alcohol only doubled in price compared to 1969. If inflation is a measure of your purchasing power IN GENERAL (not your purchasing power of gold), inflation was roughly 200%, no?
If gold had absolutely no practical value by itself, it would be free of market demands like that in my example. But of course then its value would have no connection to purchasing power, and we're right back where we started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Anyone can do it. Correction: anyone who graduates without debt and starts their careers making good money can do it.
And is willing to live in fairly shitty places. (You're not retiring on $25K a year in any part of Boston, NYC, Seattle, or any other reasonably vibrant urban area without making brutal compromises in terms of quality of life.)
If we assume that the $25k is net, not gross, then I can see how it could be reasonably comfortable for one person with no rent or mortgage. You'd really want to go to a place with cheap property taxes to minimize unavoidable recurring housing costs. But anyway, you'd have roughly $2k to spend each month, which seems like it could comfortably cover utilities, food, transportation, and some entertainment, even in a non-shitty place. Keep in mind you wouldn't have to save money because you're retired--this is supposed to be solid and stable revenue for the remainder of your life (but only time will tell if that holds true).
Of course, throw in other people to support on that income, like kids, and it definitely gets tighter, but I don't think this number is at all unreasonable for a single person supporting only themselves with no debt and complete ownership of a home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until you're age 65, then you flip 180 degrees in the other direction and retire into a life of full-time leisure. So if you live long enough, it really won't be a waste; you cash it in all at the end! A Scandinavian psychologist somewhat recently proposed a typically Scand…
Unless you are a hedonist, maximum leisure in your prime working years and minimum leisure in old age don't make sense. Personally, I've found work matured both me and my brothers, gave us more perspective, and generally improved us as human beings. Without including the chance to really mature, you are basically talking about extending adolescence, and we already complain about how irresponsible and short-sighted tw…
The reason I ask is because without distinctions, it is difficult to tell what your motivations are and what about what kind of work you find attractive.
As a side note, the word 'work' of the industrial revolution sense being combined with notions that it automatically makes you better than people who don't 'work' in the same sense because it makes them more childish was one of those 'white-man's burden' type justifications for imperialism because of that particular poem's observation that non-european first nation people were 'half-devil and half-child'.
NOT an accusation of you. Just an observation. :) This is and, will be, a contentious topic in the near future, I think.