121–130 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
Hm... abject terror of homelessness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system isn't capitalism, it's life: you don't work, you don't eat. The author was one of the few whose work is both enjoyable on its own and worth enough to others to survive on, capitalism in the form of sponsorship. Capitalism at least gives a generally fair exchange of work for value; the alternatives amount to institutionalized theft.
Wow. Just wow. Simply amazing you can think that given the distribution of wealth in the world. The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. And yet we don't – instead…
> For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost.
Are you sure we have all the fuel and land to feed, house and clothe everyone? And if so, who's going to work for that? If everyone gets food and shelter for free, I'm not working to provide that.
The reality is, food needs to be grown, clothes made and houses built. Some people need to work for that. In exchange for that work, they ask some sort of compensation from others, in the form of other services or goods. This has nothing to do with the "global elite", this is just the nature of trade. I think giving someone stuff for free without getting anything in return is a greater injustice than this "instutionalized theft" you speak of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The cost of healthcare alone makes subsistence living impossible. What? It's perfectly possible to receive "subsistence healthcare" in today's society--just never go to the doctor or take any medicine. If you want to splurge, do some research online, and you'll gain knowledge leagues ahead of "subsistence" medicine.
I think you grossly misunderstood what I said. What I meant by "subsistence living" is working enough to cover the essentials, and no more. These essentials include food, water, shelter, and healthcare. The problem is the last one: it is astronomically expensive, which means that subsistence living still means working a ridiculous amount of hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the price of gold more relevant than the Consumer Price Index?
both are terrible measures, as a long-term measure gold isn't so bad, but for point-to-point comparisons (as is done in the parent post), gold goes through some crazy speculative bubbles. The CPI is dastardly manipulated figures. (hedonic adjustments, substitutions)
That's not manipulation. That's just trying to calculate an accurate number.
If you do no substitutions, then you will end up being a Collectible Goods Index, rather than a Consumer Goods Index. It makes no sense to calculate inflation in 2013 based on a basket of goods from 1919.
But that creates another problem. If you do no hedonic adjustments, then you will overstate inflation if consumers move upmarket. It's not the prices that went up -- it's consumer purchasing habits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system isn't capitalism, it's life: you don't work, you don't eat. The author was one of the few whose work is both enjoyable on its own and worth enough to others to survive on, capitalism in the form of sponsorship. Capitalism at least gives a generally fair exchange of work for value; the alternatives amount to institutionalized theft.
Wow. Just wow. Simply amazing you can think that given the distribution of wealth in the world. The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. And yet we don't – instead…
Explain how this works logically. Do you honestly believe that if you simply took most of the money from rich people, that you would be able to sustainably feed everyone else? Have you considered all, if any, of the potential consequences of this action?
> For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost.
Again, explain how this works. A major issue with food, for example, is not one of production but instead transportation and distribution. How would making the rich poorer solve this problem?
> Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice?
Define justice.
And who on Earth do you trust to take and do well with all of the money taken from rich people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system isn't capitalism, it's life: you don't work, you don't eat. The author was one of the few whose work is both enjoyable on its own and worth enough to others to survive on, capitalism in the form of sponsorship. Capitalism at least gives a generally fair exchange of work for value; the alternatives amount to institutionalized theft.
Wow. Just wow. Simply amazing you can think that given the distribution of wealth in the world. The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. And yet we don't – instead…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if your second paragraph necessarily leads from your first one. 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…
Question 1: Because people want more than they need. This is practically an axiom. You don't need much more than a pile of sticks to sleep under, food, and water, but I bet even you would agree this is not satisfying. We aren't unique in this regard either. My cat needs air, water, and food. My cat wants attention, affection, and canned wet food. Question 2: I wasn't socially conditioned to want the fan that keeps me…
Is it? There are several hundred million Buddhists who might disagree with you.
>>We aren't unique in this regard either. My cat needs air, water, and food. My cat wants attention, affection, and canned wet food.
Your cat wants attention, affection and canned wet food because as a pet it has gotten used to those things. There are a billion felines out there that are quite happy with living alone and marking their territory and hunting for and munching on raw meat.
>>You don't need much more than a pile of sticks to sleep under, food, and water, but I bet even you would agree this is not satisfying.
It depends. I love to go cross-country backpacking and the only things I bring with me are the bare essentials: tent, sleeping bag, food and water, clothing and some emergency supplies.
>>Question 2: I wasn't socially conditioned to want the fan that keeps me cool when it is hot. I wasn't socially conditioned to enjoy beer. I wasn't socially conditioned to like literature. Sure, some people are working for things they have no real use or desire for, but IMO there are plenty of things that improve life beyond the truest basic needs, that are worth continuing to strive for. Amusement, art, intellectual pursuits, athleticism, etc...
Your argument is shifting away from what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you do not have to work 40+ hours a week for any of those things. You only have to do it because our capitalistic society is engineered that way.
Think about it like this: the productivity of the average worker has increased tremendously over the last century. Yet, instead of reducing work hours to account for the fact that we can produce the same amount of goods and services in less time, we have opted to work the same number of hours (or even longer in some cases) to produce more than society needs.
Even if everyone worked 20 hours a week, you could still enjoy your beer and athleticism and art and intellectual pursuits. In fact, you would have more time for them!
When I was 50 I had published a universe of designs. But all I have done before the the age of 70 is not worth bothering with. At 75 I'll have learned something of the pattern of nature, of animals, of plants, of trees, birds, fish and insects. When I am 80 you will see real progress. At 90 I shall have cut my way deeply into the mystery of life itself. At 100, I shall be a marvelous artist. At 110, everything I create; a dot, a line, will jump to life as never before.
Never stop learning, folks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always kind of shake my head at this. On a board with many people making 100k+ per year, who are the "societal overlords" you're referencing. Sure there are people that make much more than that, but anything beyond 80k allows a person to save quite a bit and "quit" the rat race earlier if they like.
This is part of why the "rat race" works/exists. People are always looking up to see who is above them, never down to see how far they've come. "I IPO'd for ten million dollars! Life is awesome!" quickly transitions to "Frank IPO'd for 5x what I did! That's not fair!"
It is not healthy to constantly compare yourself with people who are worse off. Sure, it induces a sense of gratitude to know that you have clean drinking water and no threat of being killed by a warlord today (unlike many people in Africa, for instance), however if we settled for that, there would never be any incentive to improve our situation further. Imagine what would've happened if every inventor and scientist in the history of mankind had that attitude.
Also, not everyone on this board lives in Silicon Valley and works for a startup that spoils him stupid with catered lunches, scheduled massages and a 150K/yr salary. A lot of us are just normal middle class people living in economies that aren't that prosperous and the prospect of losing a job can really threaten our financial security. Also, if you work for a shit company that takes advantage of that, you can be in for a pretty miserable experience. So get off your high horse already.