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

“People simply empty out”

lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 477 posts

Re: “People simply empty out”

#201

Post by eshvk »

rhdoenges wrote: post #197
tankbot wrote: post #129

Can I just say that I love Charles Bukowski? If you've never read him go buy his books now. There's so much humanity in there. Some will think he's a downer or depressing, but I think he's genius. His life reminds me of this quote by Hokusai: 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 o…

I can't stomach the guy. He was an abusive drunk who thought it was funny to kick women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0

What is it that you find offensive? The part that he was a drunk? The part that he kicked another human being? The part that he kicked a woman? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked women? Would you have been OK if he was sober but kicked a man?

Side opinion: If you consume content only by people who are perfect (which really means follow your ethical system, your values), your content sources are going to be incredibly narrow. Also, because I have to make it crystal clear. I am not advocating kicking anyone. I just think that him committing something that I disagree with doesn't necessarily mean that his ideas aren't worth thinking about.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#202

Post by reeses »

homosaur wrote: post #144
orofino wrote: post #96

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.

100K is the point where you have the illusion of financial freedom because you can purchase a BMW, buy a nice home in a bland cul-de-sac with a bunch of nameless white dudes, and it's not until you're in your 40s and you're in danger to losing the job to a robot or a whipper-snapper that you understand that kind of "freedom" is actually enslavement. You made the wrong choice because you wasted your life buying plasti…

I like this because Bukowski's first purchases when he "made it" was a BMW and a house in a nice neighborhood.

I'd write more but, as you say, we only get one chance at this and we're living in the best time ever.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#203

Post by sspiff »

He seems to speak of the supervisor of the packers as someone who is above the working life, but the fact is that he is trapped for life as well, he just happens to be trapped one sport higher on a very long ladder.

I figure this being trapped is a sentiment a lot of people share, although I know of a significant minority of people who enjoy their jobs and lives, even after 30 years of "paycheck slavery".

The whole story reminds me of the song Factory by Bruce Springsteen.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#204

Post by sspiff »

rhdoenges wrote: post #197
tankbot wrote: post #129

Can I just say that I love Charles Bukowski? If you've never read him go buy his books now. There's so much humanity in there. Some will think he's a downer or depressing, but I think he's genius. His life reminds me of this quote by Hokusai: 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 o…

I can't stomach the guy. He was an abusive drunk who thought it was funny to kick women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0

I'm not saying what he's doing is OK, but do we know the context of this?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#205

Post by auggierose »

mempko wrote: post #157
ahomescu1 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand basic economics. > 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…

At work, do you help your co-worker without asking, or do you have them sign a contract and exchange money?

You've signed a contract with your employer to provide that help, you are not doing it for free.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#206

Post by jl6 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #128
sliverstorm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>Question 1: Because people want more than they need. This is practically an axiom. 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 b…

You work to pay for what you want. If you want less, then you can work less. Those millions of Buddhists are very happy to live in a capitalist world.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#207

Post by mkrecny »

rhdoenges wrote: post #197
tankbot wrote: post #129

Can I just say that I love Charles Bukowski? If you've never read him go buy his books now. There's so much humanity in there. Some will think he's a downer or depressing, but I think he's genius. His life reminds me of this quote by Hokusai: 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 o…

I can't stomach the guy. He was an abusive drunk who thought it was funny to kick women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0

I watched that. Here's my take:

Fiance: I am and will continue to sleep with other men.

Bukowski: You fing w*re [kicks].

Relationships are hard. While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I think in this case Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he did with his kick. It certainly didn't seem like he was kicking her because he "thought it was funny to kick women".

Re: “People simply empty out”

#208

Post by nostrademons »

mempko wrote: post #157
ahomescu1 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand basic economics. > 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…

At work, do you help your co-worker without asking, or do you have them sign a contract and exchange money?

You do that because you have a reasonable expectation that they'll help you back in the future, though. If you have a coworker that always needs help and never contributes anything back, eventually you'll start grumbling and stop helping. (Such coworkers usually eventually get fired in well-performing organizations, or marginalized and ignored in poorly-performing ones.)

Re: “People simply empty out”

#209

Post by reeses »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #180
rphlx wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I'll bite. Name 5 products or services that have significantly improved in quality at constant cost, or declined in USD price at constant quality, over the past 10 years (excl. high-volume offshored consumer electronics, which of course I'll grant you). [I tried pretty hard myself and all I came up with was, possibly, clothing].

Cars. TCO has dropped a lot due to maintenance costs dropping. Mean household size has also declined steadily for 3 decades. We choose to have more space and nicer things rather than work less.

(I kind of took the 'ten years' thing and ran it back to when I was young, in the 80s and 90s, sorry. :-))

I don't think I ever have to change the oil in my car over the duration of my lease. Synthetic lubricants, tighter tolerances, and better seals are amazing.

Plus, at what other time could you get a 400+ hp car that can get 26+ mpg? The safety features are insane. The wipers and lights come on automatically and the car buzzes (or so I am told) if I drowse off behind the wheel. I can listen to punk rock in the middle of Wyoming, but I won't have to because my car will plot a route around it.

Clothing has gotten much better for less, but that's largely global supply chain. I checked into a hotel in China and my room had a pair of throwaway trainers for walking in the city.

I can safely fly between any points in Europe with the change left over from a beer.

I can walk into an optometrist and get a box of contact lenses for my astigmatic eyes and wear a clean, new pair every day, all for less than hard lenses cost decades ago and for which I would have to wait weeks with multiple fittings. And they still sucked, especially in a windstorm.

Bicycles that would be insanely futuristic when I was a kid, with disc brakes, aluminum frames, and more gears than I need, cost the same as my hunk-of-steel Schwinn.

Bread! Coffee! They are so good now!

Best of all, my toilet cleans me.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#210

Post by ckannan90 »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #102

Employment is, by definition, exploitation. If the objective of the company is to profit, it has to pay the employee less than the value he generates. The alternative is profiting out of non-internalized costs (e.g., exploiting natural resources).

Not really. Employment is a trade of resources like any other. According to what you say, the employee is "exploiting" the employer as well, because he is trading his time and effort (which he values less) for money (which he values more). The trade works because both sides have opposite notions of value in the two things (time/effort vs wages).

Besides, the value an employee generates does not come from the employee himself (if it did, he could do the same task outside of a company and earn money). His effort is channeled through several other resources, including the efforts of other employees, capital and machinery, all of which was acquired and managed by the company. The company profits because the overall value generated by this system is larger than the sum of the value generated by any individual part. This isn't exploitation "by definition".

Post reply on HN