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

271–280 of 477 posts

Re: “People simply empty out”

#271

Post by king_jester »

tomp wrote: post #221
scotty79 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You won't have life if you don't work - or coerce it from others. There are some exceptions. You don't have to work a single day in your life if: - you inherited wealth. - you are homeless and sustain yourself with whatever you can get without paying. - you commit crimes and are put in prison. - you are a woman and merry well. - you build something as a hobby and it makes big. > That doesn't give much room for the…

> plain, abundant and worthless in our modern world as food. Excuse me, but you're an idiot. (Unless your whole comment is meant as a joke.) People exchange things that are worth less for things that are worth more. In such an exchange, both parties profit, always . In the case above, you exchange hours of your life for food so that you can live another day. Also, people are the only source of wealth. Right now, mach…

> People exchange things that are worth less for things that are worth more. In such an exchange, both parties profit, always. In the case above, you exchange hours of your life for food so that you can live another day.

There are some goods that have so high a value it will be worth trading almost anything for it. Eating is one, medical care is another. This fact is routinely exploited so that those not in danger of losing those highly valuable things get more out of an exchange. The execs that run McDonald's don't have to worry about acquiring food or health care, they have the class advantage to securely have those things. And yet this same company puts out a spending guide to the workers that get low wages suggesting they have 2 jobs and that they put no money towards health care or heating their apt/homes. Those low wage workers can't simply stop working there, their ability to live and eat is in direct danger from losing that work. Is that a fair exchange?

> Also, people are the only source of wealth. Right now, machines are not capable of producing anything on their own, that is why there are no completely automatic factories and nothing gets created without human help, design or at least supervision.

It doesn't matter if machines are 100% automated and don't require humans. What matters it that as machine automation gets more efficient and requires less humans to operate, the more previously employed human workers lose their ability to work and therefore their ability to eat and have shelter. And yet the ownership classes don't suffer from this advancement, they still continue to consume and funnel money and resources into themselves. Is that a fair exchange?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#272

Post by dsbmac »

chii wrote: post #190
dsbmac wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps society and its culture as a whole. Directly, it could be the community you live in or perhaps government. Two examples: 1) I read an article where the writer took a job somewhere in the Pacific or Southeast in a non-heavily developed area. When he gets to the village he has no place to stay. How will I live? What happens, which as a Westerner he did not expect, was that soon the community gathered at a spot…

> What happens, which as a Westerner he did not expect, was that soon the community gathered at a spot and over the next few days built him his house! It was simple but in line with the community standard. The expectation was that when someone else had a need (maybe a house) he would return the favor. how is this different than borrowing money from a bank to get a house built? In the village, the westerner had a debt…

Well for one thing, in my anecdotal scenario, such transactions acrue no interest. It was the kind of debt anyone could incur and payback. Money lenders aren't under any obligation to give you a loan of any size. In that village there was a self-perpetuating obligation to provide the debt.

As for how it would scale, I don't know. Is the structure and culture of western urban society the only form possible?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#273

Post by king_jester »

mkrecny wrote: post #207
rhdoenges wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f ing 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".

> 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.

So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#274

Post by brador »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #258
brador wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only way to stop hoarding is abundance.

We live in an age of incredible abundance. Yet hoarding continues, does it not?

It's superficial abundance. The Walmart is full, but your pockets are not.

Aside: I wonder what effect increased lifespans will have on hoarding. We know the old horde, will they horde even more?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#276

Post by mkrecny »

king_jester wrote: post #273
mkrecny wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched that. Here's my take: Fiance: I am and will continue to sleep with other men. Bukowski: You f ing 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".

> 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. So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.

> So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.

That's absurd. Where did I say "if your partner says something that upsets you, it's totally OK to hit them"?

I stated that:

a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on him) more than he did by kicking her.

b) It didn't seem like his reasons for kicking her were because he "thought it was funny to kick women."

Please read more carefully before you troll me, sir.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#277

Post by kh_hk »

blackhole wrote: post #5

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

On an added note, I feel that a tangential problem here is that we do not know how to handle death.

It is not about the things we do not do, it is about having had enough.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#278

Post by rubinelli »

tomp wrote: post #220
scotty79 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing rich people hoard is real estate. This increases price of one of most basic necessities. This also degrades the real estate resource because more people have to rent, and people who live in their own house tend to care about its state more than people who rent and people who own house just to rent it away.

This shouldn't be a problem, especially in the US, where there is so much empty space. Maybe more in the tiny Europe, but there is still a lot of empty space here, and a lot of empty houses in remote villages. The problem is just that people want to live in the cities, and there just isn't a lot of space in the cities.

> The problem is just that people want to live in the cities, and there just isn't a lot of space in the cities.

People will live where they can find jobs, and the very concentration of people brings in even more jobs to cities. As much as some cite the amenities of large cities to stay, a very large portion of the retiring population move away as soon as they don't need to work anymore.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#279

Post by ionwake »

stdbrouw wrote: post #217
eshvk wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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? Are your questions anything other than pointlessly flippant?

I dont think I like you

Re: “People simply empty out”

#280

Post by Marwy »

king_jester wrote: post #273
mkrecny wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched that. Here's my take: Fiance: I am and will continue to sleep with other men. Bukowski: You f ing 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".

> 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. So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse 101.

I'm wondering if your reading comprehension is really that bad or there's something else going on with you.
Post reply on HN