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

281–290 of 477 posts

Re: “People simply empty out”

#281

Post by mkrecny »

sz4kerto wrote: post #245
lotsofcows wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently it's acceptable to downvote without providing an argument. It's anonymous and requires no thought so it's very popular.

No, just there are people who understand why physical abuse and violence is not tolerable in _any_ situation, especially not against the weak. People who equate physical and verbal violence (by verbal violence I mean anything not physical) either have no idea what they're talking about or they're mentally ill.

I agree, physical and verbal violence should not be equated. But not because verbal violence is clearly less damaging than physical violence. It's complicated, and subjective and different for everyone.

I'm totally against _any_ type of violence. But I've met and studied enough people who carry around a lifetime of mental illnesses caused verbal violence (esp. at a young age) to be able to say that one is worse than the other.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#282

Post by minikites »

_delirium wrote: post #16
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

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…

There was a recent episode of the podcast Back to Work that mentioned this very thing:

http://5by5.tv/b2w/120

At around 42:00-56:00, (I made a note because I liked it so much), they start talking about safety nets and how we think about events changing our behavior. Merlin made the point that if you're not practicing enjoying your weekends now, having a lot of money can give you a more expensive weekend, but not necessarily a more enjoyable one. A more productive strategy is to rehearse how to be happy with what you have, not what it would be like if you didn't have to worry about anything (because that's probably never going to happen).

Re: “People simply empty out”

#283

Post by tomp »

king_jester wrote: post #271
tomp wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

1) Yes, by definition. If the workers wouldn't think that they are getting more (food) than they give (time), they wouldn't work.

2) However, the question whether this is socially or even globally fair is not a question of capitalism, but of politics/government. If things continue this way, sooner or later there will be too many unemployed people and there will be a revolt/class revolution. I believe the elite will work hard to prevent it, by introducing some kind of wealth/capital tax that will redistribute wealth to the not-haves.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#284

Post by grey-area »

mrow84 wrote: post #263
vidarh wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. Sure. But that does not conflict with "emergent structure": There's no need for a cabal at the top consciously arranging the structure of society. Just a bunch of people who are often trying to manipulate things in specific directions, and where a lot…

That's right; as I said "these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group." Further: "I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order…

You're tilting at windmills.

I didn't claim our current system is perfect or uncorrupted (the phrase least worst system clearly points out that our current systems are flawed). I don't think social improvement (however you define that) inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism, but I do think people claiming to have all the answers to creating a fairer society have turned out to be tyrannical more often than not (e.g. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc), and I prefer the gradual, consensual move to socialism we have in Western Europe (a form of capitalism tempered by social justice and redistribution, far more equitable than in Marx's time for example). Blaming, dehumanising and scapegoating minority groups (the 1%, bankers, etc) to expiate our sins does nothing to help our society become more fair, quite the reverse.

The last century under moderated capitalism has seen much progress in conditions of work in the western world, and even recently in the developing world, and this in spite of the selfishness inherent in capitalism which you would think would tend to ever-increasing centralisation of power and wealth if left unchecked - I find that an interesting contradiction.

If people want to debate redistribution, what fair means, how to moderate capitalism or replace it and how to make our societies more fair that's (in my view) a useful debate, but diatribes about a shadowy conspiracy of a 1% elite spanning centuries are not productive, because they're not going to make people face with sober senses their real conditions of life, and their relations with others in society.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#285

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

orofino wrote: post #261
LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the misrepresentation is your post is the word 'buy'. You don't buy when a bank owns it and expects you to pay monthly payments. You buy when you own. Is it a big deal to loose job at 45 when you own house and a car or two? It is, but not as much because you don't have the obligation to spend half your previous salary monthly on payments. Which takes us directly to this where the problem really is: debt.

You're just playing with words though. People choose to use debt, I've got debt, on the car we just bought, that's it. I HAD debt, but the student loans are now paid and the house was sold. Am I lucky to make a good salary that allows me to pay these things down? Absolutely. However, I'm also responsible for the choices I make. Many people make more than I do and don't save as much, many More people make less and dri…

I don't think I played with the words. No debt == freedom. And to have no debt isn't easy mostly due to social pressure - keeping up with the Jones. But it wouldn't really hurt to plan in such a way that before one hits 45 they are debt free and own house among other things.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#286

Post by nilkn »

mattmanser wrote: post #267
orofino wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the problem though - you don't need to buy the BMW or the suburban McMansion. Save that money instead and when you're in your 40 you can tell the boss that he should give you job to a whipper-snapper, you're headed to Thailand. No one holds a gun to the consumer's head, they just convince themselves they need thing. Then they whine when they haven't saved more than 300k for retirement at age 50 and social secu…

The vast majority of people will get married and have kids and actually want to enjoy life a little bit while working 9-5. They want to stay near their close family & friends, because they love them and want to see them and want their kids to grow up around them. Which means spending X per month on a house. They want to have a car that doesn't embarrass them when they drive into work or round their friends, because o…

> They want to have a car that doesn't embarrass them when they drive into work or round their friends, because owning a BMW has been a secret dream and it's a totally reasonable price, and a smooth ride and great acceleration.

This is really pushing it. Anybody buying a BMW on $100k in Silicon Valley while paying SV-level rents is a pretty big over-consumer. If you have a family on top of that, well... you won't be retiring any time soon.

I also find it odd that you jump immediately from "a car that doesn't embarrass them" to BMW. There's no in between? You have to go all the way to a luxury BMW to not be embarrassed by your car?

By all means, if you really value owning a BMW then get one, but unless you're making considerably north of $100k you don't have a strong case for not being an over-consumer.

You know how much $100k was when the term "six figure salary" started being used in the early 60s? Let me put it this way. The rich Donald Draper on Mad Men made $45k. $100k would have been more like $800k today. That was a CEO's salary. A "six figure salary" today is nothing like what it was when that term was coined.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#287

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #262
LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is as man made as theory of evolution. It's been discovered. Or it's just the way the societies always worked. Most efficient. Capitalism as an ideology is just noting the fact. Not inventing, just realization of how brutally nature is and how brutally it works. Socialism is invention from the realization that capitalism is morally bad. It's exactly like vegetarians agenda: killing animals is morally wrong…

Capitalism is a recent invention. Societies in the past were not capitalistic, I challenge you to find one. They were imperialistic, mercantilistic, corporatist, fascistic, communal, the list goes on. Adam Smith invented capitalism as a response to the mercantilism of 18th century England.

>Capitalism is a recent invention. Societies in the past were not capitalistic, I challenge you to find one.

They all were. Not in social sense, but in the economic one. The challenge makes no sense. What is capitalism? As long as you let the markets work and don't interfere with people decisions on the market on a permanent basis this is capitalism. As you let the capital flow and accumulate. Once you impose restrictions to it based on ideology based in distrust to free economy or marktes, you don't have true capitalism. I.e. in communism private property is banned. Actually in some instances communists were propagating the idea of moneyless society. You haven't had such an assault on the idea of making money before socialism was invented. The first person who traded results of their labor for results of labor of someone else was a capitalist. And that's how it has always worked. Actually, even imposing penalties on people for doing trade, owning property, etc. as was common in communistic states, didn't change people's behavior who still wanted to enrich themselves. Meaning we are capitalists by design, it's as natural as eating meat. Might be inconvenient morally, but the facts are facts. Smith merely discovered/noticed the phenomenon and gave it a name. So not soon later it could have been and was attacked, but as long as our DNA doesn't change we are and will be capitalistic beings.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#288

Post by giantSlayer »

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 the contrary, money motivates people. How can you get it? Through working, but in the end they will enjoy. I hope.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#289

Post by nickthemagicman »

IS even the question of leading a meaningful fulfilling life uniquely modern?

How many cavemen or Egyptians or middle age serfs were running around saying "Boy I need more experiences to give my life meaning"?

Maybe we have amazing lives and because we are human beings we are always looking for more.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#290

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

eshvk wrote: post #173
VexXtreme wrote: post #82

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! And this exact kind of thinking is what the societal overlords want yo…

It is funny you should say this. A friend recently had me interview for his company. He is a great guy, works too much, wakes up in the middle of the nights when he is on call. His boss started off by agreeing that yes, the friend worked too much. He may even have used the word burning out. He then hastened to tell me about his theory in life. Your 20s and 30s are meant to be a time for learning. Apparently, this "le…

My reply to this: anytime I see 50 year old bold fat guy in a Porsche 911 it's depressing.

EDIT: should really be pathetic and sad and not depressing, but I think you get my point. Youth and health are so precious that no amount of money compensates ever.

Post reply on HN