Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly you still haven't read the link I provided, which provides numbers after adjusting for purchasing power . I'd provide you with more statistics showing how wealthy poor Americans are ( http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf ), but clearly you aren't going to read any numbers. So instead, go watch about 4 minutes of Delhi Belly (good movie, BTW, vastly better than typical Bollywood crap) which always c…
What's so terribly wrong about those scenes? After applying cinema discount. They don't drink your juice in the USA? I will pick middle-class Indian over poor American every day, because: you won't get shot, you won't land in prison, you won't have to work three jobs for funny money, you'll have a real family and your children won't do drugs. Instead you'll be raking in some respect.
The real use of money is to buy freedom
111–120 of 303 posts
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#112Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#113This article and the bulk of the comments strike me as shortsighted. Money is the driver of industry. The more you have, the more you can direct resources towards productive activity. The idea of money being freedom is a great comparison, which I make myself often. The OP and others here however largely limit their notions to hedonistic freedoms and critiquing buying "things." What about building that school or the p…
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#114Freedom is indeed bought with money, but not in the way that most people think. There's a shell game going on right now for the lowest class worker.
At the time the US economy had it's "oh shit" moment around 2007-2008, I was working at a marketing research company. At the time I was working from home being paid by the hour, but there wasn't a lot of work coming in. I was broke most times after paying bills, so I had to find a quick patch job.
I began working at a McDonald's. At this point I was staying available online for most of the day until the afternoon, at which I would go to McDonald's and work all night. I found a bartender gig and started to work that on my off days of McDonald's.
At that point, I was making good money, but there wasn't any time I had to myself. I ended up quitting the marketing research job, as I was making more from McDonald's alone.
Now I was making OK money, but still not having a single day off. The bartender gig was getting more and more violent (I worked at a rough R&B club getting paid under the table). I eventually left the bartending job (there was a shooting there less than a week later). I don't think I need to explain what life was like working only at McDonald's, even if I was being paid more than most non-managers.
It's a bit hard to communicate what was exactly wrong with this picture. As a low wage worker, it was impossible for me to both have time and money, or leverage either of them to get myself into a better position.
When I had money, I had no time to leverage it. I couldn't finish a degree, I couldn't even keep a girlfriend. It was easy to slip into depression and substance abuse. I drank a lot. When I did get the chance to go out and have fun, it was to the extreme.
When I didn't have money but I had time, it was equally as bad. I couldn't go out to bars, I barely could keep up on bills. I couldn't take time off to go to the doctor. I couldn't afford to lose hours, nor afford the doctor's visit. When I had to go to the emergency room, I had to take the hit to my credit. I couldn't go across town or go to the show, I was behind on either electric or gas most months. And electric people have no qualms in shutting off your power and then laughing in your face when you say you can't even cook food.
It's interesting to me that when you're in that trap, it's almost impossible to pull yourself out. On one end of the spectrum, if you have the money to better yourself, you don't have the time to do so. You can't leverage the three jobs on resumes, nor is that a replacement for a degree.
On the other end, if you work one or two jobs, you don't have money enough to get a degree, or take a vacation, or take sick days, or go to the doctor, or change cities, or go to a concert, or have a night on the town, or even (sometimes) keeping internet.
So yes, I would argue that the real use of money is to buy freedom. It's just that most don't realize it, until they are stuck at the very bottom wondering how the hell they can get out. I'm not saying I did everything perfect, but I don't feel I did anything horribly wrong either.
And I'm doing fine now. I ended up getting with a start up doing Node.js and frontend JS work, which was enough to jump start my career.
EDIT: And yes, technically I'm falling into a logical fallacy here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#115I love liberty, and I loathe constraint, dependence, and all their kindred annoyances. As long as my purse contains money it secures my independence, and exempts me from the trouble of seeking other money, a trouble of which I have always had a perfect horror; and the dread of seeing the end of my independence, makes me proportionately unwilling to part with my money.
The money that we possess is the instrument of liberty, that which we lack and strive to obtain is the instrument of slavery.
He did not have a blog, but he did know how to say a lot with just a few words!
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#116Tim O'Reilly on money: It’s easy to get caught up in the heady buzz of making money. You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself. Money is like gas in the car — you need to pay attention or you’ll end up on the side of the road — but a well-lived life is not a tour of gas stations! Source: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/work-on-stuff-that-matters-...
> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries. This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we…
1) People freely exchange goods and services.
2) Wealth is distributed without free exchange.
It's a spectrum not an absolute.
In free exchange (me trading with my boss or with Google or with a grocery store) I will never enter into a trade that has a lower expected value than the dollar value I'm giving up. In other words in every exchange I will either gain value or match value.
On the second side of the spectrum I (me with the government, me with a slaver) will enter into a trade regardless of its outcome - meaning that I could lose value on any trade (for instance by paying into a poorly run social program, supporting a war that I disagree with or paying to be spied on). Also closer to the second range there becomes a coercive aspect where I am forced into something at the threat of violence (pay taxes or go to prison).
Evidence shows the more freely exchanged goods and services there are (with some exceptions) the more productive the country. See: http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html
If strong property laws are in place alongside an impartial justice system and limited government (one not influenced by wealth) human choice, good or bad, is respected and freedom reigns. When government is large and powerful or the justice system doesn't function properly (can be bought) coercion reigns.
Those who would rather not provide value (or believe that their value is worth more than others will give them for it) may prefer the coercive side.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries. This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we…
I think that's a simplistic view. Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. This value is exchanged for money, which allows the rich to draw back this value as they see fit. Lets imagine that Steve Jobs, instead of getting paid for his iPhones, sold them in exchange for a person's time. The average hourly wage in USA is approximately $24, meaning an iPhone would retail for abou…
Let's reframe. Our economic system is capitalism. That means I can exclusively control (via state force) a region's natural resources (a "property" relation between me and everyone else in the universe). It also means that most people try to rent themselves out, giving themselves up to someone's command for half their waking lives, in what is called wage slavery.
The more bargaining power the wealthy elites have, the less they have to pay their subordinates, and can impose worse working conditions. Another phenomenon is you can have a city with as many empty houses as homeless people... when property relations are extended to the virtual, unauthorized sharing/using ideas and computer bits are criminalized.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#118Tim O'Reilly on money: It’s easy to get caught up in the heady buzz of making money. You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself. Money is like gas in the car — you need to pay attention or you’ll end up on the side of the road — but a well-lived life is not a tour of gas stations! Source: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/work-on-stuff-that-matters-...
> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries. This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we…
http://paulgraham.com/gap.html
Wealth is not a zero sum game.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's so terribly wrong about those scenes? After applying cinema discount. They don't drink your juice in the USA? I will pick middle-class Indian over poor American every day, because: you won't get shot, you won't land in prison, you won't have to work three jobs for funny money, you'll have a real family and your children won't do drugs. Instead you'll be raking in some respect.
I live in Iowa; those things you mention are the comic-book version of America. Nobody is shooting anybody around here; only college students end up in jail, overnight, when they leave the bars at 2AM and wander in the streets and might hurt themselves.
I guess that mainland states' countryside is one thing and urban poverty in large cities is another thing. One more reason to take income rankings with a grain of salt. As a preedictor of lifestyle.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#120I'm kind of disappointed, I was hoping for a bit more than a "rich people get obsessed with getting richer" type of story (still a good piece). Freedom is indeed bought with money, but not in the way that most people think. There's a shell game going on right now for the lowest class worker. At the time the US economy had it's "oh shit" moment around 2007-2008, I was working at a marketing research company. At the ti…
How much money were you spending on alcohol and the few times you went out "crazy"? Substance abuse sounds like a few beers a night - costing $20 a week or so? That's two hours of free time (closer to three) a week.
I would really like to see a breakdown of your expenses during that period of your life.