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

Are you paid to look busy?

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#211

Post by [deleted] »

kyllo wrote: post #133
paulhauggis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds great, but you still need money to survive. This would mean that the few that did work would essentially be supporting the rest of society. Why would I ever want to start a million dollar business if I knew the majority of my earnings would be taken from me by the government to support people that didn't need to do anything?? You don't have to get a crappy job and work for someone you hate for the rest of…

How is supporting people by employing them in unproductive bullshit jobs any better than supporting them with basic income? They are getting paid to do nothing of value either way.

[deleted]

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#212

Post by delinka »

ryandrake wrote: post #22

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery becau…

I can appreciate this line of thinking. I'm willing to endorse this philosophy. But only if it's not enforced on me. I'll take care of my family. I make enough to "employ" my children to pursue their passions. I'm unwilling to provide support for total strangers to just live lazily. Someone else who's single and making good money wants to supports this system? Excellent, he can donate to (or found perhaps) an organization designed for supporting it.

There's no reason either of us in this example should be compelled to support those we are not willing to support. The major difference is that he can create a non-profit foundation to contribute to (and gain a tax break) and I need to form a for-profit business (in the US one cannot create a non-profit for the sole benefit of one's own family.)

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#213

Post by sidcool »

I was in Houston for a couple of years in 2011-2012 for a big bank in the capacity of a Software Engineer. The environment there was caustic and anti-relaxation. The people introduced artificial stresses to sound and seem important (mostly to avoid being laid off). There's one manager especially who reminded me of a wolf on prowl. He roamed about in the office from time to time and shouted orders arbitrarily at people. Most of them ignored him, but he seemed important to many. I got tired of the constant bickering and unnecessary meetings, left the job.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#214

Post by simonebrunozzi »

forfengeligfaen wrote: post #209
waps wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) the majority of the population would just sit at home, either in front of the TV or on drugs. For one of two reasons : disappointment in their own abilities or because they just don't aspire to anything else. I think you'll agree this is undesirable, so how would you prevent it ? 2) Look at a few rich kids in college/university who are doing this now. There's two problems : a) what they find important is worthless…

1/ I think you're right, many people will sit at home, but this is their choice and I'm personally OK with it. 2/ Don't agree many inventions are serendipitous http://www.geniusstuff.com/blog/list/10-accidental-invention... 3/ If robots can't do these jobs, wages will rise until somebody is incentivised to do them

Unless the drug "Soma" exists (from Huxley's Brave New World).

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#215

Post by Dylan16807 »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #194
alayne wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are your comments in this thread so rude?

I didn't perceived any rudeness. A tint of anger, which by the way I sympathise with, hardly rudeness.

Interpreting the phrase 'nothing more' in such a ridiculous manner, to rant at, is quite rude.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#216

Post by loup-vaillant »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #215
loup-vaillant wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't perceived any rudeness. A tint of anger, which by the way I sympathise with, hardly rudeness.

Interpreting the phrase 'nothing more' in such a ridiculous manner, to rant at, is quite rude.

Context.

WalterBright was being quite blind (maybe even a bit passive-aggressive) about what's actually required to start a company: one's gotta eat. DougWebb eventually lashed out, and now he's being perceived as the rude one.

He was not. He was just frustrated.

---

By the way, the situation would be very different if we had sufficient basic income. If you can count on the state (or the community, or whatever) to give you enough to eat, then starting a company suddenly becomes much less risky, if at all. Then speaking about needing "nothing more" than an affordable device stops being ridiculous.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#217

Post by Dylan16807 »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #216
Dylan16807 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interpreting the phrase 'nothing more' in such a ridiculous manner, to rant at, is quite rude.

Context. WalterBright was being quite blind (maybe even a bit passive-aggressive) about what's actually required to start a company: one's gotta eat. DougWebb eventually lashed out, and now he's being perceived as the rude one. He was not. He was just frustrated. --- By the way, the situation would be very different if we had sufficient basic income. If you can count on the state (or the community, or whatever) to gi…

>one's gotta eat

Of course, but you assume starting a company as immediate comprehensive self-employment. If you start a company out of your spare time, then you really do need almost nothing for the company.

I only see two of WalterBright's comments but they don't seem passive-aggressive at all. DougWebb is right only to the extent that he ignores WalterBright's actual meaning, so lashing out is not appropriate. But even if it was appropriate, it's still rudeness. You can be right and rude.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#218

Post by loup-vaillant »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #217
loup-vaillant wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context. WalterBright was being quite blind (maybe even a bit passive-aggressive) about what's actually required to start a company: one's gotta eat. DougWebb eventually lashed out, and now he's being perceived as the rude one. He was not. He was just frustrated. --- By the way, the situation would be very different if we had sufficient basic income. If you can count on the state (or the community, or whatever) to gi…

>one's gotta eat Of course, but you assume starting a company as immediate comprehensive self-employment. If you start a company out of your spare time, then you really do need almost nothing for the company. I only see two of WalterBright's comments but they don't seem passive-aggressive at all. DougWebb is right only to the extent that he ignores WalterBright's actual meaning, so lashing out is not appropriate. But…

I concede your second paragraph.

---

I'd wager that starting a company in your spare time is very hard. Even harder if you have a family: you must make time for your day job, your family, and your new company. This can easily turn into a recipe for burnout. This approach is risky too. (I'm not mentioning family out of the blue. Most people wait to have some experience in their field before they start a company. That means sailing past 30, and often having children.)

Now you can try and balance things out: instead of working full time or not at all, you can work part time. You make less money, but you have more time. That's probably the most sustainable approach. Still, you're split between two jobs, which may or may not drag you down. Now the problem is finding that part time job.

There's also consulting, but that's its own kind of risky.

WalterBright made it sound like sustaining yourself while you build the company isn't difficult nor risky. Like the only difficulty is building the company itself. It's not.

Now if we had Basic Income, that would be a different story.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#219

Post by DougWebb »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #217
loup-vaillant wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context. WalterBright was being quite blind (maybe even a bit passive-aggressive) about what's actually required to start a company: one's gotta eat. DougWebb eventually lashed out, and now he's being perceived as the rude one. He was not. He was just frustrated. --- By the way, the situation would be very different if we had sufficient basic income. If you can count on the state (or the community, or whatever) to gi…

>one's gotta eat Of course, but you assume starting a company as immediate comprehensive self-employment. If you start a company out of your spare time, then you really do need almost nothing for the company. I only see two of WalterBright's comments but they don't seem passive-aggressive at all. DougWebb is right only to the extent that he ignores WalterBright's actual meaning, so lashing out is not appropriate. But…

The problem with Walters' comments, and yours, and the reason I made the statements I made is the assumption that people have spare time.

The discussion started with a statement that you don't have to work at a crappy job for someone you hate; you can just start a business and work for yourself. That was followed with a comment that most people can't do that because they don't have any capital (savings specifically) with which to start a business. Then Walter made a couple of comments saying that you can start a business with 'essentially nothing', and that there is little downside risk to doing so.

What I was trying to point out is that this is not true for the majority of people "working a crappy job for someone they hate", because those people need to work that job to feed and house themselves. They're often working multiple jobs, in fact. Spare time is a type of capital when it comes to starting a business; if you don't have it (and most lower-income people don't) than you're trapped.

Re: Are you paid to look busy?

#220

Post by Dylan16807 »

DougWebb wrote: post #219
Dylan16807 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>one's gotta eat Of course, but you assume starting a company as immediate comprehensive self-employment. If you start a company out of your spare time, then you really do need almost nothing for the company. I only see two of WalterBright's comments but they don't seem passive-aggressive at all. DougWebb is right only to the extent that he ignores WalterBright's actual meaning, so lashing out is not appropriate. But…

The problem with Walters' comments, and yours, and the reason I made the statements I made is the assumption that people have spare time. The discussion started with a statement that you don't have to work at a crappy job for someone you hate; you can just start a business and work for yourself. That was followed with a comment that most people can't do that because they don't have any capital (savings specifically)…

One job at minimum wage is significantly over the poverty line as long as you're not a single parent receiving no child support. I would assert that under normal circumstances, with no massive hospital bills, with either one child max or someone helping to raise your children, that you can manage 10 hours a week starting a business.
Post reply on HN