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

The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 288 posts

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#51

Post by [deleted] »

tluyben2 wrote: post #23
MCRed wrote: post #2

Look ma, that's me! Free of a soul crushing corporate job, back to doing a "startup", I may not have the cash rolling in, but at least I'm in control of my destiny. Hey Ma, I'm moving in! I think there are a lot of people out there like me. I have some money coming from side projects, several opportunities to grow that, and several opportunities for new side projects. And quite a long personal runway before I have to…

I have never had 'a job' and had startups (and later mature companies) since I was 15 (I am 40 now). I am not sure what age you are, but you need to know this thing for sure if you are past, I think, around 30 as running a life like this can be very painful. There simply is a tiny chance of 'big success' while most just live in almost poverty the first 20-30 years of doing this. That's also why I think you are probab…

[deleted]

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#52

Post by rjsw »

XorNot wrote: post #20
IndianAstronaut wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One common trend I have seen in my social circle is the lack of any employable skills. They may or may not have college degrees, but in general their degrees did not give them concrete job skills or they don't have a degree and no skilled trade. What would ideally happen is people learn a skilled trade if they are stuck on the job market. This training should also happen in high school.

Except the education system is bad at picking winners. What's in demand when you're in highschool is not what's in demand by the time you're entering the workforce.

I remember finding that "Computer Programmer" wasn't listed as a possible job when we got careers advice as early teens.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#53

Post by [deleted] »

briandear wrote: post #39
jsilva wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "privileged classes", not sure i understood your idea ?

All it takes is a computer, hard work and dedication. The 'poor' manage to find the time to surf the net, why not spend the time learning how to build the net? It's a simplistic idea, but it is definitely possible. I lived out of my car for months until I was able to turn it around by using my computer for something besides surfing MySpace.

[deleted]

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#54

Post by zo1 »

blazespin wrote: post #50

The problem is there is a multiplier affect from technology today that causes unemployment. The average IQ required to be economically relevant is increasing each year.

Do you have any alternatives to what we seem to be doing at the moment? Namely, propping those individuals up from life-failure by state aide programs funded by people that are able to sustain themselves and supposedly others.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#55

Post by melvinmt »

threatofrain wrote: post #44
briandear wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it takes is a computer, hard work and dedication. The 'poor' manage to find the time to surf the net, why not spend the time learning how to build the net? It's a simplistic idea, but it is definitely possible. I lived out of my car for months until I was able to turn it around by using my computer for something besides surfing MySpace.

I think the sad fact is that so many people are now in front of vast, utterly vast learning resources, and it just doesn't matter. Rich or poor, there are numerous people sitting in front of extreme learning resources, and they'll never do anything with it unless there's this enormous infrastructure designed to remedy issues of motivation and planning. And that's where I think the difference is between rich and poor;…

It's a common misconception that the inability of poor people to learn/grow is related to motivation or "laziness", you should read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Scarcity-having-little-means-much-eboo...

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#56

Post by marvin »

zo1 wrote: post #54
blazespin wrote: post #50

The problem is there is a multiplier affect from technology today that causes unemployment. The average IQ required to be economically relevant is increasing each year.

Do you have any alternatives to what we seem to be doing at the moment? Namely, propping those individuals up from life-failure by state aide programs funded by people that are able to sustain themselves and supposedly others.

I would say that this is actually a good solution. It's lopsided today since we don't officially acknowledge that this is what we're doing, but if the trend continues, you and I will also eventually be hit by this development (unless we're exceedingly lucky).

Global wealth tax on large personal fortunes (say, 0.2-1.0% per annum of fortunes greater than $2MM) and even redistribution to everyone will make the solution more transparent and fair.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#57

Post by _glass »

asgard1024 wrote: post #36
shutupalready wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> companies hoarding cash instead of spending it I've heard this sentiment many times but I've wondered if there's an economic fallacy there. Would the economy be better off if lots of companies stopped hoarding cash and hired lots of new employees? Or would there be side-effects like inflation, or some effect of pulling out cash from whatever it was invested in, etc.? Serious question.

First of all, you have to understand that "state where everybody is better off" is not something that's given. Everybody can be rational and still be worse off - prisoner's dilemma is a canonical example. Economic fallacy there is, but it's in standard economic theory. Standard economics claims that only sensible things to do are investment and consumption, and considers savings to be a waste. But the savings are not…

This is the typical principle agent problem, it depends of the ownership of the company. If it is privately hold, then savings make sense and you have to optimize for sustainability, i.e. otherwise your private savings are nilified. But if the company is widely spread by shareholders, then you have the maximize value by concentrating on one product, and leverage by keeping down the risk factor while still maintaining a high enough earnings on capital rate. The risk is adverted by the shareholders themselves that have their own portfolio of companies.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#58

Post by _glass »

venomsnake wrote: post #33
barry-cotter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've heard this sentiment many times but I've wondered if there's an economic fallacy there. There is, it's a confusion between money and capacity. That money is an option, the possibility of getting people to do things for you. Unused money is paper. > Would the economy be better off if lots of companies stopped hoarding cash and hired lots of new employees? The economy is an abstraction. It can't be better off. B…

But we cannot produce more, because the unemployed don't consume. So we lay of people. It is a death spiral.

This is also wrong. You just have to switch what to produce and to whom. There are many starving people in the world, and quite a lot new medicals to invent and so on.
Post reply on HN