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

The Shut-In Economy

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 348 posts

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#131

Post by JohnBooty »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #110
hoboon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>cool friends, lovely girlfriend. I don't have any of those.

I don't quite know what to say... although I nearly wouldn't have, either. My girlfriend fell in love just as I was slipping into this new shut-in life. She had to adjust to me not really wanting to go to a cafe, movie, restaurant, park, museum, party, friends etc. It's the reason I wanted to break up and told her it's not going to work out like this. But she refused and stayed with me, we moved in together and it's…

This is similar to my life in a lot of ways! I feel you on a lot of these things. Although I was always pretty happy spending most of my time alone, and I didn't do a lot of traveling.

I think if I had to sum it all up, I'd say that the things I value just aren't really obtained by doing a lot of shallow socializing. I'd rather have a few very close friends, and I'd rather do a few things very well than do a bunch of things on a superficial level.

One thing that really helped me was getting a dog a few years ago. It was my wife's idea so I can't take any credit for it. But having a living (and loving) creature depending on me has definitely been good for getting me to take plenty of walks. I don't ever want to recommend a dog as some kind of self-improvement tool... they're sentient creatures, not accessories, and are a big commitment! But he's really been a wonderful influence.

  > Traveled Europe, Africa, Asia and North America by the time 
  > I was 20.
Do you think it's possible that you don't feel a need to do these things precisely because you've already done them?

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#132

Post by huehehue »

JohnBooty wrote: post #91

I don't feel like ordering things online makes me a shut-in at all - just the opposite. I work a lot, and by spending less time on the drudgery of brick-and-mortar shopping, I have more time to spend on the things that matter to me. Including socializing. Yeah, maybe I leave the house less, but are those trips to the store really "quality time?" Making a run to Wal-Mart or the supermarket to buy toilet paper is time…

So would you say there's now a greater efficiency to your social interactions knowing that they are, for the most part, more uncommon? There could be something to be gained by learning not to take personal transactions for granted, but I'm curious as to whether there's any proof/metrics for that.

Also, playing devil's advocate, but I don't see how the online shopping experience is any better - sure, there isn't human pressure, but there's targeted advertising and dark patterns. It's unlikely to be served an ad AFK that knows your browsing patterns, preferences, etc.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#133

Post by invalidOrTaken »

From the other side:

I worked for one of the on-demand valet services in SF for a few months a few months ago. Basically I loitered around on the street all day, waiting for my company-issued iPhone to send me running or biking to either pick up someone's car or return it.

What was driven (ba-dum) home to me was how buildings in a city are built defensively, to keep out the riff-raff (myself being a member of such).

The implications are somewhat worrying.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#134

Post by smacktoward »

campers wrote: post #60

The most 'jarring' part in the article was "But when the Homejoy app maid shows up at her apartment, she feels uncomfortable. The class implications of someone cleaning her toilet are jarring." Income inequality will always exist in capitalistic society and to a certain level that's ok. Whats not so cool it to feel as if they are inferior just because thats how they're making the best of their life circumstances. As…

> Being polite to them and treating them equally as another human goes a long way.

Yeah, but it goes a longer way to make sure they're paid a living wage for their work, and that they're not being exploited by you or their employer (by not paying into their Social Security, say).

Part of the class weirdness around these jobs comes from the way the rich want people to do them, but they don't really want to pay what it would cost to have someone do them legally. So a whole gray market emerges of companies offering cheaper cleaning services by taking advantage of workers who don't have a lot of options, due to things like not being fluent in the local language or lacking proper immigration documents.

Homejoy's particular dodge to keep costs down is insisting its cleaners aren't actually employees of Homejoy; by classifying them as independent contractors, Homejoy can skip out on all sorts of expenses, like paying the minimum wage, providing health and retirement benefits, and reimbursing them for work-related expenses they pay out of pocket. Homejoy cleaners actually just launched a lawsuit against the company to challenge their classification -- see http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Homejoy-Postmate....

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#135

Post by sowhatquestion »

ninguem2 wrote: post #10
sowhatquestion wrote: post #7

I don't have the historical knowledge to do it myself, but it would be fascinating to read an in-depth comparison between these services and the economy of servants in the 19th or early-20th century. The image in my head (from movies and books and reading [about] Piketty) is that the wealthy in earlier eras were more idle, living off rents rather than incomes. I imagine servants would have been more of a status symbo…

I don't think servants were just status symbols. Cooking, cleaning and laundry without appliances was a very time consuming job which probably occupied the days of the wife and daughters of a family with no servants. Add to that inconvenient shopping, clothes mending, child care.

You're absolutely right. I'm not sure why this didn't come to mind immediately. I guess I was just trying to get at the distinction between people employing servants in order to enjoy more leisure vs. employing them in order to have more time to work.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#136

Post by lfowles »

nahname wrote: post #125
JohnBooty wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the one! $60/week for three meals for two. More expensive than groceries but cheaper than dining out! The meals take about 20-30 minutes to prepare and cook. It's been working for us.

I'm spending over $100 a week per person right now on groceries. Really goes to show how expensive food is in Canada.

After the last Soylent discussion here, I reevaluated my diet and ended up going with emeals to do breakfast/lunch/dinner plans. Food went from $300/mo to $450/mo. It go to show that there's a lot of variance!. I don't feel like the old meal plan was worse, it certainly felt adequate. (But I am getting 2 more good meals a day.)

Edit: I just realized that's your per-person figure. Mine is for two. That is quite expensive :(

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#137

Post by sowhatquestion »

Animats wrote: post #95
sowhatquestion wrote: post #7

I don't have the historical knowledge to do it myself, but it would be fascinating to read an in-depth comparison between these services and the economy of servants in the 19th or early-20th century. The image in my head (from movies and books and reading [about] Piketty) is that the wealthy in earlier eras were more idle, living off rents rather than incomes. I imagine servants would have been more of a status symbo…

"it would be fascinating to read an in-depth comparison between these services and the economy of servants in the 19th or early-20th century." See "The Edwardian Country House", the BBC/PBS series. It's a reality show for which the producers staffed a large mansion with the staff it had a century ago and sent a family to live there. All the servants had to live by the rules of that era. The lower-level servants were…

I'll check this out, thanks.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#138

Post by pushrax »

nahname wrote: post #125
JohnBooty wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the one! $60/week for three meals for two. More expensive than groceries but cheaper than dining out! The meals take about 20-30 minutes to prepare and cook. It's been working for us.

I'm spending over $100 a week per person right now on groceries. Really goes to show how expensive food is in Canada.

Though that same $100 is less than $80 USD right now (sigh).

I find that I can get groceries, without skimping, for less than $100/person, it just takes some optimizing and sometimes deciding what to make based on what's on sale. Also, buying products lower down the processing chain generally makes things cheaper as well.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#139

Post by IkmoIkmo »

ars wrote: post #118
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite know what to say... although I nearly wouldn't have, either. My girlfriend fell in love just as I was slipping into this new shut-in life. She had to adjust to me not really wanting to go to a cafe, movie, restaurant, park, museum, party, friends etc. It's the reason I wanted to break up and told her it's not going to work out like this. But she refused and stayed with me, we moved in together and it's…

Does she see these messages you are writing? It's a bit of an odd suggestions, but consider having kids. Kids have a way of needing things, that just transcends all the meaningless excuses you have for not getting anything done. Make it a point that it's YOU that takes them to school, or shopping or whatever. Or if shopping is too confusing to do alone make a point that the whole family goes. That it's you that makes…

> Does she see these messages you are writing?

Nope, unless she tries to find it. HN is in my favorites and it auto-logins. But she's really not the type for that. I think it'd be pretty painful to read although she knows the bulk of it.

> It's a bit of an odd suggestions, but consider having kids.

Still 24, so that'd be really early for us, not something I'd love to have so early in my life (although I can imagine how nice it'd be to still be 44 with an adult kid!).

Beyond that though it's also not something I'd feel is appropriate. It's definitely true that if I'd have kids right now I'd probably solve the symptoms of whatever problem I have, completely agree with you there. I'm that type of person, as most people are, to my girlfriend for example. If she needs me I'll be there, if she has stuff planned for a birthday, or is going to graduate or needs a running partner for motivation, I'll suddenly be up for going out with her. And it's certainly true that people have had kids for less. But this issue is not something I'd ever want to use as a reason to have kids in and of itself, despite any of that.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#140

Post by euske »

Afforess wrote: post #70

I guess call me crazy, but I really enjoy chores. They aren't always pleasent, but they are a diversion. I can listen to NPR podcasts while grocery shopping. I catch up on the "Stuff you should know" podcast while cleaning and vacuuming my apartment. And I enjoy a walk around the area in the evenings when the weather is nice out. The diversions are where I can really think. I often have too many distractions at the c…

To me, what's really great is the feel of independence.

When I do chores (or any work really) I'm always thinking like "Look, Ma - I can do this on my own!" even when nobody around is watching me. I guess the feeling that you can learn those small things and take care of yourself help boosting your confidence a lot. That said, I admit that there are many things I can't do - like making my own garment or my own transistors. But I'm trying to expand my abilities, and this everyday learning process helps me keep having positive attitudes towards many things (because you're often surprised by how little you knew about things that you've taken for granted!).

A little side note. I work for disabled (blind) people and often I feel sorry for them not being able to do some of very simple chores without help by sighted people. Let them have a chance to enjoy their own chores. That would be a good society.

Post reply on HN