The Shut-In Economy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#291

Post by maratd » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 5:04 PM UTC

JohnBooty wrote: post #278

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: I just realized that's your per-person figure. Mine is for two. That is quite expensive :( $450 a month is definitely a lot by my standards, where/what do you tend to buy? But comparing it to his $60/w, $240/m, isn't quite fair. His meal plan is for 6 meals at $10 a meal. Considering you'll want a meal everyday, that's $300 a month and that's just for dinner. If you add breakfast and lunch he's either paying…

> $10 a meal is just crazy expensive for a cooked meal. Yes. I have to be clear that Blue Apron only makes economic sense for us in the sense that it has replaced dining out to a large extent. A sit-down dinner for two usually winds up being at least $50 including the tip. If you use it to replace restaurants, it's a win. If you use it to replace groceries... well, kudos to you if you can afford it. :) (Another cavea…

> If you use it to replace groceries... well, kudos to you if you can afford it.

It really depends on where you live and what your time is worth. An hour every week at the grocery store, gas, wear on the car vs going once every two weeks. Also, with fresh groceries, my meals generally run in the 7 dollar area.

If I value my time at 100 per hour, plus gas, I'm definitely saving money, even if I'm not using it to replace eating out. I live in NYC, for reference.

EDIT: Ok, I wanted to do the math. So at 3 dollars more per meal, per person, I would be paying an extra 3 (additional expense per meal) * 6 (meals in a week) * 4 (weeks in a month) = 72 (additional expense per month). If I'm saving two trips to the groceries and my time is worth 100 per hour, 100 * 2 - 72 = 128. So I'm up by 128 bucks. That's not factoring in the novelty of it or the time spent planning meals/ingredients.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#292

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 5:12 PM UTC

mrec wrote: post #215

wutbrodo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2015, there is less need than ever for us to all live in the same few places. That's an interesting perspective. I've heard (and believe) the exact opposite. In 2015, there's no need to incur the (well-studied) economic, environmental, and cultural costs of low population density. Not to mention it's kind of bizarre to assume that it's clearly _better_ that having a population of only 2,000 people from which to…

> Your environment is what you make of it. Alternatively, maybe different people genuinely prefer different environments. You appear to be an extreme extrovert, so it's no great surprise that you enjoy living in a metropolis. Other people aren't, and don't.

>Alternatively, maybe different people genuinely prefer different environments.

I fully agree. My comment was in response to the fact that the person I was responding to was casting a smaller town ad unequivocally better from a social perspective (ie saying that the economic benefits of big city life have been removed so now everyone is free to enjoy the social superiority of a small town).

> You appear to be an extreme extrovert

That's a fair assumption but believe it or not I consider myself quite far from extroverted. I just kinds go through moods where I feel more social and other times enjoy being alone more. The nice thing about the city is that it offers more freedom in both directions. For those days where I don't feel like socializing, I can still go wherever I want without recognizing anyone or bumping into anyone (for the most part) if that's what I choose to do.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#293

Post by tedks » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

gress wrote: post #145

tedks wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not science. Science is sometimes harder than a single test. For example, there's no blood test for autism. There's no blood test for PTSD. But my best friend's brother took years to talk to me, and sometimes still goes into rages; one of my partners would wake up in the middle of the night convinced I was trying to kill her. Brains, minds, reinforcement learning systems, are complicated. By entirely abstrac…

All this is not relevant to the fact that there is no evidence for depression being caused by a chemical imbalance.

Yes, the point of my post was not to argue for the serotonin hypothesis of depression. If you think that, might I suggest that you missed my point, and you should perhaps reread with an eye towards absorbing novel information and viewpoints rather than trying to classify literally everything as either on a FOR or AGAINST side in a binary argument?

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#294

Post by eigenvector » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 5:43 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #184

eigenvector wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Retail shopping is usually freaking depressing - the employees and customers are often rude, and you're bombarded from all angles with sights and sounds designed to entice (or scare) you into buying things you don't need. No thank you. That's not about retail, that's about urban life. I live in a town of less than 2,000 people. There's one grocery store, and when you go there you recognize at least half the people…

> In 2015, there is less need than ever for us to all live in the same few places. That's an interesting perspective. I've heard (and believe) the exact opposite. In 2015, there's no need to incur the (well-studied) economic, environmental, and cultural costs of low population density. Not to mention it's kind of bizarre to assume that it's clearly _better_ that having a population of only 2,000 people from which to…

Small towns aren't unequivocally better, but they are better for some people, such as people like the GP who might prefer not to be constantly thrust into large groups of unfamiliar people. For a long time they weren't really an option unless you wanted to do menial work you whole life. I'm merely pointing out that they are once again an option, if the small town lifestyle is what you prefer.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#295

Post by lfowles » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

smackfu wrote: post #283

venomsnake wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With no knead bread, sous vide, a pressure cooker, and a tiny bit of planning you can have from scratch meals with less than 5 minutes hands on time per day.

People tend to vastly underestimate the time needed for amateur cooks to do prep work. A lot of people need 5 minutes just to chop an onion.

Yep, I start a "30 minute" recipe and 30 minutes later I've only now gotten the ingredients out of the fridge/spice drawer/cupboard and prepared as per the ingredients list.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#296

Post by asgard1024 » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 6:14 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #183

asgard1024 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think parent is exactly right. I feel similar to the OP, but I know for sure it's not a depression. And I think I suffer the same problem the parent described. The real world just seems so messy and complicated compared to virtual worlds. You may call it a mental health issue, but it is neither addiction nor depression; if anything, it's just not being addicted to real world enough.

How do you know it is not depression? This is a very personal topic, but I never thought of myself as depressed until I fell into a hole so deep that I had to search for medical help (and then I still thought about EVERYTHING but depression: High-functional autism, ADHD, whatever ..) - diagnosis and therapy helped me tremendously and looking back there would've been zero chance for me to recognize that I was sufferin…

Depression has certain criteria, for example things like you don't enjoy anything, you feel tired all the time, you consider that you shouldn't live, and so on. I had a mild depression, and I know this is not it. I am happy, I like to meet people from time to time, etc.

It's not addiction either - I spend my days on the Internet (or in computer games) a lot, but if I had to spend a week without it, it wouldn't be a problem. I don't have to be connected 24x7 either. I also sometimes abandon the game for no reason.

It's really just you don't feel so motivated by the things in the real world compared to virtual possibilities. Let me reiterate, I think parent was spot on when he talked about the "artificial Skinner box of instant rewards", and I don't think there is a psychiatric category describing this.

It's not a mental disorder, just like overeating (and being overweight due to that) isn't (usually) a disorder. But yeah, it may be a mental health issue. It's mentally unhealthy behavior, just like eating too much is unhealthy.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#297

Post by JohnBooty » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #287

JohnBooty wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's weird. In the city, you can meet all these people, but actual neighbors treat each other like strangers. In the suburbs, neighbors are often (not always!) super friendly. My neighbors and I have watched each others' pets and helped each other in a lot of ways. I think it's just the "buying" versus "renting" thing. In the city most people are renting. There's less incentive to make friends with your neighbor…

I think it's dangerous to make friends with the neighbors wherever you live because you can't easily get away from them if you end up having problems.

From a purely pragmatic view (though I hope nobody makes friends for purely pragmatic reasons) I think befriending one's neighbors avoids a whole lot more problems than it avoids.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#298

Post by JohnBooty » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #181

rlucas wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

best troll ever

I am not trolling - cooking has never been less skill demanding than now. If you spend time anyway in the kitchen why bother with subscriptions.

  > If you spend time anyway in the kitchen why bother with subscriptions.

For us part of the answer has been that it's been exposing us to some new ingredients that we wouldn't have tried on our own and/or wouldn't have been able to find locally even if we'd thought to try them.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#299

Post by jmzbond » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

I agree with many of the points in this article, though I think it's interesting that this strikes a chord. Because this is just a more micro version of the macro-economic chase for comparative advantage and efficiency, where we outsource production to developing countries, whether it be clothing or call centers, or whatever. Same end goal right? Cheaper than doing it yourself, implying that you free up your own resources to do... well more [service oriented/ white collar] work. I guess the one thing about the shut-in economy is that if we can think about these social issues, then there's hope we can also think about slave labor, or child labor, etc. when they are employed by major businesses (the original "apps") we buy from all the time.

Re: The Shut-In Economy

#300

Post by bbcbasic » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #267

bbcbasic wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do too, although there is no reason to really. You outsource when you pay for anything - from tax to broccoli! The only way to escape is to learn how to go money-free and feral!

there is a nice, wide middle path you know. outsourcing something I cannot do properly/safely/takes me a lot of time and I don't want to go through learning curve - that's OK. outsourcing something that i can do in couple of (tens of) minutes - that's being lazy. no way around it.

Lazy is not a bad thing. Sloth is not a sin.

If someone works 40 hours a week I think it is fair dinkum.