Live data from Hacker News

Someone is stealing your life (1990)

lycaeum.org

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" then you have the option to build something that does pay you what you are worth." It's just that simple then? Starting a business is a risky and difficult proposition, and few people are cut out for it - and of those, even fewer realistically have the option to do so. Not everyone can build their way out of a problem, and it has little to do with their free will. If that's the case you can't argue that it's their…

It's not easy, and that's the point. You can take the easy road, which is to get a job and work for someone, hoping that you haven't wasted your life away, or you can take the hard road and build something. Both have benefits, and both have risks. There's no easy ticket, at least in this life, so employer and employee have to meet in the middle. The market helps that happen. You had me until your last point, which wa…

As an employee, you have to do what your employer tells you. If you do not, you will not have the means to continue feeding yourself and putting a roof over your head. As an employee, the vast bulk of the wealth you create will never end up in your hands - it will end up in the hands of people who did not do your work.

How exactly is that not exploitation? What would you call it?

"The market helps that happen."

The market helps whoever has the most money, or the most of a scarce resource.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That brings us to the follow up question of, if a small number of people are privileged during a small part of history, does that mean that the rest of it - filled as it was with problems and exploitation - is no longer a problem, and the critiques are no longer valid? Just because capitalism works some of the time for a few of the people, doesn't mean that it's above criticism, and has no problems. Since the majorit…

"Just because capitalism works some of the time for a few of the people, doesn't mean that it's above criticism, and has no problems." Capitalism works for more than "just a few people" "some of the time". No system is perfect. "Since the majority of folks on HN have benefited from capitalism, it's not surprising that they are not as open to hearing criticisms of it." and why have they benefited from it? Because they…

Capitalism works for more than "just a few people" "some of the time".

Highly debatable. Fly to a third world sweat shop and toss this idea around a bit. I don't think the folks there will be nearly as willing to listen to you as people here have been.

"No system is perfect."

Refusing to acknowledge the flaws in said systems is not a virtue.

"and why have they benefited from it? Because they were all born rich? Capitalism benefits people that want to put the time and effort into it."

They have benefitted from it because by and large, we are all upwardly mobile, well paid individuals working in an industry currently experiencing strong market demand. They have also benefitted simply by virtue of being born in America, where they are wealthier than most people in the world by virtue of simply being here (see, I can acknowledge the strengths of Capitalism as well).

Also, this statement is essentially the just-world hypothesis.

"All of your responses so far have been you, crapping on capitalism. Where is your alternative?"

Crapping on capitalism would be silly, since I've benefitted enormously from it. That said, it would be equally silly to be blind to it's many short comings.

I never said I have an alternative, but no one will ever have one if we don't admit some of the short comings to ourselves. Just because a person can't propose an alternative, does not mean that their observations on short comings are incorrect or off base.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#123
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, take a look at the jobs he's listed as doing. That's not the career path of someone who has any direction or ambition, it's the career path of someone who takes whatever job comes along because he's out of money and desperate. I know, because I used to be that guy. My early career path looks like this: work at dad's restaurant, work at mom's jewelry store, temp agency, Cutco salesman, furniture assembler, temp…

I've been out of money and desperate at various times. It sucks. But if you point the blame only outwards, you're very likely to remain broke and desperate. Own everything. Take all responsibility for everything that happens to you, even if it wasn't your fault. This leads to some instant satisfaction in terms of feeling more in control of your life. And long term, you do a hell of a lot better. I try to own everythi…

Including the death and/or injuries of loved ones? i.e. you were driving, got T-boned, now your sister can't walk?

I know people that's happened to, and they tend to "own it," and I'm not sure that's healthy,

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#124
> I came to a conclusion that for me was fundamental: My employwers are stealing my life.

There is no theft, just voluntary trade. He exchanges his time and effort for a pay check and then blames his employer for the deal he accepted.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#125
This sounds like the whiny rant of a child. It's not just about money, it's about drive and vision. If you have drive and vision, then your employer will notice and you'll move up, learn more, maybe even make enough to start your own business with your own ideas. If not, if you don't choose to better yourself and fight for what you want, then you fit the position you allow yourself to fit. You wouldn't ask a janitor to make business decisions, why would you ask an accountant, or a programmer, or a designer?

Life is about taking pride in what you do and going after what you want, not about whining, me me me.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#126
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current state has been thus for all of about a decade, maybe two if you want to get technical about it. It remains to be seen whether it sticks around for the long term. It is also debatable whether this really represents an improvement, much less a continual one. With the increasing availability of the basics to launch a web application, the expected value of doing so has declined correspondingly. Even if we tak…

I don't want to get drawn into a really long debate, I just have two things to say: 1. People aren't born developers, plumbers, etc., it's a career you choose 2. The technology that enables these things is not going to disappear, of that we can be pretty sure

The question, as another commenter posted elsewhere in this thread, is: does it scale?

Sure, you choose your career (to a large extent) but society needs developers AND plumbers, and too many people choosing to be developers would push down developer wages to the point where being a developer would no longer be desirable. It can't work for everyone.

We need a solution that does not create an underclass of people that society needs but does not value. In a truly fluid job market in which there was always hiring in every industry and every worker was able and prepared to do any kind of job, capitalism might take care of that. Unfortunately, that's not reality.

I think that the system we have is much better than many others that have been tried in the past, but that doesn't mean that it's optimal or that we should stop trying to improve.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#127

This sounds like the whiny rant of a child. It's not just about money, it's about drive and vision. If you have drive and vision, then your employer will notice and you'll move up, learn more, maybe even make enough to start your own business with your own ideas. If not, if you don't choose to better yourself and fight for what you want, then you fit the position you allow yourself to fit. You wouldn't ask a janitor…

Sure, you wouldn't necessarily ask a janitor or a programmer to make business decisions; the constraints of mortality force us to specialize in life. Nevertheless, do you really believe that one speciality - business - is so much more important than all the rest that it deserves to extract a disproportionate share of the profit from almost every enterprise? That doesn't seem self-evident to me.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could both move forward together, rather than ensuring that someone is always ahead and another is farther behind... A rising tide lifts all boats.

And what exactly is going to make that tide rise? Nothing is free -- everyone has to work. We have to sacrifice our time and energy to survive and have some comforts. There's no way around that one.

Sure, everyone has to trade time and energy to obtain their needs and wants. That doesn't mean that the details of the transaction as they stand now are justified.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#129
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an alternative? I'm not the parent poster, but I suggest that co-ops have led to greater employee satisfaction. There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention. The current (big) business climate dictates that the sole purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value at all times, at al…

The quick, easy, and non-communist way to do this is to have the opportunity for employees to become shareholders through purchase of premium stock and bonds. This solves the moral hazard problem quite well.

I don't agree that this addresses the problem of employees not having a say in the management of the company they work for, unless you are talking about early-stage employees who are actually likely to be able to obtain enough stock to have influence.

Re: Someone is stealing your life (1990)

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an alternative? I'm not the parent poster, but I suggest that co-ops have led to greater employee satisfaction. There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention. The current (big) business climate dictates that the sole purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value at all times, at al…

"There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention." I have a feeling that all of these ideas that you and many others want to try have already been tried. It's resulted in the type of company structures we have today. Personally, I've been involved in enough groups and organizations to know that not ever…

> I have a feeling that all of these ideas that you and many others want to try have already been tried

Yes, of course. They're all around us. We focus on Googles, Facebooks, Chevrons, and so on, but there are examples to be found of more diverse ways of conducting business.

I would like to provide you an example I read about, perhaps a year ago, of a Midwest company where all of the employees gather with the directors to discuss and vote on important decisions. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to dig it up.

In Germany, as an another sort of example, it's (sometimes?) legally required to have employee representation on the supervisory board (http://www.biscayneconsulting.net/images/laborfuerst.pdf). Compare this with the common US system of the staff elite, conducting business decisions behind closed doors, leaving the employees wholly unaware of their own future.

> I don't like the idea of forcing others to my ideals.

It's not like I'm suggesting some sort of government mandate. Creating awareness and subsequent social pressure can cause tremendous change. While the definition of a corporation is generally static, trends in corporate behavior and general concepts of priorities change over time. Look at 'shareholder value' in Wikipedia, for example.

I do agree that this is up to the corporate founder(s). However, I think that Americans are generally unaware that there are other systems which may be perfectly viable, and yield a greater quality of life for everyone involved. I also think that current interpretation of laws has led to a rather odd system, where corporate directors make decisions which are distinctly bad for long-term business, for the sake of satisfying shareholders and securing short-term, personal gain.

As for starting a company to embody my beliefs, I have. Even if successful, though, I won't have enough capital and momentum to demonstrate any of this for some number of years. Until then, it's just small-business-as-usual. :-)

Post reply on HN