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

You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 243 posts

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#131

Post by foldr »

tomrod wrote: post #129
foldr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so easy to look words up in a dictionary these days, but for some reason the tech community likes to take a perverse pride in reading at an 8th grade level. "How dare you use a word that happens not to be in my limited vocabulary?"

The tech community is used to working under constraints, be it time, compute, storage, etc. They also are praised when they focus on user experience. Using dense prose is a poor user experience. I find no fault with their conditioning to be egalitarian.

That’s true in general, but anyone who has difficulty with this particular article just has a low reading level. Tech folks love to mock the humanities, but back when a humanities education was more fashionable, being able to read prose of this level was about the bare minimum expected of an educated person.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#132

Post by cpr »

deathhand wrote: post #25

Government was always supposed to be influenced 'by the people' those people are usually aristocrats. That is fine if there are enough of them with different ideas. What has happened is the consolidation of the artiscroacy and thus the means of influence of government. This is where we are getting our ugly problems from. What is the first step to fixing this? Bring voting into the 21ST century AND NOT HAVE VOTING SOF…

The problem with democracy is that you end up with mob rule.

And as soon as the mob realizes it can vote itself bread and circus, it's all over.

The founding fathers said exactly that.

And the mob in general is in thrall to the media, which is pretty much a wholly owned operation of the ruling class.

So, I guess, in the end, you get what your ruling class wants anyway, with the unwitting mob just a means to its own control.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#133

Post by buran77 »

factsaresacred wrote: post #105
buran77 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Investing, swing trading But who "generates" those assets you are investing in or trading? Will the action of investing or trading generate them? The cycle must start somewhere. > Software particularly. A couple thousand hours of sweat, toil and despair and you might just create a perpetual cashflow generating machine. Perpetual may be a strong word no? Your software will need attention, improvement, etc., its valu…

> But who "generates" those assets you are investing in or trading? This is irrelevant to the individual. The cycle already exists. > Perpetual may be a strong word no? Yes, I'm being slightly facetious. But the possibility of a creating a money-making asset that is unpegged from a 40 hour work week is very real. Of course there's still work to do but the work is invested in an asset that you own rather than being re…

> This is irrelevant to the individual. The cycle already exists.

Sorry to be so blunt but that's a very superficial view and mostly wrong. The cycle isn't "already there" more than the internet, running water, or toilet paper on shelves are "already there". You're asking why would any farmer bother raising cattle and growing crops when they could just go to the supermarket for milk, meat, etc. It's only irrelevant if you don't care about understanding what we're talking about.

> Of course there's still work to do

Your premise was to build a system that generates revenue without your presence being required, in contradiction to your follow-up.

> the possibility of a creating a money-making asset that is unpegged from a 40 hour work week is very real

Agree on this. I'm sure working a classic job is not the only way to make money but my point was different.

So far all of the ways mentioned here for making money by decoupling yourself from the 40h work week are either actually conceptually the same as "renting your time", or work because so many others are renting their time, and they are the niche.

You're either self-employed (you invest the money, produce the asset, and collect profit), or you employ others to bring you profit (you don't produce the asset, just invest money and collect profit). Either way there's no way to remove the "asset producer" from the equation without turning it into 0=0. And just like anything else on the market the higher the supply, the lower the price. The more people only invest for a living, the smaller the returns for each and the fewer assets that are actually created.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#134

Post by mjw1007 »

Retric wrote: post #83
foldr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so easy to look words up in a dictionary these days, but for some reason the tech community likes to take a perverse pride in reading at an 8th grade level. "How dare you use a word that happens not to be in my limited vocabulary?"

hoi polloi is a redundant phrase that’s intended to hide the simplicity of the idea. It’s simply lazy writing to mask lazy thinking.

In this case I think all that's going on is that the writer has already used the phrase "working classes" earlier in the sentence, and is following a convention that recommends avoiding repetition in this sort of case.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#135

Post by atomi »

chongli wrote: post #85
wegs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of their income comes from government subsidies and from charitable donations. At some universities, over time, that's built up into endowments which support professors. That's very much the definition of "live on charity."

Charitable donations from wealthy people who, for some reason or another, feel indebted to their alma mater. How successful would these people be without the education they received from their professors? Educators produce enormous externalities that their students capture and build their lives around. To turn around and say they "live on charity and lecture us on money" is the height of ingratitude.

It's the height of something alright.

Great comment.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#136

Post by tomrod »

foldr wrote: post #131
tomrod wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech community is used to working under constraints, be it time, compute, storage, etc. They also are praised when they focus on user experience. Using dense prose is a poor user experience. I find no fault with their conditioning to be egalitarian.

That’s true in general, but anyone who has difficulty with this particular article just has a low reading level. Tech folks love to mock the humanities, but back when a humanities education was more fashionable, being able to read prose of this level was about the bare minimum expected of an educated person.

I assert the definition of an "educated person" evolves. Today, it is more advantageous to be literate in data and systems than to spend time chasing after humanities fashionability.

Note that my point isn't arguing that humanities is without marginal value, only that the average value is not evolutionary advantageous. As such, it therefore fails to provide for most than its professors. In my view there is a commonality stretching back to Homeric bards. The storytelling gave value, but didn't feed or lead the community.

I'm not sure what you have in mind when you state that tech folks mock the humanities. The point being laid out is that this particular piece is unnecessarily obtuse with its verbose prose, to the detriment of user experience.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#137

Post by foldr »

lonelappde wrote: post #97
foldr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so easy to look words up in a dictionary these days, but for some reason the tech community likes to take a perverse pride in reading at an 8th grade level. "How dare you use a word that happens not to be in my limited vocabulary?"

I'll follow George Orwell's advice over yours, thanks. httpp://www.openculture.com/2016/05/george-orwells-six-rules-for-writing-clear-and-tight-prose.html

I doubt that Orwell would have considered any of the relevant words to be particularly obscure. At least, they certainly all would have been in his vocabulary.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#138

Post by m0llusk »

Here working with abstractions causes a loss of connection to the various factors that contributed to our path. The resurgence of liberal capitalism came after decades of elites dealing with a 90% income tax rate and unions so powerful that their ability to actually produce anything for a profit was beginning to slip away. But of course the author has little if any knowledge of or empathy for contemporary business people now let alone such folk from decades ago.

All this talk of isms is supposed to be enlightening guidance, but ultimately governments need to set rules and tax rates and respond to various challenges. The mapping from ism to action is hardly ever direct and often ends up lost in mystery and obscurity.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#139

Post by foldr »

tomrod wrote: post #136
foldr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true in general, but anyone who has difficulty with this particular article just has a low reading level. Tech folks love to mock the humanities, but back when a humanities education was more fashionable, being able to read prose of this level was about the bare minimum expected of an educated person.

I assert the definition of an "educated person" evolves. Today, it is more advantageous to be literate in data and systems than to spend time chasing after humanities fashionability. Note that my point isn't arguing that humanities is without marginal value, only that the average value is not evolutionary advantageous. As such, it therefore fails to provide for most than its professors. In my view there is a commonal…

I don't follow the thread of your argument. If you think you can get rich by skimping on literacy, more power to you. But are people writing articles in the Church Life Journal of the University of Notre Dame then obliged to condescend to your level?

Your comment is actually a lot stodgier and more obscure than the article itself.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#140

Post by Retric »

foldr wrote: post #128
Retric wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what coded language means. I don’t think anything used in the article was obscure. The style depends on making things as clear as humanly possible so readers are beaten over the head with the subtext. As a simple experiment, take the article and write down the meaning being conveyed including subtext next to it.

Ironically, I genuinely don't understand your last comment.

Ok, I am going to approach this sideways. There is a somewhat related linguistic technique used in the cold war where a politician would go on TV and give a long speech that used the format “If the American people want peace, and the Russian people want peace, and (various junk), and Americans move their missiles out of Crimea, then we can have peace. (more platitudes)” An US intelligence officer would then translate this 20 minute speech into a few sentences of English that contained the relevant information.

Effectively the information could be lifted directly from the speech and was very straightforward, but hidden among a lot of meaningless drivel. I am saying the author’s stile similarly lets the add a lot of padding due to their approach to conveying information.

Post reply on HN