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

The room the economy can't see

wilsoniumite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 296 posts

Re: The room the economy can't see

#191

Post by cameldrv »

Great article. I agree money and time are significant issues here.

I’d just add something else I’ve noticed with social organizations, that people used to run them more often, and one form of compensation they got was status in the community for doing something good for everyone, and that status feels like it has diminished since I was a kid. As America has changed demographically, some cultural traditions like volunteerism haven’t diffused as well. There is a tendency when two status systems live side by side, that the lingua franca is always money, and so people focus on that because having money is recognized by everyone.

It would be awesome if we emphasized this more in schools. One place to start would be talking more about my favorite founding father, Ben Franklin, who started the first public library and the first fire department in the U.S.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#192

Post by amanaplanacanal »

inigyou wrote: post #155
pixl97 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which is the central thesis here No, not exactly. We're dealing with a historical confluence of long term changes in humanity. Before 1900 or so and some people had a lot of kids survive and others had a lot of kids die. The population rate increased very slowly, and not from a lack of trying. Then around the time I stated people figured out germs were real, chlorine in water was good, and washing ones hands was a s…

[flagged]

As has been pointed out by philosophers for a long time, there is no inherent meaning, beside what you yourself create. For some people, children. For others, art of some sort, or building a business that creates value. For some, pure hedonism, or building relationships and helping the people around them.

I'm way older than 50, and don't miss having kids at all.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#193

Post by kelseyfrog »

bluGill wrote: post #104
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like the market because it lets me make more choices of my own. Are you making your own choices? Do you sincerely believe that when one of the largest pillars of the American economy right now is staffed from top to bottom with PhD holders who use everything they know about psychology to make you think certain ways? To want shit you don't need? To make you play games you don't like? To make you consume art that m…

You say that as if there is any alternative. Every other system as well has people who are good at psychology spreading propaganda.

There is no alternative[1]. Or in other words, Omelas is more believable if there is a kid in a hole.

1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative

Re: The room the economy can't see

#195

Post by amanaplanacanal »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #80
mschuster91 wrote: post #7

Everything, literally everything is being turned into a hellscape by the ever increasing demands of financialization - driven especially by the unique American decision to base their entire pension system on the stock and asset markets. The sheer amount of money flowing into pension contributions needs some way to escape (i.e. to be invested), and that means that everything not "profitable" - like most third spaces a…

Where are you meant to save retirement money if not the market? Not sure the European model of kicking the can down the road is better.. It seems like the problem is more that urban boomers/genx/millenials didn’t want more than one or two kids… which is the central thesis here, why does having four kids suck in cities. Which i think historically has always been true. So its just an unsolved problem across time and sp…

Historically, before the twentieth century, the way it was mostly done was by living in extended families, and prehistorically, by living in small tribes. The whole family (grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, and their children) worked together to take care of the family (or as I said, the tribe). It was the nuclear family and individualism, driven I'm guessing by economic forces, that destroyed all that.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#196

Post by AndrewKemendo »

cogman10 wrote: post #185
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got the diagnosis right but I’m not convinced voting would change anything - even though it’s definitely true that it could matter, most of the structural issues are upstream of the ballot aka who gets to be on the ballot in the first place is the real problem “If voting changed anything they wouldn’t let us do it” - Emma Goldman

Who gets on the ballot is determined by voting. I'm not going to lie, I'm not deluded enough to think voting will (often) bring change quickly. I don't even have a lot of hope in the likelihood of it working. However, it's not nothing and it's something everyone can and should do. Politics is a major part of all aspects of life and you'll do yourself no favors by completely opting out because it's hopeless.

>Who gets on the ballot is determined by voting.

That’s not even remotely true political parties determine privately who they will fund to put on the ballot underneath their particular party

The public is not invited to vote in those outside of certain primaries and even then the people who are proposed for the primaries are chosen from the party members

Ballot access for third-party or non-affiliated typically require a petition to apply and that threshold is again set by party members in office

>Politics is a major part of all aspects of life and you'll do yourself no favors by completely opting out because it's hopeless.

Voting is the lowest possible bar or participation for political engagement

Organizing and agitating are the day to day efforts people should be doing but aren’t because they prefer to have money

Re: The room the economy can't see

#197

Post by antonyt »

inigyou wrote: post #155
pixl97 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which is the central thesis here No, not exactly. We're dealing with a historical confluence of long term changes in humanity. Before 1900 or so and some people had a lot of kids survive and others had a lot of kids die. The population rate increased very slowly, and not from a lack of trying. Then around the time I stated people figured out germs were real, chlorine in water was good, and washing ones hands was a s…

[flagged]

My impression is that voluntarily child-free people have a very low regret rate, but there are dozens of conflicting studies on this. Interested if you have anything concrete to link to.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#198

Post by [deleted] »

inigyou wrote: post #155
pixl97 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which is the central thesis here No, not exactly. We're dealing with a historical confluence of long term changes in humanity. Before 1900 or so and some people had a lot of kids survive and others had a lot of kids die. The population rate increased very slowly, and not from a lack of trying. Then around the time I stated people figured out germs were real, chlorine in water was good, and washing ones hands was a s…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: The room the economy can't see

#199

Post by armchairhacker »

ixtli wrote: post #9

Very good and well-written. I wish we would also acknowledge that the market, by disincentivizing spend on stuff like this, is performing well. It is optimizing. The reason it matters to acknowledge this up front is so that we can, as the article says, get to the rule below all this which is that the market is default. This is a clear and thorough example of how the profit motive does not lead to the life any of us w…

The market may be performing at a local maximum, if kids without third spaces grow up unproductive.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#200

Post by lelanthran »

eszed wrote: post #149
cousin_it wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simplifying to the point of nonsense. Freedom you say? How about the freedom to have a say in government of the place you're living in? That seems a pretty fundamental freedom. When the rich folks of a town vote for planning restrictions and the vote goes through, that's an expression of freedom. Sure, we both don't like it. We both agree it has bad consequences. But what I'm trying to say is that there's a re…

> if we somehow created jobs elsewhere so that poor people wouldn't have to fight rich people for city air Or, maybe... a VAT-funded UBI?

Why VAT? It's a regressive tax that hurts poor people more than rich people.
Post reply on HN