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

Is everything an MLM

annehelen.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 297 posts

Re: Is everything an MLM

#261

Post by orthecreedence »

ericd wrote: post #233
orthecreedence wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you should be born with a trust fund and not have let people convince you to take on overwhelming debt when you were 17 and naive. It's all very simple. Granted, I agree with you about emergency saving, but a lot of people don't have the extra laying around when they're shackled to debt.

Come on, don't be hyperbolic. You don't need a trust fund to do just fine. No one I knew growing up had a trust fund afaik. What is this victim complex my generation seems to have bought into wholesale? Who tricked you into taking on debt? Was in-state tuition not an option? As for the saving not being an option, are you sure you've cut your expenses as far as you can? If you eat out more than once per month or pay m…

> Who tricked you into taking on debt?

Nobody tricked me, I'm debt-free. But most of the people I grew up with went to college, and most of them are riddled with debt now.

Was it their personal responsibility not to go into debt? Technically, yes! Did they have all the information available to them about what this debt would mean for their lives? No. Would they have made this decision if we didn't live in a society that repeatedly told them "go to college or you will fail?" Likely not, or maybe they would have waited until they understood the world better.

I'm not talking about any singular person, here. But I think it's unfair to classify our generation as having a victim compex when:

- wages are stagnating

- cost of living is rising

- most jobs require college degrees

- kids who are barely of-age are being pushed to make enormous financial decisions

- the federal government not forgiving student loans via bankruptcy is ballooning costs of schools everywhere and creating an entire predatory market for profiting off of people becoming productive members of society

Are millenials dumb with money? Honestly, the ones I know might go out one too many times here or there, but they aren't idiots, and the amount extra they could be saving is a drop in the bucket compared to their monthly expenses. Some are silly, yeah, but the majority are trying really hard and still struggling.

The last few generations just had it way easier, with less commodification of all of the aspects of their lives, with a less hostile education system, a better job market, etc. Not only this, but as the boomers start dying off, who's going to pick up the bill? The people who are right now in their 20s and 30s. So things are about to get a whole lot worse.

The solution isn't just to "save more." We need deep-seated systemic changes.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#262

Post by johnisgood »

soVeryTired wrote: post #236
johnisgood wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it's not entirely voluntary. In this case, it is not entirely voluntary for the employers either as they need employees for their business to function. > but ultimately I'm going to have to choose one of them No, you can become your own employer, for example. > There's a power imbalance between employee and employer, and that will translate into a negotiating disadvantage It depends on the state of the market.…

> Employers are offering to trade their money in exchange for other people doing some task they want done. If you do not think it is fair trade, then do not do it. You are allowed to grow your own food, or pick berries. You're also free to die in the gutter, don't forget that one.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I brought up perfectly reasonable alternatives.

Regardless, both parties are made better off by the trade. Employers are the ones helping those unfortunate people avoid the thing that is even worse than having a job, such as: suffering and dying in the gutter. :)

Re: Is everything an MLM

#263

Post by AnthonyMouse »

snidane wrote: post #228
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor regulation has historically followed market trends rather than driving them. If you tried to pass a 40 hour work week in 1790 you would have been laughed out of the statehouse because it would have caused mass starvation since people had to work longer hours than that just to grow enough food to feed everyone. Then industrialization rolls around and we slowly get to the point that labor supply starts to outstri…

> If you tried to pass a 40 hour work week in 1790 you would have been laughed out of the statehouse because it would have caused mass starvation since people had to work longer hours than that just to grow enough food to feed everyone This theory that in history the conditions for survival were so much worse as to require much longer working hours is a great myth. Long working hours came mostly at the time of indust…

This is somewhat apples and oranges when you go that far back. It's not that they weren't working for most of the day, it's that everything was more laborious. You would work several straight days for your "employer" and then need several for yourself, not to sit on your butt and have a beer but because there was no such thing as a washing machine or a refrigerator and all repairs and maintenance on your dwelling were things you were expected to do for yourself rather than hire out.

It's tempting to think of a "feast" as a party, but even now, and especially back then, it was laborious. Everyone travels to gather in the same location (without cars), butcher the animals, clean them, prepare vegetables that started off as whole plants, chop wood to build a fire to cook with etc. A feast is not a vacation, it's just more working.

Post-industrialization brought specialization, so that instead of working a day for the local land owner and then a day for yourself, you would work both days for the factory and then use your wages to buy appliances and hire a roofer and eat in a restaurant. And then, as automation got better, you got to work for eight hours rather than sixteen and then come home and watch TV and argue with people on the internet instead of needing that time to carry your clothes to the river and then ride a horse several miles to the general store to buy lamp oil and gunpowder.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#264

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #252
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? The wealthy are to blame? Wealthy tell poor mothers to buy junk food instead of healthier (and cheaper) options? Wealthy tell poor kids to watch TV instead of doing homework? Wealthy tell poor that having a budget and sticking to it is a dumb idea?

> Wealthy tell poor kids to watch TV instead of doing homework? No. That happens naturally, while the parents are working at their second jobs.

Teachers do a pretty good job enforcing the homeworks, unless actively obstructed by "you're unfair, he didn't do nothing wrong!" parents.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#265

Post by orthecreedence »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #207
orthecreedence wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, agreed. The problem with our current system in the US is the "cracks" are being exploited by those who have massive amounts of capital, and they've engineered the system so they continuously control a growing amount of it. So wealth is being siphoned out of the economy at an alarming rate and we now essentially have an economic plutocracy. But, gee, that's fine because those people earned that money...nevermin…

I'm curious. Did you take my post as pro capitalism? Or pro status quo? And out of curiosity, what exactly was it that pointed to that conclusion? It really wasn't my intention, is all and that's why I'm curious and you seem pretty bent out of shape, or am I misreading the, "But, gee, that's fine because those people earned that money...nevermind that's it's economically ineffective."

I did not intend to come off snarky. I did read your comment as a little bit pro-capitalist (although not strongly). I think the thing that did it was "The grass is always greener on the other side" which I read as "why bother changing when another system will have just as many problems."

> am I misreading the, "But, gee, that's fine because those people earned that money...nevermind that's it's economically ineffective."

Honestly, it wasn't really directed at you at all, it was more of a general broadcast of how I feel about our current system. I've been talking to people about capitalism in general and many will fiercly defend the existence of billionaires while deriding poor people because they just aren't "leveraging opportunities" enough (as if anybody can leverage opportunities and become rich)! I think the problem comes from people being told that wealth is not zero-sum, when in reality, it actually is. "Wealth is not zero sum" is nothing more than capitalist propaganda.

I'm sorry if my comment read as attacking you.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#266

Post by ace_of_spades »

sridca wrote: post #174
rectang wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. In real-world "free" markets, the poor have their choices made for them by the wealthy.

Hah, exactly. Capitalism is not perfect; apparently it is the better of the alternatives we have right now. In order to effect fundamental change, and find a better alternative to capitalism, each human being needs to fundamentally change themselves--yet apparently no one is willing to do that. As long as we let instinctual passions like desire, and social emotions like envy, hold sway over us so will continue to exi…

What does capitalism actually mean, though? Do you mean capitalism in the US, Canada, France, Germany, China? All have private property, profit oriented companies and markets... It’s such a broad term it’s probably completely useless and it leads you down a false dichotomy. There are significant differences between existing systems and many possible new approaches to taxation and social order in the pipeline. For example, have a look at the book radical markets by Eric Posner and Glen Weyl to get a taste of what is possible in terms of legislative innovations.

So, I am not against and all for personal change and growth but absolving the economic system from change doesn’t make this task any easier. Humans are to a huge extent a product of their environment and it is certainly in everyones best interest to design “humane” or “prosocial” systems which allow humans to thrive and cooperate.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#267

Post by AnthonyMouse »

sametmax wrote: post #209
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's even better, right? If I pay you $500 for an iPhone, I get an iPhone. If you take that money and spend it, it's "the regular economy" again, and I have to provide whatever you bought. If you don't spend the money then I don't have to give you anything, but I still got an iPhone. The real problem with this is that then I have to borrow money to buy the iPhone but there is no way for me to ever pay it back,…

You assume rich people spend all their money. They don't. The accumulate, to buy more renting power to accumulate more. It's getting the economy more and more static.

There are three things a rich person can do with money. They can spend it, they can invest it in a new business, and they can invest it in an existing business.

The third one is the worst for redistributing wealth but it's the one our tax laws give high preference to. That is problematic.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#268

Post by TheCoelacanth »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #241
rectang wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. In real-world "free" markets, the poor have their choices made for them by the wealthy.

Really? The wealthy are to blame? Wealthy tell poor mothers to buy junk food instead of healthier (and cheaper) options? Wealthy tell poor kids to watch TV instead of doing homework? Wealthy tell poor that having a budget and sticking to it is a dumb idea?

Yes to all of those, it's called advertising.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#269

Post by nradov »

mhluongo wrote: post #18
AznHisoka wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the last month. Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. People are freaking crazy.

> Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. Unless there's a labor shortage?

Labor shortages are basically a myth. They only exist when governments impose artificial wage limits.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#270

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #268
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? The wealthy are to blame? Wealthy tell poor mothers to buy junk food instead of healthier (and cheaper) options? Wealthy tell poor kids to watch TV instead of doing homework? Wealthy tell poor that having a budget and sticking to it is a dumb idea?

Yes to all of those, it's called advertising.

Do you believe all the advertising?

Why poor people would?

Post reply on HN