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

“People simply empty out”

lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 477 posts

Re: “People simply empty out”

#261

Post by orofino »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #253
homosaur wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100K is the point where you have the illusion of financial freedom because you can purchase a BMW, buy a nice home in a bland cul-de-sac with a bunch of nameless white dudes, and it's not until you're in your 40s and you're in danger to losing the job to a robot or a whipper-snapper that you understand that kind of "freedom" is actually enslavement. You made the wrong choice because you wasted your life buying plasti…

the misrepresentation is your post is the word 'buy'. You don't buy when a bank owns it and expects you to pay monthly payments. You buy when you own. Is it a big deal to loose job at 45 when you own house and a car or two? It is, but not as much because you don't have the obligation to spend half your previous salary monthly on payments. Which takes us directly to this where the problem really is: debt.

You're just playing with words though. People choose to use debt, I've got debt, on the car we just bought, that's it. I HAD debt, but the student loans are now paid and the house was sold.

Am I lucky to make a good salary that allows me to pay these things down? Absolutely. However, I'm also responsible for the choices I make. Many people make more than I do and don't save as much, many More people make less and drive cars that are twice as expensive as mine.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#262

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #249
enraged_camel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"traditional slavery" which is man-made. So is capitalism. So is the corporate hierarchy. Heck, the society we live in right now is man-made. Why does that matter as an evaluation criteria? Yes, food and shelter have always required work. The difference is that they have required work by the person for the person. Or by the person for their family. Or by the person for their tribe. This meant that you worked only a…

Capitalism is as man made as theory of evolution. It's been discovered. Or it's just the way the societies always worked. Most efficient. Capitalism as an ideology is just noting the fact. Not inventing, just realization of how brutally nature is and how brutally it works. Socialism is invention from the realization that capitalism is morally bad. It's exactly like vegetarians agenda: killing animals is morally wrong…

Capitalism is a recent invention. Societies in the past were not capitalistic, I challenge you to find one.

They were imperialistic, mercantilistic, corporatist, fascistic, communal, the list goes on.

Adam Smith invented capitalism as a response to the mercantilism of 18th century England.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#263

Post by mrow84 »

vidarh wrote: post #247
mrow84 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a fan of the emergent structure hypothesis for quite a long time, but I do feel that you are pushing it too far. There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. To some extent this was easier historically, partly because there were fewer laws, but even now, with the legacy of hundreds of yea…

> There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. Sure. But that does not conflict with "emergent structure": There's no need for a cabal at the top consciously arranging the structure of society. Just a bunch of people who are often trying to manipulate things in specific directions, and where a lot…

That's right; as I said "these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group."

Further: "I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word."

I will also reiterate that just because there isn't a genuine conspiracy does not mean, as some (not you, here) conclude, that "the system" is as good as uncorrupted and can't be improved.

I'm not enough of a scholar of Marxism to disagree with your reading of it, but for my own part I would say that people are (obviously in my view) capable of acting in more than their own self interest, unless one insists on almost ridiculous contortions of their motives. This capability for action in the wider good can and should be harnessed by society, and my preference would be for this to take place in step with a broader decentralisation of power (and wealth).

Finally, I think a tiresome strand to this debate (not brought by you) is the idea that any kind of social improvement inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism. I know this view is a little passé, but I really see this as part of a set of propaganda disseminated by the powerful intended to counter challenges to their power. This certainly has historical precedent, and it is pretty clear that similar things happen today, often through support to favourable political parties, which comes with an influence over those parties' message. Of course, lots of other people buy into the propaganda, because it also serves their own (much smaller) interests.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#264

Post by ra88it »

rhdoenges wrote: post #197
tankbot wrote: post #129

Can I just say that I love Charles Bukowski? If you've never read him go buy his books now. There's so much humanity in there. Some will think he's a downer or depressing, but I think he's genius. His life reminds me of this quote by Hokusai: When I was 50 I had published a universe of designs. But all I have done before the the age of 70 is not worth bothering with. At 75 I'll have learned something of the pattern o…

I can't stomach the guy. He was an abusive drunk who thought it was funny to kick women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0

And then somebody reduces the man to this awful youtube clip where he's drunk and fighting with his fiancé, where he kicks her meanly from across the couch, several times.

And I have to remember: that's just this thread, this thread will pass. It's Friday. I'm in a decent mood. Let's find something to eat, start thinking about what I will work on today.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#265

Post by homosaur »

reeses wrote: post #202
homosaur wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100K is the point where you have the illusion of financial freedom because you can purchase a BMW, buy a nice home in a bland cul-de-sac with a bunch of nameless white dudes, and it's not until you're in your 40s and you're in danger to losing the job to a robot or a whipper-snapper that you understand that kind of "freedom" is actually enslavement. You made the wrong choice because you wasted your life buying plasti…

I like this because Bukowski's first purchases when he "made it" was a BMW and a house in a nice neighborhood. I'd write more but, as you say, we only get one chance at this and we're living in the best time ever.

BMW makes a nice car and there's nothing specifically wrong with buying a nice house, I just mention it as American iconography. Not sure about the cul de sac though.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#266

Post by homosaur »

inthewind wrote: post #243
dalek_cannes wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a way out of the looking-the-part problem. Cultivate an image of an eccentric genius (and work hard to actually have genius level skills) and people will start to focus more on what you can do and less on what you look like you can do . In fact, that's why the tech industry seems to get an exemption -- they're mostly perceived as eccentric geniuses. Also, spend lavishly on the best clothes, eat lavishly, but…

This thread is showing the US bias of the forum again. Some of aren't earning enough to run a car let alone a modest one.

Well we are talking about rampant consumerism here, the US is heavyweight in any discussion.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#267

Post by mattmanser »

orofino wrote: post #148
homosaur wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100K is the point where you have the illusion of financial freedom because you can purchase a BMW, buy a nice home in a bland cul-de-sac with a bunch of nameless white dudes, and it's not until you're in your 40s and you're in danger to losing the job to a robot or a whipper-snapper that you understand that kind of "freedom" is actually enslavement. You made the wrong choice because you wasted your life buying plasti…

Here's the problem though - you don't need to buy the BMW or the suburban McMansion. Save that money instead and when you're in your 40 you can tell the boss that he should give you job to a whipper-snapper, you're headed to Thailand. No one holds a gun to the consumer's head, they just convince themselves they need thing. Then they whine when they haven't saved more than 300k for retirement at age 50 and social secu…

The vast majority of people will get married and have kids and actually want to enjoy life a little bit while working 9-5.

They want to stay near their close family & friends, because they love them and want to see them and want their kids to grow up around them. Which means spending X per month on a house.

They want to have a car that doesn't embarrass them when they drive into work or round their friends, because owning a BMW has been a secret dream and it's a totally reasonable price, and a smooth ride and great acceleration.

They value different things than you and that all costs money.

I'm actually somewhere between the 'norm' and your view, but at least I'm realistic enough to realise that my priorities are different to most people's. I understand why they buy what they buy.

Most people aren't massive over-consumers.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#268

Post by lgieron »

chii wrote: post #190
dsbmac wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps society and its culture as a whole. Directly, it could be the community you live in or perhaps government. Two examples: 1) I read an article where the writer took a job somewhere in the Pacific or Southeast in a non-heavily developed area. When he gets to the village he has no place to stay. How will I live? What happens, which as a Westerner he did not expect, was that soon the community gathered at a spot…

> What happens, which as a Westerner he did not expect, was that soon the community gathered at a spot and over the next few days built him his house! It was simple but in line with the community standard. The expectation was that when someone else had a need (maybe a house) he would return the favor. how is this different than borrowing money from a bank to get a house built? In the village, the westerner had a debt…

The difference is that (presumably) the villagers won't kick you out of the house they built for you once you become ill/disabled and thus unable to repay the debt.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#269

Post by king_jester »

Leander_B wrote: post #241
telephonetemp wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creating a new social photo sharing app is not changing the world. Get real. What about a medical start-up or one to do with education?

Definitely! I am a big fan myself of Kiva and charity:water. Just saying that a lot of (tech) people have different perceptions of how exactly technology can make an impact. Unfortunately the scale between charity and money driven startups is not exactly well balanced. So lets not praise ourselves too much..

Things like Kiva and charity:water do their work in the same systems as the employees of companies do, so while they do things to help others I wouldn't exactly say they are changing the world. It's more like they propagate the world they live in to others, which has its upsides and downsides.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#270

Post by bjourne »

sliverstorm wrote: post #103
enraged_camel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"traditional slavery" which is man-made. So is capitalism. So is the corporate hierarchy. Heck, the society we live in right now is man-made. Why does that matter as an evaluation criteria? Yes, food and shelter have always required work. The difference is that they have required work by the person for the person. Or by the person for their family. Or by the person for their tribe. This meant that you worked only a…

This meant that you worked only as much was actually needed - i.e. subsistence - and no more. You do know that in agrarian societies this meant 12 hours a day 7 days a week with no holidays ever? And that children worked in the fields instead of going to school? People don't subsistence farm because they don't want anything more than the bare minimum for survival. They subsistence farm because the bare minimum for su…

That wasn't universally true. In northern europe winters and long nights significantly reduced the number of hours they could work. Sure, they worked extremely hard during planting and harvesting seasons, but the rest of the time not that much. Seasonal farming means that the result wasn't proportional to the work put in but rather to whether the crops got the right amount of sun and rain.

Before that, hunter gatherer groups worked even less because they were so few and the food so plentiful.

Post reply on HN