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

You are not your job

jry.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 443 posts

Re: You are not your job

#381

Post by wobfan »

charcircuit wrote: post #151
throwaway-11-1 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren’t valuable to markets, but like I have neighbors who are treasured by the community and genuinely bring joy to everyone. But no, I guess they aren’t economically important. I actually don’t like how every soul has been reduced to an efficiency metric, surprised how much I find forums like this accept that framing.

Doesn't that work its way into property values. People want to live in a good neighborhood and community and are willing to pay more for it.

Yes, if you try to force a material value on everything, you will get a material value.

I would pay a shit ton to have loving and supporting friends, but this is not how it works. Because loving and supporting friends don't want money in exchange, but your true love and support.

This works for "good" neighborhoods if you replace "good" with "low-crime", as people with a higher income tend to do less crimes, if we count out tax evasion and other anti-society behaviours.

But this is not what it's about. You reap what you sow. You try to increase your value for people to like you and want to be friends with you? This can work, but the price for it is (1) purely extrinsical motivation which more often then not does leave you feel empty and (2) friends who will leave you as soon as your worth decreases, e.g. with age or illness, or if a different person with more value comes around and offers their friendship.

Re: You are not your job

#382

Post by wobfan »

beeflet wrote: post #140
throwaway-11-1 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren’t valuable to markets, but like I have neighbors who are treasured by the community and genuinely bring joy to everyone. But no, I guess they aren’t economically important. I actually don’t like how every soul has been reduced to an efficiency metric, surprised how much I find forums like this accept that framing.

You and your neighbors might mutually provide joy for each other, but there is a third party in this exchange: the massive industrial complex that provides the food and shelter you need to live. Unfortunately the industrial complex does not accept joy as a form of payment, so this whole system isn't going to work out.

It does not work as long as you stay strongly intertwined with the capitalist complex, correct. But I'd argue that in basically every region of the world, you have the choice. It may be harder or easier, but you have it.

Re: You are not your job

#383

Post by giantg2 »

graemep wrote: post #258
giantg2 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finding evidence that disable people existed does not provide evidence that they were not able to contribute in some way. It's incredibly ableist to assume they couldn't.

In the context of a pre-industrial society? I doubt it. In a hunter gatherer-society? I doubt it even more. people with certain skills (e.g. tool making, music, cooking maybe..) certainly, but not for a lot of people. However, decent human beings do not value other human beings purely on the basis of their economic contribution. Someone might be a net cost, but a decent society still looks after them.

You're missing things like making clothing (tanning, sinew, etc) , gathering wood, etc. You can be missing an arm or leg and still contribute to those.

Re: You are not your job

#384

Post by _DeadFred_ »

ap99 wrote: post #346
tvier wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment defines value as what people pay for things, then comes to the conclusion that they way to value people must be based on what people will pay for them. That's not insightful, that's just circular reasoning, and it fails to explain normal human behavior. Does a child have no value to it's parents because it's "easily produced"[1] and "disposable and replaceable"? [1] I imagine OP has never given birth

I think it's more trying to say, if an individual cannot support themselves or provide value to others who can support them then those other intangible factors don't matter too much. In the first world we have a ton of excess value so we can do things like homeless shelters, charity, socialized medicine, etc. But if we suddenly don't have that excess value to spread around and it becomes either I eat today or you eat…

If you're focused on farming and I'm focused on taking the product of your labor I win. Your attention/resources are split between producing and defending yourself/survival. Mine is entirely focused on extraction.

Over time the imbalance compounds. I spend all my effort improving the mechanisms of coercion and extraction. You split yours between survival and production. I get better at taking you get just good enough at surviving to keep producing. The system stabilizes around that balance with you allowed enough to survive, but not enough to escape the cycle.

We have had extra excess because for a little while enough of us didn't think in the hundred thousand year old way you wrote. But the 'modern' tech bro world isn't able to get away from the hundred thousand year old thinking. And generations of progress potentially erode because the systems of power guiding them haven’t evolved beyond ancient incentives with all signs now pointing to new locked in systems of control instead of shared prosperity.

Re: You are not your job

#385

Post by johnisgood »

abcde666777 wrote: post #312
johnisgood wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW YouTubers get paid for... generally themselves alone. I mean come on, many are getting paid for reacting to other people's videos. Wild.

I'd argue they get paid for their ability as performers and entertainers. It's a craft that often has be developed well beyond their innate personality, and often involves a lot of acting as well.

I agree, but many rich YouTubers are terrible. People get entertained by someone watching a video and comment here and there but stays silent for the most part. No acting here. The majority of the people who get entertained are kids, FWIW.

Re: You are not your job

#386

Post by coffeebeqn »

antisthenes wrote: post #324
sph wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good god, serious life advice targeted at young men (but applicable to anybody) before the manosphere, incels and culture wars took over. Unimaginable stuff today. What a relic.

> before the manosphere, incels and culture wars took over. Those are convenient boogeymen that give basically the same advice, just sometimes in very crass and very rude forms. The advice stood 50 years ago, in 2012, and still stands today. What doesn't seem to stand is that american culture seems to have abandoned holding people accountable and responsible for anything ever.

[dead]

Re: You are not your job

#387

Post by LtWorf »

zinodaur wrote: post #108
musicale wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the US, you can get another one much more quickly than anywhere else in the world Depending on the economic conditions for the year, it can still take months: > To illustrate the recent trajectory: one analysis found that in January 2023 it took job seekers 268 days on average to land a job offer, whereas by August 2024 this had improved to 182 days (about 6 months) (How Long Does it Take to Find a Job in 2024?)…

The whole world is hurting pretty bad right now when it comes to tech jobs - America seems to be hurting the least. I'm not saying the tech job situation in America isn't bad - but the world dances to America's fiddle, and its frustrating hearing Americans complain about how hard their situation is while their boot is firmly planted on my neck

> but the world dances to America's fiddle

I think we are finding out that in fact it doesn't.

Re: You are not your job

#388

Post by charcircuit »

wobfan wrote: post #381
charcircuit wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that work its way into property values. People want to live in a good neighborhood and community and are willing to pay more for it.

Yes, if you try to force a material value on everything, you will get a material value. I would pay a shit ton to have loving and supporting friends, but this is not how it works. Because loving and supporting friends don't want money in exchange, but your true love and support. This works for "good" neighborhoods if you replace "good" with "low-crime", as people with a higher income tend to do less crimes, if we cou…

>Because loving and supporting friends don't want money in exchange, but your true love and support.

The money would go to the "matchmaker" who would connect people with the right people.

Re: You are not your job

#389

Post by isjcjsjcnjd »

Dibes wrote: post #337
abcde666777 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just going to poke you a little for the statement about not having children ;). It strikes me as a little elitist and I'll tell you why: You don't need to have had children to have loved people and to have lost people, and to fully understand the depth and weight of those things.

I believe they were trying to push back on the easily word in "easily produced". While, thank god, modern medicine makes birthing dramatically safer than at any time in history, it is still an incredibly taxing process on the human body and still fundamentally dangerous. It is not "easy" per-se.

C’mon now, let’s not be intentionally obtuse to try and sound smart adding “yes, but” to a perfectly solid argument. Children are easily produced, that’s a fact. The process of child bearing is not in question, but rather the availability of willing partners (hell, even unwilling, if we’re getting that dark) and how little effort it generally takes to get the conception process going.

They were making a point that it’s much easier to generate a human being than it is actually generating economically meaningful value. One needs a few minutes of your time and gets you feeling really good at the end of the process, and the other can (and often does) require years of effort, toil and sweat (all of which can catastrophically fail rendering your efforts moot).

Generating a new human is, indeed, comparatively easy.

Re: You are not your job

#390

Post by isjcjsjcnjd »

mettamage wrote: post #315
sph wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good god, serious life advice targeted at young men (but applicable to anybody) before the manosphere, incels and culture wars took over. Unimaginable stuff today. What a relic.

Well... it was 2012 so makes sense. > they fall for those jerks because those jerks have other things they can offer. Ha! That reminds me that I, somewhat unknowingly, in the past have emulated the good parts of a jerk to be more attractive myself. What are the good parts of a jerk? They are: adventurous, spontaneous, in the moment, doesn't take everything too seriously, thrill seeking and confident. It made me much…

> Oh and I still was nice too.

That is a judgment reserved exclusively to third parties, I’m afraid.

Post reply on HN