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

The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

nooneshappy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#51

Post by piva00 »

fluoridation wrote: post #49
piva00 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have missed the whole point if that's what you found funny. I'm not arguing about not telling someone to shut up in general; my argument is against telling people to shut up, and not complain, when they have grievances about the state of things outside of their individual power.

>they have grievances about the state of things outside of their individual power Yeah, that seems to be what the person you replied to was doing. They can't make other people not write these kinds of articles, after all.

Ok, we are doing semantics nitpicking so I need to spell it out even further: my main argument is against people telling others to shut up about societal issues outside of their individual power.

Can we continue the discussion from this or are we supposed to keep this going until we need to reinvent legalese to cover all bases and have a conversation?

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#52

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

jazz3k wrote: post #24

"The people living inside these numbers describe them in nearly identical terms. “All my life, I thought that was the magical goal, ‘six figures,’” one writes. “During the pandemic, I finally achieved this magical goal… and I was wrong.” Sixty-two percent of American consumers live paycheck to paycheck; among those earning over $100,000, the figure is 48 percent." My cousin makes around 60k/year. He had lower paying…

This is a variation on "Stop buying lattes and takeout and you too can become financially secure."

Run the numbers, and no, you really can't. Because if you have a health crisis you'll still be bankrupt.

You need an absolute minimum of $100k to protect yourself from health bankruptcy, and if you have a serious condition that's going to be too small by one or two orders of magnitude.

You're not going to get that from a $60k job.

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#53

Post by [deleted] »

piva00 wrote: post #51
fluoridation wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they have grievances about the state of things outside of their individual power Yeah, that seems to be what the person you replied to was doing. They can't make other people not write these kinds of articles, after all.

Ok, we are doing semantics nitpicking so I need to spell it out even further: my main argument is against people telling others to shut up about societal issues outside of their individual power. Can we continue the discussion from this or are we supposed to keep this going until we need to reinvent legalese to cover all bases and have a conversation?

[deleted]

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#54

Post by smitty1e »

> In 1980, 38 percent of private-sector workers had defined-benefit pension coverage. By 2023, that number had fallen to 11 percent. [15] Government workers, who have the political power to maintain the old arrangement, still have pensions at a rate of 75 percent. [15] The private sector abandoned the model because it could. I wish I’d known when I was young what I know now about government jobs.

I wish I'd had better tools for budgeting and retirement accounts.

This argument would have much more heft if it discussed 401k accounts and financial planning.

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#55

Post by fluoridation »

piva00 wrote: post #51
fluoridation wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they have grievances about the state of things outside of their individual power Yeah, that seems to be what the person you replied to was doing. They can't make other people not write these kinds of articles, after all.

Ok, we are doing semantics nitpicking so I need to spell it out even further: my main argument is against people telling others to shut up about societal issues outside of their individual power. Can we continue the discussion from this or are we supposed to keep this going until we need to reinvent legalese to cover all bases and have a conversation?

That's not semantic nitpicking, that's just taking words at face value. I wasn't aware we could retroactively change their meaning when it became convenient. Can I try? What I meant by my original comment was you made a very eloquently put point that made a masterful use of irony in its rhetoric.

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#56

Post by toomuchtodo »

theoreticalmal wrote: post #42
htunnicliff wrote: post #34

I do not know what comes after the recognition. The broader public directs its outrage at whatever the algorithm surfaces […] while the structural rearrangement of their economic lives proceeds without organized resistance. I wish I knew the answer to this question: What shape would organized resistance have in this day and age, especially with the fragmentation of reality caused by social media? Myself and almost ev…

You’d revolt? Against what?

America’s flavor of Capitalism, through politics and policy, to center the human over capital.

(Socialism support is ~62% of the under 30 cohort, and 2M voters 55+ age out every year, progress is a function of time and electorate turnover, with progress visible via observing outcomes at election milestones)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46529387 (citations)

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#57

Post by paulryanrogers »

fluoridation wrote: post #40
piva00 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without loudly complaining there is absolutely no change. Shutting up has never improved anything. Why would the only solution be "figure out how to make more money"? There are many professions where it isn't even possible to figure that out, should all of them just shut up and move? It's great you were able to go live somewhere else, for some it would be devastating to lose their sense of belonging, other people hav…

I find it a little funny that you're doing the same thing you're complaining about.

Are they? One person is saying that complaining won't help (since presumably "we all know this already"). The other person says complaining will help (i.e. let them speak).

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#58

Post by piva00 »

fluoridation wrote: post #55
piva00 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, we are doing semantics nitpicking so I need to spell it out even further: my main argument is against people telling others to shut up about societal issues outside of their individual power. Can we continue the discussion from this or are we supposed to keep this going until we need to reinvent legalese to cover all bases and have a conversation?

That's not semantic nitpicking, that's just taking words at face value. I wasn't aware we could retroactively change their meaning when it became convenient. Can I try? What I meant by my original comment was you made a very eloquently put point that made a masterful use of irony in its rhetoric.

Taking words at face value and nitpicking on it while missing the forest for the trees is exactly what a "Technical Genius"-archetype does on online discussions, recommend the read if you never encountered it: https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-people-planet-a...

At no point I changed the meaning of anything I said, you required me to obviate what was already there because you wanted to pick a semantics discussion. Now that it's been obviated you decided it isn't good enough and that I'm changing meaning for convenience. Proving again that you not only missed the whole point but also is choosing to continue a semantics discussion, that's rather boring.

Again, I wholeheartedly recommend you reading the section on the "Technical Genius" of that article, you might identify yourself.

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#59

Post by fluoridation »

piva00 wrote: post #58
fluoridation wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not semantic nitpicking, that's just taking words at face value. I wasn't aware we could retroactively change their meaning when it became convenient. Can I try? What I meant by my original comment was you made a very eloquently put point that made a masterful use of irony in its rhetoric.

Taking words at face value and nitpicking on it while missing the forest for the trees is exactly what a "Technical Genius"-archetype does on online discussions, recommend the read if you never encountered it: https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-people-planet-a... At no point I changed the meaning of anything I said, you required me to obviate what was already there because you wanted to pick a semantics dis…

Thank you.

Re: The Demoralization of the White-Collar Worker

#60

Post by lotsofpulp »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #47
lotsofpulp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because your 1993 health insurance covered far less. There was no out of pocket maximum, you were denied for pre existing health conditions, and a surprise bill could show up anytime. Now, you can buy health insurance even if you know your anemic kid will need $1.5M of treatment in the year, and it will only cost you ~$10k to ~$15k per year. To be clear, today’s health insurance premiums are not premiums either, they…

Unless your (kid's) care is denied because it's a pre-existing condition. Or for some other pretext.

In 1993, it would have been. In 2026, he cannot be denied coverage due to Affordable Care Act passed in 2010.

However, because more people are getting more healthcare, like my son, premiums are higher. Which, as I explained, are not premiums, but rather taxes. So OldSchool is comparing a $300 per month premium with benefit maximums to $3,000 per month taxes, which are not comparable.

And it’s not the insurance companies that cause the $3,000 premiums, it’s the medicine manufacturers and hospitals and doctors. My son is on medication that costs $80k per dose, and each infusion visit is $10k at least. And, of course, the legal liability each step of the way.

Post reply on HN