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

61–70 of 477 posts

Re: “People simply empty out”

#61

Post by wwweston »

Afforess wrote: post #21
Casseres wrote: post #14

Today, too many people have jobs to support their lifestyles, not their lives. People end up working to continue making monthly payments on houses larger than they need, cars fancier than they need, and they won't be able to fully enjoy those things because they're always working 9-5. Today, we are a lot further along than we were 50 years ago. People aren't working in factories to put bread on the table, people are…

People buy things they can't afford, with money that they don't have, to impress people that they don't like I realized I could live off of $25000/yr and maintain a modestly comfortable lifestyle at the same time. I am on track to retire before I am 40. Anyone can do it. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-...

I've recently lived in reasonable comfort on less than that, but I've also learned to be suspicious about the phrase "anyone can do it" (no matter what "it" is). Sometimes it doesn't take much of a disadvantage to make certain things dramatically more difficult.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#62

Post by jessaustin »

enraged_camel wrote: post #41
jgross206 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference, to me, is that the lack of freedom you describe is simply a part of the human condition (food and shelter require work, which has been true as long as life has existed) as opposed to what you call "traditional slavery" which is man-made.

>>"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…

I guess we should expect everyone to jump on that last sentence. Whatever, I don't consider inapt idiom to destroy this position. Perhaps we should say that subsistence living is impossible when one's peers drive new cars, carry new computing equipment, and pay for their health care with insurance.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#63

Post by mingmecca »

djim wrote: post #55

i sold my startup about 3 months ago, and immediately starting looking for another job. after a couple months, a couple interesting but-not-exciting offers, and one interview process that ended in me not getting an offer, i finally took a worthy vacation. while on a boat in the caribbean, a couple things occurred to me: (1) i really don't need to work for the next ~10 years (2) in that time, i will likely stumble on…

Well, based on my experience you definitely want to 'work', but work on things that fulfill you in some way. Hopefully your startup sale allows you to never again be dependent on the The Man, so if you're tasked with something onerous and/or stupid, you can simply walk away.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#65

Post by ojbyrne »

Casseres wrote: post #14

Today, too many people have jobs to support their lifestyles, not their lives. People end up working to continue making monthly payments on houses larger than they need, cars fancier than they need, and they won't be able to fully enjoy those things because they're always working 9-5. Today, we are a lot further along than we were 50 years ago. People aren't working in factories to put bread on the table, people are…

I'm failing to see how your goal is any different from having a job to support your lifestyle.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#66

Post by jessaustin »

tnuc wrote: post #59
JoeCortopassi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are taking the value of a tangible asset from 1969 and comparing it to todays value of said tangible asset. This in no way illustrates the inflation rate. All it shows (assuming your numbers are right) is the increase in the perceived value of gold in that time frame. The original comment's $650 number is close enough to be considered accurate

Umm.. No. An ounce of gold is traditionally viewed as a months wages. And it hasn't changed much but there are some fluctuations. Interest rates and inflation are artificial constructs that are fiddled with to screw you out of your money.

I wasn't alive back then, but I think most full-time workers in USA made more than $40/month in 1969.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#67

Post by dictum »

_delirium wrote: post #43
dictum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he suggested people should work to age 80, but work proportionally less in all the years up to there. At 70, your body is generally not able to do the same things you were doing at 20/30, at least not with the same ease. A 75 year old man could work as hard as a 25 year old man, but the same amount of work will probably take a greater toll on his health. In a way, seems like his scheme is pretty much geared to make…

Is it really more impractical for a 70-year-old to work 25 hours, than for a 60-year-old to work 40 hours? The latter is widely expected today, and we expect 60-year-olds to work as hard as 25-year-olds. Otherwise, we'll hire the 25-year-old over them. If that's a problem, we should change it across the board. Note that this proposal is also in the context of a system that provides full support for job retraining and…

Sorry, I misread your comment. I had understood it as "work more as you get closer to 80", and not the inverse, which is the premise of his suggestion.

Maybe wanting to stop working at 65 and step into full retirement is particular to the American system. Most 70 year olds I know would like some kind of job/retirement hybrid: work 30 hours a week, have longer vacation times, more flexible hours, not losing the job when you have to take a leave for medical reasons, etc.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#68

Post by dictum »

johnrob wrote: post #53
revelation wrote: post #3

$100 are about $650 in todays money [1]. [1]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100%24+from+1969

It's actually a lot more. 4.31% per year is likely what the US government reports. They traditionally under report inflation (although to a greater degree over the past 20 years). The bundle of goods used to measure inflation does not include housing and energy, which have been the primary sources of rising living costs (not to mention medicine, which I only just considered).

What is the point of tracking inflation if you're not going to account for what's actually reducing (or increasing) the purchasing power of your currency?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#69

Post by rollo_tommasi »

blackhole wrote: post #5

I feel like too many people get sucked into the idea of furthering their career, to the point that they forget to further their own life. What is the point of existence if we never get around to experiencing it? "It's not the things we do in life that we regret on our death bed, it is the things we do not." - Randy Pausch

I think you've missed the point of the letter entirely. It's not about people who are obsessed with their work, it's about people who have no choice in the matter.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#70

Post by eropple »

enraged_camel wrote: post #34
Afforess wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People buy things they can't afford, with money that they don't have, to impress people that they don't like I realized I could live off of $25000/yr and maintain a modestly comfortable lifestyle at the same time. I am on track to retire before I am 40. Anyone can do it. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-...

>>Anyone can do it. Correction: anyone who graduates without debt and starts their careers making good money can do it.

And is willing to live in fairly shitty places.

(You're not retiring on $25K a year in any part of Boston, NYC, Seattle, or any other reasonably vibrant urban area without making brutal compromises in terms of quality of life.)

Post reply on HN