I'm 38 and I Can't Support Myself Anymore
Posted by speckx 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Everything else. You are worth so much more than your productivity.
I'm glad I never got sucked into the protestant work ethic, since defining yourself based on your labour and the value you generate from that sounds woefully narrow-minded (this doesn't feel like quite the right word, but close enough).
It's probably helpful to at least expand 'productivity' to something beyond just what is useful for your work. Reading the classics is productive because it's enjoyable, even though it doesn't help with your work. Ditto spending time with friends and whatever else that doesn't have anything to do with work.
I hope we figure out what to do about disabilities, since the current status quo is inhumane in large parts of the world (and even in places with good benefits systems, getting that support isn't trivial).
Comment by avalys 1 day ago
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Comment by hogehoge51 1 day ago
"Have enough" is a static steady state. "Produce enough" now and in the future is a dynamic constraint.
The mechanism is economic surplus, to have the producers (productive people who produce needed goods and inputs to such) create more than they need. This generally requires increasing and maintaining productivity to have surplus.
Once you have a surplus the absolute maximum priority is to maintain it. Plant, machinery, systems, irrigation, fertilizer production etc etc.
The system is dynamic, surplus today is not surplus tommorow.
In my country we have a means to ditribute this excess, and it may even go to those in need, but the cost of distributing it has been increasing at a far higher rate than the rate of increasing surplus.
what i fail to understand is why people come to a technologist forum without a basic understanding of system dynamics. this is entry level material for engineering, mathematics and physics. are they not teaching it in CS?
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Comment by nate_meurer 1 day ago
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Comment by nate_meurer 1 day ago
If you want to argue your point, you have to address the real fiscal burdens on modern societies, and the real drivers of debt across the West. The biggest components of government debt are medical care and pensions (including Social Security in the US). These are the things that are bankrupting us, not food and clothing.
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
The US spends an inordinate amount on healthcare since the system is covered in leeches (17~% of GDP compared to 10~ in Europe).[1] If a significant part of US debt is caused by healthcare costs, then that sounds like a political own-goal. That's not to say the costs in Europe are insignificant. We can probably do better here too.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26746...
Comment by aianus 23 hours ago
Comment by sharts 15 hours ago
If it were efficient it would clear the queue with max throughput. This is not so.
Comment by juvvel 13 hours ago
Comment by WarmWash 10 hours ago
Comment by psd1 14 hours ago
I imagine that you can pony up to be seen in two days in Canada too, and also that the single-payer system keeps those private practice honest, so you'd pay less for your fast turnaround than in Freedonia. I may be wrong, of course.
Comment by smcg 7 hours ago
Comment by arbitrary_name 9 hours ago
your argument is ideological, not rooted in reality.
Comment by FiddlyPack 13 hours ago
"If you can afford it" is true everywhere. You can also see a specialist in just about any country in a couple days if you've got the money to fly there; often cheaper and faster to travel outside the US to get care, depending on what you need.
"Public" healthcare in the US is a joke. Insurance costs more and covers less every year.
Comment by equake 6 hours ago
Comment by ibobev 3 hours ago
Comment by nate_meurer 1 hour ago
- Healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid): 24%
- Social Security: 23%
- Net Interest on Federal Debt: 15%
- National Defense: 13%
So I guess healthcare and Social Security don't qualify as "real" expenditures to you?
And I'll point out that the enormous bill for the interest on debt is a pretty good reason to avoid ringing up so much debt in the first place.
Comment by germandiago 23 hours ago
Then get ready to be a slave, bc noone, absolutely noone gives things for free, which is, in my view, reasonable.
Comment by Telaneo 23 hours ago
Why would I believe this?
Comment by hogehoge51 22 hours ago
Comment by germandiago 22 hours ago
Comment by lenkite 15 hours ago
What happens when labour-based production is fully replaced by automated factories? Then ?
Comment by germandiago 13 hours ago
Comment by amanaplanacanal 1 day ago
Comment by nate_meurer 23 hours ago
Comment by amanaplanacanal 10 hours ago
Comment by nate_meurer 4 hours ago
The essential purpose of a market for IOUs is to allow us to issue a lot more IOUs. This is critical to the industrial and technological development that has allowed us to stop living in the dirt. But liquid debt markets can also be weapons of mass destruction by allowing misallocation to compound into ruinous financial crises. Sort of like, oh I don't know, bloated, inefficient government entitlement programs funded by massive debt that can only be dealt with by a.) confiscating the labor and assets of the population by force, or b.) monetizing the debt and inflating it away, which is itself a backdoor tax on the same population.
Comment by hogehoge51 22 hours ago
It also allows us to characterize and understand how the capability to generate surplus has been distributed etc etc.
There is no single lump of goods and services, or a single lump of surplus. There is an economic problem of ensuring such are created in surplus and distributed to those who need them. A surplus of lawn mowing and shopping services (such as disability welfare has created in my country) could easily be accompanied by a shortage in housing. In fact one could be caused by the other.
The economy has capacity today and surplus from yesterday. Beyond that takes vigilance and accountability to maintain the system.
The fundamental question is why exactly you think a system can have some fundamental governing and observation mechanism such as debt (or equity accounting) removed and it would still maintain the same system characteristics that produce said surplus?
This is basic engineering and system architecture 101 and I would expect technologists to have more than a surface level expectation that systems do not operate magically nor label components as redundant without detailed reasoning.
Comment by kakwa_ 15 hours ago
It's also a system that is unstable in non-booming economies, drifts over time and needs periodic resets (through revolution, debt cancelling or inflation for example).
When dealing with material well-being, it makes much more sense to focus on goods and services and frame things more in the line of "would you trade a bit of wealth (smaller car or home, less Uber Eat, etc) to ensure a few unlucky people have food and roof".
Most western economies, specially one as wasteful as the US, have the luxury to make this choice. Not sharing it is a political & ideological decision, not a materially constrained one.
Comment by hogehoge51 29 minutes ago
I suspect the size of the debt is just a "dc offset" and not the main signal. While important, maybe not as "information-ally" significant as it's size would suggest. Still it is probably hiding something, a subtle bug in the accounting, and that something contributes to the frequent cycles of debt-jubilees, revolutions, upheavals etc.
Now the real question you have posed is what is missed in the debate - most wealth in our society is captured in the make up and choice of goods and services consumed, and what is the contribution of a bias towards wealthy consumption here? e.g. in my country there were about 150 luxury yacht sales totaling ~$4billion, vs ~80,000 luxury car sales @ ~$15billion, vs total car sales of ~1,000,000 at ~$100billion. The annual cost of our public disability insurance scheme is ~$50billion. The "sharing" seems to have a significant access to resources compared to luxury on those accounts. I personally think the public disability insurance scheme causes harmful distortion to the broader economy while also meeting the important needs of some members of society.
My gut feel the issue is not ideological or political or a luxury preference, it's structural - the economy is not structured to deliver the correct set of needs, and this is due to real material constraints that have always constrained the economic problem. Not in terms that just the wrong top down decisions are being made, but that the correct bottom up decisions are prevented from being made. If you apply a model of computation complexity, feedback and iterative improvement - bottom up generally has more access to information and compute to directly address problems, while top-down can occasionally deal with global biases and accumulated error.
One true material constraint is the scarcity of competence and accountability. Wealth accumulation is the natural consequence of that material constraint. Top down "political & ideological decisions" are generally the enemy of competence and accountability.
Comment by nate_meurer 4 hours ago
Comment by _DeadFred_ 23 hours ago
Republicans just passed huge tax cuts, it is Republicans that have zero care about debt, again because they choose agenda over strong/healthy federal government so that people like you can make posts like this (and ignore such facts as Republicans are the drivers of debt in order to intentionally undermine/weaken our country/government).
Comment by WarmWash 10 hours ago
Comment by mvc 1 day ago
Is it? Or is it that an increasing proportion of total income ends up going to the people who find ways of hiding it such that it does not get distributed.
Comment by hogehoge51 22 hours ago
Comment by arbitrary_name 9 hours ago
Comment by hogehoge51 1 hour ago
either the activity and resource is part of an economy or not, an activity or resource that is still in the economy is not hoarded.
either thise things are in the economic system or not. swiss banking is simply another economic system, eiher it is a separate closed loop system(and not accesible), or an integrated system with flows in and out. if the money is not part of the closed loop of the economy what value does it have? (it's addition and removal simply inflates or deflates the remaining closed loop system) normal banking and currency exchange already creates and destroys money in orders of mangitude larger than private wealth.
land and hard resources are the only place i think you can hoard. it can be taken out of the economy and still maintain value, and depending on the relative holding you can influence value. but even that requires a holding cost. the holding cost is part of the broader closed loop economic system, an/or political system. you could say much of the fuedal economy was paying the holding cost for this hoarding, the advancement of the modern economic system was to build a massive integrated economy around it that made the holding cost higher and significant hoarding moslty unsustainable. (except by goverment)
Comment by jumpinjack710 1 day ago
Comment by dmitrygr 1 day ago
Cognitive dissonance, they understand but refuse to admit it because it conflicts with their world view.
Comment by theflyingelvis 1 day ago
Comment by daishi55 1 day ago
Comment by chung8123 1 day ago
Comment by juvvel 13 hours ago
Comment by WarmWash 10 hours ago
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
See that 50-90% and 90-99%?
That's where all the money is. Moreover, the top 1% have tons of assets, but not much actual money.
Any "evening out" will come mostly from the 50-99% class.
If you want to see a crack in the echochamber, ask yourself why no publication has ever published this chart?
Comment by gilbetron 8 hours ago
The point is that the top 1% can be taxed more heavily, not that they own the majority of wealth.
Comment by welshwelsh 7 hours ago
Think about it: to pay for this tax, the rich will need to sell their assets. Who is going to buy those assets? What impact would that have on the asset price?
Comment by nate_meurer 1 day ago
Comment by germandiago 23 hours ago
It is just too much.
Comment by wuschel 13 hours ago
Comment by WarmWash 1 day ago
Comment by tmnvix 1 day ago
I do find it interesting that a lot of people (not trying to imply that you are one) bang on about incentives while also fighting tooth and nail in favour of weighting taxes toward earned income (derived from doing useful/productive things) instead of unearned income (derived from simply owning things).
I get that some people view all forms of tax as theft and while I appreciate their honesty, I simply can't take them seriously.
Comment by jbritton 1 day ago
Comment by amanaplanacanal 1 day ago
Comment by _DeadFred_ 10 hours ago
For 40 years, half the government (the Republicans) have been trying to break things/damage things/induce huge debt loads/underfund programs so they can't succeed.
Look at what Republicans has done to governance/oversite Inspectors General offices this current term. They have removed their ability to be neutral observers/oversite. Republicans do not care about fighting any of the things you listed, and in fact have been encouraging them for 40 years hoping by making things worse they can finally win on their argument 'government doesn't work' leaving out 'because we've have actively worked to break it for 40 years'.
Comment by bluefirebrand 1 day ago
I'm an employee. I don't really benefit from doing more. When I do more, someone else makes money. In my experience that someone else is just as likely to lay me off for a cheaper worker as they are to give me a raise
The incentives our system produces are already really skewed, and it would be nice to see them skew the other way for once
Comment by WarmWash 1 day ago
Comment by yoyohello13 1 day ago
Comment by WarmWash 23 hours ago
You can't pay bills with equity, you will get paid a smaller salary, you need to be a mature adult to understand what "value can go to zero, and that is the game" entails, you likely will get diluted, your ownership stake isn't large enough to materially change the company, you cannot cash out whenever you want, having equity definitely doesn't make you rich automatically.
Besides, if you are savvy enough to be genuinely motivated by the idea of having equity, just go buy stocks in solid companies.
Comment by bluefirebrand 1 day ago
It wouldn't be too hard I don't think. Avoid having employees by making everything a short term contract / gig style work
Comment by amanaplanacanal 1 day ago
Comment by bluefirebrand 1 day ago
> "we ought to start giving raises to people who do less work, not more"
This is completely beside the point, honestly
We should not use the most productive members of society as a measuring stick as though they were the average.
The average person does "way less work" than your very productive workaholic outliers, but that doesn't mean those people deserve way less.
Somehow we've all wound up being measured against the most exceptional people, instead of being measured against the average.
Keep in mind we're talking about a society where the median person only makes like $45k per year and exceptional people make many many times more than that
I'm not sitting here saying that some random shmuck should have Elon Musks income or anything, we could probably do better than 45k a year though
Comment by germandiago 23 hours ago
Comment by bluefirebrand 22 hours ago
You're in a super small bubble if you think earning equity in your employer's company is standard.
Comment by joquarky 1 day ago
Comment by WarmWash 23 hours ago
"Valuable work leads to good outcomes for everyone" is probably one of the slipperiest slopes there is.
Comment by laughing_man 1 day ago
Comment by shuwix 18 hours ago
Last time when link between work and material comfort was disconnected was communism.
It looked good on paper from 1920's perspective, but was a downward spiral.
If we are to be functioning society, people need motivation to do their best ... and then, there's some spare wealth for the unfortunate.
Comment by JumpinJack_Cash 15 hours ago
The disconnect is already there, any 5 year old already understands that stealing a comic book at the comic book store is better than paying for it. And more and more people are resorting to it at every level of society
Comment by germandiago 23 hours ago
Infinitely redistributing does not yield products for all, but scarcity for all.
Comment by WarmWash 23 hours ago
Take that capitalist pig!
Comment by germandiago 23 hours ago
There is no way around this, believe me.
Not sure why you call pigs to people producing actually. That is how things end up working.
Not waiting for people to produce fornyou while you insult them amd try to set infinite restrictions until they do what you want... which by the way looks to me like modern slavery.
Comment by encrypted_bird 21 hours ago
Comment by germandiago 7 hours ago
Comment by hackeraccount 11 hours ago
Comment by xedrac 1 day ago
Comment by hackeraccount 11 hours ago
Musk is a golden goose and there are people who think the best move is to cut him in half and get at all the gold inside.
Comment by techteach00 1 day ago
Comment by zem 1 day ago
Comment by closeparen 1 day ago
Comment by nate_meurer 1 day ago
My favorite example: if you confiscated all of the wealth from all of the billionaires in the USA, it would fund the federal government for around six months. If you add state and local governments, those funds would last just weeks.
The rich don't have your money. Your government does, and they're flushing it down the toilet (and bombing Iran).
Comment by _DeadFred_ 10 hours ago
The rich have our money. The money given to them via irresponsible tax cuts for the last 40 years in an intentional policy to fiscally damage the government so much it fails.
Comment by nate_meurer 41 minutes ago
Comment by arjie 1 day ago
Comment by JumpinJack_Cash 14 hours ago
This is so BS, the productivity of a company is given by cash flow and Discounted Cash Flow (output>input) , not stock market value , taxing Musk would force him to sell stock and dilute the ownership of Tesla and SpaceX down among the population proportionally and according to the brackets of taxation applied.
The fear that you are describing is exactly what's wrong with society, the virus of the mind that attributes to CEOs and especially tech CEOs demigod properties and if their ownership and decision making control were to be diluted the company would collapse and die.
If anything it's the opposite, the oldest companies in America have their ownership much more diluted than they once were . JPMorgan is not controlled by John Pierpont Morgan, same for all the companies which make up what once was Standard Oil
If anything history is showing that for the survival of a company it is almost a condition non negotiable that its ownership and decision making has to be diluted among millions of people with a low inequality factor, or at least lower than the one necessary in the first years of the company
Comment by cutterl6 1 day ago
Comment by amanaplanacanal 1 day ago
Comment by cutterl6 19 hours ago
Comment by techteach00 15 hours ago
Comment by AlexandrB 1 day ago
Yes, like the 40%[1] of Stanford undergrads who have disabilities. The greatest long term impediment to what you're suggesting is folks who don't need the help taking advantage of the resource distribution. It both massively increases the costs and sours those who have to pay into the system on the whole thing leading to a backlash.
If we could just solve this quirk of human nature, we'd be all set.
[1] https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-a...
Comment by ethbr1 13 hours ago
Superior systems exist, but they require relaxing the adversarial asshole constraint.
Comment by watwut 16 hours ago
Comment by cake-rusk 2 hours ago
I got this feeling looking at the (non)word cantine.
Comment by NuclearPM 1 day ago
Comment by mrkstu 1 day ago
Comment by jjav 1 day ago
That alone would be a massive win.
Comment by cucumber3732842 1 day ago
What worries me are the god knows how many "billionaire equivelent" entities and institutions that swing their dicks around in the same manner but do so with the sociopathic ruthlessness of corporations and governments.
Peter Thiel may be evil but he'll almost certainly never knowingly instigate genocidal war in a foreign land for marginal benefit to his interests whereas that's exactly the kind of thing that nonhuman entities do because no person is singularly responsible.
Comment by ethbr1 13 hours ago
"Thiel's Palantir, Israel agree strategic partnership for battle tech" [2024] https://www.palantir.com/assets/xrfr7uokpv1b/3MuEeA8MLbLDAyx...
Ironically, that's the saved copy hosted by Palantir itself...
Comment by NuclearPM 14 hours ago
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Comment by bestouff 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by shepherdjerred 1 day ago
I don’t think anyone is advocating to provide a free ride for capable individuals
Of course someone has to produce/work harder — and the parent is arguing that there is already more than enough extra
Comment by overfeed 1 day ago
Unless the capable individuals control a lot of capital - then free-riding is expected via the "Job-creator exception clause"
Comment by throwaway173738 1 day ago
Maybe it’s time that we worked together to gain that time back for you instead of you fighting for us to lose our free time.
Comment by dostick 1 day ago
Comment by nradov 1 day ago
Comment by afpx 23 hours ago
Recently, I had a conversation with a bunch of people who have worked in the tech industry since the 90s. Someone asked which technologies have greatly improved our lives. Outside of some specific medical innovations, we struggled to agree on more than three.
Comment by germandiago 23 hours ago
That mindset, taken to the extreme, hides a kind of sibylline slavery, Idk if you get why.
It also makes for far less responsible and comfortable individuals.
Trying to be useful and auronomous is our obligation. Thinking others will do it and that it is automatically ok is not the best we can do to contribute.
Comment by Telaneo 23 hours ago
Comment by pj_mukh 1 day ago
How are you measuring this? Hopefully something better than stock prices.
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Around 10% of houses in the US are vacant, although I'm sure a fair amount are that for good reasons (shitty locations, old and worn to high hell). This to me sounds like a resource allocation problem and not a lack-of-resources problem.
Energy could be free close to free if we made the right choices. The sun's right there. Unfortunately, we've been stuck in a political rut for a long while, making long term projects like 'do something about global warming' and 'transition away from fossil fuels' uninteresting.
Many medicines are only expensive due to patents and making up for research costs. Actual production is usually cheap as hell.
I don't have all the answers. People smarter than me might have them. But I do know that we can do better.
Comment by pj_mukh 1 day ago
I agree we can do a lot better. And I have no moral qualms about giving the excess away to everyone who needs it. But I need people to admit that it will require a lot of work till we can sufficiently claim we have a real realizable "excess".
And that work requires the current system to work more "efficiently" and with "higher productivity", in the economic definition of the word, not as a personal valuation as OP defines.
[1]: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Or maybe, just maybe, we should do it because it's a thing that raises people's quality of life? I only care about the economy insofar as it helps actual people on the ground, so I'll be happy to ignore it for things like this, assuming that doesn't put us in an even worse rut than we are in now.
Comment by pj_mukh 1 day ago
The cost (no profit) of 1 Million homes where people want to live (where your community is), would be roughly 0.5 Trillion to 1 Trillion USD [1]. So, I don't think this is true :(.
We simply don't have the construction workers and the supply-chains to make it happen. Again, these are fixable problems and I want this to be true. But it is not today.
[1]: https://medium.com/@dtxtransitposts/how-much-does-it-actuall...
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Also 1 trillion dollars sounds like a single year of national debt interest, the total amount spent and destroyed by the Iran war, or the Pentagon's black budget. I'm sure we can give up one of those for a year to fix every economic problem plaguing the country.
Comment by timbit42 1 day ago
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
That sounds worth it to me.
> We simply don't have the construction workers and the supply-chains to make it happen. Again, these are fixable problems and I want this to be true. But it is not today.
Sounds like something we need to fix then.
Comment by Danox 1 day ago
Most young people will be going back to the good old days, staying home and not leaving until they are married, which is what happens in most of the world today.
Comment by yunnpp 1 day ago
As far as I know, people vote against housing developments, among other things to prop up their own house values. They might not disagree it's a problem, but they also don't care to do anything about it. I don't think the housing issue is strictly economics and logistics.
Comment by arjie 1 day ago
You'll see this if you're ever at sea. You have an infinite amount of fresh water around you. All you have to do is avoid the salt in it.
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Comment by XorNot 1 day ago
Comment by anovikov 1 day ago
Comment by butlike 1 day ago
Comment by pharrington 1 day ago
Comment by pj_mukh 1 day ago
Vacancies in most major cities is near-zero. As a market-rate renter, when someone says "we have so much excess", I have no idea what you're talking about.
Comment by Zababa 1 day ago
Comment by AnimalMuppet 1 day ago
Comment by kakacik 1 day ago
Its everybody for themselves in US, fuck the rest, the more the better. Some 'society' it is. The more miserable and poor others are, the better you can exploit them right. How horrible the world would be if those folks stocking shelves in shops or trimming your hair would also have a shot for a decent life.
Middle class is for mediocre suckers, either your are a star (at least from financial perspective, usually the rest of life is very opposite of it) or a loser. Can't say I can respect that system, but as long as I am not part of it nor bombed by its military industrial complex to death I simply don't care. Folks can stay and be part of that system or leave, that part of freedom is still sorta there.
Comment by lostmsu 1 day ago
Comment by hackingonempty 1 day ago
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/national-eco...
Comment by qwytw 1 day ago
Comment by Danox 1 day ago
What is terrible is the fact that our leaders who should think ahead long-term don’t whether it’s Covid or current measles outbreak there are going be a large number of people that will potentially be disabled by the effects of catching either one, and sadly the policy makers who are charged with the responsibility of solving problems, can’t think ahead. Those are just two recent examples, but there are many things in the course of life which can happen to anyone.
Comment by nate_meurer 1 day ago
Comment by reactordev 1 day ago
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Insulin costs ~3 USD to make per vial. People not being able to afford ~30 USD insulin is not because we have too little medication. It's because there are leeches all over the healthcare system.
And if you genuinely cannot afford it, you should get it for free, as part of a proper healthcare system, which the US famously lacks.
Comment by RobinL 1 day ago
Comment by Suzuran 1 day ago
Comment by chneu 1 day ago
Comment by Suzuran 1 day ago
Comment by efficax 1 day ago
Comment by ImJamal 1 day ago
> A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors
Just replace investors with tax payers.
Comment by efficax 5 hours ago
Comment by ImJamal 1 hour ago
Many young people feel like they are going to pay into SS for 50 years to pay for the older generations and then when they retire they are going to receive less than they paid in. Obviously that may or may not be the case, but there is a general feeling that they are being gypped in order to pay for the older generation's retirement that they will not get themselves.
Comment by 4fterd4rk 1 day ago
Look up when benefits began to be paid. The current payments very much and by design pay for the current retirees. The idea that this is some kind of elaborate “scam” when it is one of those things that every other civilized country has figured out is hilarious. Go travel. Go talk to some retirees there. Turn off the Fox News.
Comment by astral_drama 1 day ago
The able do. The disabled would love to work hard and earn a nice paycheck. It's a privilege to be able to work and be in good health. Hopefully you don't have to learn that the hard way.
Comment by avalys 1 day ago
I am certainly sympathetic to people who are genuinely disabled.
That doesn’t mean we have to lie to ourselves that they are being productive by sitting around reading books.
Comment by astral_drama 1 day ago
You do
> I am certainly sympathetic to people who are genuinely disabled.
Agreed, and it can be uncomfortable to sort through what's genuine or not. One of my favorite scenes is in the big Lebowski where Walter confronts the other Lebowski claiming he's not a cripple and lifts him out of his wheelchair...Funny and sad all at once.
> That doesn’t mean we have to lie to ourselves that they are being productive by sitting around reading books.
Not asking for anyone to lie to themselves about what they feel is productive, rather giving another perspective to hopefully help people appreciate being able to work.
Comment by Cthulhu_ 17 hours ago
People can contribute value AND have a comfortable life. That's the ideal. We (in the west) fought hard to limit how much employers can exploit us, else we'd still be doing 12 hours / 6 days work weeks. And the economy / society didn't collapse.
Comment by jplrssn 1 day ago
You could say the same thing about software engineers. But someone spending their days just creating JS frameworks is oh-so-productive and paid enough money every month to buy several years’ worth of food and shelter.
Comment by gus_massa 1 day ago
Now you can go to Mercado Libre (the local version of Amazon) compare prices and see the reviews and buy them in 15 minutes. There are a lot of more choices and the prices are lower (or higher if you like fancy stuff). It arrives home at the afternoon.
Some software engineer has to program it. Does s/he deserve a few bucks for the time s/he saved all of us?
Comment by avalys 1 day ago
If someone is willingly paying money for their labor then I see little point in questioning the worth of that exchange.
When JS engineers start asking for public money to support them writing JS frameworks that no one wants to pay for, we can revisit this topic.
Comment by jplrssn 1 day ago
I think it is sad that many of the people that have the largest positive impact on society — teachers, care assistants and the like — are also some of worst paid.
Comment by qwytw 1 day ago
While a "Javascript Framework engineer" is a very neutral example how do you feel about the engineers working on ads, making exploitive predatory video games, gambling apps etc. etc. they can get paid even more yet the net value they create for the society is negative.
Comment by gymbeaux 20 hours ago
Comment by yunnpp 1 day ago
Comment by birksherty 1 day ago
Comment by ajsnigrutin 1 day ago
Even hundreds and thousands of years ago, people would put semi transparent rocks onto shiny metal shapes and sell those useless gadgets for a lot of money.
If customers are willing to pay for that, it means that those people made something worth that money.
Comment by AngryData 18 hours ago
Comment by tonyedgecombe 12 hours ago
The trouble is that would make your own industries lazy and uncompetitive. Are you willing to accept the decrease in material wealth?
Comment by bjertoref 1 day ago
Comment by gymbeaux 20 hours ago
Comment by byutifu 1 day ago
Comment by germinalphrase 1 day ago
Comment by ajsnigrutin 1 day ago
This doesn't mean 4 hour workweeks or majority of people not needing to work, but it means that some of you can be social media managers, others can integrate AI chatbots in apps that don't need an AI chatbot, some can rewrite existing software in whatever the language of the week is, etc. Without offloading all that farming to machines, we'd never have what we now consider for "normal" and "must have".
Those few farmers left (2-3% of the workforce, depeding on the country) want to earn money too, so they can buy smartphones, watch netflix and have that smart toilet seats that open automatically and wash your butthole. If all those replaced-by-machines workers don't produce all that, where's the point in farming food for them?
Comment by germinalphrase 1 day ago
Comment by GeoAtreides 1 day ago
Comment by onraglanroad 1 day ago
Comment by didibus 1 day ago
If we valued time with friends, helping each other, and making sure everyone can live a vibrant life, we'd spend them on that. If we don't, they go toward status and class distinction.
Comment by trial3 1 day ago
Comment by WarmWash 1 day ago
Comment by freehorse 1 day ago
At least what OP says produces no harm at worst.
Comment by smallmancontrov 1 day ago
Comment by xhkkffbf 9 hours ago
Yes, we must recognize that we're more than the sum total of our job, but it's also important to celebrate the people who work hard to develop a talent and deliver the fruits of this talent.
Comment by alexgieg 1 day ago
Or at least, that's the logical consequence of that line of reasoning. If that's incorrect, where's the error in the reasoning?
Comment by kbelder 1 day ago
Comment by alexgieg 5 hours ago
Being a billionaire is understood as having a net worth of $1 bi, so we ought to compare the net worth of the median someone at retirement. If that someone are Americans, that's $200k, so 5k times. If it's the world at large, that's roughly $10k,so 100k times. If we consider the billionaires at the top of the ladder, it surpasses 1M times.
Comment by pjmlp 1 day ago
But since you ask, also many victims of late stage capitalism explored in modern forms of slavery without work rights, so that richer nations can enjoy cheap electronics and clothing.
Comment by ahoka 1 day ago
Comment by george916a 14 hours ago
Comment by neom 1 day ago
Comment by beanjuiceII 1 day ago
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Comment by a-french-anon 1 day ago
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Most people can't. They just assign everyone to the bucket of unwilling.
Comment by a-french-anon 1 day ago
Comment by CursedSilicon 1 day ago
What if we make a better world for everyone, instead of a planetary crab bucket?
Comment by CalRobert 1 day ago
Comment by birksherty 1 day ago
Comment by bko 1 day ago
It's productive in that it is hard and a sign of high intelligence. Don't believe me and swap it out with Candy Crush. Is playing Candy Crush productive?
This obsession about people with disabilities is weird. Yes, people with real disabilities exist. But focusing on pathologizing every day life is extremely harmful. This constant focus on "mental health" ironically worsens mental health. For instance, any mild discomfort is "anxiety". Most of these things are pretty normal range of emotions. Roughly 20% of undergraduate students at Ivy Plus institutions (including Harvard, Brown, and Cornell) are registered as disabled and receive accommodations. This figure has surged dramatically over time, rising from fewer than 3% at Harvard and under 6% at Cornell in 2015. This is obviously partly cheating the system, but it's also this harmful over-focus on "mental health"
Hard work is a good in it of itself. People pay lip service to the idea that we shouldn't be productive or measure our "worth" (whatever that is) by productivity but they don't live it. For instance, I don't know any parent that doesn't push or at least hope their children work hard at something. Anything. Do something hard. Play a sport. Learn an instrument. Study math. This is common sense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/26/opinion/mental-health-exe...
Comment by Altern4tiveAcc 1 day ago
That seems to check out with the period people started getting more addicted to social media, pandemic side-effects and increased awareness of mental health issues
I believe the amount of people dealing with crippling anxiety these days is higher than that 20% figure, and we are still under-diagnosing it
> Hard work is a good in it of itself.
Hard disagree tbh but that's more of a personal values discussion
Comment by bko 1 day ago
I'm curious about this. Do you have children? Do you look at someone who does nothing hard in his life with indifference? Someone chooses to spend their life playing video games in their parent's basement. Do you think that's an equally admirable life than someone that spends his life doing hard things?
Comment by AlexandrB 1 day ago
I think it's naive to assume that this phenomenon reflects an actual increase in disability rather than a cohort who has been raised to pathologize every human difference as a sign of some disability and then use those diagnoses to secure advantages in systems meant to help people with actual special needs.
There's clearly a lot of pretending going on. On the extreme end look at the numerous DID[1] "influencers". These folks are plainly pretending to have a debilitating mental disorder (which strangely never prevents them from going on podcasts and YouTube interviews) to curry fame.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
Comment by bko 1 day ago
Some personal observations, I would say about 90%+ of "emotional support dogs" are fake. And I can't remember the last time I saw someone that was actually disabled use a disabled parking spot. They always have the proper license plate or mirror tag, but every time I've seen someone enter their vehicle it would appear that they do not need special accommodations afforded by the preferred parking spot.
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
If you enjoy it, then yes.
> Hard work is a good in it of itself. People pay lip service to the idea that we shouldn't be productive or measure our "worth" (whatever that is) by productivity but they don't live it. For instance, I don't know any parent that doesn't push or at least hope their children work hard at something. Anything. Do something hard. Play a sport. Learn an instrument. Study math. This is common sense.
Hard work is good insofar as you enjoy it or it leads you to things that you do enjoy. Do those things if you enjoy them. Hard things are enjoyable too. I stopped doing most of them because I didn't enjoy them.
Comment by bko 1 day ago
I highly doubt you actually believe this, but I have been wrong before.
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
I'm using the word differently to you. It's productive insofar as you enjoy doing it.
Just to make a point, have these two definitions from Wiktionary:
> Capable of producing something, especially in abundance; fertile.
Capable of producing enjoyment, yup. I'd call playing Candy Crush productive if enjoyment is your goal.
> Yielding good or useful results
The good result here is, again, the enjoyment of whatever. If you enjoy playing Candy Crush, then playing it gives you a good or useful result, namely the enjoyment of playing it.
> I highly doubt you actually believe this, but I have been wrong before.
If someone truly finds Candy Crush enjoyable to the point they do it everyday or whatever, and we're not talking addiction (so they're not actually enjoying it, but rather feel compelled to do it), then more power to them. I wish my desires were so simple.
Comment by senordevnyc 1 day ago
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Yes. That word is only useful insofar as you say or imply a goal. Candy Crush is not productive in gathering food.
Most people imply the goal to be money. I'd rather imply enjoyment. See my OP.
Comment by senordevnyc 1 day ago
You are worth so much more than your productivity.
I think the issue here is that everyone else is having a discussion about economics, how we efficiently allocate scarce resources as a society, and the role that individual productivity plays in that allocation. You're having a discussion about enjoying your life. Which is great, if you want to play Candy Crush all day and call it "productive" because that makes you feel better, go for it.
But I'm not interested in paying your bills so you can.
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
My OP was explicitly about not taking economic productivity as the be-all-end-all of someone.
Comment by bko 1 day ago
Comment by trescenzi 1 day ago
This is something that needs to change at the cultural level but is incredibly hard to change because in order to do so you need to convince most people that the foundational understanding of their worth as a person needs to come from somewhere else.
Comment by roenxi 1 day ago
Good vibes are nice and all, but affirming each other isn't going to actually make the world more comfortable. Looking after disabled people requires an enormous productive surplus from the rest of us and a recognition that the people creating the enormous surplus are in practice worth quite a bit more than the people who are on the receiving end of charity. Playing pretend on this topic is just going to lead to people being worse off.
Comment by wasfgwp 1 day ago
Also coincidentally it’s highly correlated with who your parents happen to be. But its likely spurious…
The people who have lost the lottery by both by being not born into wealth and also being destined to suffer from physical or mental disabilities, well I guess tough luck..
> the people creating the enormous surplus are in practice worth quite a bit more
Wouldn’t phrase it exactly like that but yes you are right. However it’s very hard to figure out who those people are and to measure their contributions.
It so happens that being paid a lot for your labor doesn’t automatically means that you aren’t a net negative to the society . There are loads of people working in inherently parasitical or exploitative industries who make massive amounts of money but when you add it at all up they contribute significantly less than those people living from charity. Much of the economy is still effectively zero-sum.
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
We already don't do this with regards to normal people. Being a farmer isn't a particularly high-paying nor high-status job. I don't mind changing this around if we get a more humane world in return, but these issues seems orthogonal to each other.
Comment by hallole 1 day ago
Comment by dubeye 1 day ago
As someone who spent four years reading 'the' Classics at uni, I doubt it's very true
you comment wouldn't read quite so well if you swapped classics for posting cat tiktoks and hanging out with strangers you bump into in the street. But what makes that inferior?
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
No. You can play Candy Crush for all I care if that's what gets you more enjoyment. The classic were just what were on my mind when I wrote that comment.
Comment by dubeye 1 day ago
Comment by hallole 1 day ago
This comment reads as snarky post-modernism.
Comment by dubeye 1 day ago
To learn how to read and write well, then you would do just as well, if not better, to read modern authors at the top of their fields. I wouldn't exclude thrillers. Reading Chaucer in old English, to stretch the point to breaking, is not going to give you any kind of edge. Maybe it will teach you a bit of French, but again, you are better off reading modern French literature for that.
I suspect you were not forced to read the classics as I was. Much of it is stuffed with overly flowery prose and immature ideas. It's mostly tradition that keeps them alive.
There is much personal satisfaction in literature, but I would place it much closer to leisure than work.
Comment by swed420 1 day ago
In Praise of Idleness
https://ia801002.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.4...
Comment by swat535 1 day ago
I can't speak for Protestants because the denominations vary (though I doubt they would differ greatly on this point) but for Catholics "works of mercy" is defined as caring for the vulnerable, the elderly and tending the sick. It's not meant to shame those people into guilt.
Additionally, there are many other facets such as the spiritual works of mercy such as comforting the sorrowful or counseling the doubtful.
I think you are perhaps better off putting the blame on the Capitalism hustle culture that forces people to work day and night to be "productive" than Christianity.
Comment by wasfgwp 1 day ago
Comment by surgical_fire 1 day ago
Measuring someone's worth by their productivity sounds incredibly misanthropic, to a cartoonish degree. It's part of the same societal illness that only considers something worthy when it has a monetary value. Looking at some responses to your post (that should be very uncontroversial) is an interesting experience in that regard.
Luckily I don't have any disabilities, but I pity those that do. I think that society has a duty to help the less fortunate. That should be an uncontroversial stance too, but oh well
Comment by giov4 1 day ago
I'm not sure we are interpreting this right,based also on reactions and troll references in clear contrast to your other comment.
Comment by giov4 1 day ago
"I've considered suicide because I was unable to make ends meet. I don't want others to experience that. Is that too much to ask?"
was important and extremely insightful, wanted to ask what you meant with "was unable to nake ends meet" which type of ends?
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
> I'm not sure we are interpreting this right,based also on reactions and troll references in clear contrast to your other comment.
I'm not sure what's unclear about my first comment, but I'll try to rephrase with new words.
People are people and deserve to be treated humanely as such. Productivity is but one aspect of people, and not the only one you can ascribe any value to. People are more than their productivity.
Productivity is often just used to mean 'how much money you earn', but I find it useful to expand its meaning to 'how well you're doing what you're enjoying'. If you spend time reading books because you enjoy it, that's productive. If you spend time at work earning money, that's also productive, since money is needed to, ya know, stay alive, and thus let you enjoy life, for what it's worth.
My point about disabilities is probably better expanded by the article in question, unless you have any pointed questions at that.
> also the comment
> "I've considered suicide because I was unable to make ends meet. I don't want others to experience that. Is that too much to ask?"
> was important and extremely insightful, wanted to ask what you meant with "was unable to nake ends meet" which type of ends?
The instance I had in mind was one where I was in danger of not having food to eat at the end of a month. I wasn't in any danger for that matter. I can get free food locally if I'm desperate. I can call a friend and ask for a favour (and friends have asked me!). But getting to that point is well beyond the point where my mind goes 'oh ffs, just end it, it's not worth the bother'. If someone is at that point, they should get help, but ideally, they shouldn't get to that point in the first place. Prevention is better than a cure (although we should work on cures too!).
Comment by giov4 1 day ago
Maybe the other reactions made it generally more unclear, but was unsure about the core message.
This is much more clear and direct, and yes I was believing you meant something in that direction.
Regarding the other comment, thanks also, I understand that feeling the moment of having to ask something like that, but I think that if fought with enough pragmacity I think I would try to overcome the psychological part because the need would overcome the shame, and that would overcome the situation. or that is not feasible in that case?
Comment by Telaneo 1 day ago
Comment by AnimalMuppet 1 day ago
Life is not about how much you make or how much you're worth. It's about being worth something to someone. It's about having meaningful relationships.
As a typical software nerd, it took me decades to get that.
Comment by Henchman21 1 day ago
Comment by jumpinjack710 1 day ago
Comment by george916a 14 hours ago
Comment by sajithdilshan 1 day ago
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
Comment by WithinReason 1 day ago
Comment by kakacik 18 hours ago
Bad things have often silver lining if one is looking with right kind of eye.
Comment by trogdor 12 hours ago
I’m fairly new to paragliding. What happened? Have you returned to flying?
Comment by ButlerianJihad 1 day ago
Comment by nickdothutton 1 day ago
Comment by fnordsensei 1 day ago
I've read that German society, for example, is largely based on contracts between the family unit and the state. Sweden, as a contrast, is largely based on contracts between individuals and the state.
As an example, Germany treats a married couple as a fiscal unit, Sweden abolished joint taxation in the 70s. Swedish parental leave is allocated per individual, and is mostly non-transferable.
In a lot of ways, individualism is produced by state contract in Sweden.
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
Comment by s_dev 1 day ago
e.g. The claim: Planes are a very safe way to travel.
Followed by someone jumping up to say: I know a person who was injured in a rough landing.
Note I'm not claiming either the individual or family is the atomic unit here just pointing out that your contribution doesn't contradict or even narrow the argument.
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
Comment by ryandrake 1 day ago
∀x(X(x)⟹(Y(x))
and then they make it their mission to find the falsifying x sub 0 example.
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
Comment by jubilanti 1 day ago
Comment by win311fwg 1 day ago
More commonly we see things like,
A: "I went to work today"
B: "One time I was on my way to work but I slipped on the ice in my driveway and ended up in the ER with a broken leg instead"
A: "Your broken leg does not disprove that I went to work today..."
Where A is trying to relive their glory days on Reddit where such a retort would have been considered funny, but thankfully most HN accounts know better than to think that is still funny, or that it was ever considered funny on HN. This thread being illustrative of one such exception, of course.
Comment by win311fwg 1 day ago
Comment by Ozzie_osman 1 day ago
Individual is part of nuclear family, nuclear family is part of extended family, extended family is part of tribe, etc. When one part is in need, the others jump in to help.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by sudobash1 1 day ago
You come across the term a lot in old genealogy books. For instance in "The History and Genealogy of the Prentice, Or Prentiss Family" (from 1883) contains:
> All his immediate family, himself, wives, and children, are dead.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Genealo...
Comment by carschno 1 day ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family%2C_Pr...
Comment by seanclayton 1 day ago
Ancient egypt? Roman times? Medieval times? Byzantine times? Pre-colonial Philippines? Pre-colonial America?
I think it may have started in the late 1800s at the earliest. I would need a bit more evidence to be convinced that your model of individual to nuclear to extended etc has been a thing longer than a few centuries, vs the vast majority of human life experience being in nomadic hunter-gathering, villages, farmland, and walled city-states. We just had clans which were all our family. A fellow villager wasn't much different than a cousin. The individual and nuclear family, not so much a thing.
Comment by ch4s3 1 day ago
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Iddin-Sin_to_Zinu
[2] https://mymodernmet.com/ancient-egyptians-attendance-record/
Comment by quietbritishjim 1 day ago
Probably you're focusing too much on the parent comment's mention of nuclear family. Even that, despite only being named a few decades ago, is likely to exist to some extent. Even in some ancient tribe or village, most people would favour their spouse (or equivalent) or child over a cousin or niece/nephew if some dispute formed. That hardly seems controversial.
Comment by ghusto 1 day ago
Comment by seanclayton 1 day ago
Comment by throwaway27448 1 day ago
Comment by seanclayton 1 day ago
Comment by throwaway27448 1 day ago
I suspect you're actually talking about the current western/american conception of family (fair!) but it doesn't make sense to ignore this obvious miscommunication.
Comment by wasfgwp 1 day ago
Comment by throwaway27448 22 hours ago
Comment by hn_throwaway_99 1 day ago
in which they lived in families, extended families and tribes as the primary units. I didn't understand your argument at all.
Comment by seanclayton 1 day ago
Comment by hn_throwaway_99 1 day ago
Comment by HelloUsername 1 day ago
1. That's your assumption. They could really ask out of interest. They couldn't care less if that's your main source of income.
2. In some cultures this question will never be asked.
3. If they do ask and judge; what does that matter? If you dislike such personalities, avoid them.
Comment by robocat 17 hours ago
The first question when you meet someone is often to measure your status.
In New Zealand, different cities had different questions. Auckland: where do you live (using suburb as a proxy for status), Christchurch: what school did you go to (status used to be highly linked to your high school), Wellington: what do you do (a lot of people move to Wellington to work and it has a very wide variety of professional and government jobs).
It depends somewhat on context since often status is implied by the situation you've met someone. I've even had people straight up ask: how much do you earn.
Comment by magicalhippo 1 day ago
However if I sense they're just in it for the paycheck then I try to ask about hobbies or similar.
Comment by jolmg 1 day ago
Comment by nicbou 17 hours ago
Comment by CodeWriter23 1 day ago
Comment by sriacha 1 day ago
Comment by mstaoru 1 day ago
Without stable income it might be more like 20 years. (I wish you personally a long and bountiful life!)
I'm in a similar boat. As a 3rd child in a somewhat poor family, I do not have any inheritance and actually need to help my mom financially (though it's not a burden). My wife is also from a rural area and her inheritance is barely worth 5 (hypothetical) figures. We never got or will get anything given to us for free. We are in our 40s and we completely gave up on having children (though it was not overall a financially-motivated choice) or property (this one certainly is). Live day to day while I can work, and die without regrets when I cannot anymore. Thanks to AI that happens probably sooner than later.
Comment by nevertoolate 1 day ago
Comment by mstaoru 14 hours ago
Comment by nevertoolate 11 hours ago
Comment by a-french-anon 1 day ago
Or that an unproductive member of society wasn't always scorned or at least viewed negatively by those having to produce.
Comment by cjcole 1 day ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20200715153724/https://nmaahc.si...
Some Inuit practiced senilicide up through the 20th century.
"On the other hand, when food did run short, the old and sick were looked upon as drains on the community’s resources. Sometimes they were killed – thrown into the sea, buried alive, locked out in the cold, or starved to death. Far more commonly they were simply abandoned to die. The victim might be taken out in the wilderness and left there, or the whole village might pick up and move away while the old person slept. If the villagers were unexpectedly restored to prosperity, they might go back to rescue those left behind. An abandoned person would also be welcomed back as a full member of the community if he could manage to make his way back to the village on his own. But usually he couldn’t."
https://www.straightdope.com/21343302/did-eskimos-put-their-...
(His title is sarcastic. They aren't known to have done that in particular.)
Comment by grigri907 22 hours ago
Comment by telxsos 1 day ago
Or the good ol days when you use to go to prison for having too much debt.
Comment by dd8601fn 1 day ago
Comment by telxsos 1 day ago
Comment by MatejKafka 18 hours ago
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comment by eschaton 22 hours ago
Comment by giov4 1 day ago
For all who mis-interprent the post and focus only on the anti capitalistic view of it, don't worry your body will tell you soon!
Keep an eye for the signals, gut and digestive issues, back stuck and oain, sleeping problems, light sensitivity and irritability. When this will start remember that the problem is probably your work or your working environment not you! And you should react to it!
This article should be eye opening, and support for disabilities should be always there. The abandonment of human beings is the biggest failure of societes.
Comment by CodeWriter23 1 day ago
Comment by giov4 18 hours ago
claiming that is a just a result of industrial food is quite bold, even if yes thats probably cause of many many problems for humans.
Comment by Taikonerd 1 day ago
It's a policy where, if you become disabled to the point where you can't work, it pays out $X per month, every year until you're 65. And if you're partly disabled and have to cut back your hours, some policies compensate you for those lost wages.
These LTD policies are expensive, but they DO give you peace of mind about this possibility.
Comment by bestouff 1 day ago
Comment by gyulai 1 day ago
It's kind of understandable, given that the risk is not all that low. But my guess would be that it's amplified by fraudulent claims in relation to psychological illness, burnout, etc. I asked my insurance guy to exclude those, but, apparently, it's something he can't do.
You can kind of see, how this works for a roofer: If you hurt your leg and can no longer climb a roof, the policy pays. What does it take for me to no longer be able to sit in front of a screen? Well, it would almost have to be something in the psychological realm. Sure, there's the possibility of an illness with chronic pain or cognitive impairment, but those are orders of magnitude less likely, so the psychological stuff is what completely dominates the high premia.
Comment by Taikonerd 1 day ago
Comment by freeone3000 1 day ago
Comment by gblargg 16 hours ago
Comment by RhysU 1 day ago
For anything more, this private insurance market works just fine for those who opt into it.
Comment by raffael_de 1 day ago
Comment by bigmattystyles 1 day ago
Comment by Tade0 1 day ago
I hail from a culture that's decidedly Catholic, but at the same time shares this mindset.
To me it has more to do with farming and the culture around it.
On a farm you have to earn your keep and there's no space for "freeloaders". You work all day, every day and don't complain.
Attitudes are very different in places where there was a significant urban class in the renaissance era already.
Comment by KptMarchewa 1 day ago
Comment by ImJamal 1 day ago
Comment by gyulai 1 day ago
...hmm. Not sure that this is quite state-of-the art in sociology today. Crediting a particular strand of a particular religion as the locus of a virtue that confers a clear fitness advantage in and of itself, and without recourse to any outside explanation, seems a bit off.
Comment by jubilanti 1 day ago
Comment by ElevenLathe 1 day ago
No, Weber is not the current state-of-the-art, but you can see how was a bit suspicious (given the evidence that Weber was working with) that the Reformation and the first meaningful economic growth possibly ever (the "Great Divergence") in history seem to have started at approximately the same time and in the same places (England, parts of the Holy Roman Empire, Holland).
We now have scholarship based on earlier evidence (it turns out that availability of the printing press massively increased the surviving sources we have about "early modern" Europe versus the earlier manuscript-driven ages, so our sources have a distinct bias toward the post-Gutenberg world -- and the printing press itself is probably a major node in the web of causes and effects that drive this transition!) and AIUI the best current guess is that the Black Death is what initially kickstarted economic growth (the "Little Divergence"), possibly by effectively ending serfdom in those places as agricultural labor become much dearer than before the plague. The Reformation, under this view of things, is more of a consequence of economic growth -- the ranks of increasingly numerous rich-and-influential commoners and burghers asserting their place in a social order defined by the Roman church -- rather than a cause of it.
Comment by FriedFishes 1 day ago
You're also misreading the claim, the Protestant work ethic is not claiming any virtue on anyone's behalf. Weber's claim is making a casual connection between the development of capitalism and religious covenant. It's certainly not the prescriptive theory you're making it out to be.
Comment by leothetechguy 1 day ago
I've also been a social outcast for a while now. But putting my creative works out there makes me feel like I'm building the tools to appreciate myself and be appreciated by others. And knowing I can be appreciated, even if I'm not, is enough to give me a sense of self worth.
Comment by nusl 1 day ago
I’ve found that if I start something new, say learning to carve wood, I might compare myself to others in an unhealthy way, not improve as fast as I want to, or something else, and sorta psych myself out of it. I wonder if changing the framing from “doing” to “trying” would help
Comment by grigri907 22 hours ago
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
There absolutely is. Labor can be fullfilling and give joy, but for most people it is just an easy tool on how to survive and hopefully have some comfort as well. Do not ever feel ashamed of your labor and even more, do not ever feel ashamed of not doing labor if you don't want to. You have one life in this universe. Make it a nice one.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by QuadmasterXLII 1 day ago
It’s good that our society is doing this, and we could do better! but why do we have to characterize this existing herculean effort as “fundamentally hostile to bodies that cannot produce consistently”
Comment by therealdrag0 1 day ago
Comment by sleight42 1 day ago
POSIWID and its purpose is not providing efficient and effective healthcare.
Comment by zbentley 1 day ago
Are you saying we're providing those things instead of food? Or that if we provided food we wouldn't need to provide those things?
If so, that's patently false. A lot more than food is needed to give someone a better standard of living.
Comment by QuadmasterXLII 1 day ago
That providing these things is something we are doing, that is good, and that is hard work actually.
Comment by zbentley 1 day ago
Comment by marcusverus 1 day ago
I absolutely agree. We spend $30K/year per person (not per household, per person!) under the poverty line, and that's only on HUD, Medicaid, and Food Stamps. These resources should be lavished on those who actually need them. The tricky part is dealing with the perverse incentives which come with doing right by the disabled. The obscene abuse of military disability benefits is a case in point.
Comment by tjadfsaj 1 day ago
Comment by vanagandr 19 hours ago
Comment by entech 14 hours ago
Whether you agree or not - productivity is important. If there are more people that need support than those that can 'produce' the system does not work.
Comment by ghusto 1 day ago
My reading of this is that the threshhold for the USA government to withdraw financial (and other?) support for disabled people is too low, is that right?
Comment by eigenman 1 day ago
This isn’t an argument to remove support—it’s an argument to remove binary thresholds with smooth ramps to incentivize people to work.
Comment by ghusto 10 hours ago
If you can get 2k a month (all numbers pulled from my butt) in disability support, and at some point get a job offer which will give you the same, why _shouldn't_ you work? Non-monetary forms of support should probably continue, or even be increased, depending on what you're going to need to be able to work.
Comment by disgruntledphd2 1 day ago
In general, step functions (earn 200 get benefits, 201 no benefits) are really really bad from a public policy perspective. If you want to get people out of these dependency traps then you need to taper them more effectively.
Even tapering them is problematic as you end up with astronomically high effective marginal tax rates, but it's better than a hard cut off.
Comment by butlike 1 day ago
Comment by zbentley 1 day ago
Not that that's like ... a policy slam-dunk or anything. Even putting aside the massive hurdle of getting UBI enacted into law, you'd still have to cope with sources of unreported income, asset/gift valuation, and so on. But that second category are, at least, tractable problems as evidenced by most countries' tax codes having contingencies to deal with them.
Comment by ElevenLathe 8 hours ago
Comment by AnimalMuppet 1 day ago
Comment by mbac32768 21 hours ago
For the longest time whenever I'd meet someone at a party I would ask "so, what do you spend your time on?" because I specifically didn't want to box them into asking how they make money. I wanted to hear about their passions or hobbies or even the mundane tasks.
Instead, pretty much everyone told me about their jobs.
Comment by squigz 19 hours ago
I prefer "what do you like to do", personally
Comment by anon48293 11 hours ago
If you can write so many posts, you can get an office job or get paid for writing.
Comment by Havoc 1 day ago
Comment by raytracer1 19 hours ago
Comment by adamtaylor_13 1 day ago
When you suddenly become unable to "give anything" to others and become the one who must be given to, you feel a disconcerting sense of loss and powerlessness.
I don't think it really has anything to do with capitalism.
Comment by sleight42 1 day ago
In the US, these two ideas seem conflated enough that they are often essentially conveyed as a single message: if you can't work, you're dragging everyone else down. That leads to the internalized ableism with its guilt and shame. It also leads to peer judgement and the fear of same.
Comment by therealdrag0 1 day ago
Comment by adamtaylor_13 16 hours ago
We miss that much of the time, and it causes all manner of suffering.
Comment by bjertoref 1 day ago
The Sound of a Wild Snail Eating by Elisabeth Tova Bailey
Bedridden and suffering from a neurological disorder, the author recounts the profound effect on her life caused by a gift of a snail in a potted plant and shares the lessons learned from her new companion about her the meaning of her life and the life of the small creature.
Comment by strogonoff 1 day ago
Comment by foxtrot8672 2 hours ago
Comment by didibus 1 day ago
At the end of the day, I just want to be around people who care, having a good time together. Nothing seems worth doing if it doesn't eventually get you that.
I've always seen my "excess productivity" as something to spend building a society where people actually commune together, and where we have each other's backs.
I don't want to walk through a city and see people suffering or living on the street. I never assumed the solution was to hide them so productive people don't have to look at them. I assumed it was to support people well enough that we don't have this problem.
You never know when you'll be the next one to have bad luck.
Comment by everdrive 1 day ago
As another commenter has pointed out, the surest ally in this case is family. Not all families are tight, but families are largely the ones who will take care of the indigent in a compassionate, long-term way.
The productivity topic is interesting. From my view, it really is _people_ that require you to be useful. Different social or political systems can be better or worse about this, but all of them are sort of playing with the same base human behavior.
Try being the one who constantly needs help from your friend. That friend will leave eventually. And they'll leave in an emotional sense. They'll sort of think less of you, or be a bit disgusted.
Try getting a woman to be sexually attracted to you if you constantly need her help or support. Outside of a few interesting fetishists, you're out of luck.
You don't even need to imagine the workplace scenario -- you already know how that works.
But picture a pre-industrial, barter economy. How well would you do when you're not able to contribute? There is history of people caring for the old, infirm, and indigent ... but remember that when you go that far back you're talking about kin-groups. You're taking care of your grandfather, or your great uncle. Not some random guy you happened upon.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by everdrive 1 day ago
I'm just not convinced. If there's not a market for your art, yes you will not be able to sell it and make a living. But, in other systems:
- Your art disagrees with the soviet government, so you are sent to a torture / labor camp to work until you die.
- The soviet government does not care about your art, but you're still in the soviet union and everyone is poor so no one can pay for your art anyhow.
- It's the 1600s Europe, and you're only sort-of in a capitalist society given modern definitions, but the Church doesn't like your writing so you've been locked up.
- Your are a subsistence farmer, and have absolutely no chance of creating art whatsoever given how busy and poor you are.
- You're a subsistence farmer, and somehow you manage to make art, but the only people you have access to are the ~2,000 people in your immediate vicinity, and none of them have any money to pay for your art to support you, and they are not willing to trade a chicken for a song.
vs.
- You have the most niche art you can imagine, (eg: Dark Souls analysis, or Harry Potter fanfiction where Snape gets pregnant and is constantly embarrassed by it) but due to (lousy, imperfect) platforms such as Patreon and the internet you can get enough patronage to support yourself, even if it's just barely.
I'm just not convinced that artists are doing worse now (in terms of per-capita artists) than other times in history, or under other systems.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by everdrive 1 day ago
No way -- I threw in 1600s Europe as well as subsistence farming in there.
I think the Patreon point is really interesting. I really don't like Patreon or anything like that, but is a bit miraculous. There's some really, really, niche art up there. That sort of art would have NEVER found an audience, even as recently as the 90s. If it had to be on TV, or in a book, no publisher or producer would have touched it. And even if they had, said publisher or producer would have never managed to find the 0.001% of the population who was interested in it.
The kind of niche art that's available now was simply never possible in any other time in history.
A potential counter-argument could be something like: yes, in the past artists could not have just produced just what they wanted, but perhaps more artists were previously employable (even if they had to just make paintings or Jesus or some other popular thing they didn't really care for.)
What do you think about that?
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by everdrive 11 hours ago
This is flagrantly false, and I suspect you've never had the chance to glimpse at the entire catalog. Quite a lot of it is _distasteful_ but it's also incredibly niche content from absolute nobodies.
Comment by Brendinooo 1 day ago
(I think about the "worst system, except for all the other systems" quote often)
Comment by paulryanrogers 1 day ago
Comment by impossiblefork 16 hours ago
Socialism is not necessarily cuddly. "To each according to his contribution" is the one sentence description of it after all. I want socialism, because it's "to each according to his contribution" but "to each according to his contribution" isn't obviously this nice cuddly we-take-care-of-everybody type thing.
I'd call the New Deal an attempt to bring discipline to go from capitalism to free markets, to control excesses, prevent monopolies and otherwise preventing people from locking down the economy so that there can be competition, and that's a goal compatible with socialism, because it does bring us closer to "to each according to his contribution" but it isn't an attempt at creating socialism, but of breaking capitalism down to create a market economy with free markets (capitalism is not a market economy, capitalism is the accumulation of capital by some to the exclusion of others, so capitalism and a market economy with free markets are actually things that are extremely incompatible).
Comment by ghusto 1 day ago
"Capatalism" means something different in the USA than it does in say France. In the USA, any attempt to keep check of or reign in capatalism is seen as socialism, and governemnt overreach. In France it's seen as common sense, though they would still say they practice "capatalism". Similarly, taking care of people that can't take care of themselves is obvious in France, but seen as nearing socialism in the USA.
It's important to note, because when people go for things like "democratic socialism", they may not be against what they think they're against.
Comment by Brendinooo 1 day ago
The author of this post apparently lives in Porto.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by Brendinooo 1 day ago
I guess this is the basis of my critique: the author seems to be writing as though capitalism is robbing him of some ideal that would otherwise exist: invoking the so-called "Protestant work ethic" to describe a system that took over the world and made us all worse off.
That doesn't feel right to me because I don't think previous economic systems did better at protecting the vulnerable. (But I'm not sure, that's why I framed my comment the way I did!)
Most replies to me are framed more as either "do what Europe does" (but the author lives in Europe!) or "we haven't gotten there yet" - which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by Brendinooo 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by Brendinooo 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 3 hours ago
Comment by pharrington 1 day ago
Comment by xbmcuser 1 day ago
Comment by smallmancontrov 1 day ago
Comment by xbmcuser 1 day ago
Comment by throwaway837379 19 hours ago
Comment by xbmcuser 14 hours ago
Comment by OutOfHere 1 day ago
Comment by Havoc 1 day ago
Comment by rus20376 1 day ago
Comment by AllegedAlec 1 day ago
People keep mindlessly saying this but I have never seen evidence for it. Before money was ever invented the idea was already there that if you're healthy you can sustain yourself. All 'capitalism' did was saying "and most people nowadays perform abstract services in trade for an abstraction of a promise of a pinky swear saying "if you trade this pinky swear to me you'll get some food".
It's not 'economic systems that are fundamentally hostile to bodies that cannot produce consistently', it's a fundamental reality of life. Either you are capable of getting enough food for you and your family, either directly by farming, gathering or hunting, or you are not.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Yes, you need food. Guess what, we have plenty of food. But the system for allocating food says this guy doesn't get any because he's disabled.
Comment by seanclayton 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 14 hours ago
Comment by senordevnyc 1 day ago
We have plenty of food because of capitalism (particularly the fact that we have plenty of incredibly cheap food grown by a tiny fraction of our population).
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by senordevnyc 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 3 hours ago
Comment by AllegedAlec 1 day ago
I'm not saying it's an ought situation or even an is situation; it's that I disagree with his diagnosis of what causes it.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by senordevnyc 1 day ago
Comment by tavavex 1 day ago
No, it has a lot to say about that. Our system encourages self-interest and maximizing profits, and that is what businesses do. Increases in productivity increase how much there is to skim off the products of said productivity. To them, using it for reasons outside profiteering is an immoral and wasteful. All the biggest players are aligned on this, and they are desperate to get another droplet of productivity by spending their money and power in all the right places. Corruption, favoritism, advertising, propaganda, monopolism (to accrue as much leverage over people and governments as possible). This is the default state that the system leads us to, it's not orthogonal, this is its natural outcome.
The counterexamples are countries that have found ways to counteract this influence in spite of the incentives. Usually it takes the right culture, as well as strong and competent government that looks out for their citizens. Capitalist absolutists rightfully see that all of this hinders their progress, so the fight between the 'make money at all costs' and 'we need to look out for other people' will always continue. If you don't fight it, you get something akin to the modern US.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by reverius42 19 hours ago
Under "capitalism", the invisible hand of the free market is supposed to decide resource allocation.
Comment by inigyou 14 hours ago
Comment by reverius42 13 hours ago
Comment by inigyou 3 hours ago
Comment by senordevnyc 9 hours ago
Comment by krapp 9 hours ago
Comment by reverius42 1 hour ago
Comment by krapp 32 minutes ago
What gets aspired to under the guise of "free market capitalism" is deregulation of the market in the ways which allow businesses to exploit consumers without consequences, such as lowering of environmental regulations or safety standards, but regulation when it hinders their competitors and lets them entrench their market position. Free market capitalism fails because of simple human nature - greed doesn't optimize for ethics, so neither do markets.
Any ideal system that simply expects people to act rationally and ethically en masse is doomed to fail, which is why capitalism only works when regulated and in the context of a society with strong social cohesion and a safety net because certain things like education and healthcare shouldn't be subject to free market dynamics.
Comment by kjjohnsen 1 day ago
Comment by paulryanrogers 1 day ago
Comment by jdw64 1 day ago
I've worked 96-hour weeks for six months at a time. Even working nonstop, I can't save any money. I don't have enough to buy a house, and I'm exhausted. I've done so many different kinds of work, but no matter how much I work, the money just doesn't accumulate. It's not that I haven't tried.
Good jobs are only in big cities, and to live in a big city, you have to pay rent. If I pay rent, my salary doesn't accumulate. I can't even think about getting married.
I really gave it my all, but I don't know anymore. Why is my life like this? By the time I paid off my student loans, I was already in my mid-30s, and I still can't even think about marriage.
I just work and try hard, but the money doesn't add up. It feels like my life has gone wrong. I used to laugh at people who gambled or traded coins, but now I feel like a fool for working so diligently
Comment by butlike 1 day ago
Comment by lostmsu 1 day ago
Comment by Aperocky 1 day ago
Worth and productivity are synonyms in direction, wouldn't a better phrase not track either? It's difficult to answer anything other than naught without some mental gymnastics because the words themselves are implicit.
How about happiness? That is one human quality that is not directly tied to any of worth, value or productivity.
Comment by sleight42 1 day ago
Comment by mensetmanusman 22 hours ago
Comment by insane_dreamer 1 day ago
I find this to very much be an American thing. In (Continental) Europe you don't get asked this until later (if at all). It doesn't define you like it does in the US.
Comment by nlitened 1 day ago
It is so much beneath him to ask for help from others, he’d rather change the world so that he doesn’t have to ask — instead of expressing some humility.
I also have a lot of pride in myself, and I feel deeply for the author. However it looks to me that he’a banging on the wrong door, and instead of waiting for all the people in the world to change a lot, he could change himself a little.
Comment by slibhb 1 day ago
At any rate, judging by the author's 4.3k subscribers, he is doing fine. Whether you react with a heart emoji or revulsion, broadcasting sob stories into the internet is productivity -- in the attention economy, something that only exists in rich, capitalist societies.
Comment by ubermonkey 1 day ago
Comment by jake_and_fatman 1 day ago
Comment by yunnpp 1 day ago
Comment by Nursie 1 day ago
It’s always there in the subtext of a lot of alt-med and the sort of pure-eating wellness stuff, that if it doesn’t work then you’re just not trying hard enough and your mindset is wrong. Still got cancer? Well clearly you didn’t juice, enema and positive-think enough! That’s the flipside of every “you can heal yourself!” assertion.
I feel very sorry for this person, as much as I aspire to be out of work one day, I aspire to be out of work on my terms and with enough financial resource to support myself, and I fully expect to still be able to support myself. This is very different from having to face the fact you can’t, and adjust to that fact and then struggle like hell just to survive on barely adequate provision.
Tech people in particular seem to see themselves (ourselves…) as capable, independent and entirely autonomous beings. Being forced to reframe your whole existence must be very tough.
Comment by RickJWagner 12 hours ago
What would his body’s inability to keep pace say under socialism or something else? In any case, he is unable to provide for himself and must rely on others. In the case of capitalism, there is less contribution from the general public and more from personal sources ( I.e. his mother ).
Thinking altruistically, it’s more fair to share the burden across all society. But that introduces a danger— bureaucracies lack the accountability that private sources automatically provide. That system will be less efficient and more costly to run, it’s a matter of degree.
It’s a hard problem. Perhaps over time, as we become more and more prosperous, the cost of the inefficiency will be less relevant and we’ll default to the more balanced version.
Comment by arjie 1 day ago
Also what's all this about the body that never breaks. We have insurance schemes because there is uncertainty about the human body. What are annuities? Contract law allows for exemptions for acts of god like if a hurricane hits you.
Listen, this person's life sucks. And it's important that society not abandon them. But that doesn't mean they can talk nonsense. This kind of suffering theology where we believe someone whose life is hard has access to some deep truth has no basis in reality. In fact, I'd argue that their thought is far more likely to be disordered.
Comment by IshKebab 1 day ago
The benefits cliff is a real problem (and the UK seems intent on making it worse). But "ooo nasty capitalism doesn't force people to pay for art"... Come on. And disabled people have it better than at any time in history. The UK is bankrupting itself to pay for PiPs and other benefits (and pensions unfortunately).
Comment by nephihaha 17 hours ago
But rhe fact they keep going on about capitalism demonstrates their main problem. In reality we don't live in capitalism or neoliberalism, but a space where government legislation and taxation determines most things, and if you think more of the same is going to magically solve things, you've been sold a pup. It's hard to start a business (capitalism) mainly because of government economic control.
At best we have a situation where the top companies and government have converged with one another and co-operate whether through the World Economic Forum or otherwise.
The digital ID thing we see just now is driven by governments worldwide.
Comment by eboy 19 hours ago
Comment by schnitzelstoat 1 day ago
Comment by draw_down 1 day ago
Comment by beanjuiceII 1 day ago
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
After that, tell me how someone who became disabled after an accident which they themselves did not cause, made the wrong decision?
Thirdly, tell me how someone who lived perfectly healthy just happend to have some blood clot shot into their brain suddenly, made the wrong decision?
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
For someone who has been born disabled, the conversation should be moved to the people who brought them to life and are responsible for their survival.
Comment by iammjm 1 day ago
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
My family until my parents generation were dirt poor in one of those countries you would also call piss poor.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
A common thinking pattern. To prove it's luck, though, your great-grandchildren will be poor again - that always happens - they say rags to rags in three generations.
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Which wrong decision did the parents of a disabled person make? Not getting prenatal genetic testing and an illegal abortion?
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Sadly (arguably this is the greatest possible sadness) biology doesn't work that way. I think at our current rate of advancement we'll have practical immortality within the next 500 years, which is far too late for any of us alive right now, but it's not like a 90-year lifespan is an irreducible fact of reality. We've already found several genes that control certain aspects of aging and death. Interestingly, it seems to have evolved on purpose, and there are other animal species with indefinite lifespans.
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
Comment by jckahn 1 day ago
Please explain exactly what you are suggesting or advocating for here.
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
e.g my grandmother had a brother who their brain stopped developing at a very young age (afaik 5), the parents ensured and my grandmother ensured that my uncle lived a full (but sadly difficult) life living and been taken care of by them and then my grandma after they passed.
Comment by throwaway173738 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by paulryanrogers 1 day ago
Comment by esseph 1 day ago
Comment by b3lvedere 1 day ago
My best friend married the love of his life. Had amazing kids and a nice job. Then he got cancer.
He had amazing insurance, a very supporting family, a job at a company who totally understood his situation. Everything was taken care of. The only thing left was hopefully getting better.
Which he did not. All that was left was pain. I literally watched him die. I heard his last breath. I saw the life leave his eyes.
That was it. His book of life will never have any more pages. It's done. The only thing left is to remember him.
Comment by flr03 1 day ago
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by flr03 1 day ago
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by drcongo 1 day ago
Comment by throwaway173738 1 day ago
Comment by flkiwi 1 day ago
The irony of you using this in a negative sense when capitalism has profited mightily from exactly this dynamic is not lost on me, in that insurance companies are insanely profitable things. And that's without getting into what b3lvedere notes in the other comment about disability and the absolute, fundamental dependency capitalism has on socialized risk, e.g., limited liability as a corporate model, bankruptcy protection, even the dependence on national military and economic strength to create the conditions for private profit. Note that I'm not even dinging capitalism here. Not at all. It's just that capitalism wouldn't work without whole social risk networks to create the conditions for private profit.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Somebody will have to endure cruelty when someone makes bad decisions. The question is whether the cruelty will be received by the person making the bad decision or somebody else.
> It's rarely "you are making a bad decision right now so you should stop that before you deserve cruelty in the future".
So it's the economic system's fault that you weren't stopped before making a bad decision? It's the economic system's fault that schools teach gender theory instead of personal finance, economics and rational decision making?
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by sjsdaiuasgdia 1 day ago
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by sjsdaiuasgdia 1 day ago
Comment by lostmsu 1 day ago
Sounds like you also don't respect your own kind.
Comment by sjsdaiuasgdia 1 day ago
Because that's what meta_gunslinger claimed while you say he was using words "responsibly".
Who do you think "my own kind" are, anyhow?
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by sjsdaiuasgdia 1 day ago
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by sjsdaiuasgdia 1 day ago
> Ad-hominem is what you resort to when having no argument ;)
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by sjsdaiuasgdia 1 day ago
Likewise!
Comment by thaumiel 1 day ago
People are born with disabilities, which doesn't always show it's face until it is too late.
There are people who are completely incapable of saving and investing, because for them the "future" does not have any meaning in it self.
What is the point of investing if money by it self does not have any value?
There are also people who are born who will never be able to work a "normal" 9-5 job.
To put everything on their shoulders is what is wrong with the system.
Capitalism bears a heavy burden for causing a lot of angst.
Comment by throwaway173738 1 day ago
Comment by stonyrubbish 1 day ago
I don't agree with railing against capitalism either-- it's not clear to me that there's any other system I would do better in, given my disability-- but the idea of, "if you do everything right, nothing bad will happen to you" is basically a comforting lie people tell themselves to feel safe. I believe in the value of hard work, and I am trying my best to better my situation-- switching my entire career from humanities to IT-- but I still am not fully sure how I am going to be able to support myself, and I don't think that's my fault.
Comment by seanclayton 1 day ago
I say we should all give it a shot. Capitalism has had its time to prove its value and its report card has left too many wanting. I think now is a good as time as any to re-evaluate alternatives to capitalism and its overwhelming role within our societies.
When a machine breaks, the best engineers find out what's wrong and fix it, no matter how many political feelings it hurts and what theories are shattered along the way. Chernobyl is a great show, btw.
Comment by ModernMech 1 day ago
What's the point of society if not being a buffer for bad individual decisions? If I can't count on y'all when I'm down, why should I help y'all when I'm up?
Comment by meta_gunslinger 8 hours ago
Comment by ModernMech 7 hours ago
But if not that, then what's the point of society?
Comment by esseph 1 day ago
People don't choose to be born blind, or with a deformed limb, or with a genetic blood disease.
What fucking choice were they ever given?
It's always somebody that got lucky that wasn't born with a disability that makes these statements.
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Are you having trouble with reading comprehension? Jesus.
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
Comment by meta_gunslinger 1 day ago
Comment by inigyou 1 day ago
You're treating it as if it goes on forever, but in reality, the end of your life is going to suck no matter what you do, and the beginning is set by your parents, but you get to control the middle, from about 20 to 60 years old if you're doing averagely well. Don't make the mistake of saving up everything until you are 50, and then realizing it's too late to enjoy it!
Recently I was at Fusion Festival, which was cool. Do you think I should have saved the $500 and then gone to the festival (if it's still around) in 40 years at the age of 75?
Comment by aogaili 1 day ago
Comment by 83642736392 1 day ago
Comment by yurish 17 hours ago
Comment by aogaili 1 day ago
But anyway, you are clearly one of the people I'm describing.. unfortunately, it is unsustainable system both from an economical and environmental perspectives. And I won't argue about mental health, which you would probably label as lazy commie or something.
Are you excited to go to Mars? like heaven but for capitalist?
Comment by ffsm8 1 day ago
The reality of it is that the reason why it hurts is you're essentially being kept alive artificially. As at any other time period you'd have just starved to death or died to freezing a winter or two later, putting an end to the misery.
Can you still have fun moments and learn to live your life as a glorified leech? Sure, a lot of people do so, and our society has decided that's for the best.
And in case you or someone else has an issue with the term leech here I'm going to be extra clear: you need to face reality to get over this pain. Accept what you have been forced to become. Then you can make an effort to life with your lot in life, and potentially find acceptance to the cards you've been dealt.
Probably wasn't your fault and almost certainly unfair, but that's just how life is
Comment by veddox 1 day ago
I would, however, encourage the author that maybe the answer to their question at the end of the article lies in the very world view they rejected half-way through: Christianity. Yes, in the Christian scheme of things, hard work is a virtue and laziness a vice. But to see this as the direct root of ableist capitalism is a severe twisting of the actual Christian teaching.
On the contrary, the Bible simply resounds with two truths, throughout the Old and New Testament:
1) We are to care for those who cannot care for themselves. We have a God-given duty to provide for our family members, community members, and fellow citizens who (for whatever reason) are dependent on our help.
2) Our worth as humans does not depend on who we are, what we can do, how much we own, or any other property residing in ourselves (which may change at any moment). Our worth comes directly from the fact that we are created and loved by an unchanging God. We have worth because we are valuable to the One who made us!
Comment by cjcole 1 day ago
"There were no needy ones among them, because those who owned lands or houses would sell their property, bring the proceeds from the sales, and lay them at the apostles’ feet for distribution to anyone as he had need." Acts 4:34-35
The Catholic Church has an ancient tradition asserting the inherent dignity of the human person (imago Dei), regardless of circumstance, including the very recent Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificent Humanity) subtitled On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.
In our supposedly rational age we've discarded structures which encoded timeless wisdom because we didn't recognize the value. We thought we'd outgrown it, but it turns out that now is when we need it the most.
Comment by codechicago277 1 day ago
This isn’t to say that the purpose of Christianity is to fix these social problems, but it’s easy to forget how central generosity and compassion are to the Christian message. “Money Cult” by Chris Lehmann is a good exploration of how American Christianity corrupts these truths.
Comment by ElevenLathe 8 hours ago