7 ms·

>> Seems like in America it's hard to win. Either get paid not nearly enough and struggle to make ends meet, or get a high paid high stress job, still work all

by NTDF9 10y ago

>> Seems like in America it's hard to win. Either get paid not nearly enough and struggle to make ends meet, or get a high paid high stress job, still work all day and all night. A consequence of worshipping money. Even a human is valued by the amount of money they make or what they can afford. Other societies have agreed that there are some fundamental things that they will all share the burden for collectively and the rich are going to contribute a larger share towards those collective resources. Thus, humans are not reduced to what they make but how they live and what their values are. Happy faces sharing a dining table, celebrating large families and friendships that last a lifetime. It's not protestant work ethic. It's ass on fire, all the time for 70 years (save 18 years before college) and hoping you don't meet a "man-made" disaster like healthcare disaster, divorces, bankruptcies, lawsuits, prisons (completely ignoring natural disasters).

cbanek 10y ago
I'd agree with all of that. The differences between Europe and the US in terms of maternity leave / time off / healthcare are fairly stark. And now we're presently dismantling healthcare as a right in the US. Really hitting at least one disaster in your life seems almost inevitable, and the system is waiting there to profit from you. I'm definitely of the more socialist bent, in that I know that if people around me aren't healthy and safe, everyone is more at risk. But I feel in the minority these days.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- trome 10y ago
  58% of Americans would prefer a federally funded healthcare system[0], akin to healthcare in Canada. We only feel alone because both parties are bought and owned by multi-nationals, and don't give a shit about what most people want. First Past the Post ensures a 3rd party will cause carnage if it ever did rise, splitting the vote and not electing the candidate most voters would prefer. Look at Wolf PAC in Connecticut closing 26 points of a 36 point gap by beating the streets with 500 volunteers[1], or Bernie in West Virginia going to town hall after town hall and talking to people about the very real issues that affect their lives. We can convert the "unwinnable" "red" states if we only dare put in the effort to beat the streets and call people, have one on one interaction and talk about issues that matter. Jobs, healthcare, workers rights, when you connect to people, even if you disagree with a person about "divisive" issues, they can often feel you are out there fighting for a better future for them and their family. So get out there, go join Wolf PAC, Our Revolution/Woke, go to a Womens Day protest, a BLM protest and fight for a better future. If we take action, we can create change! 0 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-... 1 - http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-message-we-want-to-send-is-the-young-turkss-cenk-uygur-talks-to-mediaite-about-organizing-volunteers-in-local-elections/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-message-we-want-to-send-i...
  - oblio 10y ago
    You badly need a multi party system. Your current system is too polarized. There's no way to represent nuances. What if I like guns but I want universal healthcare? What if I want a smaller government but I also want great environmental policies? The US system was ok in the 18th century but now it's a relic. Some things don't age well.
    - bythckr 10y ago
      First, I have some good American friends. My grudge is not with the people of America but the American system, which the people of American has no say in. George Carlin puts it best, "America was founded by a group of Salve owners on the premise that all man are created equal." My observation is that America is the land of law & order as every illegal & unethical practice becomes law. Its owned by 1% and wages war for the 1% in the pretext of spreading the seeds of democracy. The thing that worried me the most as a non-American is that people around the world think that America is a democracy and all the "bad dudes"(corrupt self-interested 1%), gain power in America and try to impose their will on rest of the world by using Hollywood, CIA & US defence force.
    - Ntrails 10y ago
      Do you retain first past the post, switch to AV, move to proportional representation? What are the consequences of each of these choices and who is the right person to make them? There is no perfect voting/political system - all of them have side effects.
      - oblio 10y ago
        The fact that there's no perfect __anything__ shouldn't stop us from trying to improve the status quo.
        Ntrails 10y ago
        Agreed, so my question is why the OP is declaring 2 party system as "worse" when all current systems have drawbacks. Worse is subjective in this arena. So what are your metrics? What do you define as better? I'm not terribly keen on prop rep, for example - I think it actually gives too much power to extreme parties. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you think it would be better? If so, why?
- SticksAndBreaks 10y ago
  Playing the substates in a competition against one another, preventing a social system - the companys.
- acqq 10y ago
  And in Europe there are for a few decades the tendencies to make it "more American." "To remain competitive."
- bambax 10y ago
  The cultural differences between Europe and the US are amazing. The Lyft story of a driver who still takes rides while in labor wouldn't be "controversial" in Europe, it would be universally appalling. I don't think any corporate PR, however clueless, would even think of telling it.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  > And now we're presently dismantling healthcare as a right in the US. It was never a right in the US, although it's true that Obamacare brought us closer to that ideal.
Terr_ 10y ago
> A consequence of worshipping money. I disagree -- if money was truly worshiped, why would discussing salary be taboo? I think it has more to do with things like a just-world hypothesis [0] run amok, a long-term political trend in decreasing union power, and a lack of awareness about exactly how much surplus value is being siphoned away before the average person sees any of it. I mean, "stop worshiping money" almost feels like victim-shaming. To the extent that the average person worships it, it's because they didn't have it in the first place. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- pikzen 10y ago
  Discussing salary is only taboo because your employers make it taboo. By keeping your salaries a secret, they get more leverage in negotiations, can afford to give you much smaller raises, and have a general upper hand. Keeping salaries secret is nothing more than ensuring you stay on the bottom of the society.* Your employer, however, is happy to keep all that money. This is why we need unions. Because as a single person, you have absolutely zero leverage over your employer. Sadly, fear on each side is what makes the agreement work, properly. * Applies more as you go down the chain of responsibility, or salary. Needless to say, software developers are not doing that badly in the grand scheme of things.
- haikuginger 10y ago
  > if money was truly worshiped, why would discussing salary be taboo? Perhaps worship isn't the right word- it's more akin to fetishization. The religious right does a similar thing with sex, with similar results.
vostok 10y ago
> It's ass on fire, all the time for 70 years (save 18 years before college) The crazy thing is that if you want one of those high paid jobs where you work all day and all night then you don't even get those first 18 years. I worked at such a job and an easy majority of my colleagues went to universities that require high achievements at the school level. In the best case you get your first 14 years. A large minority of my colleagues went to secondary schools with highly competitive admissions and another minority had achievements that require a very early start (olympiads, olympics, college sports, etc.). Many of these people started when they were between 6 and 10 years old.
- intended 10y ago
  The theory is that you are selecting yourself to do things you like, which you just happen to do at the highest level. This was fine in America for a long time, but 1) As colleges degenerate from being an intellectual addition, to a pre requisite for jobs well paying or not 2) several classes of jobs disappear, especially those which could be done by common sense and training It results in posers. People who are high functioning, cynical and clear about what it takes to live a decent life. I probably point it out a lot on HN and other places - but you see this in action in India and China (and other developing nations). Very few people actually are interested in doing math or math derived work all the time, but if they don't society and the jobs market will be unmerciful. So they pretend. They hate it, assume everyone else is pretending, and go through the basic motions required to get to the other side. These are the people who are badly affected by the whole process. The ones who would not have been happy becoming engineers, lawyers or olympiads. But that's the game, and people will always play it.
  - vostok 10y ago
    > 1) As colleges degenerate from being an intellectual addition, to a pre requisite for jobs well paying or not At least in the Anglosphere, elite colleges were elite finishing schools before they were tickets to middle class elite jobs. I'm not sure that they are degenerating in the way that you imply. It's also not clear to me that academic pursuits are somehow better than commercial pursuits. They're certainly not better for society. > Very few people actually are interested in doing math or math derived work all the time, but if they don't society and the jobs market will be unmerciful. I feel like I know more people who are interested in doing math, but are not doing math because the job market is not kind to those who do math. Indeed I am one of those people. I do agree that I took a somewhat cynical approach.

by NTDF9 10y ago

cbanek 10y ago

I'd agree with all of that. The differences between Europe and the US in terms of maternity leave / time off / healthcare are fairly stark. And now we're presently dismantling healthcare as a right in the US. Really hitting at least one disaster in your life seems almost inevitable, and the system is waiting there to profit from you. I'm definitely of the more socialist bent, in that I know that if people around me aren't healthy and safe, everyone is more at risk. But I feel in the minority these days.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
trome 10y ago
58% of Americans would prefer a federally funded healthcare system[0], akin to healthcare in Canada. We only feel alone because both parties are bought and owned by multi-nationals, and don't give a shit about what most people want. First Past the Post ensures a 3rd party will cause carnage if it ever did rise, splitting the vote and not electing the candidate most voters would prefer. Look at Wolf PAC in Connecticut closing 26 points of a 36 point gap by beating the streets with 500 volunteers[1], or Bernie in West Virginia going to town hall after town hall and talking to people about the very real issues that affect their lives. We can convert the "unwinnable" "red" states if we only dare put in the effort to beat the streets and call people, have one on one interaction and talk about issues that matter. Jobs, healthcare, workers rights, when you connect to people, even if you disagree with a person about "divisive" issues, they can often feel you are out there fighting for a better future for them and their family. So get out there, go join Wolf PAC, Our Revolution/Woke, go to a Womens Day protest, a BLM protest and fight for a better future. If we take action, we can create change! 0 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-... 1 - http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-message-we-want-to-send-is-the-young-turkss-cenk-uygur-talks-to-mediaite-about-organizing-volunteers-in-local-elections/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-message-we-want-to-send-i...
- oblio 10y ago
  You badly need a multi party system. Your current system is too polarized. There's no way to represent nuances. What if I like guns but I want universal healthcare? What if I want a smaller government but I also want great environmental policies? The US system was ok in the 18th century but now it's a relic. Some things don't age well.
  - bythckr 10y ago
    First, I have some good American friends. My grudge is not with the people of America but the American system, which the people of American has no say in. George Carlin puts it best, "America was founded by a group of Salve owners on the premise that all man are created equal." My observation is that America is the land of law & order as every illegal & unethical practice becomes law. Its owned by 1% and wages war for the 1% in the pretext of spreading the seeds of democracy. The thing that worried me the most as a non-American is that people around the world think that America is a democracy and all the "bad dudes"(corrupt self-interested 1%), gain power in America and try to impose their will on rest of the world by using Hollywood, CIA & US defence force.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    Do you retain first past the post, switch to AV, move to proportional representation? What are the consequences of each of these choices and who is the right person to make them? There is no perfect voting/political system - all of them have side effects.
    - oblio 10y ago
      The fact that there's no perfect __anything__ shouldn't stop us from trying to improve the status quo.
      - Ntrails 10y ago
        Agreed, so my question is why the OP is declaring 2 party system as "worse" when all current systems have drawbacks. Worse is subjective in this arena. So what are your metrics? What do you define as better? I'm not terribly keen on prop rep, for example - I think it actually gives too much power to extreme parties. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you think it would be better? If so, why?
SticksAndBreaks 10y ago
Playing the substates in a competition against one another, preventing a social system - the companys.
acqq 10y ago
And in Europe there are for a few decades the tendencies to make it "more American." "To remain competitive."
bambax 10y ago
The cultural differences between Europe and the US are amazing. The Lyft story of a driver who still takes rides while in labor wouldn't be "controversial" in Europe, it would be universally appalling. I don't think any corporate PR, however clueless, would even think of telling it.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
> And now we're presently dismantling healthcare as a right in the US. It was never a right in the US, although it's true that Obamacare brought us closer to that ideal.

Terr_ 10y ago

> A consequence of worshipping money. I disagree -- if money was truly worshiped, why would discussing salary be taboo? I think it has more to do with things like a just-world hypothesis [0] run amok, a long-term political trend in decreasing union power, and a lack of awareness about exactly how much surplus value is being siphoned away before the average person sees any of it. I mean, "stop worshiping money" almost feels like victim-shaming. To the extent that the average person worships it, it's because they didn't have it in the first place. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

pikzen 10y ago
Discussing salary is only taboo because your employers make it taboo. By keeping your salaries a secret, they get more leverage in negotiations, can afford to give you much smaller raises, and have a general upper hand. Keeping salaries secret is nothing more than ensuring you stay on the bottom of the society.* Your employer, however, is happy to keep all that money. This is why we need unions. Because as a single person, you have absolutely zero leverage over your employer. Sadly, fear on each side is what makes the agreement work, properly. * Applies more as you go down the chain of responsibility, or salary. Needless to say, software developers are not doing that badly in the grand scheme of things.
haikuginger 10y ago
> if money was truly worshiped, why would discussing salary be taboo? Perhaps worship isn't the right word- it's more akin to fetishization. The religious right does a similar thing with sex, with similar results.

vostok 10y ago

> It's ass on fire, all the time for 70 years (save 18 years before college) The crazy thing is that if you want one of those high paid jobs where you work all day and all night then you don't even get those first 18 years. I worked at such a job and an easy majority of my colleagues went to universities that require high achievements at the school level. In the best case you get your first 14 years. A large minority of my colleagues went to secondary schools with highly competitive admissions and another minority had achievements that require a very early start (olympiads, olympics, college sports, etc.). Many of these people started when they were between 6 and 10 years old.

intended 10y ago
The theory is that you are selecting yourself to do things you like, which you just happen to do at the highest level. This was fine in America for a long time, but 1) As colleges degenerate from being an intellectual addition, to a pre requisite for jobs well paying or not 2) several classes of jobs disappear, especially those which could be done by common sense and training It results in posers. People who are high functioning, cynical and clear about what it takes to live a decent life. I probably point it out a lot on HN and other places - but you see this in action in India and China (and other developing nations). Very few people actually are interested in doing math or math derived work all the time, but if they don't society and the jobs market will be unmerciful. So they pretend. They hate it, assume everyone else is pretending, and go through the basic motions required to get to the other side. These are the people who are badly affected by the whole process. The ones who would not have been happy becoming engineers, lawyers or olympiads. But that's the game, and people will always play it.
- vostok 10y ago
  > 1) As colleges degenerate from being an intellectual addition, to a pre requisite for jobs well paying or not At least in the Anglosphere, elite colleges were elite finishing schools before they were tickets to middle class elite jobs. I'm not sure that they are degenerating in the way that you imply. It's also not clear to me that academic pursuits are somehow better than commercial pursuits. They're certainly not better for society. > Very few people actually are interested in doing math or math derived work all the time, but if they don't society and the jobs market will be unmerciful. I feel like I know more people who are interested in doing math, but are not doing math because the job market is not kind to those who do math. Indeed I am one of those people. I do agree that I took a somewhat cynical approach.