5 ms·

In many places of the world you get to work your ass off for decades while you see 1/3 of the population sitting on their hands while living of the back of the

by EJTH 10y ago

In many places of the world you get to work your ass off for decades while you see 1/3 of the population sitting on their hands while living of the back of the tax paying worker. I can understand that many get fed up, especially if they didn't get paid a whole lot to begin with.

charlesdm 10y ago
To each its own? People are free to live the life they want to live. No one is forcing you to work hard.
- wiradikusuma 10y ago
  and then expect good life? shouldn't it like "you reap what you sow"?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - onion2k 10y ago
    If the expectation is that you should be able to live a good life if you work hard then something is very wrong. A huge number of people work incredibly hard, yet still don't get to live a good life. A teacher (or nurse, developer, construction worker, etc) who puts in long hours working a stressful job and still doesn't earn enough to invest in a home, take a vacation, or raise a family. Where is the incentive for people to work hard if that's the case? You can't tell people that "you reap what you sow" if they're seeing other people sowing a huge amount and actually reaping very little. To anyone who might reply to suggest this means the reward for not working should be even lower, read The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek first. He made a very good case that there's a necessity for decent welfare in modern societies because without it poor people will eventually rise up in a bloody revolution. It's happened many times in the past. Lowering welfare is, by logical extension, an argument in favour of murdering the wealthy.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    My personal situation: I do work, but probably not more than a few hours a day, and yet make significantly more than most of my peers. I don't work hard at all (maybe once in a while), yet work smart. By most metrics my life is pretty good given I live a relatively free life without significant stress and plenty of money (not FU money, but I do alright). It also shows that you don't need to work hard to actually achieve something, and can still live well.
- falcolas 10y ago
  If you don't work, and you're too moral to abuse the system, you can't live a reasonable standard of living. The more menial the job these moral people are forced to accept, the more jobs they have to find. I wonder how free they feel.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    This is just untrue - you can. Obviously not while living on welfare, but if you're smart about it you can not work hard and live well. Source: personal experience.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      > not work hard and live well I think these two phrases will have to be expanded upon - what do you consider "not hard work", and "living well"?
      - charlesdm 10y ago
        To me, this means: "Not hard work": a few hours a day at most, but with complete freedom, e.g. take the day off (sort of) whenever you want / have the possibility to go sit in a cafe or meet up with friends, etc. A life without too much professional stress. "Living well": An (after tax) income of $100 - 150k a year, in a low(er) cost of living area (e.g. not SF or London). Add some for higher CoL cities.
        falcolas 10y ago
        I'll be frank, the only way someone gets to the point where they are making $150,000 a year is by doing a lot of work up front and then getting lucky. You have to get a degree (or the work equivalent), build up experience in the industry, pound the pavement for clients, prove your ability to them again and again. Then you have to hit the niche jackpot where you can work very little for a lot of money (at least until a competitor comes along). I would paint you as the exception, not the rule. You had the right knowledge, the right skillset, and the right contacts to get you a job 99.9% of the current workforce would kill to have. Not because they are too stupid to do the same things you do, but because they weren't as lucky as you.
brohoolio 10y ago
Where does this happen? Where does 1/3 of the population get full governmental assistance? Are you including retirees, who paid into the system?
- falcolas 10y ago
  My parents, retirees at 55, didn't pay into the system, as we see it today. My dad got a full pension working a blue collar job, on top of a middle wage salary. He's living off that pension, plus social security. I can't imagine many people being capable of retiring that way these days; jobs that offer good salaries and pensions hardly exist (mostly in the government), and it's likely social security won't be there for us. I hope I'm wrong on the latter, but it's hard to live on Social Security alone even today.
brohoolio 10y ago
Where does this happen? Where does 1/3 of the population get full governmental assistance? Are you including retirees, who paid into the system?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by EJTH 10y ago

charlesdm 10y ago

To each its own? People are free to live the life they want to live. No one is forcing you to work hard.

wiradikusuma 10y ago
and then expect good life? shouldn't it like "you reap what you sow"?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- onion2k 10y ago
  If the expectation is that you should be able to live a good life if you work hard then something is very wrong. A huge number of people work incredibly hard, yet still don't get to live a good life. A teacher (or nurse, developer, construction worker, etc) who puts in long hours working a stressful job and still doesn't earn enough to invest in a home, take a vacation, or raise a family. Where is the incentive for people to work hard if that's the case? You can't tell people that "you reap what you sow" if they're seeing other people sowing a huge amount and actually reaping very little. To anyone who might reply to suggest this means the reward for not working should be even lower, read The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek first. He made a very good case that there's a necessity for decent welfare in modern societies because without it poor people will eventually rise up in a bloody revolution. It's happened many times in the past. Lowering welfare is, by logical extension, an argument in favour of murdering the wealthy.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  My personal situation: I do work, but probably not more than a few hours a day, and yet make significantly more than most of my peers. I don't work hard at all (maybe once in a while), yet work smart. By most metrics my life is pretty good given I live a relatively free life without significant stress and plenty of money (not FU money, but I do alright). It also shows that you don't need to work hard to actually achieve something, and can still live well.
falcolas 10y ago
If you don't work, and you're too moral to abuse the system, you can't live a reasonable standard of living. The more menial the job these moral people are forced to accept, the more jobs they have to find. I wonder how free they feel.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  This is just untrue - you can. Obviously not while living on welfare, but if you're smart about it you can not work hard and live well. Source: personal experience.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    > not work hard and live well I think these two phrases will have to be expanded upon - what do you consider "not hard work", and "living well"?
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      To me, this means: "Not hard work": a few hours a day at most, but with complete freedom, e.g. take the day off (sort of) whenever you want / have the possibility to go sit in a cafe or meet up with friends, etc. A life without too much professional stress. "Living well": An (after tax) income of $100 - 150k a year, in a low(er) cost of living area (e.g. not SF or London). Add some for higher CoL cities.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        I'll be frank, the only way someone gets to the point where they are making $150,000 a year is by doing a lot of work up front and then getting lucky. You have to get a degree (or the work equivalent), build up experience in the industry, pound the pavement for clients, prove your ability to them again and again. Then you have to hit the niche jackpot where you can work very little for a lot of money (at least until a competitor comes along). I would paint you as the exception, not the rule. You had the right knowledge, the right skillset, and the right contacts to get you a job 99.9% of the current workforce would kill to have. Not because they are too stupid to do the same things you do, but because they weren't as lucky as you.

brohoolio 10y ago

Where does this happen? Where does 1/3 of the population get full governmental assistance? Are you including retirees, who paid into the system?

falcolas 10y ago
My parents, retirees at 55, didn't pay into the system, as we see it today. My dad got a full pension working a blue collar job, on top of a middle wage salary. He's living off that pension, plus social security. I can't imagine many people being capable of retiring that way these days; jobs that offer good salaries and pensions hardly exist (mostly in the government), and it's likely social security won't be there for us. I hope I'm wrong on the latter, but it's hard to live on Social Security alone even today.

brohoolio 10y ago

Where does this happen? Where does 1/3 of the population get full governmental assistance? Are you including retirees, who paid into the system?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]