4 ms·

Sounds like this book has an unfortunate bias of victim hood. Lost your mortgage? Not your fault. Didn’t save for retirement? Not your fault. Only job pros

Sounds like this book has an unfortunate bias of victim hood. Lost your mortgage? Not your fault. Didn’t save for retirement? Not your fault. Only job prospect, after working and training and networking for your entire adult life, is moving boxes in an AMZN warehouse? Not your fault. I prefer a more objective view, like Studs Terkel’s classic book, Working. Finally, don’t get me wrong — I have neighbors in the described situation. I care about them. I’m just saying I’d enjoy reading an objective narrative about their hard, and unfortunate situation — something not clouded with the tone of victimization.

timthelion 9y ago
Perhaps you meant to write "bias of false victimhood". There is nothing biased about victimhood itself. Many people are really truly and objectively victims.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Yes, that’s a better phrase.
pwinnski 9y ago
People who lost their retirement investments in the 2008 crash aren't suffering from an artificial feeling of victimhood. They're victims.
- dogruck 9y ago
  That is your unsubstantiated and overly general opinion.
- markshead 9y ago
  How did people lose their retirement investments in 2008? Most of the stories I've heard where people lost all of their retirement around 2008 involved doing things were considered fairly risky before 2008 hit. Were there people who lost all their retirement who were following typical retirement investment strategies? Edit: And to be clear, I know the value of almost everyone's investments went down, but unless your money was all in a single company it seems that most diversified portfolios bounced back.
  - timthelion 9y ago
    Many people put all of their money into paying the mortgage on a house. A reasonably sound investment. And then they found their mortgages to be underwater. Literally every dollar they had put in, was now worthless on paper. Those who did not buy into the sunk cost fallacy allowed their houses be reclaimed. Then they truly had nothing.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Those who did not buy into the sunk cost fallacy allowed their houses be reclaimed. Wait, are you saying it was actually financially rational to do so? Wouldn't they be better off by waiting it out until it the market rebounded? I'm not blaming anyone, just asking what would have been the theoretically better decision.
      - filoeleven 9y ago
        I bought a house in 2007. Ten years later it still is not worth what I owe on it. Sometimes the market doesn’t recover. I’ve wanted to move somewhere else for at least five of those years. I finally have, and my options with the old house are either to rent it out (rent would not cover mortgage payment) or try to deal with the bank to avoid foreclosure, via short sale or deed in lieu. In any of those cases, now I have two problems.
      - timthelion 9y ago
        I truly don't know what the theoretically better decision is. That wording was intended to poke fun at arrogant HNers who think that everything in the markets follows some trivial buzzword based rule-set.
  - brewdad 9y ago
    Right. In the meantime, while working folks could keep their investments intact and have them grow back to pre-crash levels or higher, retired folks needed money to live on and were forced to remove some of their nest egg at the bottom. It takes much longer to recover in that situation.
icantdrive55 9y ago
Studs Turkel's book Working is for an America that is gone. When this current bubble bursts, we will see the truth for all those who belive it's just not enough--what's the word--planning, or solid work ethic? I was going to say we need a new Working book for the Sharing Economey, but I feel it would be pretty thin, and just say see "Chinese economy", or done other "they do it cheaper" country for more information. It would be interesting to see a Studs Turkel type writing about a startup that produces absolutely nothing new, or a product that will be decimated by one of the monopolies. I would like to read how a 1 percenter rationalizes their greedy, and narcissism though; while the safe, predictable, somewhat ethical country they grew up slides into chaos.
- dogruck 9y ago
  You are pessimistic and cynical. I know many people who have jobs equal to or similar to Studs Working. And, more importantly, his book did not describe a paradise. He profiled whores, for example.
  - wyclif 9y ago
    I read it years ago. He also profiled a lot of people with unglamorous jobs, like hotel doormen. As a teenager, I felt like reading that book taught me something I needed to understand about work and how even jobs that are considered desireable and financially rewarding can be complete drudgery to do over a period of years, let alone decades.
nickthemagicman 9y ago
I think you're underestimating how hard these people have worked their whole lives. The issue is not one of not working. It's one of lower class wages. If you work your while life and do all the things society expects of you but still end up screwed. That's a systemic problem not a lazy person problem.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I didn’t call anyone lazy — those are your words. I know (lower middle class) people who went bankrupt in the Great Recession because they had 2 or more mortgages, obtained with a 5% down payment. To me, they took too big of a gamble, and lost. I know others who stayed out of such gambles and survived the GR. I know others who had to significantly downsize or live with family members because they lost their job and then spent their savings.

timthelion 9y ago

Perhaps you meant to write "bias of false victimhood". There is nothing biased about victimhood itself. Many people are really truly and objectively victims.

dogruck 9y ago
Yes, that’s a better phrase.

pwinnski 9y ago

People who lost their retirement investments in the 2008 crash aren't suffering from an artificial feeling of victimhood. They're victims.

dogruck 9y ago
That is your unsubstantiated and overly general opinion.
markshead 9y ago
How did people lose their retirement investments in 2008? Most of the stories I've heard where people lost all of their retirement around 2008 involved doing things were considered fairly risky before 2008 hit. Were there people who lost all their retirement who were following typical retirement investment strategies? Edit: And to be clear, I know the value of almost everyone's investments went down, but unless your money was all in a single company it seems that most diversified portfolios bounced back.
- timthelion 9y ago
  Many people put all of their money into paying the mortgage on a house. A reasonably sound investment. And then they found their mortgages to be underwater. Literally every dollar they had put in, was now worthless on paper. Those who did not buy into the sunk cost fallacy allowed their houses be reclaimed. Then they truly had nothing.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Those who did not buy into the sunk cost fallacy allowed their houses be reclaimed. Wait, are you saying it was actually financially rational to do so? Wouldn't they be better off by waiting it out until it the market rebounded? I'm not blaming anyone, just asking what would have been the theoretically better decision.
    - filoeleven 9y ago
      I bought a house in 2007. Ten years later it still is not worth what I owe on it. Sometimes the market doesn’t recover. I’ve wanted to move somewhere else for at least five of those years. I finally have, and my options with the old house are either to rent it out (rent would not cover mortgage payment) or try to deal with the bank to avoid foreclosure, via short sale or deed in lieu. In any of those cases, now I have two problems.
    - timthelion 9y ago
      I truly don't know what the theoretically better decision is. That wording was intended to poke fun at arrogant HNers who think that everything in the markets follows some trivial buzzword based rule-set.
- brewdad 9y ago
  Right. In the meantime, while working folks could keep their investments intact and have them grow back to pre-crash levels or higher, retired folks needed money to live on and were forced to remove some of their nest egg at the bottom. It takes much longer to recover in that situation.

icantdrive55 9y ago

Studs Turkel's book Working is for an America that is gone. When this current bubble bursts, we will see the truth for all those who belive it's just not enough--what's the word--planning, or solid work ethic? I was going to say we need a new Working book for the Sharing Economey, but I feel it would be pretty thin, and just say see "Chinese economy", or done other "they do it cheaper" country for more information. It would be interesting to see a Studs Turkel type writing about a startup that produces absolutely nothing new, or a product that will be decimated by one of the monopolies. I would like to read how a 1 percenter rationalizes their greedy, and narcissism though; while the safe, predictable, somewhat ethical country they grew up slides into chaos.

dogruck 9y ago
You are pessimistic and cynical. I know many people who have jobs equal to or similar to Studs Working. And, more importantly, his book did not describe a paradise. He profiled whores, for example.
- wyclif 9y ago
  I read it years ago. He also profiled a lot of people with unglamorous jobs, like hotel doormen. As a teenager, I felt like reading that book taught me something I needed to understand about work and how even jobs that are considered desireable and financially rewarding can be complete drudgery to do over a period of years, let alone decades.

nickthemagicman 9y ago

I think you're underestimating how hard these people have worked their whole lives. The issue is not one of not working. It's one of lower class wages. If you work your while life and do all the things society expects of you but still end up screwed. That's a systemic problem not a lazy person problem.

dogruck 9y ago
I didn’t call anyone lazy — those are your words. I know (lower middle class) people who went bankrupt in the Great Recession because they had 2 or more mortgages, obtained with a 5% down payment. To me, they took too big of a gamble, and lost. I know others who stayed out of such gambles and survived the GR. I know others who had to significantly downsize or live with family members because they lost their job and then spent their savings.