5 ms·

Ordinary is no longer economically survivable.

by VLM 9y ago

maxxxxx 9y ago
The problem is that most of us are ordinary by definition. If it's not possible to survive as an ordinary person we have a huge problem.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
cortesoft 9y ago
But that is clearly not true? If it was, then over half of everyone would be dying? The average person certainly has a job and can support themselves. Our unemployment is not 50%
- closeparen 9y ago
  Until they get sick. You do need to be an exceptional overachiever to get a job with decent health insurance.
  - Svenstaro 9y ago
    Now that's just not true. This sounds like a fairly US-centric view. In many countries you get health care taken care of if you can't afford it.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      “Society obsesses with success” is a US-centric view.
  - astura 9y ago
    Complete nonsense. The vast majority of people in the US with decent health insurance are not "exceptional overachiever[s]." Heck, I know more than a dozen people who literally sit around and watch TV 16 hours a day and have decent health insurance, including my own father who hasn't been employed in almost 40 years. To do that you just (usually) gotta be married.
gbacon 9y ago
Nonsense, but you may have been brainwashed into believing it. An enormous disservice to American school kids for the past forty years has been the ad nauseum repetition that you either graduate college or you’re a failure who’s a complete drain on society. This is bollocks. After training a few years, work in some skilled trades pays six figures. Others are easily making upwards of $70k. If you can’t survive on that, tighten your belt or move to a lower cost-of-living area. Just like everyone you went to college with wasn’t a fit for med school, not everyone you went to high school is cut out for college. Learning a trade in vocational training may be exactly what they’re looking for and is definitely a path to good jobs. Earning a decent, respectable living is fine and in no way a comment on the person’s character or value or intelligence, but by painting it as “alternative school” with the connotation of a one-way track to Loserville, axe grinders have made the situation far worse. Now, it’s true that being a fry jockey — or any other job where anyone can walk in off the street and do the same task with little training — is not economically survivable, but a career that peaks at unskilled labor is far worse than ordinary.
- sireat 9y ago
  Good point that skilled trades are still needed. However what if you fail at learning 1 or two skilled trades? Plus even those in skilled trades need to know at least the bare basics of entrepreneurship. The days of cushy union jobs are over. Not everyone is cut out to be a plumber or bricklayer either.
verylittlemeat 9y ago
It comes down to economic expectations. I live below the poverty line in the United States and my life is great. My health insurance is 100% free and probably the best in the world. I get financial aid from different government sources that give me a comfortable simple life. The people who feel they need to own cars or houses and have children struggle to meet their personal expectations. Their struggle and wealth subsidies my lifestyle. I don't consider wealthy people my enemy or "rich fools." Instead I see them as people who psychologically for one reason or another have certain expectations about what life is supposed to be. They wouldn't want my life for free and I wouldn't want their life at a cost. Does my lifestyle carry a social stigma? Of course. But do I really care what someone else thinks when I'm basically allowed to live in a first world country for free? Not even a little bit. To me this is as fair as you can probably get in an economic system.
- dominotw 9y ago
  what about traveling and seeing the world.
  - verylittlemeat 9y ago
    Do you value you that? Then live your life in accordance with achieving that goal. There are lots of ways to see the world, from being a vagrant to a CEO who travels business class to the finest hotels. I don't value travel enough to change my lifestyle so I wont work toward that end but if you do then you should. I say this with zero judgment or passive aggressive intention.
  - astura 9y ago
    Really? Many people don't want to do that, just like I don't want to play the guitar or go fishing. Many find it to be down right unethical due to the high carbon footprint required for world travel.
- coconutrandom 9y ago
  I'm impressed, being content is as difficult as it is laudable. Do you contribute back to society in some other ways?

Ordinary is no longer economically survivable.

by VLM 9y ago

Ordinary is no longer economically survivable.

The problem is that most of us are ordinary by definition. If it's not possible to survive as an ordinary person we have a huge problem.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

cortesoft 9y ago

But that is clearly not true? If it was, then over half of everyone would be dying? The average person certainly has a job and can support themselves. Our unemployment is not 50%

closeparen 9y ago
Until they get sick. You do need to be an exceptional overachiever to get a job with decent health insurance.
- Svenstaro 9y ago
  Now that's just not true. This sounds like a fairly US-centric view. In many countries you get health care taken care of if you can't afford it.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    “Society obsesses with success” is a US-centric view.
- astura 9y ago
  Complete nonsense. The vast majority of people in the US with decent health insurance are not "exceptional overachiever[s]." Heck, I know more than a dozen people who literally sit around and watch TV 16 hours a day and have decent health insurance, including my own father who hasn't been employed in almost 40 years. To do that you just (usually) gotta be married.

gbacon 9y ago

Nonsense, but you may have been brainwashed into believing it. An enormous disservice to American school kids for the past forty years has been the ad nauseum repetition that you either graduate college or you’re a failure who’s a complete drain on society. This is bollocks. After training a few years, work in some skilled trades pays six figures. Others are easily making upwards of $70k. If you can’t survive on that, tighten your belt or move to a lower cost-of-living area. Just like everyone you went to college with wasn’t a fit for med school, not everyone you went to high school is cut out for college. Learning a trade in vocational training may be exactly what they’re looking for and is definitely a path to good jobs. Earning a decent, respectable living is fine and in no way a comment on the person’s character or value or intelligence, but by painting it as “alternative school” with the connotation of a one-way track to Loserville, axe grinders have made the situation far worse. Now, it’s true that being a fry jockey — or any other job where anyone can walk in off the street and do the same task with little training — is not economically survivable, but a career that peaks at unskilled labor is far worse than ordinary.

sireat 9y ago
Good point that skilled trades are still needed. However what if you fail at learning 1 or two skilled trades? Plus even those in skilled trades need to know at least the bare basics of entrepreneurship. The days of cushy union jobs are over. Not everyone is cut out to be a plumber or bricklayer either.

verylittlemeat 9y ago

It comes down to economic expectations. I live below the poverty line in the United States and my life is great. My health insurance is 100% free and probably the best in the world. I get financial aid from different government sources that give me a comfortable simple life. The people who feel they need to own cars or houses and have children struggle to meet their personal expectations. Their struggle and wealth subsidies my lifestyle. I don't consider wealthy people my enemy or "rich fools." Instead I see them as people who psychologically for one reason or another have certain expectations about what life is supposed to be. They wouldn't want my life for free and I wouldn't want their life at a cost. Does my lifestyle carry a social stigma? Of course. But do I really care what someone else thinks when I'm basically allowed to live in a first world country for free? Not even a little bit. To me this is as fair as you can probably get in an economic system.

dominotw 9y ago
what about traveling and seeing the world.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  Do you value you that? Then live your life in accordance with achieving that goal. There are lots of ways to see the world, from being a vagrant to a CEO who travels business class to the finest hotels. I don't value travel enough to change my lifestyle so I wont work toward that end but if you do then you should. I say this with zero judgment or passive aggressive intention.
- astura 9y ago
  Really? Many people don't want to do that, just like I don't want to play the guitar or go fishing. Many find it to be down right unethical due to the high carbon footprint required for world travel.
coconutrandom 9y ago
I'm impressed, being content is as difficult as it is laudable. Do you contribute back to society in some other ways?