4 ms·

This is an interesting topic, but it is sad to see how people react to it. A lot of comments here saying the whole system is broken. An average poor man in th

This is an interesting topic, but it is sad to see how people react to it. A lot of comments here saying the whole system is broken. An average poor man in the US probably lives better than kings lived in the past. Food, water, food, hospitals, AC, heaters and such. These evil employers/entrepreneurs are the one creating it. Life by every metric is getting better, can it be better? Maybe. Now we could discuss how to improve the system, and its flaws, but this level of cynicism is hard to handle. I guess by coming from a really poor reality it skews my view of the world.

jonny_eh 9y ago
> Life by every metric is getting better, can it be better? Maybe. Not with that attitude! > Now we could discuss how to improve the system, and its flaws, but this level of cynicism is hard to handle. Agreed, we need to identify the problems and then be optimistic about solutions.
- pedro_hab 9y ago
  You are right, I was a bit cynical there myself. But then again, I can't refrain from the fact that is way better today, I talk to older people and see how thing worked and it does look way better than it was. It seems that people are expecting life not to be filled with suffering, which is the case unfortunately, and it becomes harder to see the good parts.
andmarios 9y ago
Yes, you live better than people 100 years ago. But what about 40 or 20 years ago? Is it easier for an average person to buy a home or car than it was for their parents? Do they work more or less from their parents? Is it easier to have and raise kids?
- pedro_hab 9y ago
  Well, I think those are localized issues. For instance, in Brazil its way easier today to buy a car than it was in the past. But houses are diff, the place I grew up in saw a 50x price increase. It is hard to buy houses there. To the point where renting is a better investment than buying (not a absolute, obviously), and makes you think that people overvalue property there, the interest rates are insane. But most statistics are going downward trend, crime for instance, its going down in all developed countries.
aylmao 9y ago
> An average poor man in the US probably lives better than kings lived in the past. IMO very far from truth. An average poor man today _has more valuable stuff_ than a king in the past, but this doesn't translate into _living better_ because having a smartphone wont save me from the stress of disliking my boss, having cheap access to varied foods doesn't necessarily mean I have more significant relationships, the fact hospitals exist doesn't mean I can afford getting sick any more than a king, and nothing really changes the fact that I'm still poor relative to the people of today, which matters. That being said, if we compare poverty today to poverty in the past, things are perhaps better now, sure.
- pedro_hab 9y ago
  > things are perhaps better now, sure I really think you are forcing here, I said: > probably lives better than kings And I do conceded that I have not studied kings lives to know, so I am guessing, but the poor of the past for sure lived way worse then the current poor. No question. The world is a much better place to live, MUCH. Now we can argue if should be better, based on distribution (rich are richer, than poor should also be richer) or inflation. But people used to have dozens of kids and only a couple would live, that alone is enough to justify. My grandparents had 7 kids in the middle of nowhere and none died.
lazerpants 9y ago
I'm don't think most of these conversations are really about material comfort, it's a proxy. I believe most of this deep well of negativity is a reaction to the limited choices individuals perceive themselves to have due to market forces. When wages were a little higher, jobs were easier to find, and housing costs were far lower, people could choose their work, leave jobs, take pay-cuts, and reorient their lives in a more flexible manner. People are upset now because they're on a treadmill that they can't really imagine ever being able to get off, even if they never want to, which is a gloomy thing indeed. And it's not like skipping on A/C or avocado toasts will ever give people enough money to escape that.
- pedro_hab 9y ago
  Yeah, but this kinda proves the point, these luxuries are not luxuries anymore, they became standard. The way the world is portrait by many would make me think the rich are keeping the AC for themselves, and actually they only keep cutting edge technologies, which will be in mass market if proven necessary, as cellphones. Can you believe a "poor" person can have the same cellphone as Bill Gates, there isn't a ultra expensive phone that only they can afford, this is huge. Now isn't what you pointed out more of a human psychological issue than a economic one?
  - lazerpants 9y ago
    I think many poorer Americans would gladly trade some of those luxuries for freedoms. The market has made some luxury a commodity (which is good) but it has regressed in terms of security and individual freedom of employment (at least for the poor), making free time and choice of lifestyle a luxury. As a hyperbolic example to prove the point, would you rather work 40 hours a week at a job you hate, and have a cell phone, or work 20 hours a week at a job you like, and not have one? Neither answer is wrong and some people would choose each, but I think current employment conditions largely cater to the former.
    - pedro_hab 9y ago
      Yes, I agree, I was blown away on how much Americans work, it makes me think is this a reason why this place is so great. It seems to be in the culture, which is better than a being lazy IMO. But also raises the question: Are americans happy with it? A lot of countries have protections for the employees, in Brazil you can't work too many extra hours, even if you want to. I know people that work 60-80hrs a week in the US, and they want to.
commandlinefan 9y ago
I find myself becoming increasingly worried about the future. My quality of life _right now_ is pretty good. But last year, I was part of a massive layoff (whole company shut down with no notice) and I found myself out of work for months. And I'm competitive: I have a master's degree in CS, decades of experience, up-to-date "skills" in a market that is supposedly facing a talent shortage - yet I found myself rejected out-of-hand, sometimes without even an interview, from dozens of positions that I was 100+% qualified for. I can't help but wonder - if it's this bad for _me_, how bad must it be for people who have aren't quite as squeaky clean as I am?

jonny_eh 9y ago

> Life by every metric is getting better, can it be better? Maybe. Not with that attitude! > Now we could discuss how to improve the system, and its flaws, but this level of cynicism is hard to handle. Agreed, we need to identify the problems and then be optimistic about solutions.

pedro_hab 9y ago
You are right, I was a bit cynical there myself. But then again, I can't refrain from the fact that is way better today, I talk to older people and see how thing worked and it does look way better than it was. It seems that people are expecting life not to be filled with suffering, which is the case unfortunately, and it becomes harder to see the good parts.

andmarios 9y ago

Yes, you live better than people 100 years ago. But what about 40 or 20 years ago? Is it easier for an average person to buy a home or car than it was for their parents? Do they work more or less from their parents? Is it easier to have and raise kids?

pedro_hab 9y ago
Well, I think those are localized issues. For instance, in Brazil its way easier today to buy a car than it was in the past. But houses are diff, the place I grew up in saw a 50x price increase. It is hard to buy houses there. To the point where renting is a better investment than buying (not a absolute, obviously), and makes you think that people overvalue property there, the interest rates are insane. But most statistics are going downward trend, crime for instance, its going down in all developed countries.

aylmao 9y ago

> An average poor man in the US probably lives better than kings lived in the past. IMO very far from truth. An average poor man today _has more valuable stuff_ than a king in the past, but this doesn't translate into _living better_ because having a smartphone wont save me from the stress of disliking my boss, having cheap access to varied foods doesn't necessarily mean I have more significant relationships, the fact hospitals exist doesn't mean I can afford getting sick any more than a king, and nothing really changes the fact that I'm still poor relative to the people of today, which matters. That being said, if we compare poverty today to poverty in the past, things are perhaps better now, sure.

pedro_hab 9y ago
> things are perhaps better now, sure I really think you are forcing here, I said: > probably lives better than kings And I do conceded that I have not studied kings lives to know, so I am guessing, but the poor of the past for sure lived way worse then the current poor. No question. The world is a much better place to live, MUCH. Now we can argue if should be better, based on distribution (rich are richer, than poor should also be richer) or inflation. But people used to have dozens of kids and only a couple would live, that alone is enough to justify. My grandparents had 7 kids in the middle of nowhere and none died.

lazerpants 9y ago

I'm don't think most of these conversations are really about material comfort, it's a proxy. I believe most of this deep well of negativity is a reaction to the limited choices individuals perceive themselves to have due to market forces. When wages were a little higher, jobs were easier to find, and housing costs were far lower, people could choose their work, leave jobs, take pay-cuts, and reorient their lives in a more flexible manner. People are upset now because they're on a treadmill that they can't really imagine ever being able to get off, even if they never want to, which is a gloomy thing indeed. And it's not like skipping on A/C or avocado toasts will ever give people enough money to escape that.

pedro_hab 9y ago
Yeah, but this kinda proves the point, these luxuries are not luxuries anymore, they became standard. The way the world is portrait by many would make me think the rich are keeping the AC for themselves, and actually they only keep cutting edge technologies, which will be in mass market if proven necessary, as cellphones. Can you believe a "poor" person can have the same cellphone as Bill Gates, there isn't a ultra expensive phone that only they can afford, this is huge. Now isn't what you pointed out more of a human psychological issue than a economic one?
- lazerpants 9y ago
  I think many poorer Americans would gladly trade some of those luxuries for freedoms. The market has made some luxury a commodity (which is good) but it has regressed in terms of security and individual freedom of employment (at least for the poor), making free time and choice of lifestyle a luxury. As a hyperbolic example to prove the point, would you rather work 40 hours a week at a job you hate, and have a cell phone, or work 20 hours a week at a job you like, and not have one? Neither answer is wrong and some people would choose each, but I think current employment conditions largely cater to the former.
  - pedro_hab 9y ago
    Yes, I agree, I was blown away on how much Americans work, it makes me think is this a reason why this place is so great. It seems to be in the culture, which is better than a being lazy IMO. But also raises the question: Are americans happy with it? A lot of countries have protections for the employees, in Brazil you can't work too many extra hours, even if you want to. I know people that work 60-80hrs a week in the US, and they want to.

commandlinefan 9y ago

I find myself becoming increasingly worried about the future. My quality of life _right now_ is pretty good. But last year, I was part of a massive layoff (whole company shut down with no notice) and I found myself out of work for months. And I'm competitive: I have a master's degree in CS, decades of experience, up-to-date "skills" in a market that is supposedly facing a talent shortage - yet I found myself rejected out-of-hand, sometimes without even an interview, from dozens of positions that I was 100+% qualified for. I can't help but wonder - if it's this bad for _me_, how bad must it be for people who have aren't quite as squeaky clean as I am?