5 ms·
9-1. 9-5 three days a week. Whatever. 40 hours labour just isn't necessary for all of us. We need to work to actually produce things like food and transport
by esotericn 7y ago
9-1.
9-5 three days a week.
Whatever.
40 hours labour just isn't necessary for all of us.
We need to work to actually produce things like food and transport and so on. Services.
The vast majority of people I know are not working for that. It's a side effect. We're in this absurd zero sum race to outbid each other for housing (and not just in SF/London, it's all over nowadays).
Like, come on. Once you have an income at a level sufficient to spend, say, 50% on a house, get a mortgage etc, you have truly terrifying amounts of funds left over in terms of normal material goods in the prosperous towns.
- cortesoft 7y agoI don't know... I like all the 'extra' things I can get with money. Cool electronic toys, nice stuff for my house, a luxurious car with all the cool gadgets, vacations, etc. I like stuff. It is fun to play with.
- PascLeRasc 7y agoIf you found out you had a week to live, what stuff would you play with the most?
- cortesoft 7y agoI would spend the week with my wife and kids, talking and helping them prepare for my absence. I am not sure how that changes me liking to play with gadgets.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoStuff can be good for distracting from your problems, but they're a terrible end for life. I really don't need most of the things that differentiate between being financially successful and not—really it's mostly healthcare and access to higher quality food.
- esotericn 7y agoRight. I tend to bounce around from low to high cost of living locations. My mindset changes a lot without it really being under my control. In a high CoL area the limits to what you want can be truly absurd because there's so much wealth swimming about. It's normal. It takes some grounding, but also interaction with a community that accepts you for who you are, to temper that.
- cortesoft 7y agoWhat do you mean "terrible end for life"? Of course you don't need the things, but they are enjoyable. I like to live a life beyond bare necessities.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoMeaning, they are not a good life goal and a poor substitute for very basic things like socialization, enjoying nature, enjoying time with yourself, accomplishing goals, and exercising. Money and what it can buy are a means to pass time between the parts of life that are “really” worth it. Of course I may be wrong here but it sure doesn’t feel like that; I’ve had the blessing to be able to compare my life with a lot of money closely with my life with very little money.
- cortesoft 7y agoWell, I certainly agree with that... money is not a good life goal. Money is an enabler, not an end in itself. I have also lived having money and not having money. It is way better to have money. Not having to stress about bills, not having to stress about things breaking or needing repair, being able to eat good food when you want... it makes life better. The stresses of figuring out how to get by when you are poor really hamper your ability to enjoy life.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoI'm not sure who you're trying to convince but it sounds like you should think about why you're so eager to defend that as it's not a very controversial statement.
- bambax 7y agoElectronic toys don't cost much. Luxurious cars, a lot more. If you pick and choose instead of just buying everything, you probably could still buy a lot of little toys while earning less (working less). But it's no problem of course if you're happy as you are. Good for you. The problem is society expects everyone to work 9-5, 5 days a week, 45 to 50 weeks a year. That's a little insane, and for many people, intolerable.
- 2sk21 7y agoIn my 20s I would have completely agreed with you. Now in my 50s, these toys don't seem quite as attractive. What I crave now is understanding. Being able to get a whole day without distraction to understand an algorithm or a theorem is vastly more valuable to me.