3 ms·

I disagree. Try to actually settle down (without winning the startup/rich parents/literal lottery first) and see how it goes. If you haven't raised a nice safet

by dwiel 7y ago

I disagree. Try to actually settle down (without winning the startup/rich parents/literal lottery first) and see how it goes. If you haven't raised a nice safety fund and you get sick, you are screwed. If you dont want to live in the middle of nowhere, land owners are going to want a huge chunk of money for that priviledge. Also good luck finding a part time job that pays much better than minimum wage. I know a lot of people who try to do this and there are definitely ways it can happen, but our society is definitely structured to make it difficult. Tell the person working two jobs, paying more than half of their income to rent/mortgage and living paycheck to paycheck that they should just relax and settle down ...

TheCoelacanth 7y ago
100 years ago, you were screwed if you got the wrong infection no matter how rich you were. Now we cure that with a $30 course of antibiotics. Even just the limited healthcare you can get from free clinics and emergency treatment that hospitals are required to provide even if you aren't able to pay would be better than the best care money could buy 100 years ago.
- dwiel 7y ago
  Of course antibiotics and other things have improved since 100 years ago, nobody is arguing otherwise. The argument is that right now we could have cheap antibiotics and less working hours. The counter argument was that the average person chooses luxury over less working hours, and my counter-counter argument was that this choice isn't actually available to most people. Also, that actually the choice most people have is to work less and live something like 100 years ago with reduced life span, etc, or work a lot and survive.