10 ms·

The upshot of this piece is much more significant than the comments here have been willing to admit. Yes, you can write the author off as having a whiny, blame

by rwl 16y ago

The upshot of this piece is much more significant than the comments here have been willing to admit. Yes, you can write the author off as having a whiny, blame-others attitude. Yes, you can say that if he would just take matters into his own hands, the path of entrepreneurship is hard but ultimately rewarding. And maybe that's right. But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces? Why should the only options be self-sacrifice to the drudgery of the rat race for the sake of security, or a different kind of self-sacrifice for a different reward, that of "independence"? Why should we structure our society so that, for the average person, self-sacrifice is the only way to survive, much less get ahead? To say that there's a better way, but that the better way involves social changes that a single person can't simply choose to make for herself, is not just to whine and blame others. It's a reasonable criticism of our economic, social and political institutions -- one worthy of debate, no doubt, but not worthy of dismissal.

pdx 16y ago
Why should we structure our society so that, for the average person, self-sacrifice is the only way to survive, much less get ahead? So, we should structure our society so that you can get ahead without sacrifice? Do you get to be ahead of me or do I get to be ahead of you? I just want to be clear which of us gets ahead of the other one, what with neither one of us sacrificing anything.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  Do you get to be ahead of me or do I get to be ahead of you? You could get ahead of where you were last year.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  You could both move forward together, rather than ensuring that someone is always ahead and another is farther behind... A rising tide lifts all boats.
  - grammaton 16y ago
    If it's evenly distributed. The benefits of capitalism are very clearly not evenly distributed.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      +1. Just saying that 'either I'm ahead or I'm behind' is a false dichotomy.
  - drndown2007 16y ago
    And what exactly is going to make that tide rise? Nothing is free -- everyone has to work. We have to sacrifice our time and energy to survive and have some comforts. There's no way around that one.
    - swift 16y ago
      Sure, everyone has to trade time and energy to obtain their needs and wants. That doesn't mean that the details of the transaction as they stand now are justified.
rick888 16y ago
"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces?" Do you have an alternative? Humans have tried many different methods over many thousands of years and our current system is the result of trying and failing many, many times. It's the most fair and allows pretty much anyone to be successful. Life is difficult because we have more freedoms. We don't have someone making all of the decisions for us (which might be easier), but the result is more choice. If you don't make the right choices, you could end up living on the street or in poverty. Buy you could also end up with lots of money and a nice life. I suppose an alternative would be no choice. You are forced to work for the government.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  Do you have an alternative? I'm not the parent poster, but I suggest that co-ops have led to greater employee satisfaction. There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention. The current (big) business climate dictates that the sole purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value at all times, at all costs. I suggest that the purpose of a company is to provide value to all stakeholders, and find a healthy balance.
  - tomrod 16y ago
    The quick, easy, and non-communist way to do this is to have the opportunity for employees to become shareholders through purchase of premium stock and bonds. This solves the moral hazard problem quite well.
    - swift 16y ago
      I don't agree that this addresses the problem of employees not having a say in the management of the company they work for, unless you are talking about early-stage employees who are actually likely to be able to obtain enough stock to have influence.
  - 16y ago
rgraham 16y ago
"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces? Why should the only options be self-sacrifice" It seems to me that this line of thinking is ultimately just asking for the removal of choice entirely. If you 'get ahead' without any self-sacrifice then you either managed this solely through an act of wishing or entirely on the backs of others. Is a world without choice preferable? Is it meaningful to ask the question when reality is clearly otherwise?
astrofinch 16y ago
Self-sacrifice isn't the only way to survive. It's just the only way to achieve the median modern standard of living. If you're happy with a lower standard of living it's not hard to survive without working. http://www.couchsurfing.org/ http://www.couchsurfing.org/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/frzzq/iama_prolific_dumpster_diver_i_have_not_bought/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/frzzq/iama_prolific_du...
- Tichy 16y ago
  I don't think couchsurfing and dumpster diving would scale to the masses.
  - astrofinch 16y ago
    Fair enough, but the fact that their limits are not being pushed shows that most want to work for a higher standard of living. (Or at least that is their revealed preference.)
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Or they don't want to be freeloaders.

by rwl 16y ago

pdx 16y ago

Why should we structure our society so that, for the average person, self-sacrifice is the only way to survive, much less get ahead? So, we should structure our society so that you can get ahead without sacrifice? Do you get to be ahead of me or do I get to be ahead of you? I just want to be clear which of us gets ahead of the other one, what with neither one of us sacrificing anything.

georgieporgie 16y ago
Do you get to be ahead of me or do I get to be ahead of you? You could get ahead of where you were last year.
steveklabnik 16y ago
You could both move forward together, rather than ensuring that someone is always ahead and another is farther behind... A rising tide lifts all boats.
- grammaton 16y ago
  If it's evenly distributed. The benefits of capitalism are very clearly not evenly distributed.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    +1. Just saying that 'either I'm ahead or I'm behind' is a false dichotomy.
- drndown2007 16y ago
  And what exactly is going to make that tide rise? Nothing is free -- everyone has to work. We have to sacrifice our time and energy to survive and have some comforts. There's no way around that one.
  - swift 16y ago
    Sure, everyone has to trade time and energy to obtain their needs and wants. That doesn't mean that the details of the transaction as they stand now are justified.

rick888 16y ago

"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces?" Do you have an alternative? Humans have tried many different methods over many thousands of years and our current system is the result of trying and failing many, many times. It's the most fair and allows pretty much anyone to be successful. Life is difficult because we have more freedoms. We don't have someone making all of the decisions for us (which might be easier), but the result is more choice. If you don't make the right choices, you could end up living on the street or in poverty. Buy you could also end up with lots of money and a nice life. I suppose an alternative would be no choice. You are forced to work for the government.

georgieporgie 16y ago
Do you have an alternative? I'm not the parent poster, but I suggest that co-ops have led to greater employee satisfaction. There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention. The current (big) business climate dictates that the sole purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value at all times, at all costs. I suggest that the purpose of a company is to provide value to all stakeholders, and find a healthy balance.
- tomrod 16y ago
  The quick, easy, and non-communist way to do this is to have the opportunity for employees to become shareholders through purchase of premium stock and bonds. This solves the moral hazard problem quite well.
  - swift 16y ago
    I don't agree that this addresses the problem of employees not having a say in the management of the company they work for, unless you are talking about early-stage employees who are actually likely to be able to obtain enough stock to have influence.
- 16y ago

rgraham 16y ago

"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces? Why should the only options be self-sacrifice" It seems to me that this line of thinking is ultimately just asking for the removal of choice entirely. If you 'get ahead' without any self-sacrifice then you either managed this solely through an act of wishing or entirely on the backs of others. Is a world without choice preferable? Is it meaningful to ask the question when reality is clearly otherwise?

astrofinch 16y ago

Self-sacrifice isn't the only way to survive. It's just the only way to achieve the median modern standard of living. If you're happy with a lower standard of living it's not hard to survive without working. http://www.couchsurfing.org/ http://www.couchsurfing.org/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/frzzq/iama_prolific_dumpster_diver_i_have_not_bought/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/frzzq/iama_prolific_du...

Tichy 16y ago
I don't think couchsurfing and dumpster diving would scale to the masses.
- astrofinch 16y ago
  Fair enough, but the fact that their limits are not being pushed shows that most want to work for a higher standard of living. (Or at least that is their revealed preference.)
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Or they don't want to be freeloaders.