4 ms·

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to consumer goods like clothing and food, not tap water and sewer systems. But alas, if there is any opportunity

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to consumer goods like clothing and food, not tap water and sewer systems. But alas, if there is any opportunity to misinterpret a comment in the least obvious way possible, someone in the comments will be sure to do so.

Larrikin 3y ago
Did they purposefully misinterpret or was the original comment poorly thought out dismissal of modern life that ignores, very real things like medicine and clean water?
- keiferski 3y ago
  No, I’m pretty certain it’s just nitpicking and uncharitable interpretations that quibble over irrelevant details and miss the bigger point being made.
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    I think it’s more complicated than that though. Whether a nitpick or not in that comment, the money to sustain modern levels of infrastructure to support, clean, water, sewage, healthcare, et cetera are probably only possible because of the consumer economy more broadly.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    > No, I’m pretty certain it’s just nitpicking and uncharitable interpretations that quibble over irrelevant details and miss the bigger point being made. Welcome to the Hacker News comment section. I've lost track of how many times I've posted three paragraphs of thoughts and ideas and maybe some nuance, only to have someone leave a drive-by reply of "Ahh, but in paragraph 2, sentence 8, you said 'all' when in reality it's 'most'. Gotcha! Your entire comment is flawed!" I do this too though once in a while, so I guess nobody's perfect.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
The material costs are not consumer goods like clothing and food. It is the infrastructure, moving mountains to move water, paving land to move food, laying wires for electricity and communication, train lines to move fertilizer, refineries, ports, universities to study medicines, etc. $100 per month is not going to cover any of this, but I am pretty sure you are going to want the benefits.
- keiferski 3y ago
  My comment was from the viewpoint of an individual today. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say anything about society as a whole. So, no, an individual is not paying for train lines and ports from their personal budget. Perhaps there are some people who spend 90%+ of their income on food, shelter, and electricity, but I’m fairly certain that the majority of costs are “unnecessary” consumer goods.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Taxes, home, healthcare, food, vehicle (or transportation), education, retirement savings. A portion of this might be discretionary, and it is very subjective, but I doubt you are getting anywhere near $100 per month in “necessary” consumer goods in the US. Healthcare alone will blow through that, and not sure where you will draw the line on necessary and unnecessary for that. People at some point in their lives might be spending a majority of their money on unnecessary items, but eventually, it will catch up to them (and potentially be made up by government subsidies).
    - keiferski 3y ago
      Then make it a thousand dollars a month. $12,000 a year is still way below anything most people consider a normal modern income. Again; you’re missing the bigger point entirely and fixating on specific numbers that I threw out as a quick example.

Larrikin 3y ago

Did they purposefully misinterpret or was the original comment poorly thought out dismissal of modern life that ignores, very real things like medicine and clean water?

keiferski 3y ago
No, I’m pretty certain it’s just nitpicking and uncharitable interpretations that quibble over irrelevant details and miss the bigger point being made.
- bigfudge 3y ago
  I think it’s more complicated than that though. Whether a nitpick or not in that comment, the money to sustain modern levels of infrastructure to support, clean, water, sewage, healthcare, et cetera are probably only possible because of the consumer economy more broadly.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > No, I’m pretty certain it’s just nitpicking and uncharitable interpretations that quibble over irrelevant details and miss the bigger point being made. Welcome to the Hacker News comment section. I've lost track of how many times I've posted three paragraphs of thoughts and ideas and maybe some nuance, only to have someone leave a drive-by reply of "Ahh, but in paragraph 2, sentence 8, you said 'all' when in reality it's 'most'. Gotcha! Your entire comment is flawed!" I do this too though once in a while, so I guess nobody's perfect.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

The material costs are not consumer goods like clothing and food. It is the infrastructure, moving mountains to move water, paving land to move food, laying wires for electricity and communication, train lines to move fertilizer, refineries, ports, universities to study medicines, etc. $100 per month is not going to cover any of this, but I am pretty sure you are going to want the benefits.

keiferski 3y ago
My comment was from the viewpoint of an individual today. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say anything about society as a whole. So, no, an individual is not paying for train lines and ports from their personal budget. Perhaps there are some people who spend 90%+ of their income on food, shelter, and electricity, but I’m fairly certain that the majority of costs are “unnecessary” consumer goods.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Taxes, home, healthcare, food, vehicle (or transportation), education, retirement savings. A portion of this might be discretionary, and it is very subjective, but I doubt you are getting anywhere near $100 per month in “necessary” consumer goods in the US. Healthcare alone will blow through that, and not sure where you will draw the line on necessary and unnecessary for that. People at some point in their lives might be spending a majority of their money on unnecessary items, but eventually, it will catch up to them (and potentially be made up by government subsidies).
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Then make it a thousand dollars a month. $12,000 a year is still way below anything most people consider a normal modern income. Again; you’re missing the bigger point entirely and fixating on specific numbers that I threw out as a quick example.