3 ms·

Are you sure you're not just rich? I think lots of us would happily "be unemployed for a while" without concern for the alleged "social consequences". But a lot

by Joeboy 3y ago

Are you sure you're not just rich? I think lots of us would happily "be unemployed for a while" without concern for the alleged "social consequences". But a lot of people can't afford to do that.

digging 3y ago
One doesn't have to be rich to be unemployed for a while, just have decent savings. I also don't think "social status" is the concern holding most people back from unemployment, but rather "the need for money to pay bills". You say many people "can't afford" to be unemployed, and that's true, but not because it costs too much social capital.
- Joeboy 3y ago
  Perhaps I should've said "Are you sure it's not just that you had enough money to do that?" I'm not sure if it was intentional, but your other point is the same point I was making (I obviously agree).
  - patcon 3y ago
    I think the issue you're zoning in on is that "not rich" is a loose definition. For some ppl it's "living in a small 1br apartment and not eating out", but for others it means "couchsurfing at goodwill of friends and stealing from chain supermarkets". One requires financial resources more than the other. How low someone is willing to go to be unemployed and low-status makes all the difference in processing the sentence, but it's left unsaid.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Or a low burn rate.
8note 3y ago
Most of the folks I've seen be unemployed for a while mostly don't have much for required expenses. No kids, no loans, etc. You can make living very cheap if you don't have those. You do want to be unconcerned by the "social consequences" though. Like, go dumpster diving at grocery stores instead of shopping or eating out.
- Joeboy 3y ago
  You probably also want to live in some sort of building, at least during Winter. Which is pretty much impossible to do frugally now, at least round here. I know people who live in vehicles etc, but it's a pretty challenging life, especially once you're older (and those people also work).

by Joeboy 3y ago

Are you sure you're not just rich? I think lots of us would happily "be unemployed for a while" without concern for the alleged "social consequences". But a lot of people can't afford to do that.

digging 3y ago

One doesn't have to be rich to be unemployed for a while, just have decent savings. I also don't think "social status" is the concern holding most people back from unemployment, but rather "the need for money to pay bills". You say many people "can't afford" to be unemployed, and that's true, but not because it costs too much social capital.

Joeboy 3y ago
Perhaps I should've said "Are you sure it's not just that you had enough money to do that?" I'm not sure if it was intentional, but your other point is the same point I was making (I obviously agree).
- patcon 3y ago
  I think the issue you're zoning in on is that "not rich" is a loose definition. For some ppl it's "living in a small 1br apartment and not eating out", but for others it means "couchsurfing at goodwill of friends and stealing from chain supermarkets". One requires financial resources more than the other. How low someone is willing to go to be unemployed and low-status makes all the difference in processing the sentence, but it's left unsaid.
nostrademons 3y ago
Or a low burn rate.

8note 3y ago

Most of the folks I've seen be unemployed for a while mostly don't have much for required expenses. No kids, no loans, etc. You can make living very cheap if you don't have those. You do want to be unconcerned by the "social consequences" though. Like, go dumpster diving at grocery stores instead of shopping or eating out.

Joeboy 3y ago
You probably also want to live in some sort of building, at least during Winter. Which is pretty much impossible to do frugally now, at least round here. I know people who live in vehicles etc, but it's a pretty challenging life, especially once you're older (and those people also work).