10 ms·

I agree in principle. However, having been unemployed for over a year with a family to feed, I learned a little about what I'd put up with to get a job.

plagiarist 7mo ago
Yeah this. I hate this planet. So many problems would go away if people could actually afford to make choices.
- 9rx 7mo ago
  Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. Even if a magical unicorn were to step in and start distributing resources perfectly, solving that particular problem, if humans can't even get something as simple as resource allocation right, why are you so sure they won't also screw up everything else to ensure that all other problems remain?
  - roenxi 7mo ago
    > Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. That is no social construct. There is a large social element involved, but that in itself is done in such a way as to try and encourage creation of a large amount of stuff to a large number of people. It isn't arbitrary; there are a lot of allocation schemes that lead to mass starvation and poverty. The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources; pretty much everyone at this point has discovered that laws and capitalism with some welfare trimmings on the edge is a much better approach than any alternative that got tried.
    - hackable_sand 7mo ago
      That's really funny
    - altruios 7mo ago
      I hear and understand your point. It is not purely a social construct. But how much available farmland to allocate to grow food from the available farmland becomes a political issue. Pricing, distribution... same deal. And considering our (humanity's) food production outmatches our total food calorie/nutrition requirements... any argument using food as an example for scarcity indicates that you may be working with incorrect, or outdated information. And Is "money" a social construct, or is there 'natural' money, some platonic ideal from which all other instantiations of money arise? I'm betting on the former.
      - 9rx 7mo ago
        > It is not purely a social construct. What else is involved? Despite the inane ramblings of the parent comment, scarcity isn't actually a factor. Allocation occurs because of scarcity. Without scarcity, there is no such thing as allocation. It is the reason for why resource allocation exists entirely a social construct.
        altruios 7mo ago
        While food is not scarce in total, logistics are (at some limit) physics bound. Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. So there is nuance.
        9rx 7mo ago
        > Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. That, of course, is why we created resource allocation as a social construct. Obviously you fundamentally cannot have allocation without scarcity. But it doesn't answer the question. If resource allocation is not entirely a social construct, are you imagining that resources are also allocated by some kind of natural force? Given the scarcity of silver, maybe the universe decides that you get some and I don't? And if you try to give me yours, contrary to the fabric of the universe, you will be struck down by a bolt of lightning before you can give it to me? What is the "what else" here? This nuance you vaguely refer to but don't say anything about is certainly intriguing. I am looking forward to you completing that chain of thought.
- dmitrygr 7mo ago
  > So many problems would go away if Writing it like you did implies that a magical solution exists and we are all maliciously withholding it from you. It does not and we are not.
  - john_strinlai 7mo ago
    >implies that a magical solution exists and we are all maliciously withholding it from you i did not get that from what they wrote at all. they sound frustrated. but that does not mean they are frustrated at you specifically.
  - brailsafe 7mo ago
    I disagree with the notion that that's what their word choice implies. Also, there doesn't need be magical solution that's not being implemented for there to clearly be a severely heightened level of precarity in the economy that has a hugely negative impact on people who haven't had time to build a financial safety net, build their careers, or buy a house when it was feasible, in large part due specifically to aggressive, malicious, sometimes coordinated extractions of rent and land value
  - dspillett 7mo ago
    Writing that like that makes you sound like one of those “I didn't get help when I was younger so why should anyone else get help now?” types who highlight their own entitlement and luck by trying to frame others as entitled. You might not be, but it sounds that way to me. And if you think this knee-jerk reaction is unfair, let that be a lesson to you! :)
- Steve16384 7mo ago
  We need Universal Income.
- rafaelmn 7mo ago
  The only reason you can "afford" anything is because other people do shit they would rather not, but do so for the money. If people could actually "afford to make choices" you'd find out pretty soon how dependent you are on others doing the dirty work for you to maintain your living standard. Like sure things aren't perfect, not everyone is compensated proportionally to their contributions, no perfect markets and you can certainly improve things, but "I hate this planet" vibe when the default is hunter gatherer I feel like is majorly lacking perspective.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.
    - SoftTalker 7mo ago
      Frustration is a clue that you need to reframe the problem.
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        Not so. Certainly in many contexts it is a clue that reframing the problem might be useful but you certainly don't need to. In many cases doing so might even be counterproductive. There are times when being frustrated or even angry at the situation you find yourself in is the right thing. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. Just observing that frustration doesn't necessarily imply that you're wrong. Of course the inverse is also true. Being frustrated doesn't mean others are necessarily in the wrong - it might well be your own damn fault.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - rafaelmn 7mo ago

plagiarist 7mo ago

Yeah this. I hate this planet. So many problems would go away if people could actually afford to make choices.

9rx 7mo ago
Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. Even if a magical unicorn were to step in and start distributing resources perfectly, solving that particular problem, if humans can't even get something as simple as resource allocation right, why are you so sure they won't also screw up everything else to ensure that all other problems remain?
- roenxi 7mo ago
  > Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. That is no social construct. There is a large social element involved, but that in itself is done in such a way as to try and encourage creation of a large amount of stuff to a large number of people. It isn't arbitrary; there are a lot of allocation schemes that lead to mass starvation and poverty. The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources; pretty much everyone at this point has discovered that laws and capitalism with some welfare trimmings on the edge is a much better approach than any alternative that got tried.
  - hackable_sand 7mo ago
    That's really funny
  - altruios 7mo ago
    I hear and understand your point. It is not purely a social construct. But how much available farmland to allocate to grow food from the available farmland becomes a political issue. Pricing, distribution... same deal. And considering our (humanity's) food production outmatches our total food calorie/nutrition requirements... any argument using food as an example for scarcity indicates that you may be working with incorrect, or outdated information. And Is "money" a social construct, or is there 'natural' money, some platonic ideal from which all other instantiations of money arise? I'm betting on the former.
    - 9rx 7mo ago
      > It is not purely a social construct. What else is involved? Despite the inane ramblings of the parent comment, scarcity isn't actually a factor. Allocation occurs because of scarcity. Without scarcity, there is no such thing as allocation. It is the reason for why resource allocation exists entirely a social construct.
      - altruios 7mo ago
        While food is not scarce in total, logistics are (at some limit) physics bound. Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. So there is nuance.
        9rx 7mo ago
        > Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. That, of course, is why we created resource allocation as a social construct. Obviously you fundamentally cannot have allocation without scarcity. But it doesn't answer the question. If resource allocation is not entirely a social construct, are you imagining that resources are also allocated by some kind of natural force? Given the scarcity of silver, maybe the universe decides that you get some and I don't? And if you try to give me yours, contrary to the fabric of the universe, you will be struck down by a bolt of lightning before you can give it to me? What is the "what else" here? This nuance you vaguely refer to but don't say anything about is certainly intriguing. I am looking forward to you completing that chain of thought.
dmitrygr 7mo ago
> So many problems would go away if Writing it like you did implies that a magical solution exists and we are all maliciously withholding it from you. It does not and we are not.
- john_strinlai 7mo ago
  >implies that a magical solution exists and we are all maliciously withholding it from you i did not get that from what they wrote at all. they sound frustrated. but that does not mean they are frustrated at you specifically.
- brailsafe 7mo ago
  I disagree with the notion that that's what their word choice implies. Also, there doesn't need be magical solution that's not being implemented for there to clearly be a severely heightened level of precarity in the economy that has a hugely negative impact on people who haven't had time to build a financial safety net, build their careers, or buy a house when it was feasible, in large part due specifically to aggressive, malicious, sometimes coordinated extractions of rent and land value
- dspillett 7mo ago
  Writing that like that makes you sound like one of those “I didn't get help when I was younger so why should anyone else get help now?” types who highlight their own entitlement and luck by trying to frame others as entitled. You might not be, but it sounds that way to me. And if you think this knee-jerk reaction is unfair, let that be a lesson to you! :)
Steve16384 7mo ago
We need Universal Income.
rafaelmn 7mo ago
The only reason you can "afford" anything is because other people do shit they would rather not, but do so for the money. If people could actually "afford to make choices" you'd find out pretty soon how dependent you are on others doing the dirty work for you to maintain your living standard. Like sure things aren't perfect, not everyone is compensated proportionally to their contributions, no perfect markets and you can certainly improve things, but "I hate this planet" vibe when the default is hunter gatherer I feel like is majorly lacking perspective.
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.
  - SoftTalker 7mo ago
    Frustration is a clue that you need to reframe the problem.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      Not so. Certainly in many contexts it is a clue that reframing the problem might be useful but you certainly don't need to. In many cases doing so might even be counterproductive. There are times when being frustrated or even angry at the situation you find yourself in is the right thing. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. Just observing that frustration doesn't necessarily imply that you're wrong. Of course the inverse is also true. Being frustrated doesn't mean others are necessarily in the wrong - it might well be your own damn fault.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - rafaelmn 7mo ago