3 ms·

> How well would you need to be paid now in any career to support a family like that one while accumulating that wealth already early in life? The answer is th

by danans 2mo ago

> How well would you need to be paid now in any career to support a family like that one while accumulating that wealth already early in life? The answer is that you don't do it by getting paid (as in exchanging labor for wages). You do it by finding a way to scale your wealth with other people's labor.

Peaches4Rent 2mo ago
Aah, so by definition only a select few can do it
- detourdog 2mo ago
  I would say only a few do it and they are self-selected. The ones that do it have a sense of agency that is lacking in the ones that dont do it. Some people never notice their own agency they believe it comes from outside them.
  - Oras 2mo ago
    It’s not only agency, and it sounds like you do your own thing which is great, but the pressure coming with it is not bearable by many. It’s kind of similar to competitive sport, thousands train and put the effort chasing a wild goose, but only handful make it big. That’s why it raises a question many others: is it really worth it? And for that, I agree with you, it’s self-selected to take the suffering jounrey
    - detourdog 2mo ago
      It is suffering and I'm not sure it is worth it. I didn't notice the suffering until the later stage of life.
  - scott_weber 2mo ago
    Very convenient, if you're someone who benefits from this arrangement, to be able to tell yourself that a brute numerical fact (if you profit off others labour, there must be those whose labour is profited off of) just so happens to by divine coincidence to go hand in hand with the profiteers just happening to have some nebulous quality that morally justifies the whole arrangement.
    - detourdog 2mo ago
      You sound like you may be lacking agency. Agency is simply being aware that one can make decisions for themselves based on their own metrics. . "if you're someone who benefits from this arrangement, to be able to tell yourself that a brute numerical fact". I think this is the root of your confusion. Humans have long demonstrated the pattern of gathering in groups to survive. These groups usually worked out a way to pool resources to increase the chances of living a comfortable life. "(if you profit off others labour, there must be those whose labour is profited off of)" Security markets are open to everyone. There are no restrictions on who can participate. Many companies compensate workers with stock, or other retirement plans that provide ways to buy securities. What you're describing is slavery. Our current systems are trying to move from slavery to at will labor. I find your comment out of touch with our current circumstances. Our current timeline is no different and the security markets is the idea we manifested to create co-operation. Now certainly our timeline is FUBARed. If I wasn't so numb I would weeping everyday at the news but the world is still co-operating. Hard to believe but it could always be worse. "just so happens to by divine coincidence to go hand in hand with the profiteers just happening to have some nebulous quality that morally justifies the whole arrangement." What nebulous quality? Agency is well defined and a term of art in psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28psychology%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28psychology%29
pj_mukh 2mo ago
Good faith counter point >>” to scale your wealth with other people's labor” Or you can scale your labor with openly available AI?
- detourdog 2mo ago
  I found that that stock market is the way to scale income. One can't make big money with just their hands unless they are an artist.
  - jrapdx3 2mo ago
    Very few artists earn a living in art let alone become wealthy. The art world is highly competitive, though real talent and innovation are rare. But making it big in art is more about self-promotion and marketing than artistic ability. So success is only marginally correlated with what they do with their hands, as opposed to what's done with their mouths.
    - detourdog 2mo ago
      The number of artists that succeed is irrelevant to my comment. No one needs to tell me about the life of an Artist or the Art world. My dad was a fine art painter, my mom was a potter, another uncle is a kinetic sculptor, one uncle made pastel's of Sulky races to get by. I have a cousin that was a pioneer in computer graphics attending the Media Lab while it was still in the architecture department. I was raised in the art world by a multi-generational art family. None were wildly successful all managed to make enough for a good life. Farmers, bakers, masseuses, carpenters,... all work with their hands generally only artist can take rubbish and turn it into big money. The criticism of the art world you put forward is very one-dimensional.
      - jrapdx3 2mo ago
        Your family certainly has an impressive record of success in the art world. My father was a talented painter but didn't attempt to sell his work. He was an even more talented pianist but rarely performed publicly. My sister is an exceptionally talented painter and sculptor. I encouraged her to put her work out there but never did, a real shame. I'm also an artist, primarily a printmaker. I've made my living otherwise, though my work sells at a modest pace. I know many artists in galleries but only a few earn enough to pay their bills. Artists who do earn a living are good self-promoters of their work or build reputation through family connections to patrons. The shy ones remain unknown. Hardly a "criticism of the art world" just a summation of decades-long observation. For every artist turning rubbish into big money there are many who only turn rubbish into garbage. Perhaps my comments are "one-dimensional", but so is implying that turning rubbish into big money is easy to achieve.
close04 2mo ago
That’s the answer to a different question. We were talking about a printer who probably wasn’t acing the stock market in the ‘60s but his salary covered all that. Question stands, if anyone can offer a good equivalence for something similar today.
- danans 2mo ago
  > Question stands, if anyone can offer a good equivalence for something similar today. Then no, it's not possible for the average worker, largely because the advance of technology raised the bar on labor, requiring more (and increasingly expensive) education, all while that 60s worker and their generation, caught in a Reaganite zeal, pulled up the ladder behind them in housing and destroyed public goods.

by danans 2mo ago

Peaches4Rent 2mo ago

Aah, so by definition only a select few can do it

detourdog 2mo ago
I would say only a few do it and they are self-selected. The ones that do it have a sense of agency that is lacking in the ones that dont do it. Some people never notice their own agency they believe it comes from outside them.
- Oras 2mo ago
  It’s not only agency, and it sounds like you do your own thing which is great, but the pressure coming with it is not bearable by many. It’s kind of similar to competitive sport, thousands train and put the effort chasing a wild goose, but only handful make it big. That’s why it raises a question many others: is it really worth it? And for that, I agree with you, it’s self-selected to take the suffering jounrey
  - detourdog 2mo ago
    It is suffering and I'm not sure it is worth it. I didn't notice the suffering until the later stage of life.
- scott_weber 2mo ago
  Very convenient, if you're someone who benefits from this arrangement, to be able to tell yourself that a brute numerical fact (if you profit off others labour, there must be those whose labour is profited off of) just so happens to by divine coincidence to go hand in hand with the profiteers just happening to have some nebulous quality that morally justifies the whole arrangement.
  - detourdog 2mo ago
    You sound like you may be lacking agency. Agency is simply being aware that one can make decisions for themselves based on their own metrics. . "if you're someone who benefits from this arrangement, to be able to tell yourself that a brute numerical fact". I think this is the root of your confusion. Humans have long demonstrated the pattern of gathering in groups to survive. These groups usually worked out a way to pool resources to increase the chances of living a comfortable life. "(if you profit off others labour, there must be those whose labour is profited off of)" Security markets are open to everyone. There are no restrictions on who can participate. Many companies compensate workers with stock, or other retirement plans that provide ways to buy securities. What you're describing is slavery. Our current systems are trying to move from slavery to at will labor. I find your comment out of touch with our current circumstances. Our current timeline is no different and the security markets is the idea we manifested to create co-operation. Now certainly our timeline is FUBARed. If I wasn't so numb I would weeping everyday at the news but the world is still co-operating. Hard to believe but it could always be worse. "just so happens to by divine coincidence to go hand in hand with the profiteers just happening to have some nebulous quality that morally justifies the whole arrangement." What nebulous quality? Agency is well defined and a term of art in psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28psychology%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28psychology%29

pj_mukh 2mo ago

Good faith counter point >>” to scale your wealth with other people's labor” Or you can scale your labor with openly available AI?

detourdog 2mo ago
I found that that stock market is the way to scale income. One can't make big money with just their hands unless they are an artist.
- jrapdx3 2mo ago
  Very few artists earn a living in art let alone become wealthy. The art world is highly competitive, though real talent and innovation are rare. But making it big in art is more about self-promotion and marketing than artistic ability. So success is only marginally correlated with what they do with their hands, as opposed to what's done with their mouths.
  - detourdog 2mo ago
    The number of artists that succeed is irrelevant to my comment. No one needs to tell me about the life of an Artist or the Art world. My dad was a fine art painter, my mom was a potter, another uncle is a kinetic sculptor, one uncle made pastel's of Sulky races to get by. I have a cousin that was a pioneer in computer graphics attending the Media Lab while it was still in the architecture department. I was raised in the art world by a multi-generational art family. None were wildly successful all managed to make enough for a good life. Farmers, bakers, masseuses, carpenters,... all work with their hands generally only artist can take rubbish and turn it into big money. The criticism of the art world you put forward is very one-dimensional.
    - jrapdx3 2mo ago
      Your family certainly has an impressive record of success in the art world. My father was a talented painter but didn't attempt to sell his work. He was an even more talented pianist but rarely performed publicly. My sister is an exceptionally talented painter and sculptor. I encouraged her to put her work out there but never did, a real shame. I'm also an artist, primarily a printmaker. I've made my living otherwise, though my work sells at a modest pace. I know many artists in galleries but only a few earn enough to pay their bills. Artists who do earn a living are good self-promoters of their work or build reputation through family connections to patrons. The shy ones remain unknown. Hardly a "criticism of the art world" just a summation of decades-long observation. For every artist turning rubbish into big money there are many who only turn rubbish into garbage. Perhaps my comments are "one-dimensional", but so is implying that turning rubbish into big money is easy to achieve.

close04 2mo ago

That’s the answer to a different question. We were talking about a printer who probably wasn’t acing the stock market in the ‘60s but his salary covered all that. Question stands, if anyone can offer a good equivalence for something similar today.

danans 2mo ago
> Question stands, if anyone can offer a good equivalence for something similar today. Then no, it's not possible for the average worker, largely because the advance of technology raised the bar on labor, requiring more (and increasingly expensive) education, all while that 60s worker and their generation, caught in a Reaganite zeal, pulled up the ladder behind them in housing and destroyed public goods.