8 ms·

I think you've missed the point of the letter entirely. It's not about people who are obsessed with their work, it's about people who have no choice in the matt

I think you've missed the point of the letter entirely. It's not about people who are obsessed with their work, it's about people who have no choice in the matter.

njharman 13y ago
No, it's about a system, capitalism, that gives most no choice in the matter.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  The system isn't capitalism, it's life: you don't work, you don't eat. The author was one of the few whose work is both enjoyable on its own and worth enough to others to survive on, capitalism in the form of sponsorship. Capitalism at least gives a generally fair exchange of work for value; the alternatives amount to institutionalized theft.
  - wffurr 13y ago
    Wow. Just wow. Simply amazing you can think that given the distribution of wealth in the world. The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. And yet we don't – instead the vast majority of us continue to work hard to provide that global elite their "due". Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice?
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      I don't think you understand basic economics. > For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. Are you sure we have all the fuel and land to feed, house and clothe everyone? And if so, who's going to work for that? If everyone gets food and shelter for free, I'm not working to provide that. The reality is, food needs to be grown, clothes made and houses built. Some people need to work for that. In exchange for that work, they ask some sort of compensation from others, in the form of other services or goods. This has nothing to do with the "global elite", this is just the nature of trade. I think giving someone stuff for free without getting anything in return is a greater injustice than this "instutionalized theft" you speak of.
      - mempko 13y ago
        At work, do you help your co-worker without asking, or do you have them sign a contract and exchange money?
        auggierose 13y ago
        You've signed a contract with your employer to provide that help, you are not doing it for free.
        nostrademons 13y ago
        You do that because you have a reasonable expectation that they'll help you back in the future, though. If you have a coworker that always needs help and never contributes anything back, eventually you'll start grumbling and stop helping. (Such coworkers usually eventually get fired in well-performing organizations, or marginalized and ignored in poorly-performing ones.)
      - thuuuomas 13y ago
        Are you or are you not included in the group consisting of 'everyone'?
    - thatswrong0 13y ago
      > The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. Explain how this works logically. Do you honestly believe that if you simply took most of the money from rich people, that you would be able to sustainably feed everyone else? Have you considered all, if any, of the potential consequences of this action? > For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. Again, explain how this works. A major issue with food, for example, is not one of production but instead transportation and distribution. How would making the rich poorer solve this problem? > Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice? Define justice. And who on Earth do you trust to take and do well with all of the money taken from rich people?
      - scotty79 13y ago
        > Define justice. At least a setup where right to live is actual right to live and does not degrade to right to not get killed.
        ctdonath 13y ago
        Positive rights vs. negative rights. I reject the notion of "positive rights" on the grounds that forcing other people to do things for you at gunpoint (actual or implied) is morally wrong. I support your right to not get killed; I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation.
        scotty79 13y ago
        > I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation. Does that mean that you also don't support kicking renters to the curb during winter months if they don't pay?
        ctdonath 13y ago
        If they're not paying, they're trespassers. Out. They're free to pursue their right to life without violating someone else's, and they've got far more ability to provide for themselves than you're giving them credit for. Charity has its place, I advocate and facilitate it, and am not under any delusion that it comes from compelling others to contribute.
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      Also, keep in mind that money is not wealth. This "global elite" is not hoarding food, fuel or other basic necessities, they only have the money. New money can be printed, old money can be destroyed, new currencies can be created. The only real wealth is goods and services created/rendered by working people, and this "global elite" doesn't really have a strong grip on that.
      - scotty79 13y ago
        Yes. Money is just a way of figuring out how much of the economical output of the whole system each money holder can use. By hoarding money rich don't do much harm. But because they have so much money they can hoard resources. And they do to earn more like so: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-aluminum-pile.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-alu... They also hoard food: http://www.dw.de/germanys-dz-bank-ends-food-speculation-trading/a-16839350 http://www.dw.de/germanys-dz-bank-ends-food-speculation-trad... They also can hoard companies. Buy them and harm them. This happens to most acquired startups. The problem is not that they have a lot of money. The problem is what they do with the money. Of course it's not all bad. There are things that rich people made that benefited everybody, but I'm guessing most such things were created on the way to getting rich.
      - scotty79 13y ago
        The other thing rich people hoard is real estate. This increases price of one of most basic necessities. This also degrades the real estate resource because more people have to rent, and people who live in their own house tend to care about its state more than people who rent and people who own house just to rent it away.
        ahomescu1 13y ago
        In principle, I agree. However, since the bubble crashed a few years back, real estate prices have been going down like crazy in many places (both US and Europe), because of the reduced demand.
        13y ago
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      Average world per capita income, world GDP divided by population, is US$12,000/yr (PPP accounted for). That counts as the basic poverty line in the USA. The tiny global elite you impugne does not hoard anything relevant. They are just a hose thru which a lot of high velocity money flows, most of their income flowing right back out to others. Without them, the structure for working for that $12,000 average income would collapse and you'd be working a lot harder for a lot less net return. Take that high density money away from that elite, and you'll discover two things happen. One, you'll be out of a job and relegated to living exactly as a large percentage of world population does: eking out a meager existence from the land to paltry returns; that elite holds the high-wage system together because they profit from it, and without those returns there is little incentive to make such systems work. Two, averaging out all income & wealth so everyone has the same would soon coalesce back into the distribution we have now: those expecting a no-effort living wage produce nothing and get nothing for it, while those enticed by work*risk=profit will find a way and earn that which the others will give to survive. Yes, institutionalized theft: those who work and take risks having their earnings taken by threat of force by those having no moral & economic interest therein or beyond what was contracted for in a competitive market. Go live off the land for a year, excluding any connection to "the elite", and then tell me about the justice of someone taking the fruits of your labors from you simply because they exist (choosing not to produce).
      - kphild 13y ago
        And there is zero effort put into figuring out a better system, since those in position of wealth and power don't have an incentive to change what feeds them. With less than 5% people employed in agriculture [1], it must be possible to allocate resources in a way that does not require most people to waste their lives in jobs. The universal basic income, for instance, would achieve that without abolishing capitalism. The only problem are people who glorify employment. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wba... (I speak of developed countries only)
        ctdonath 13y ago
  - scotty79 13y ago
    > you don't work, you don't eat That's not life. It's just a rule that comes out of the fact that people won't care about you if you give them no benefit. It's only natural but is it right or humane?
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      That's not life. You won't have life if you don't work - or coerce it from others. World average income equals the USA poverty line. That doesn't give much room for the productive to support the unproductive. Charity, yes indeed, but there's an unsupportably growing number who are quite capable of supporting themselves but demand others do instead. The "right and humane" step is choosing to give to others freely, not to put a gun to someone's head and demand what's not yours.
      - chii 13y ago
        > there's an unsupportably growing number who are quite capable of supporting themselves but demand others do instead. i dont believe this to be true (tho i'd like to see any reliable sources). I find it more likely that a small number of people control so much "productivity" that the majority must either be "coerced" into cooperating in order to get some of the crumbs, or that they lack the basic resources to dig themselves out of the poverty hole. Its true that they aren't productive enough to support themselves, but i would imagine they would if they had the chance.
      - scotty79 13y ago
        > You won't have life if you don't work - or coerce it from others. There are some exceptions. You don't have to work a single day in your life if: - you inherited wealth. - you are homeless and sustain yourself with whatever you can get without paying. - you commit crimes and are put in prison. - you are a woman and merry well. - you build something as a hobby and it makes big. > That doesn't give much room for the productive to support the unproductive. That would be true if people were source of wealth. But source of wealth for many years now are the machines, and this wealth increased disproportionately to increase in population. If on average we are coming out of poverty at slower rate than the growth of wealth our machines produce then something is wrong. > The "right and humane" step is choosing to give to others freely Almost no one gives anybody anything freely. Do you think your employer would give you anything for your work if he didn't have to? The ones that have more have it often because they exchanged something worth less for something worth more. The ones that have less have it often because they exchange something worth more for something worth less. Why they do it? Because exchange often is not free. Lot's of people have no choice but to exchange good that is very valuable for them and irreplaceable (such as hours of their life) for something as plain, abundant and worthless in our modern world as food.
  - casiotone 13y ago
    Congrats on completely perverting what Bukowski meant and also being a big old idiot
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      Care to elaborate on that insight? Yes, Bulkowski observed that most people are in unfulfilling jobs, and he was happy to escape that life to pursue what pleased him. He failed to note that to leave those jobs would be a terminal move because they had nothing they found fulfilling which would at the same time create livable productivity. He was lucky enough to have notable talent in doing something fulfilling to the point that someone else was willing to exchange a "living wage" for it, and he was happy as a result. I'm happy too, having found my equivalent combination of joyful productivity coupled with a satisfying fair wage for writing (iOS code instead of English prose). Yes, we lament those who toil to unsatisfying ends. So ask each and every one of them: what do you want to do? Most answers you receive, alas, would be either "I don't know" or something not rising to the exchangeable equivalent of sustenance farming. Natural reality being that you do not get fed & clothed just for mere existence, all have a natural obligation to produce enough for themselves & dependents to survive on, and if they can't find a pleasant way to do it then they must find an unpleasant way as charity (while morally obligatory) can only go so far.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Capitalism doesn't really have much to do with it. I'm all for something like a basic income to help even out inequality and give people a safety net to fall back on, but that's still pretty much capitalism.
- aet 13y ago
  I think Milton Friedman would disagree.
Leander_B 13y ago
No one has a choice, either born in US or Western Sahara. Hard to accept, but this is reality. Only most people think they have the illusion they have, but this is false. Even Bukowski is trapped, still needs to work/money for food and to live. Yes, he does what he wants, or has the illusion as I said above. And a big grin at the people saying we working in tech can make a difference. Creating a new social photo sharing app is not changing the world. Get real. As a trapped life, the closest you can do to live happy is to do as much what you want (again coming back to the above) while living in the system. And yes, working in tech gives yoy higher chances to live how and where you want, but it stops there. The only way to escape is living separate, somewhere deep down a rainforest. But then what, die from a snake bite or die from fever. Sounds better, no?
- telephonetemp 13y ago
  > Creating a new social photo sharing app is not changing the world. Get real. What about a medical start-up or one to do with education?
  - Leander_B 13y ago
    Definitely! I am a big fan myself of Kiva and charity:water. Just saying that a lot of (tech) people have different perceptions of how exactly technology can make an impact. Unfortunately the scale between charity and money driven startups is not exactly well balanced. So lets not praise ourselves too much..
    - king_jester 13y ago
      Things like Kiva and charity:water do their work in the same systems as the employees of companies do, so while they do things to help others I wouldn't exactly say they are changing the world. It's more like they propagate the world they live in to others, which has its upsides and downsides.

I think you've missed the point of the letter entirely. It's not about people who are obsessed with their work, it's about people who have no choice in the matter.

njharman 13y ago

No, it's about a system, capitalism, that gives most no choice in the matter.

ctdonath 13y ago
The system isn't capitalism, it's life: you don't work, you don't eat. The author was one of the few whose work is both enjoyable on its own and worth enough to others to survive on, capitalism in the form of sponsorship. Capitalism at least gives a generally fair exchange of work for value; the alternatives amount to institutionalized theft.
- wffurr 13y ago
  Wow. Just wow. Simply amazing you can think that given the distribution of wealth in the world. The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. And yet we don't – instead the vast majority of us continue to work hard to provide that global elite their "due". Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice?
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    I don't think you understand basic economics. > For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. Are you sure we have all the fuel and land to feed, house and clothe everyone? And if so, who's going to work for that? If everyone gets food and shelter for free, I'm not working to provide that. The reality is, food needs to be grown, clothes made and houses built. Some people need to work for that. In exchange for that work, they ask some sort of compensation from others, in the form of other services or goods. This has nothing to do with the "global elite", this is just the nature of trade. I think giving someone stuff for free without getting anything in return is a greater injustice than this "instutionalized theft" you speak of.
    - mempko 13y ago
      At work, do you help your co-worker without asking, or do you have them sign a contract and exchange money?
      - auggierose 13y ago
        You've signed a contract with your employer to provide that help, you are not doing it for free.
      - nostrademons 13y ago
        You do that because you have a reasonable expectation that they'll help you back in the future, though. If you have a coworker that always needs help and never contributes anything back, eventually you'll start grumbling and stop helping. (Such coworkers usually eventually get fired in well-performing organizations, or marginalized and ignored in poorly-performing ones.)
    - thuuuomas 13y ago
      Are you or are you not included in the group consisting of 'everyone'?
  - thatswrong0 13y ago
    > The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. Explain how this works logically. Do you honestly believe that if you simply took most of the money from rich people, that you would be able to sustainably feed everyone else? Have you considered all, if any, of the potential consequences of this action? > For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. Again, explain how this works. A major issue with food, for example, is not one of production but instead transportation and distribution. How would making the rich poorer solve this problem? > Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice? Define justice. And who on Earth do you trust to take and do well with all of the money taken from rich people?
    - scotty79 13y ago
      > Define justice. At least a setup where right to live is actual right to live and does not degrade to right to not get killed.
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        Positive rights vs. negative rights. I reject the notion of "positive rights" on the grounds that forcing other people to do things for you at gunpoint (actual or implied) is morally wrong. I support your right to not get killed; I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation.
        scotty79 13y ago
        > I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation. Does that mean that you also don't support kicking renters to the curb during winter months if they don't pay?
        ctdonath 13y ago
        If they're not paying, they're trespassers. Out. They're free to pursue their right to life without violating someone else's, and they've got far more ability to provide for themselves than you're giving them credit for. Charity has its place, I advocate and facilitate it, and am not under any delusion that it comes from compelling others to contribute.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    Also, keep in mind that money is not wealth. This "global elite" is not hoarding food, fuel or other basic necessities, they only have the money. New money can be printed, old money can be destroyed, new currencies can be created. The only real wealth is goods and services created/rendered by working people, and this "global elite" doesn't really have a strong grip on that.
    - scotty79 13y ago
      Yes. Money is just a way of figuring out how much of the economical output of the whole system each money holder can use. By hoarding money rich don't do much harm. But because they have so much money they can hoard resources. And they do to earn more like so: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-aluminum-pile.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-alu... They also hoard food: http://www.dw.de/germanys-dz-bank-ends-food-speculation-trading/a-16839350 http://www.dw.de/germanys-dz-bank-ends-food-speculation-trad... They also can hoard companies. Buy them and harm them. This happens to most acquired startups. The problem is not that they have a lot of money. The problem is what they do with the money. Of course it's not all bad. There are things that rich people made that benefited everybody, but I'm guessing most such things were created on the way to getting rich.
    - scotty79 13y ago
      The other thing rich people hoard is real estate. This increases price of one of most basic necessities. This also degrades the real estate resource because more people have to rent, and people who live in their own house tend to care about its state more than people who rent and people who own house just to rent it away.
      - ahomescu1 13y ago
        In principle, I agree. However, since the bubble crashed a few years back, real estate prices have been going down like crazy in many places (both US and Europe), because of the reduced demand.
        13y ago
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Average world per capita income, world GDP divided by population, is US$12,000/yr (PPP accounted for). That counts as the basic poverty line in the USA. The tiny global elite you impugne does not hoard anything relevant. They are just a hose thru which a lot of high velocity money flows, most of their income flowing right back out to others. Without them, the structure for working for that $12,000 average income would collapse and you'd be working a lot harder for a lot less net return. Take that high density money away from that elite, and you'll discover two things happen. One, you'll be out of a job and relegated to living exactly as a large percentage of world population does: eking out a meager existence from the land to paltry returns; that elite holds the high-wage system together because they profit from it, and without those returns there is little incentive to make such systems work. Two, averaging out all income & wealth so everyone has the same would soon coalesce back into the distribution we have now: those expecting a no-effort living wage produce nothing and get nothing for it, while those enticed by work*risk=profit will find a way and earn that which the others will give to survive. Yes, institutionalized theft: those who work and take risks having their earnings taken by threat of force by those having no moral & economic interest therein or beyond what was contracted for in a competitive market. Go live off the land for a year, excluding any connection to "the elite", and then tell me about the justice of someone taking the fruits of your labors from you simply because they exist (choosing not to produce).
    - kphild 13y ago
      And there is zero effort put into figuring out a better system, since those in position of wealth and power don't have an incentive to change what feeds them. With less than 5% people employed in agriculture [1], it must be possible to allocate resources in a way that does not require most people to waste their lives in jobs. The universal basic income, for instance, would achieve that without abolishing capitalism. The only problem are people who glorify employment. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wba... (I speak of developed countries only)
      - ctdonath 13y ago
- scotty79 13y ago
  > you don't work, you don't eat That's not life. It's just a rule that comes out of the fact that people won't care about you if you give them no benefit. It's only natural but is it right or humane?
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    That's not life. You won't have life if you don't work - or coerce it from others. World average income equals the USA poverty line. That doesn't give much room for the productive to support the unproductive. Charity, yes indeed, but there's an unsupportably growing number who are quite capable of supporting themselves but demand others do instead. The "right and humane" step is choosing to give to others freely, not to put a gun to someone's head and demand what's not yours.
    - chii 13y ago
      > there's an unsupportably growing number who are quite capable of supporting themselves but demand others do instead. i dont believe this to be true (tho i'd like to see any reliable sources). I find it more likely that a small number of people control so much "productivity" that the majority must either be "coerced" into cooperating in order to get some of the crumbs, or that they lack the basic resources to dig themselves out of the poverty hole. Its true that they aren't productive enough to support themselves, but i would imagine they would if they had the chance.
    - scotty79 13y ago
      > You won't have life if you don't work - or coerce it from others. There are some exceptions. You don't have to work a single day in your life if: - you inherited wealth. - you are homeless and sustain yourself with whatever you can get without paying. - you commit crimes and are put in prison. - you are a woman and merry well. - you build something as a hobby and it makes big. > That doesn't give much room for the productive to support the unproductive. That would be true if people were source of wealth. But source of wealth for many years now are the machines, and this wealth increased disproportionately to increase in population. If on average we are coming out of poverty at slower rate than the growth of wealth our machines produce then something is wrong. > The "right and humane" step is choosing to give to others freely Almost no one gives anybody anything freely. Do you think your employer would give you anything for your work if he didn't have to? The ones that have more have it often because they exchanged something worth less for something worth more. The ones that have less have it often because they exchange something worth more for something worth less. Why they do it? Because exchange often is not free. Lot's of people have no choice but to exchange good that is very valuable for them and irreplaceable (such as hours of their life) for something as plain, abundant and worthless in our modern world as food.
- casiotone 13y ago
  Congrats on completely perverting what Bukowski meant and also being a big old idiot
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Care to elaborate on that insight? Yes, Bulkowski observed that most people are in unfulfilling jobs, and he was happy to escape that life to pursue what pleased him. He failed to note that to leave those jobs would be a terminal move because they had nothing they found fulfilling which would at the same time create livable productivity. He was lucky enough to have notable talent in doing something fulfilling to the point that someone else was willing to exchange a "living wage" for it, and he was happy as a result. I'm happy too, having found my equivalent combination of joyful productivity coupled with a satisfying fair wage for writing (iOS code instead of English prose). Yes, we lament those who toil to unsatisfying ends. So ask each and every one of them: what do you want to do? Most answers you receive, alas, would be either "I don't know" or something not rising to the exchangeable equivalent of sustenance farming. Natural reality being that you do not get fed & clothed just for mere existence, all have a natural obligation to produce enough for themselves & dependents to survive on, and if they can't find a pleasant way to do it then they must find an unpleasant way as charity (while morally obligatory) can only go so far.
Houshalter 13y ago
Capitalism doesn't really have much to do with it. I'm all for something like a basic income to help even out inequality and give people a safety net to fall back on, but that's still pretty much capitalism.
aet 13y ago
I think Milton Friedman would disagree.

Leander_B 13y ago

No one has a choice, either born in US or Western Sahara. Hard to accept, but this is reality. Only most people think they have the illusion they have, but this is false. Even Bukowski is trapped, still needs to work/money for food and to live. Yes, he does what he wants, or has the illusion as I said above. And a big grin at the people saying we working in tech can make a difference. Creating a new social photo sharing app is not changing the world. Get real. As a trapped life, the closest you can do to live happy is to do as much what you want (again coming back to the above) while living in the system. And yes, working in tech gives yoy higher chances to live how and where you want, but it stops there. The only way to escape is living separate, somewhere deep down a rainforest. But then what, die from a snake bite or die from fever. Sounds better, no?

telephonetemp 13y ago
> Creating a new social photo sharing app is not changing the world. Get real. What about a medical start-up or one to do with education?
- Leander_B 13y ago
  Definitely! I am a big fan myself of Kiva and charity:water. Just saying that a lot of (tech) people have different perceptions of how exactly technology can make an impact. Unfortunately the scale between charity and money driven startups is not exactly well balanced. So lets not praise ourselves too much..
  - king_jester 13y ago
    Things like Kiva and charity:water do their work in the same systems as the employees of companies do, so while they do things to help others I wouldn't exactly say they are changing the world. It's more like they propagate the world they live in to others, which has its upsides and downsides.