5 ms·

Wow, why such negativity here? I'd guess it's because it's a rich person saying it, which I get. Do we really need to cite the benefits of working less?

by heynk 11y ago

jfoster 11y ago
I think mainly because there was nothing non-obvious in the article.
reedlaw 11y ago
Why assume he's rich? Maybe living in the mountains is cheap. Maybe he saved before moving there. There is some choice between working/consuming less and working/consuming more. He's advocating the former.
- thefreeman 11y ago
  Well, he took a year long honey moon which he spontaneously decided to extend into 6 years. I don't think your average person could pull that off, regardless of how cheap it is to live there. Also the fact that he literally doesn't address how he can afford to to this, which is the first thing on most peoples mind, also indicates that he is so wealthy he is out of touch with reality.
- ohmyiv 11y ago
  I don't assume he's rich. I assume he is a decent financial investor living in Delhi where a 3-bd apartment in the city is ~$700/mo. His reported annual compensation on Bloomberg is $105,000. While he may not be Warren Buffett rich, it's still substantial in India. I do assume that if he were living in the US at the same rate, he'd probably be working more than 3 days a week. I understand he's advocating for less work. Why do you assume he's advocating for consuming less? He could be buying new Jordans for every run he goes on. His couch could be rhino leather for all we know. Personally, I doubt he's advocating for less consumption because he sits on boards of businesses who produce basic goods, like food, paper goods, and He also sits on a board for an event production and marketing company. It's hard for me to believe he's down with less consumption.
pjc50 11y ago
Do we really need to cite the benefits of working less? No, we don't. That's why the article is so empty; we can all imagine what it would be like if we could live without work.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
>I'd guess it's because it's a rich person saying it, which I get. Rich people don't deserve to be rich, this is a fact. No single human has enough IQ or strength to contribute enough gdp to the economy as to justify becoming super rich. The rich build their wealth off the work of other people. We all know this in a sense and that's why we feel it's unfair. However, fairness isn't what drives an economy forward. Capitalism works very well, wealth inequality is just an unfortunate side effect.
- vladharbuz 11y ago
  > Rich people don't deserve to be rich, this is a fact. How can someone deserving (or not deserving) something possibly be a fact? Who decides who deserves something and who doesn't? Or is there an objective measure of deserving something, so that it may be a fact? Regardless of whether or not I agree with you, your argument makes no sense.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >How can someone deserving (or not deserving) something possibly be a fact? Who decides who deserves something and who doesn't? Or is there an objective measure of deserving something, so that it may be a fact? Maybe it's not strictly a objective fact because their is no quantitative measure, if this is how my statement is interpreted by most people then it is my mistake. This does not mean that that the entire argument makes no sense. Many things in life cannot be objectively measured or strictly defined. We all as human beings have the intuition to judge whether or not someone "deserves" something or not even when I don't explicitly mention who does the judging. If I had said that "a murderer deserves to be punished, this is fact" would the argument still make "no sense"? No. It wouldn't. Let me put it this way, unless you're a psychopath, I assume we all have the ability to judge who deserves and doesn't deserve something and that ALL our judgements will be remarkably similar if viewed from an unbiased perspective. That is why I can say such statements without explicitly stating objective measures. If you're rich yourself I would say your judgement is remarkably biased and that you will take a more opposed or ambiguous view towards my statement about what rich people deserve. This occurs because people tend to almost always justify their own situation. This is a fact. Do I have an objective measure of this? No. Do I expect the average reader to be able to understand what I said despite lacking an objective measure? Yes.

Wow, why such negativity here? I'd guess it's because it's a rich person saying it, which I get. Do we really need to cite the benefits of working less?

by heynk 11y ago

Wow, why such negativity here? I'd guess it's because it's a rich person saying it, which I get. Do we really need to cite the benefits of working less?

jfoster 11y ago

I think mainly because there was nothing non-obvious in the article.

reedlaw 11y ago

Why assume he's rich? Maybe living in the mountains is cheap. Maybe he saved before moving there. There is some choice between working/consuming less and working/consuming more. He's advocating the former.

thefreeman 11y ago
Well, he took a year long honey moon which he spontaneously decided to extend into 6 years. I don't think your average person could pull that off, regardless of how cheap it is to live there. Also the fact that he literally doesn't address how he can afford to to this, which is the first thing on most peoples mind, also indicates that he is so wealthy he is out of touch with reality.
ohmyiv 11y ago
I don't assume he's rich. I assume he is a decent financial investor living in Delhi where a 3-bd apartment in the city is ~$700/mo. His reported annual compensation on Bloomberg is $105,000. While he may not be Warren Buffett rich, it's still substantial in India. I do assume that if he were living in the US at the same rate, he'd probably be working more than 3 days a week. I understand he's advocating for less work. Why do you assume he's advocating for consuming less? He could be buying new Jordans for every run he goes on. His couch could be rhino leather for all we know. Personally, I doubt he's advocating for less consumption because he sits on boards of businesses who produce basic goods, like food, paper goods, and He also sits on a board for an event production and marketing company. It's hard for me to believe he's down with less consumption.

pjc50 11y ago

Do we really need to cite the benefits of working less? No, we don't. That's why the article is so empty; we can all imagine what it would be like if we could live without work.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

>I'd guess it's because it's a rich person saying it, which I get. Rich people don't deserve to be rich, this is a fact. No single human has enough IQ or strength to contribute enough gdp to the economy as to justify becoming super rich. The rich build their wealth off the work of other people. We all know this in a sense and that's why we feel it's unfair. However, fairness isn't what drives an economy forward. Capitalism works very well, wealth inequality is just an unfortunate side effect.

vladharbuz 11y ago
> Rich people don't deserve to be rich, this is a fact. How can someone deserving (or not deserving) something possibly be a fact? Who decides who deserves something and who doesn't? Or is there an objective measure of deserving something, so that it may be a fact? Regardless of whether or not I agree with you, your argument makes no sense.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >How can someone deserving (or not deserving) something possibly be a fact? Who decides who deserves something and who doesn't? Or is there an objective measure of deserving something, so that it may be a fact? Maybe it's not strictly a objective fact because their is no quantitative measure, if this is how my statement is interpreted by most people then it is my mistake. This does not mean that that the entire argument makes no sense. Many things in life cannot be objectively measured or strictly defined. We all as human beings have the intuition to judge whether or not someone "deserves" something or not even when I don't explicitly mention who does the judging. If I had said that "a murderer deserves to be punished, this is fact" would the argument still make "no sense"? No. It wouldn't. Let me put it this way, unless you're a psychopath, I assume we all have the ability to judge who deserves and doesn't deserve something and that ALL our judgements will be remarkably similar if viewed from an unbiased perspective. That is why I can say such statements without explicitly stating objective measures. If you're rich yourself I would say your judgement is remarkably biased and that you will take a more opposed or ambiguous view towards my statement about what rich people deserve. This occurs because people tend to almost always justify their own situation. This is a fact. Do I have an objective measure of this? No. Do I expect the average reader to be able to understand what I said despite lacking an objective measure? Yes.