Work for post-materialists(economist.com)
economist.com
Work for post-materialists
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/unemployment-and-jobs
12 comments
Author uses the terms government surveillance and tax collection as if they are inherently bad things.
There are some things I want the government to watch, at both a local and federal level. And keep in mind Oliver Wendell Holmes's Jr's adage about taxes: they help foot the bill for civilization.
As for bureaucracy: it's a burden, but the alternative in many societies is systematic corruption. The author writes:
Less obviously, but at least as importantly, we need to eliminate the insane patchwork of regulations that keep folks from legally cutting hair for money in a kitchen, or legally making a few bucks every now and then taxiing people around town in a 1988 Ford Escort.
If it's an insane patchwork, perhaps. But if it's a sensible patchwork that helps keep schools funded and slows society for a dispiriting race to the bottom, why the hell would we want to do this?
There are some things I want the government to watch, at both a local and federal level. And keep in mind Oliver Wendell Holmes's Jr's adage about taxes: they help foot the bill for civilization.
As for bureaucracy: it's a burden, but the alternative in many societies is systematic corruption. The author writes:
Less obviously, but at least as importantly, we need to eliminate the insane patchwork of regulations that keep folks from legally cutting hair for money in a kitchen, or legally making a few bucks every now and then taxiing people around town in a 1988 Ford Escort.
If it's an insane patchwork, perhaps. But if it's a sensible patchwork that helps keep schools funded and slows society for a dispiriting race to the bottom, why the hell would we want to do this?
The last paragraph of the article reminds me of recent closures of kids' lemonade stands by government inspectors:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-crackdown-c...
There's something perverse about a government that cuts away people's autonomy and forces everyone to rely on its handouts. I'd rather live in a society of free people than a society that can't imagine life without the government telling them what to do. I could do with a little less "civilization" when it comes to closing down a 5 year old girl's lemonade stand because she didn't prepare her pitcher in a kitchen with a 3-basin sink.
Regulations aren't made with the good of society in mind. They're usually made by self-interested businessmen looking to keep out competition. When you realize this, you will reach political enlightenment.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-crackdown-c...
There's something perverse about a government that cuts away people's autonomy and forces everyone to rely on its handouts. I'd rather live in a society of free people than a society that can't imagine life without the government telling them what to do. I could do with a little less "civilization" when it comes to closing down a 5 year old girl's lemonade stand because she didn't prepare her pitcher in a kitchen with a 3-basin sink.
Regulations aren't made with the good of society in mind. They're usually made by self-interested businessmen looking to keep out competition. When you realize this, you will reach political enlightenment.
I would say that that was a more a case of individuals police officers being pricks. But then again perhaps they were trying to conscientiously apply the same law with which they just harassed an immigrant street vendor on the other side of town.
They're usually made by self-interested businessmen looking to keep out competition
Is "regulatory capture" the latest buzz phrase from Frank Luntz? Powerful business interests are going to try to influence the regulatory process anyway, so let's just let them run amok.
They're usually made by self-interested businessmen looking to keep out competition
Is "regulatory capture" the latest buzz phrase from Frank Luntz? Powerful business interests are going to try to influence the regulatory process anyway, so let's just let them run amok.
>Is "regulatory capture" the latest buzz phrase from Frank Luntz?
Beats me. But you're delusional if you think regulations are created by disinterested people contemplating the public good.
We live in a world where Fannie and Freddie debt was regulated as Tier I capital, for goodness sake. We live in a world that requires (black) hair-braiders to pass a 400 hour course on cutting (white) people's hair to open up shop. We live in a world that caps San Francisco taxi cabs at approximately 1% of the number demanded. The evidence demands at least a slightly cynical evaluation of the regulatory state.
I don't think I've ever watched Fox News or listened to Limbaugh, by the way, at least not for more than 5 minutes in a waiting room. You can leave the ad hominem at home.
Beats me. But you're delusional if you think regulations are created by disinterested people contemplating the public good.
We live in a world where Fannie and Freddie debt was regulated as Tier I capital, for goodness sake. We live in a world that requires (black) hair-braiders to pass a 400 hour course on cutting (white) people's hair to open up shop. We live in a world that caps San Francisco taxi cabs at approximately 1% of the number demanded. The evidence demands at least a slightly cynical evaluation of the regulatory state.
I don't think I've ever watched Fox News or listened to Limbaugh, by the way, at least not for more than 5 minutes in a waiting room. You can leave the ad hominem at home.
Um, no. It was coined by the late great economist, George Stigler. It comes from the field of economics.
What concerns me is your ease in classifying a phrase as a Frank Luntz "buzz word" for the mere reason of disagreeing with it. It shows a deep lack of imagination, no different from those who hold delusional views about George Soros.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
What concerns me is your ease in classifying a phrase as a Frank Luntz "buzz word" for the mere reason of disagreeing with it. It shows a deep lack of imagination, no different from those who hold delusional views about George Soros.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
I agree with your point about bureaucracy being necessary when using a hierarchical model for society. This has a basis in our neurochemistry, in particular, Dunbar's number which puts a limit on how many individuals we consider to be people, where everyone else we know are lumped into 'the others' category. The majority of us treat 'the others' considerably worse than our friends, where we are more likely to lie, cheat and steal from them. Bureaucracy is necessary when such large organizations exist since it patches the bug. Unfortunately, as we can see from the results, it's a low quality patch which addresses the effects and not the causes.
An obvious solution is to go around the mountain. If such large monolithic structures come with such a burden then why not decentralize and cut them down to a reasonable size that our hardware can better handle? This is, ofcourse, also a patch, which, personally, I think would address the effects more efficiently. To address the root causes, we would either need to modify our neurochemistry or DNA or provide education so that individuals can overcome Dunbar's number.
An obvious solution is to go around the mountain. If such large monolithic structures come with such a burden then why not decentralize and cut them down to a reasonable size that our hardware can better handle? This is, ofcourse, also a patch, which, personally, I think would address the effects more efficiently. To address the root causes, we would either need to modify our neurochemistry or DNA or provide education so that individuals can overcome Dunbar's number.
And I agree entirely with what you identify as the premises of the problems. Can we decentralize to a level where hierarchy isn't implicit? An abusive father or tyrannical HOA seems a much more real threat for most Americans than an inefficient FDA.
While I accept that a lot of the "less government" rhetoric around here, and even among many politicians, is motivated by sincere ideological conviction and a belief in the efficiency of decentralized organizations, the net effect of this ideological surge within the US over the last 30 years has been a redistribution of wealth and privilege that has sharpened the hierarchy.
While I accept that a lot of the "less government" rhetoric around here, and even among many politicians, is motivated by sincere ideological conviction and a belief in the efficiency of decentralized organizations, the net effect of this ideological surge within the US over the last 30 years has been a redistribution of wealth and privilege that has sharpened the hierarchy.
When writing software, the goal is often to take some task which a human once did manually, and to partially or completely automate it. I automate as much of my daily work-flow as possible. If I could, I would automate myself right out of writing software all together.
I think this attitude explains why I loath the employee-employer fixed pay relationship so much. Selling your time, day-in, day-out, to write software, is antithetical to the very act of writing software, because, as the developer, you haven’t automated yourself out of any future work.
I think this attitude explains why I loath the employee-employer fixed pay relationship so much. Selling your time, day-in, day-out, to write software, is antithetical to the very act of writing software, because, as the developer, you haven’t automated yourself out of any future work.
I think that the reason for what you describe is essentially a paradigm mismatch. Automation aims to reduce the amount of work while businesses have the goal of making as much money as possible and, by extension, since money can only be acquired by working, essentially attempt to automate as little as possible. Personally, I think that this is an old and outdated way of living. It's the same thing that simple biological organisms do - go towards pleasure and away from pain. It explains why, for example, so many software houses only look at the short term and don't take time to design decent systems which are adaptable to change, even though they know that requirements are always shifting. I call this approach 'dumb-lazy', whereas the automation approach is 'smart-lazy'.
"businesses have the goal of making as much money as possible and, by extension, since money can only be acquired by working, essentially attempt to automate as little as possible."
What? If a business gets paid $10 for something that costs them $9 to do, they have lots of profit incentive to automate the work. If they can make it cost $0.01 to do, they will be rolling in profit. Nearly every business understands this.
Maybe they don't want their clients to get this automation, but that's a different question.
What? If a business gets paid $10 for something that costs them $9 to do, they have lots of profit incentive to automate the work. If they can make it cost $0.01 to do, they will be rolling in profit. Nearly every business understands this.
Maybe they don't want their clients to get this automation, but that's a different question.
I completely agree with your last point and half-agree with your first one. If we were talking about Vulcans then, yes, the optimizations would always be implemented. My personal experience is mainly with technology companies and in that field, at least, the optimizations are more often not implemented, even if they will indeed save money in the long run. I think that these problems are reflected in the general population where only a fraction of people make investments and the vast majority tend to chase after quick profit rather than lasting wealth. Business has a higher percentage of the latter but there is still plenty of the former.
Edit: Also, we might be talking about slightly different situations, I'm mainly referring to optimizations which require a time investment up front, not 'free' ones.
Edit: Also, we might be talking about slightly different situations, I'm mainly referring to optimizations which require a time investment up front, not 'free' ones.
That doesn't explain software house behavior at all. Development organizations take shortcuts and intentionally incur technical debt in order to hit the market window. If you don't have short-term sales success then there's no revenue to fund long-term improvements.
And how can you design "decent systems" that are adaptable to change? It's impossible to reliably predict what changes will be needed. Most software products evolve in entirely unpredictable ways. There are some general software engineering best practices for modularity and layering but beyond that you're getting into YAGNI territory.
And how can you design "decent systems" that are adaptable to change? It's impossible to reliably predict what changes will be needed. Most software products evolve in entirely unpredictable ways. There are some general software engineering best practices for modularity and layering but beyond that you're getting into YAGNI territory.
I think that a mature organization has enough of a reputation to not need to do that. This approach to running an agency is necessary for the bootstrapping phase but beyond that it will become a burden very quickly.
Best practices are pretty much what I'm talking about. It may be impossible to predict what changes are needed but it's easy to predict that there will be changes.
Best practices are pretty much what I'm talking about. It may be impossible to predict what changes are needed but it's easy to predict that there will be changes.
"I would automate myself right out of writing software all together."
Interestingly, the usual way to accomplish this is to become an employer.
Interestingly, the usual way to accomplish this is to become an employer.
I ironically used to work for McKinsey and was among their top performers, then I dropped out of the rat race and have been doing just enough freelance work to stay afloat. I didn't know there was a term for my type, but "threshold earner" gives me a sense of legitimacy. I like it.
I guess I don't read the economist blogs as much, but this article has a completely different feel from their magazine: much more laid back and curious, if a little rambling. Its a nice change, though
I had the exact same thought.
The last paragraph ties into business models like AirBnb and UberCab: where people just do some work or offer something and get paid for it, without a lot of red tape and hassles and registering as a business.
It would be great if business and labor laws were streamlined to make this as easy as possible, but its disruptive to larger corporations and current stakeholders, so I suspect there's vested interest in trying to keep the status quo, unfortunately. But the success of AirBnb, etc is a great sign.
It would be great if business and labor laws were streamlined to make this as easy as possible, but its disruptive to larger corporations and current stakeholders, so I suspect there's vested interest in trying to keep the status quo, unfortunately. But the success of AirBnb, etc is a great sign.
> It would be great if business and labor laws were streamlined to make this as easy as possible, but its disruptive to larger corporations and current stakeholders ...
Certainly that's one part of the phenomenon. But keep in mind that regulations exist also because there are always people who want to take in as much money as possible while doing as little work as possible, leaving others---possibly meaning the public---to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.
(A recent example: Wall Street investment bankers, playing the heads-we-win, tails-the-public-loses game with bank bailouts. A recurring example: Polluters.)
Certainly that's one part of the phenomenon. But keep in mind that regulations exist also because there are always people who want to take in as much money as possible while doing as little work as possible, leaving others---possibly meaning the public---to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.
(A recent example: Wall Street investment bankers, playing the heads-we-win, tails-the-public-loses game with bank bailouts. A recurring example: Polluters.)
It's a good thing that we have regulations so those bad things never happened.
Less snark version: who do you think writes regulation?
Less snark version: who do you think writes regulation?
Granted that was meant as a rhetorical question, but I think regulation is often written by young consultants because everyone tends to back the buck on to someone else. However, when it comes to the process that actually choses which regulation to go with that's often a range of special interests each fighting to protect their individual pieces.
Conceder cap and trade which is clearly less efficient than simply taxing carbon. While it might seem like a terrible idea for anyone with a few lobbyists and the assumption that they can specify an exception for their industry it can become a huge boon at the cost of those with less influence.
Conceder cap and trade which is clearly less efficient than simply taxing carbon. While it might seem like a terrible idea for anyone with a few lobbyists and the assumption that they can specify an exception for their industry it can become a huge boon at the cost of those with less influence.
Are you trying to argue that regulations are completely ineffective? If so, please argue against the proposition that regulations decrease (not eliminate) unwanted behavior. That would be more useful for your reader.
> without a lot of red tape and hassles and registering as a business
I don't know if there have been any horror stories yet, but the reality is that in our society, you need those protections offered by registering as a business and dealing with the red tape.
Our laws are set up in such a way that the individual is at much greater personal risk when acting as an individual than as a business entity with the individual as its sole member.
I don't know if there have been any horror stories yet, but the reality is that in our society, you need those protections offered by registering as a business and dealing with the red tape.
Our laws are set up in such a way that the individual is at much greater personal risk when acting as an individual than as a business entity with the individual as its sole member.
That's why it would be nice (as the grandfather post says) to streamline business and labour laws so that would be easier. It could happen as more people move to that kind of existence. I don't think he denies that the red tape is currently necessary.
My brother likes to say that America is an adolescent, while Europe is the adult. According to the article, it sounds like the America is growing up and it's manifesting as a desire for job autonomy in the labor market.
However, the author misses an important link between job autonomy and the question posed, "What is the single best thing Washington can do to jumpstart job creation?"...
The fundamental reason that "job autonomy" is more viable today, is thanks to the internet and free-flowing information. If there is one thing the government could do to jumpstart job creation, it would be to improve the regulatory structure surrounding the internet, bust the monopolies that are gouging us for awful service and give incentives for startup ISP's to take their place.
However, the author misses an important link between job autonomy and the question posed, "What is the single best thing Washington can do to jumpstart job creation?"...
The fundamental reason that "job autonomy" is more viable today, is thanks to the internet and free-flowing information. If there is one thing the government could do to jumpstart job creation, it would be to improve the regulatory structure surrounding the internet, bust the monopolies that are gouging us for awful service and give incentives for startup ISP's to take their place.
Mark Mills writing is a tad more jocular and Wall-Streety than a good HN article's level of nuance, but he has some very good insight into American and Chinese manufacturing and employment levels in this Forbes article:
http://blogs.forbes.com/markpmills/2011/07/05/manufacturing-...
http://blogs.forbes.com/markpmills/2011/07/05/manufacturing-...
David Ellerman [...] argues that the employer-employee relationship is more like the master-slave relationship than we are inclined to believe.
Me too! (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1287346) I've never heard of David Ellerman. Anybody here read him?
Me too! (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1287346) I've never heard of David Ellerman. Anybody here read him?
What is 'post-materialism'? Any relationship to post-scarcity economics?
He appears to be using it in the sense of people whose aspirations involve things other than material prosperity, at least past a threshhold of "comfortable, Western middle class".
If you achieve comfortable Western middle-class, what do you aspire to past that? A traditional and quite common aspiration is to move more into the upper class: to make enough money to regularly travel the world, buy a large house, buy a sports car, or perhaps even move into the higher tier of owning a beach home in Hawaii, yacht, private jet, etc.
"Post-materialists", on the other hand, tend to be satisfied with the Western-middle-class level of prosperity, and once they reach it start aspiring to things like greater autonomy, fewer working hours, greater proportion of time spent on creative endeavors, etc. I don't really like the phrase "post-materialist" (feels judgmental), and sort of prefer Tyler Cowen's phrase "threshold earners" (which this article also cites), as a more neutral description of people whose monetary aspirations are to reach a comfortable threshhold and stop there.
The article is a bit rambling, but what I take as the takeaway is that accounting for those kinds of aspirations requires something more than just "economic grwoth", since it's not really a linear scale of move up in the economy --> move up further in the economy. Instead it has more to do with flexibility of work arrangements, barriers to self-employment, etc.
If you achieve comfortable Western middle-class, what do you aspire to past that? A traditional and quite common aspiration is to move more into the upper class: to make enough money to regularly travel the world, buy a large house, buy a sports car, or perhaps even move into the higher tier of owning a beach home in Hawaii, yacht, private jet, etc.
"Post-materialists", on the other hand, tend to be satisfied with the Western-middle-class level of prosperity, and once they reach it start aspiring to things like greater autonomy, fewer working hours, greater proportion of time spent on creative endeavors, etc. I don't really like the phrase "post-materialist" (feels judgmental), and sort of prefer Tyler Cowen's phrase "threshold earners" (which this article also cites), as a more neutral description of people whose monetary aspirations are to reach a comfortable threshhold and stop there.
The article is a bit rambling, but what I take as the takeaway is that accounting for those kinds of aspirations requires something more than just "economic grwoth", since it's not really a linear scale of move up in the economy --> move up further in the economy. Instead it has more to do with flexibility of work arrangements, barriers to self-employment, etc.
If there's any positive from our current economic situation, I think it's that some people are realizing that money doesn't bring you happiness. It can bring you comfort, as you mention, but buying things beyond the basics isn't going to make you happy.
The problem is that the wealthy don't accumulated funds just to buy things. They use it for power. And increasingly in this country, money equals political power that affects all of us. In a weird way the "good guys" should become money hungry, but use that money in positive ways that benefit society.
The problem is that the wealthy don't accumulated funds just to buy things. They use it for power. And increasingly in this country, money equals political power that affects all of us. In a weird way the "good guys" should become money hungry, but use that money in positive ways that benefit society.
This is absolutely true. There is an article in my head about this subject that I have been putting off writing...
I would be very interested to see some thoughts on this subject. I go back and forth agreeing and disagreeing with the grandparent's last paragraph.
Its easy to make yourself feel moral and just this way (and elitist and morally superior), but I think it can also be the beginning to an easy loophole around "money doesn't buy happiness." Once you've decided that more money will allow you to do others good, you're in the same structural problem that materialists are, which is that once you meet goal X, there goal Y will be, just out of reach, and with it, your happiness.
Its easy to make yourself feel moral and just this way (and elitist and morally superior), but I think it can also be the beginning to an easy loophole around "money doesn't buy happiness." Once you've decided that more money will allow you to do others good, you're in the same structural problem that materialists are, which is that once you meet goal X, there goal Y will be, just out of reach, and with it, your happiness.
I don't like the phrase "post-materialist" either, because it implies this is something new. "People used to want more stuff, but now we're moving beyond that."
There have always been people who want more stuff and people who don't, and there always will be.
I agree that "threshold earners" is better. Another way of putting it is that some people place a higher dollar value on free time, autonomy, etc, so they aren't willing to trade as many hours for money as others are.
There have always been people who want more stuff and people who don't, and there always will be.
I agree that "threshold earners" is better. Another way of putting it is that some people place a higher dollar value on free time, autonomy, etc, so they aren't willing to trade as many hours for money as others are.
Chronoconomists?
I am a post-materialist in that sense, in that so long as I have enough money to fulfill basic needs (food, fuel, rent, etc), plus a little extra for hobbies which are not highly expensive, I have no interest in seeking any more monetary income than that.
What I am interested in primarily is maximizing the amount of time which I can spend on projects or collaborative efforts of my own choosing (the author references the importance of autonomy).
What I am interested in primarily is maximizing the amount of time which I can spend on projects or collaborative efforts of my own choosing (the author references the importance of autonomy).
Small caveat.
I am a threshold earner to be able to travel the world regularly. The monetary cost of traveling is highly variable but the time cost is huge. For me it seems easier to attain by thresholding my yearly income.
This section of wp article is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-materialism#Measuring_post...
"If you had to choose among the following things, which are the two that seem the most desirable to you?
There was a longer test with more items in, I remember one was looking after the environment.
Inglehart claimed that a certain type of generous life could incubate people into his "post-materialist" mindset, and then they wouldn't change to "materialist" even if they were subsequently exposed to hardship.
Long time since I read any of it. This being one of those topics where I got to write an essay and then reuse it for another subject the next year. For shame! :)
It stuck with me partly because I found "Giving people more say in important political decisions." to be a very uncomfortable idea. I've changed position somewhat since I last thought about this.
"If you had to choose among the following things, which are the two that seem the most desirable to you?
Maintaining order in the nation.
Giving people more say in important political decisions.
Fighting rising prices.
Protecting freedom of speech.
There was a longer test with more items in, I remember one was looking after the environment.
Inglehart claimed that a certain type of generous life could incubate people into his "post-materialist" mindset, and then they wouldn't change to "materialist" even if they were subsequently exposed to hardship.
Long time since I read any of it. This being one of those topics where I got to write an essay and then reuse it for another subject the next year. For shame! :)
It stuck with me partly because I found "Giving people more say in important political decisions." to be a very uncomfortable idea. I've changed position somewhat since I last thought about this.
"Maintaining..." I rate this highly
"Giving people..." I do not think this is that important. The constitution, after all, was written behind closed doors because the writers feared what their constituencies might think.
"Fighting rising prices" - Good economics is vitally important, rising prices is a part of that.
"Protecting freedom of speech" - Important, not as important as economy.
"Giving people..." I do not think this is that important. The constitution, after all, was written behind closed doors because the writers feared what their constituencies might think.
"Fighting rising prices" - Good economics is vitally important, rising prices is a part of that.
"Protecting freedom of speech" - Important, not as important as economy.
""The country is ready for the five day week. It is bound to come through all industry. In adopting it ourselves, we are putting it into effect in about fifty industries, for we are coal miners, iron miners, lumbermen, and so on. The short week is bound to come, because without it the country will not be able to absorb its production and stay prosperous.
"The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes. The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment.
"The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music -- more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad."
http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm
Henry Ford knew the answer 90 years ago, the key to keeping consumption up is to give people time to spend it. Think about it this way, a 5 day work week is 25% longer than a 4 day work week but most importantly gives people 50% more leisure time. During this leisure time people will consume more. Transitioning to a 4 day work week (with 5 days pay) would result in 50% more time to consume and would eliminate unemployment almost immediately.
The best thing the government could do to solve unemployment problems is to make a 4 day work week standard and institute overtime for the 5th day. The reality of the situation is that large numbers of unemployed people lead to instability in the political realm.
"The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes. The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment.
"The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music -- more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad."
http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm
Henry Ford knew the answer 90 years ago, the key to keeping consumption up is to give people time to spend it. Think about it this way, a 5 day work week is 25% longer than a 4 day work week but most importantly gives people 50% more leisure time. During this leisure time people will consume more. Transitioning to a 4 day work week (with 5 days pay) would result in 50% more time to consume and would eliminate unemployment almost immediately.
The best thing the government could do to solve unemployment problems is to make a 4 day work week standard and institute overtime for the 5th day. The reality of the situation is that large numbers of unemployed people lead to instability in the political realm.
I think this is a fantastic idea. I was curious though what you think about this leading to the work week getting overly short? Isnt this a step in the direction of making the work week shorter. But nonetheless I really like this well thoughtout comment!
I think once you're in a certain income level, it doesn't matter how much more you make... until you hit that next income level. As long as you meeting your survival needs, and not stressing out (live paycheck by paycheck), and of course don't have a disease/illness, then it doesn't matter if you make $80K, or $200K, or even $400K/year... it's not until you hit the million dollar mark where things get interesting. That's when you have financial freedom, and options open up. So I agree with the threshold thing to an extent.
Financial freedom isn't about how big your income is, but how long you could live without that income. If I'm making $1m a year, but I'm a dumbass and spend $995k, I'm just as tied to my paycheck as the guy who only earns $50k and spends $45k. A guy who earns $100k a year and still only spends $45k is much better off than either of those two. Having a larger income impacts your financial freedom only to the extent that you're able to sock more money away and live off of that (or the proceeds if you invest). Otherwise, you're just a wage slave with nicer toys.
Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does buy options.
Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does buy options.
I cannot agree more strongly.
Most of the folks I know from my generation tend to spend almost all of their disposable income as soon as they obtain it. I have tried to explain to them that by doing so, they are selling their own freedom. You are forever at the yoke of he who employs you if you are living from paycheck to paycheck.
For the first three years of my career, I scrimped on almost all expenditures in order to accumulate a savings allowing me to be out of work for a period of at least one full year. I call it the FYF (the Fuck You Fund). I wouldn't trade it for anything but a true emergency.
Most of the folks I know from my generation tend to spend almost all of their disposable income as soon as they obtain it. I have tried to explain to them that by doing so, they are selling their own freedom. You are forever at the yoke of he who employs you if you are living from paycheck to paycheck.
For the first three years of my career, I scrimped on almost all expenditures in order to accumulate a savings allowing me to be out of work for a period of at least one full year. I call it the FYF (the Fuck You Fund). I wouldn't trade it for anything but a true emergency.
I can't imagine you think that the marginal utilityof income is ever increasing (which is the result of a literal reading of you comment: the 120k between 80k and 200k is worth less than the 120k that puts you over the million dollar mark), so you must just be describing the standard case of marginal utility of income strongly decreasing. The fact that this is decreasing quickly is very important for life decisions, of course, but should be stated more clearly.
> once you're in a certain income level, it doesn't matter how much more you make... until you hit that next income level.
Studies [0] have shown that, in essence, money and happiness correlate up to about $75k/year for a U.S. family of four. Above that level, money might open up options, but it doesn't seem to increase happiness as a whole. As others have noted, you can have a lot of financial freedom well below the million dollar mark, or be financially burdened above it.
It should come as no surprise that some people have come to that realization, and decided to simply meet the threshold, life a financially stable lifestyle at that level, and invest the rest of their energy in enjoying life.
[0] http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/09/study-says-$75,000-... describes one such study
Studies [0] have shown that, in essence, money and happiness correlate up to about $75k/year for a U.S. family of four. Above that level, money might open up options, but it doesn't seem to increase happiness as a whole. As others have noted, you can have a lot of financial freedom well below the million dollar mark, or be financially burdened above it.
It should come as no surprise that some people have come to that realization, and decided to simply meet the threshold, life a financially stable lifestyle at that level, and invest the rest of their energy in enjoying life.
[0] http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/09/study-says-$75,000-... describes one such study
Unfortunately, it already is. Bureaucracy is essentially an approach where the 'server' (government/business/whatever) forces the 'clients' (individuals/employees) to change their behavior for the benefit of the 'server', with no clear benefit for the 'clients'. When considering it in these terms, words like 'oppressive' seem to have some significance. After all, the definition of the word is:
>Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
In the case of bureaucracy, the 'burdensome' and, arguably, 'unjust' components of the definition are fitting.
Either way, it's inspiring to see these issues finally being discussed in mainstream mediums.