> On the other hand - or so they say - you're free, and if you don't like your job you can pursue happiness by starting a business of your very own, by becoming an "independent" entrepreneur. But you're only as independent as your credit rating. And to compete in the business community, you'll find yourself having to treat others - your employees - as much like slaves as you can get away with.
The whole piece is like that.
Self-defeating. Blame others for problems. Finding trivial problems insurmountable. And also - flat out false.
He overlooks some basic things - like that you can work part time, freelance, or save up your money and then not work for a few years.
Some jobs and are enjoyable and people like their work.
There's no rule that says you have to be a shitty boss.
You don't need a credit rating to do business.
But mostly, it's just all self-defeating negative nonsense. I've basically never been salaried, I started in business with no credit rating at all (I avoided credit cards like the plague, so I got a credit rating at all relatively late in life), and I've never had to slavedrive anyone.
It's easier to blame others than to look for solutions. Probably feels better. But it's nonsense. You can build a pretty good life with some effort. Takes effort, true. But it's there if you want it.
You're attacking the messenger, but you fail to address his core argument which boils down to Marx's criticism of capitalism (the fact that workers don't own the production means is unfair).
"Just start your business" as a mean to all ends doesn't scale. Your last paragraph also seems to ignore that, for some people, just getting by takes (sometimes a lot of) effort. You may be clueless at some key point in your life, make a bad decision and get caught in inextricable situations.
The difference between left- and right-wing views on economy boil down IMO to ethics. Both sides agree on the fact that the world is unfair, but they differ on how to address the problem.
From the extremes, the left promotes forced altruism, which has historically been proven not to work so well; whereas the right promotes egoism (relying Adam Smith's Noodly Appendage to shelter itself from remorse), which, with the ever growing rift between the very rich and the rest of the world is currently coming to its own absurd conclusion.
> You're attacking the messenger, but you fail to address his core argument
I'm not attacking him. His message places a lot of blame externally. That leads to not looking for solutions and building a better life.
Marxism isn't the solution. I've been to a lot of the Marxist/ex-Marxist countries, and they're all worse off than similar neighbors who didn't endure Marxism.
But that's not the big point. The big point is that placing the blame externally kills off your ability to solve problems yourself.
> I'm not attacking him. His message places a lot of blame externally.
True. It's probably a matter of seeing where form ends and where meaning begins (which is of course based on a false dichotomy :-).
> The big point is that placing the blame externally kills off your ability to solve problems yourself.
That's your big point (and I agree with you on that).
His point is a reformulation of a key facet of Marx's analytical economic theory, with which I agree. I wouldn't however ever think of advocating any of Marx's proposed solutions, which took out the human nature out of the equation, for great disaster.
> But that's not the big point. The big point is that placing the blame externally kills off your ability to solve problems yourself.
If all you think about is solving your own problems, in the self-help sense, then placing blame externally is bad and non-productive indeed (as it makes you passive).
But if you think about how society as a whole impacts the lives of most people, then it is an empirical issue, and I'd guess most peoples lives are rather much impacted by external factors... So considering them is sensible there (as it focuses attention on the most important factors).
Also, take a look at the jobs he's listed as doing. That's not the career path of someone who has any direction or ambition, it's the career path of someone who takes whatever job comes along because he's out of money and desperate.
I know, because I used to be that guy. My early career path looks like this: work at dad's restaurant, work at mom's jewelry store, temp agency, Cutco salesman, furniture assembler, temp agency, retail salesman in the mall, ear piercer, retail salesman in the mall.
Then I finally got my act together (thanks to a not-entirely-honest-but-still-greatly-appreciated recruiter) and went Navy, freelance IT, freelance programmer, salaried programmer, freelance programmer, published iOS app, entrepreneur.
I've been out of money and desperate at various times. It sucks. But if you point the blame only outwards, you're very likely to remain broke and desperate.
Own everything. Take all responsibility for everything that happens to you, even if it wasn't your fault. This leads to some instant satisfaction in terms of feeling more in control of your life. And long term, you do a hell of a lot better.
I try to own everything, even if it wasn't my fault. Especially if it wasn't my fault.
Exactly, the moment when you realize that 99% of bad things that happen to you or success you're NOT getting are directly or indirectly the result of you putting yourself in that situation is the moment you become free.
Have you ever read up on ILOC and ELOC? I'm not sure if it's just pop psych but I found it a good example to explain to people the importance of owning your life and outcomes.
Basically people with a high internal locus of control drive change and own the outcomes (good or bad). People with an external locus of control accept change and blame external factors for the outcomes. Distinct difference in the happiness / satisfaction between the groups, if I recall correctly.
Apparently you're choosing not to answer me - which is fine - but just know that I wasn't trolling. I was honestly curious how far you take that attitude.
He's a successful author and columnist. Hopefully, this now gives him the right to say a lot of low-paying jobs are shitty ones that barely treat you as a human being, and not everyone is able to work their way through them, despite how much fortitude they may otherwise have.
This thread is full of ridiculous ad hominems. I don't think your comment even makes any sense. So you both used to work a string of dead-end jobs. While you're willing to note that you, yourself, ended up becoming an entrepreneur, you're not willing to grant this author the same possibility that perhaps he simply started out with a poor lot in life like yourself, and ended up also working his way up.
"That's not the career path of someone who has any direction or ambition"
This is essentially a veiled ad-hominem attack. You don't know the author's motivations or reasons for taking these jobs. You can't a priori assume that he took these jobs because he's lazy and unmotivated.
This is a straw man attack. Lack of direction, and ambition doesn't mean lazy or unmotivated. His job choices show lack of direction, with the random job walk he has done so far he certainly isn't moving in one direction. Same with ambition there doesn't seem to be any greatness seeking in his job selection.
"Again - you don't know what his internal process was for picking these jobs. You can't mind read and impute motivations for his selections."
Well, it's obviously not working for the guy. He has clearly voiced his dissatisfaction with his life, which includes the jobs that he has taken. Someone that is doing what they love, even if it isn't making that much money, will be happy.
"Well, it's obviously not working for the guy. He has clearly voiced his dissatisfaction with his life, which includes the jobs that he has taken."
Yes, but it does not follow that he is therefore directionless or lacks ambition. Plenty of successful doctors and lawyers have the same problem.
"Someone that is doing what they love, even if it isn't making that much money, will be happy."
Over simplification. I have known numerous people who loved what they where doing without being very happy about the things that came along with that. Artists, musicians, teachers. Just because you love what you do doesn't automatically make you happy, believe it or not.
"Plenty of successful doctors and lawyers have the same problem."
Taking random jobs to put yourself through medical school is much different than taking random jobs with seemingly no direction. If he does have some ambitious life goals, he doesn't make it very apparent in this article.
"I have known numerous people who loved what they where doing without being very happy about the things that came along with that."
If you are doing what you claim to love, yet you hate everything that comes along with it..I don't think you are doing what you really love.
I suppose from the article, we can surmise that the author loves being a hospital orderly or the guy that runs the drive-thru at jack-in-the-box and is just unhappy about the things that come with it. Right?
What on earth is this? Nothing you said follows from, or was implied by, anything in the post you're responding to. The whole thing is a big non-sequiter.
Lazy and unmotivated are about his internal state, which you correctly point out we don't know. Lack of direction and ambition are observations of exterior actions. He is not moving in a direction, so we can say he lacks direction. He doesn't seek to be great or even good at anything so he lacks ambition. In making those two observations we have not ascribed any reason why he lacks ambition or direction. So complaining about people not knowing his motivations when we are talking about his actions not his motivations, is in fact a straw man.
Ambition is a personality trait, just like laziness and motivation. Your definition of the word is hella nonstandard. You can have internal ambition without there being a noticeable external effect, due to things like lack of opportunity, poor health, children, ignorance about what opportunities are present, and so on and so forth.
Some traits are an emergent property of systems, and while it's technically correct to say that this is blaming "other people," it's not a useful idea. It's like getting mad that someone lied to you, and blaming their neurons.
The system we're in has some undesirable traits, and it's useful to think about them and how they might be fixed.
Unless you're suggesting that every person on earth should be an entrepreneur to be happy, I think it's worth thinking about how to make the rest of the opportunities more hospitable to a happy life.
> Some traits are an emergent property of systems, and while it's technically correct to say that this is blaming "other people," it's not a useful idea.
This is exactly blaming other people, from the article -
> It was during the years of office work that I caught on: I got two weeks' paid vacation per year. ... In other words, no time was truly mine. My boss merely allowed me an illusion of freedom, a little space in which to catch my breath, in between the 50 weeks that I lived that he owned.
There's many ways to work full-time less than 50 weeks out of the year. Instead, the author chooses to point the blame outwards.
The whole article is heavy on that external blame. It's bad, it closes your mind off to many, many possible solutions. There's definitely lots of problems with working full time for just a paycheck, but it's unhelpful to people to wrap that in such a defeatist externally-blaming way. That kills your mind off to finding solutions.
Your point is well taken that it tends to deaden one to looking for solutions - but that does not, in any way shape or form, invalidate the author's arguments.
I agree the tone is defeatist, but I don't blame the author or hold resentment for the expression of the suffering.
Poverty is a learned, psychological problem. Escaping the trap is possible, but not easy for most.
The disease of poverty can cured with education and liberty, many believe. Where education and liberty fail, poverty brings us all down and holds us all back from our potential.
Poverty isn't just for the poor. A significant portion of the wealthy also have a poverty of mind and perpetuate poverty by not investing in the future.
For the record, this was written in 1990, when low-cost startups like web sites were pretty difficult to conceptualize. Back then, there was very little you could do, outside of generic consulting, that didn't have a huge bootstrapping cost, making credit ratings much more important as you had to get a loan or an investment to get anything done. The internet has changed much of that now.
Exactly. Most of the respondents to this thread don't seem to realize that we occupy a very unusual and richly privileged period of history - or for that matter, a very privileged position by dint of being fortunate enough to work in an industry that does allow it's workers a very high degree of autonomy if they choose that for themselves. Even then, it's still very hard and risky work.
The question is why do we currently occupy this very rich and priveleged perioud of history - because we took Michael Ventura's advice 20 years ago and abandoned capitalism?
That brings us to the follow up question of, if a small number of people are privileged during a small part of history, does that mean that the rest of it - filled as it was with problems and exploitation - is no longer a problem, and the critiques are no longer valid?
Just because capitalism works some of the time for a few of the people, doesn't mean that it's above criticism, and has no problems.
Since the majority of folks on HN have benefited from capitalism, it's not surprising that they are not as open to hearing criticisms of it.
The way you phrased the initial objection, made it sound like our current state (whereby anybody with internet access can launch a webapp with global reach for practically nothing) is some sort of insignificant fluke rather than part of a trend of continual improvement.
The current state has been thus for all of about a decade, maybe two if you want to get technical about it. It remains to be seen whether it sticks around for the long term. It is also debatable whether this really represents an improvement, much less a continual one. With the increasing availability of the basics to launch a web application, the expected value of doing so has declined correspondingly.
Even if we take it as given that relatively wealthy American programmers have experienced continual improvement in their lot over the past couple of decades, that doesn't mean that we will continue to do so - or that everyone else has experience anything remotely similar. I would argue that we - developers - have experienced more upward mobility than most careers in the last couple of decades, and it is precisely because of this that we are relatively privileged.
In short, our experience doesn't necessarily generalize to society at large.
I don't want to get drawn into a really long debate, I just have two things to say: 1. People aren't born developers, plumbers, etc., it's a career you choose 2. The technology that enables these things is not going to disappear, of that we can be pretty sure
The question, as another commenter posted elsewhere in this thread, is: does it scale?
Sure, you choose your career (to a large extent) but society needs developers AND plumbers, and too many people choosing to be developers would push down developer wages to the point where being a developer would no longer be desirable. It can't work for everyone.
We need a solution that does not create an underclass of people that society needs but does not value. In a truly fluid job market in which there was always hiring in every industry and every worker was able and prepared to do any kind of job, capitalism might take care of that. Unfortunately, that's not reality.
I think that the system we have is much better than many others that have been tried in the past, but that doesn't mean that it's optimal or that we should stop trying to improve.
This right here is an excellent point, and very well made. Everyone is pretending you can just run out and start your own business tommorrow if you want. Question is, who'd be unclogging the toilets, sweeping the floors, and teaching the children then?
" 1. People aren't born developers, plumbers, etc., it's a career you choose"
I didn't imply that they are, but ignoring that people have innate abilities - and by extension, innate weaknesses - that shape their choices is simplistic.
"2. The technology that enables these things is not going to disappear, of that we can be pretty sure"
I didn't say it would. However, the economic conditions that make working in fields related to it probably eventually will.
One point though is that if you follow the economic system that produces the greatest technological progress, then at least you get to keep those advances forever, whereas if you count on something that's suppossed to keep the economy steady and fair to all, and then that doesn't work out, what are you left with?
Anyway I agree, 'does it scale' is a totally valid point and I often think it myself when people give life lessons on Hacker News. Social scalability I call it. But like I said, the ins and outs of how to apply the principle to the argument at hand are just too long to get into here.
Capitalism works for more than "just a few people" "some of the time".
Highly debatable. Fly to a third world sweat shop and toss this idea around a bit. I don't think the folks there will be nearly as willing to listen to you as people here have been.
"No system is perfect."
Refusing to acknowledge the flaws in said systems is not a virtue.
"and why have they benefited from it? Because they were all born rich? Capitalism benefits people that want to put the time and effort into it."
They have benefitted from it because by and large, we are all upwardly mobile, well paid individuals working in an industry currently experiencing strong market demand. They have also benefitted simply by virtue of being born in America, where they are wealthier than most people in the world by virtue of simply being here (see, I can acknowledge the strengths of Capitalism as well).
Also, this statement is essentially the just-world hypothesis.
"All of your responses so far have been you, crapping on capitalism. Where is your alternative?"
Crapping on capitalism would be silly, since I've benefitted enormously from it. That said, it would be equally silly to be blind to it's many short comings.
I never said I have an alternative, but no one will ever have one if we don't admit some of the short comings to ourselves. Just because a person can't propose an alternative, does not mean that their observations on short comings are incorrect or off base.
We personally have managed to occupy a very rich and privileged part of history. That doesn't mean that anyone outside of this country (or even this industry) is rich and privileged, and you could make the argument that our riches are built on their repression and exploitation.
Yes. It takes effort, and it also takes balls (for lack of a more gender-neutral and appropriate word).
If you want to get out of the drudgery and soul-hemorrage of the rat race, then you need to be prepared for the risk. Most people aren't. They do the mental math, figure that they need the salary or the stability or the medical coverage too much to risk it, and they take the blue pill. They resign themselves to their fates. And that's fine. It's a respectable and probably smart choice for most people, but it's a choice nonetheless. People shouldn't lose sight of that fact.
Courage, bravery, bravado, boldness, gusto, audacity, pluck, fearlessness, risk-tolerance, temerity, tenacity, fortitude, nerve, or stoutheartedness work for you?
It is indeed a choice. The consequences of reversing that choice get much more complex as you gain responsibilities in life. Ultimately, however, your life is on you. No one else can care like you do.
Yes, though as a corollary, we need to remember that the "accumulation of responsibilities" is composed largely (though not solely) of the accumulation of a set of outcomes from a set of prior choices.
>we need to remember that the "accumulation of responsibilities" is composed largely (though not solely) of the accumulation of a set of outcomes from a set of prior choices
Our primary responsibility, if it is really one, is to care for ourselves; we have no choice but to take it. One of the main responsibilities we accumulate is the responsibility to care for ageing relatives.
There are other major responsibilities - care for environment, for society - that are not born out of our prior choices (though our ability to handle those responsibilities is greatly affected by our past choices).
"figure that they need the salary or the stability or the medical coverage too much to risk it...it's a choice nonetheless."
You don't see the contradiction here? What if someone is ill and really needs the medical coverage? What if they have dependents?
Just because you are fortunate enough to be healthy and relatively responsibility free (if you are), doesn't mean that everyone else is in the same boat, and that people who make a different decision do so because they have infinite choice.
This is a big problem with most of the just-world arguments I see about these issues - they never acknowledge that not everything in life is a choice, no matter how much we want to make it so.
Sorry, this one is a tad ambiguous. By "humming loudly at the problem," are you talking about addressing problems in your own life, a'la the dominant theme of this thread, or addressing the problems of capitalism as suggested by the author of the article?
"addressing the problems of capitalism as suggested by the author of the article?"
and what problems are those?
That not everyone comes out on top? Of course this is the case. I am interested in alternatives that don't involve limiting the success of the people that are actually creating wealth or taking exorbitant amounts of money through taxes.
When you've lived long enough, you realize that there aren't many ideas that are truly unique. Most "new" ideas are just old ideas that have been sugar-coated to make them more palatable. So I'm waiting for your new and unique idea that will somehow give people a better chance at life, success, an freedom than capitalism.
Did I suggest I had any such idea? Did I suggest limiting anyone's success or taking exorbitant amounts of money through taxes?
The problems in question are not that not everyone comes out on top - it's that "not coming out on top" involves a great deal of exploitation and coercion. More so than most will admit. The problem is that "coming out on top" now means you control a hugely disproportionate sum of wealth - and thereby exert a disproportionate influence on society, invariably to the expense of others.
"limiting the success of the people that are actually creating wealth."
And therein lies one of the problems - the rewards do not go to those who make the wealth, and that's exactly the point the author of the article was making.
If an engineer invents a radical new process for fabricating microchips, who is paid the huge sum of money resulting from it - the CEO or the engineer? Which one actually created wealth and value?
"When you've lived long enough, you realize that there aren't many ideas that are truly unique."
This is merely condescension. Age doesn't grant you any magical insights, and you don't have to reach a certain age to know there are no new ideas. I figured that out a long time ago. That said, you want to talk about defeatists attitudes? "There are no new ideas" is a cake taker in that department.
I don't have all the answers, and I don't claim to - but we have absolutely zero chance of addressing social issues if we as a society won't even acknowledge them. And just because I don't have a better alternative right now, doesn't mean that no one else does either - or that I won't in the future.
"Did I suggest I had any such idea? Did I suggest limiting anyone's success or taking exorbitant amounts of money through taxes?"
No, but I'm waiting for it.
"The problem is that "coming out on top" now means you control a hugely disproportionate sum of wealth"
...that you've earned. I don't see a problem.
"and thereby exert a disproportionate influence on society, invariably to the expense of others."
Then let's not allow people with money to set the rules. Capitalism isn't the problem. It's corrupt politicians that take kickbacks. I would also like to mention that money is power. In any time in history, the more money you have, the more power you possess. It will always be the case. If not money, then whatever currency we are using. It's not like you can't go out and earn your own.
"And therein lies one of the problems - the rewards do not go to those who make the wealth, and that's exactly the point the author of the article was making."
You can't make a blanket statement like this, because it's not true in most cases. When the guy in the article was working as a "Jack-in-the-Box counterperson", what was he willing to risk all of his time and money to run the business? It sounds to me like he wants the same amount of profits as an owner, but none of the risks.
As I've stated earlier, I don't think people would really like it if companies were allowed to hire people at no pay, work them day and night for the hope that they will make a profit (which is what it takes as an owner). Just ask anyone here that is trying to start a company. You might make it big, but you will probably fail many more times before you succeed.
Most people want a comfort blanket. They don't want to have to worry about profit margins. They want to know that they will get paid every month.
"If an engineer invents a radical new process for fabricating microchips, who is paid the huge sum of money resulting from it - the CEO or the engineer? Which one actually created wealth and value?"
If the engineer is under contract and using the resources, money, and lab of his employer to create this radical new process, he is getting paid a salary he agreed upon (which wasn't by force). If he is using all of his own equipment, under no contract, it can make him very rich. I don't really see a problem with anything you are describing, except your sense of entitlement.
"This is merely condescension. Age doesn't grant you any magical insights, and you don't have to reach a certain age to know there are no new ideas. I figured that out a long time ago. That said, you want to talk about defeatists attitudes? "There are no new ideas" is a cake taker in that department."
Do you actually think I believe there isn't anything new? I was merely pointing out that there are thousands of years of history and experience in the economic, finance, and politics department, which can show you what works and what doesn't (and if your idea is radically new or just a rehash of something old).
Age can grant you insight, if you learn from history and your experiences.
Ponzi schemes are a good example of this. They will always fail in the end, yet people continue to fall for them.
"I don't have all the answers, and I don't claim to - but we have absolutely zero chance of addressing social issues if we as a society won't even acknowledge them. And just because I don't have a better alternative right now, doesn't mean that no one else does either - or that I won't in the future."
There are more important social issues to address than some guy that is whining about his life.
Keep waiting then, because it's not going to happen. I would never suggest anything of the sort. It's not nearly creative enough of a solution, for one thing.
"...that you've earned. I don't see a problem."
Just because you don't see a problem, doesn't mean that there isn't one.
So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earned" the right to 40x more salary than the people who actually make the products? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Do they work forty times harder? Forty times more? Neither is physically possible. Do they assume forty times as much risk? Having seen more than a few golden parachute deals, I think it's obvious that they don't.
"what was he willing to risk all of his time and money to run the business?"
Most business people are saavy enough to start their businesses with other people's money. See: Venture Capitalism.
"It sounds to me like he wants the same amount of profits as an owner, but none of the risks."
This is a gross misrepresentation of the author's position.
"If the engineer is under contract and using the resources, money, and lab of his employer to create this radical new process, he is getting paid a salary he agreed upon (which wasn't by force)."
He must agree to a salary somewhere if he wants to eat and have a place to live. This is not choice. It's not overt force either, but it does have something of coercion about it.
"If he is using all of his own equipment, under no contract, it can make him very rich."
Most people could not afford such equipment even if they are inclined to use it. They therefore have no choice but to work for someone else.
"I don't really see a problem with anything you are describing, except your sense of entitlement."
This is an ad hominem. I have not stated anywhere that I or anyone else are entitled to anything, nor would I ever.
"Do you actually think I believe there isn't anything new? I was merely pointing out that there are thousands of years of history and experience in the economic, finance, and politics department, which can show you what works and what doesn't (and if your idea is radically new or just a rehash of something old)."
This much is blatantly obvious. And?
"There are more important social issues to address than some guy that is whining about his life."
More ad hominem. Also the issues being addressed by the author are bigger than his own life. He states as much if you actually read it carefully.
First, your CEO, it's true, did not likely put financial risk on the line to take the position obtained. But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?
Secondly, your point on coercion. Yes, you can certainly argue that the engineer was "forced" at some level to take a job, and thus some salary. But in a world living with people you will never be free of all influences or coercion. Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion.
"But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?"
This does not address the argument that rewards are being disproportionately bestowed on someone who took no risks, and arguably, produces less wealth or value on the whole than the people who actually do the work of creating and building products and services.
"Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion."
Not at all. Coercion implies a disparity of leverage. The company has money (the means of survival, in this society) at their disposal. The employees do not, or else they wouldn't be looking for a job, would they?
In the worst case scenario the company doesn't get to make a product but still retains it's money, but the would-be employees have nothing, and are either reduced to subsistence level living, the charity of others, or simply starve.
"So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earned" the right to 40x more salary than the people who actually make the products? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Do they work forty times harder? Forty times more? Neither is physically possible. Do they assume forty times as much risk? Having seen more than a few golden parachute deals, I think it's obvious that they don't."
It's not for you to decide, because it's not your money. Why do you think you should have the right to decide how someone else (company or person) spends their money? If you don't like this fact, work somewhere else and don't buy their products.
"Most business people are saavy enough to start their businesses with other people's money. "
Many people also don't need VC. See: every company that's bootstrapped.
"He must agree to a salary somewhere if he wants to eat and have a place to live. This is not choice. It's not overt force either, but it does have something of coercion about it."
You seem to have lots of opinions on our current system, but no idea how you could make it better.
"Most people could not afford such equipment even if they are inclined to use it. They therefore have no choice but to work for someone else."
It depends on the industry. Have you heard of bank loans?
"This is an ad hominem. I have not stated anywhere that I or anyone else are entitled to anything, nor would I ever."
I don't need you to state it. I can see it all over your posts. Using words like "ad hominem" doesn't change this fact.
"This much is blatantly obvious. And?"
you probably haven't actually looked into it. If you had, you might not
"More ad hominem. Also the issues being addressed by the author are bigger than his own life. He states as much if you actually read it carefully."
I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what that word means. I read the article carefully. He's trying to make it look like the world is a terrible place based on his own experiences. If you based our entire system on his experience, it will look bad. However, when you take a step back and look at it as a whole, it's pretty damn good.
Sorry, yes, I was referring to personal choice. Although I do think that there are many more options in any given situation (personal or otherwise) than people are willing to consider-- comfort and inertia are deceptively powerful forces.
I think the author intended the post to be a macroeconomic critique, with personal details given as analogies.
Macroeconomic reasoning by analogy, especially personal ones, is not very rigorous, and can sound defeatist; the same article could perhaps be more rigorously written from a more academic perspective with statistics rather than personal analogies.
However, there is a certain subset of HN who don't seem to get macroeconomics - every time anyone discusses it, people come up with microeconomic solutions that wouldn't scale.
Good for you that you've been able to do well starting a business.
Guess what? Your personal situation is not applicable to everyone - or, for that matter, even most people.
"But working stiffs can't afford houses now, fewer communities are clean, none are safe, and your kid's prospects are worse."
"Compare this to what my employer gets: If the company is successful, he (it's usually a he) gets a standard of living beyond my wildest dreams, including what I would consider fantastic protection for his family, and a world of access that I can only pitifully mimic by changing channels on my TV."
These are legitimate observations, not mere complaining.
The upshot of this piece is much more significant than the comments here have been willing to admit. Yes, you can write the author off as having a whiny, blame-others attitude. Yes, you can say that if he would just take matters into his own hands, the path of entrepreneurship is hard but ultimately rewarding. And maybe that's right.
But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces? Why should the only options be self-sacrifice to the drudgery of the rat race for the sake of security, or a different kind of self-sacrifice for a different reward, that of "independence"? Why should we structure our society so that, for the average person, self-sacrifice is the only way to survive, much less get ahead?
To say that there's a better way, but that the better way involves social changes that a single person can't simply choose to make for herself, is not just to whine and blame others. It's a reasonable criticism of our economic, social and political institutions -- one worthy of debate, no doubt, but not worthy of dismissal.
Self-sacrifice isn't the only way to survive. It's just the only way to achieve the median modern standard of living. If you're happy with a lower standard of living it's not hard to survive without working.
Fair enough, but the fact that their limits are not being pushed shows that most want to work for a higher standard of living. (Or at least that is their revealed preference.)
"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces? Why should the only options be self-sacrifice"
It seems to me that this line of thinking is ultimately just asking for the removal of choice entirely. If you 'get ahead' without any self-sacrifice then you either managed this solely through an act of wishing or entirely on the backs of others. Is a world without choice preferable? Is it meaningful to ask the question when reality is clearly otherwise?
"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces?"
Do you have an alternative? Humans have tried many different methods over many thousands of years and our current system is the result of trying and failing many, many times. It's the most fair and allows pretty much anyone to be successful.
Life is difficult because we have more freedoms. We don't have someone making all of the decisions for us (which might be easier), but the result is more choice. If you don't make the right choices, you could end up living on the street or in poverty. Buy you could also end up with lots of money and a nice life.
I suppose an alternative would be no choice. You are forced to work for the government.
I'd like to see a list of these 'many' different systems that have been tried.
It seems to me as though we've tried 'kings/dictators' lots of times, and we've watched communism devolve into 'kings/dictators', and we may very well be in the process of watching capitalism devolve into 'kings/dictators' as wealth and political power seem to being concentrated more and more in the hands of a small group.
I personally agree that blaming others doesn't help. Each individual makes their own decision in the end.
Except that most people are forced to go through more than a decade of training to accept employment by others and do as they are told. That puts people at a disadvantage when it comes to learning how to act independently.
The solution may be for each person to make their own choices, but it doesn't help to pretend that there are no forces working against that.
"It seems to me as though we've tried 'kings/dictators' lots of times, and we've watched communism devolve into 'kings/dictators', and we may very well be in the process of watching capitalism devolve into 'kings/dictators' as wealth and political power seem to being concentrated more and more in the hands of a small group."
Why is it concentrated into a small group? Everyone seems to think the answer is to take the money by force from the people that earned it and give it to the people that "need" it.
"Except that most people are forced to go through more than a decade of training to accept employment by others and do as they are told. That puts people at a disadvantage when it comes to learning how to act independently."
They aren't forced, they choose to make this decision. Anybody can start a company and make money (and not work for anyone), but much fewer choose to go down this path. It's because it takes too much work. Sacrificing your free time for something that may or may not succeed isn't easy. I've been doing it for the past 5 years and I'm only now actually making a profit.
Another problem I've noticed is that many people give up too easily. They want success right now..and if it doesn't happen, they deem it as a failure.
"The solution may be for each person to make their own choices, but it doesn't help to pretend that there are no forces working against that."
"Why is it concentrated into a small group? Everyone seems to think the answer is to take the money by force from the people that earned it and give it to the people that "need" it."
Not 'everyone' thinks this. It's good to be cognizant of Marx and Smith et al., but sooner or later you have to stop thinking in dichotomies and take off the training wheels.
"Anybody can start a company and make money (and not work for anyone), but much fewer choose to go down this path. It's because it takes too much work. Sacrificing your free time for something that may or may not succeed isn't easy. I've been doing it for the past 5 years and I'm only now actually making a profit."
You do realize that you're contradicting yourself here? How can anyone start a company and make money, and yet it's hard work and may fail? How can anyone start a company when many people barely have the free time you talk of sacrificing?
I assume you think that the bailouts of the financial system were earned, and that school is optional for kids who don't like following silly or time-wasting instructions.
"I assume you think that the bailouts of the financial system were earned"
Of course they weren't earned.
"that school is optional for kids who don't like following silly or time-wasting instructions."
No, but I do have a problem with the teacher's unions. It's the reason shitty teachers continue to stay employed in our school systems.
I actually wish that parents had the option of taking their tax dollars and using it toward a private school. It might force school systems to actually improve, or lose funding. People sure hate monopolies, but don't mind when the government essentially does the same exact thing.
I'm not the parent poster, but I suggest that co-ops have led to greater employee satisfaction. There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention.
The current (big) business climate dictates that the sole purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value at all times, at all costs. I suggest that the purpose of a company is to provide value to all stakeholders, and find a healthy balance.
The quick, easy, and non-communist way to do this is to have the opportunity for employees to become shareholders through purchase of premium stock and bonds.
I don't agree that this addresses the problem of employees not having a say in the management of the company they work for, unless you are talking about early-stage employees who are actually likely to be able to obtain enough stock to have influence.
"There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention."
I have a feeling that all of these ideas that you and many others want to try have already been tried. It's resulted in the type of company structures we have today.
Personally, I've been involved in enough groups and organizations to know that not everyone should have a say in business decisions. Lots of people have ridiculous ideas and it would result in the downfall of the group/company (I've seen it happen). Other people just aren't interested. They want to collect their paycheck and go home.
"The current (big) business climate dictates that the sole purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value at all times, at all costs. I suggest that the purpose of a company is to provide value to all stakeholders, and find a healthy balance."
You can start a company right now that does this. Why not try your theories out? That's the beauty of our current free system (at least in the US). You can try out ideas that may or may not work without having to force everyone to abide by your rules.
"I suggest that the purpose of a company is to provide value to all stakeholders, and find a healthy balance."
This should be up to the person that owns the company. I don't like the idea of forcing others to my ideals.
> I have a feeling that all of these ideas that you and many others want to try have already been tried
Yes, of course. They're all around us. We focus on Googles, Facebooks, Chevrons, and so on, but there are examples to be found of more diverse ways of conducting business.
I would like to provide you an example I read about, perhaps a year ago, of a Midwest company where all of the employees gather with the directors to discuss and vote on important decisions. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to dig it up.
In Germany, as an another sort of example, it's (sometimes?) legally required to have employee representation on the supervisory board (http://www.biscayneconsulting.net/images/laborfuerst.pdf). Compare this with the common US system of the staff elite, conducting business decisions behind closed doors, leaving the employees wholly unaware of their own future.
> I don't like the idea of forcing others to my ideals.
It's not like I'm suggesting some sort of government mandate. Creating awareness and subsequent social pressure can cause tremendous change. While the definition of a corporation is generally static, trends in corporate behavior and general concepts of priorities change over time. Look at 'shareholder value' in Wikipedia, for example.
I do agree that this is up to the corporate founder(s). However, I think that Americans are generally unaware that there are other systems which may be perfectly viable, and yield a greater quality of life for everyone involved. I also think that current interpretation of laws has led to a rather odd system, where corporate directors make decisions which are distinctly bad for long-term business, for the sake of satisfying shareholders and securing short-term, personal gain.
As for starting a company to embody my beliefs, I have. Even if successful, though, I won't have enough capital and momentum to demonstrate any of this for some number of years. Until then, it's just small-business-as-usual. :-)
Why should we structure our society so that, for the
average person, self-sacrifice is the only way to
survive, much less get ahead?
So, we should structure our society so that you can get ahead without sacrifice? Do you get to be ahead of me or do I get to be ahead of you? I just want to be clear which of us gets ahead of the other one, what with neither one of us sacrificing anything.
And what exactly is going to make that tide rise? Nothing is free -- everyone has to work. We have to sacrifice our time and energy to survive and have some comforts. There's no way around that one.
Sure, everyone has to trade time and energy to obtain their needs and wants. That doesn't mean that the details of the transaction as they stand now are justified.
I've never understood how wasting time on the job can possibly be termed 'theft'. It's irresponsible and a failure to fulfill expectations, but it's not theft.
(btw, I also don't see employers as stealing life from employees)
I understand the definition of it. What I don't understand is the use of the word 'theft'. "Misappropriation of resources which exceeds our standard of what is reasonable," perhaps, but not theft.
All of foljs's comments are dead, starting 47 days ago. Most likely the automated filter believes he is a spammer. Or perhaps moderators killed him for trollish behavior (I don't know if they do this or not, but I know the spam filter occurs).
It has nothing to do with whatever he posted in this thread.
I walk into a restaurant. They charge me $10 for a meal. Yet they only paid $2 for the ingredients!
Now I don't know a lot of math, but even I know that 2 goes into 10... FIVE times! They are charging me FIVE times what it cost them to make that meal!
Sure, they came up with the money to open the restaurant, and the time to make the meal, but does that give them the right to rip me off? Because I spent my life earn my money, and by stealing my money THEY ARE STEALING MY LIFE!
Now you could say that I could always go and open my own restaurant, but that would require credit which THEY wouldn't give me, and ripping off other people, which I refuse to do.
Some people choose to do so, because it makes them happy. Does that make them foolish? If so, what does that say about our economic relationship with the people who actually live in the third world?
Not at all. The analogy was completed with the reference to cooking at the end. If you are not willing to cook for yourself and have no one to cook for you, you cannot avoid going to a restaurant. You'll die of starvation! If, however, you are willing to cook for yourself, as with work, your options are nearly limitless.
He paints the boss/owner as such a stress free and secure position.
The reason an owner is entitled to higher pay is that they are also entitled to no pay or negative pay.
My father in law is a partner in a law firm. For the past year he has made less money than his non-partner associates, working on half salary to compensate for a lack of revenue. The working drone is much more protected against speed bumps. A bad month generally won't result in a pay cut or layoffs for the bottom of the food chain. It does directly affect the business owners. That's the risk/reward payoff.
That's often not the case in larger businesses, though: if the business does well, the boss wins (bonuses, stock options); if it does badly, the boss also wins (eased out with a golden parachute). In that case the owner still shoulders the risk, but that owner (the stockholders) is too diffuse and hands-off to really be functioning as a boss, so the company is de-facto run by an executive management that gets a lot of pay while not shouldering much risk.
I can see people getting a stuck-in-a-machine-with-a-stacked-deck feeling at a lot of large companies, because many sort of are giant, dysfunctional, bureaucratic machines. Coupled to that, many people see working for a large corporation as their only practical option.
The only interesting question is if it really is the case that if you are a have-not, you never have a chance of starting a successful business.
Of course we know that it is possible to start out with little (YC is the living proof of that), but that might only be exceptions to the rule. I am not yet sure that our society really is not skewed. Or at least there might not be a universal law protecting the chances for the "small people". It seems possible that in a few years time, Apple Facebook and Google control the internet and again the options of the small people will be reduced to low-margin sharecropping.
Atm I am leaning to the belief that chances are good enough. If that is the case, the only sensible estimate for the fair price of work seems to be market value. I have yet to see another definition of fair that works. So if the employers can get away with paying their employees little money, it must be because the market does not afford more. There might be millions of jobless waiting to take over their jobs, for example - what would the jobless think about the fair price for a job?
Then again, politics define at least some of the rules of the market (as an extreme example, government could decree a maximum wage) . But if the author thinks the market is broken, he should say so, and state in what way it is broken and how it could possibly be fixed. Just calling somebody a thief doesn't accomplish anything.
A business can take years to become successful, which many times means either not having a regular salary, sacrificing free-time with friends and family, and working harder than you ever would at any job. Even if it meant employees got a cut of the profits, unions and laws would prevent companies from being run like this.
It sounds like this guy expects a cut of the profits for just working, which will never happen (unless you are the government).
He doesn't like working for anyone, yet he does nothing to actually change his situation except blame anyone and everyone for his problems. He reminds me of the person that says that wealth and becoming rich is 'just luck'.
I work the office cubicle software job, but this doesn't bring me down too much. At times the mindset the author describes can creep up, but I can deal with it by realizing that everyday I'm getting better and better at what I do. Being an embedded developer, having access to tools that I otherwise could not afford is a great perk at my job. Knowledge of how to use them could only come from a university, a company or falling into a large sum of money. Granted the bureaucratic office politics exists, but I feel it's not as bad as it could be. I have the freedom to solve problems using the tools I desire. We use Linux for our micro operating system, so I'm gaining valuable command line skills and script-fu. My only complaint is my current salary. But the freedom and encouragement to continue learning is worth more to me than the money anyway.
"Do you expect us to be forever passive while you get rich stealing our lives?"
Really bothered me. There's nothing wrong with getting rich, and there's nothing wrong with paying people what they're willing to work for. Instead of placing the blame on someone else, perhaps people like this should look inward.
" there's nothing wrong with paying people what they're willing to work for"
This is where people miss something important, in my opinion. On the surface there's nothing wrong with paying people what they're willing to work for. But when you dig a little deeper, "what they're willing to work for" is really just a proxy for market forces and labor supply and demand. Just because someone accepts working for a certain price doesn't mean it's what they wanted. If they enjoy putting food on the table, they have surprisingly little choice.
Sure, that's true, but if the market doesn't pay you what you feel you are worth, then you have the option to build something that does pay you what you are worth. It's not up to me, as a boss, to take care of someone.
" then you have the option to build something that does pay you what you are worth."
It's just that simple then? Starting a business is a risky and difficult proposition, and few people are cut out for it - and of those, even fewer realistically have the option to do so. Not everyone can build their way out of a problem, and it has little to do with their free will. If that's the case you can't argue that it's their "choice."
There seems to be this ever present assumption on the Hacker News forums that if you don't like your job, why, it's just as easy as putting together a CRUD app and iterating until you get customers.
It's not. Plenty of people try the "build something" option and never get anywhere close to being paid what they're worth. You just don't hear about them because no one wants to hear about someone who tried and didn't make it.
"It's not up to me, as a boss, to take care of someone."
No one is implying that it is - but they are implying that that's part of the problem right there - a system where no one has to care about anyone else, only exploit them.
It's not easy, and that's the point. You can take the easy road, which is to get a job and work for someone, hoping that you haven't wasted your life away, or you can take the hard road and build something.
Both have benefits, and both have risks. There's no easy ticket, at least in this life, so employer and employee have to meet in the middle. The market helps that happen.
You had me until your last point, which was when you used the term exploit. I think that tells the tale right there.
As an employee, you have to do what your employer tells you. If you do not, you will not have the means to continue feeding yourself and putting a roof over your head. As an employee, the vast bulk of the wealth you create will never end up in your hands - it will end up in the hands of people who did not do your work.
How exactly is that not exploitation? What would you call it?
"The market helps that happen."
The market helps whoever has the most money, or the most of a scarce resource.
It sucks to have nothing to offer an employer except fungible labor that they could get from a million other people. The author should work on that. There are 6 billion people in this world and not enough wealth to let everyone live like a king just for breathing (yet).
Are you sure on that last point? There have been some kings with pretty low standards of living historically... :)
I think a big part of the issue is our economy isn't aimed at letting everyone live like a king for just breathing, it's aimed at maximizing how fast we can transform raw resources into things people want and maximizing how much stuff we can get people with money to want to want.
Considering "living like a king" typically means that you get what you want, I'd say that the two are the same.
The slog from subsistence to utopia is, and will be, accomplished one step at a time. Improved productivity (often achieved through the transformation of raw materials), increases output relative to effort and time spent working. The dividends paid by this improved productivity is almost always reinvested, typically by reducing effort, but maintaining (or increasing) time.
tl;dr the economy is very much aimed at letting everyone live like a king just for breathing, but breathing alone is not yet productive enough to satisfy anyone's needs.
The article properly points out that a company cannot do its business without employees. Certainly: employees have the skill to actually perform the tasks the company was founded upon to provide. What the article fails to recognize the power in that relationship.
As much as employees rely on companies for employment, the company relies on skilled workers and low turn-around for continuity and to keep costs low. Re-training and the administration of recruiting/hiring new employees are huge expenses. In my experience, you (as an employee) weild immense power. By having options on the table (other employment choices, or even offers), one can easily negotiate for higher wage/more vacation/etc.
" And to compete in the business community, you'll find
yourself having to treat others - your employees - as much like slaves as you can get away with. Pay them as little as they'll tolerate and give them no say in anything, because that's what's most efficient and profitable. Money
is the absolute standard. Freedom, and the dignity and well-being of one's fellow creatures, simply don't figure in the basic formula."
This is patently untrue based on my own personal experience but forget me, to just cite two of the many famous examples that immediately come to mind:
1) Zappos gives their employees complete freedom in how to do their job and has succeeded wildly.
2) Google pays their employees quite a bit in salary and perks and is one of the most successful companies in the world.
The whole piece is full of claims that are provably false and claims about how it is impossible to fix it. Sure, many companies treat their employees like cogs in a machine. I worked for one. Then I started my own company to do things differently and I was able to. It wasn't easy but compared to anywhere else in the space-time continuum I feel like we, in 2011 in the United States, are in one of the best environments for entrepreneurship.
They are examples that it can be done. The entire tone of the article is defeatist with the author arguing that it cannot be done.
For example: "you'll find yourself having to treat others - your employees - as much like slaves as you can get away with"
No. You won't find yourself having to do anything like that. There are well known companies that don't do that and make tonnes of money. That is what I am arguing.
Just noticed (1990) in the title. I am not sure it was there before. Either the title was updated or I missed it. In any case, the article makes more sense if you take that into account.
It all depends on how you view your life. You will spend the majority of your life trying to simply survive the coming day/week/month/year. How you do so is what determines what kind of life you lead.
Work has never been my purpose in life so much as a means to an end. I've never been a "drone" so much as a wanderer that has stopped to warm his hands by the fire of a camp. If/when I don't like what I do anymore, I will simply cease to do it and wander on to the next thing. There is always a way to survive, though it may not always be obvious (and sometimes may not even be legal.)
At some point, many people find a person or group of people that they decide to center their life around, and put down lasting ties, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But that kind of life does require more planning and forethought, and often a lot more concessions to their own personal wants and needs. If you're fine with that and what you get in return (family and friends), then you never become a drone. If you're not fine with that, then you have to decide what it is that you DO want, and go after it.
This sounds like the whiny rant of a child. It's not just about money, it's about drive and vision. If you have drive and vision, then your employer will notice and you'll move up, learn more, maybe even make enough to start your own business with your own ideas. If not, if you don't choose to better yourself and fight for what you want, then you fit the position you allow yourself to fit. You wouldn't ask a janitor to make business decisions, why would you ask an accountant, or a programmer, or a designer?
Life is about taking pride in what you do and going after what you want, not about whining, me me me.
Sure, you wouldn't necessarily ask a janitor or a programmer to make business decisions; the constraints of mortality force us to specialize in life. Nevertheless, do you really believe that one speciality - business - is so much more important than all the rest that it deserves to extract a disproportionate share of the profit from almost every enterprise? That doesn't seem self-evident to me.
" If you have drive and vision, then your employer will notice and you'll move up"
It pains me to say this, but this sentiment strikes me as seriously naive. Plenty of people work like animals, are driven like crazy, and have "vision." And for quite a few of them, their employer could give two craps.
I think you have some problem connecting with his view of the society how-it-should-be. You move in a given universe and you accept the rules: you by the way want to use that rules and accept the consequences on society and mankind of those rules. He think differently. He, among many others, think rules are wrong and the outcome is a wrong society.
Dismissing what he says is dismissing philosophy or sociology, disciplines that for their very nature do not accept the status quo and want to test the rules our world is based on.
By the way, after reading some of his writing, I can say that he writes really damn well.
As with other comments, I agree the tone is self-defeating.
When did we forget the difference between problems and conditions? Problems are things with solutions within our power. Conditions are things without solutions within our power.
I feel the author could benefit greatly by learning how to determine what could be solved with one's own effort--and an employer stealing life away is solvable, IMHO, in numerous ways.
Also, this piece could be an argument for automation. If the employer is stealing your life, would you not be happier having a machine do your job, giving you the freedom to live your life?
In my opinion, taxing some fraction of people's income is the best solution to the problem he's mentioning. Although I am under the impression that USA is rather reluctant to tax high earners.
I wonder what this fellow would have thought about work 100 years ago or more. The amount of "slavery" that a person has to do today to sustain himself has never, in the history of mankind, ever been lower than it is today. We should be so lucky.
This is from 1990, and from my viewpoint I think a lot has changed in the past 20+ years. Of course there are still factory jobs, but if you want freedom you can find it as long as you look to the future with open eyes.
It's too bad that no-one thought of all these sentiments before 1990, forcing this guy to break so much bold new ground in the critique of capitalism.
Some people are ragging on him here for being lazy in his career; I'm going to call him on being unbelievably lazy in running this whole spiel as if he just thought of all these ideas himself.
There isn't the slightest acknowledgement that there's huge branches of modern thought that deal with this very problem using countless different approaches and reaching countless different conclusions. This isn't to say that all that thought is useful or contains a helpful path to reform, but ignoring it completely is just dumb.
He's either atrociously undereducated or extremely disingenuous, take your pick.
-10 more points for talking about everything as if it's specific to America and the particular timeframe.
It is possible for people to invent ideas independently. Also, maybe he just hasn't read Marx.
Furthermore, maybe he does, but I wouldn't call him 'lazy' for not providing some sort of citation: there's enough cultural baggage associated with Marx that as soon as you say that word, a certain portion of your audience's brains turn off.
Better to be 'lazy' and possibly reach some of those people than not.
Right. He hasn't read Marx. Or any other critique of capitalism, European or homegrown, for the past 100 years. Or any fiction that is informed, in whole or in part, by this critique. No, he didn't invent this 'independently'.
What's the point of 'reaching' people if you've got so little new to say? Its not a matter of 'citation', it's a matter of acknowledging that there are a host of proposed solutions (and critiques of critiques, and so on) out there. By pretending that none of it exists, you wind up with a tl;dr column that says what's been said before.
His contribution is in fact a subtraction from the sum total of human knowledge, in that the only thing original about it is wrong - the notion that the phenomenon that he talks about has something specifically to do with America between 1950-1990.
He was either 'failing to read anything', or, more likely, reading a fair bit and intentionally stripping all reference to this existing knowledge out of his column for whatever reason. The result was unsurprisingly sophomoric, which I suppose is why it has 150 points on HN.
Or, possibly, he was offering anecdotal observations, and he's not as dumb and lazy and unmotivated as people here are making him out to be. I know it's surprising, but people do come up with these things on their own sometimes.
why was foljs comment killed at 2 points? looks like how he characterizes hn is true:
2 points by foljs 52 minutes ago | link [dead]
HN is not really a good place to post this.
Here the audience is mostly aspiring "entrepreneurs" dreaming of making it big, so they are tied to the rat race and take all the "american dream" BS to heart.
Apart from a statistical insignificant minority that will "make it", the majority can always come back to it in 10-20 years, when they are bitter and wised enough.
-----
"The American Dream BS" is not correctly stated in the original piece, thus cannot be the "BS" cannot be what HN folks want to follow
* Anyone can make it if they choose to. Not everyone succeeds on the first try, but the odds are with the person who chooses to learn from mistakes and try better the next time.
* Success is ill-defined when one makes money and prestige the only inputs. As an example of what one small subset of the world thinks, view the third quotation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._McKay#Quotations
This was a work of art, man. Dig it. Yeah, mannnn. The MAN is stealing our MOJO, mannnn. Oppressing our SOULS. You gotta fight the man, man. The establishment. Big Daddy Warbucks and Uncle Sam, they're in cahoots. Fucking vampires is what they are, man. Gonna suck out our spirits through our paychecks. You dig?
The whole piece is like that.
Self-defeating. Blame others for problems. Finding trivial problems insurmountable. And also - flat out false.
He overlooks some basic things - like that you can work part time, freelance, or save up your money and then not work for a few years.
Some jobs and are enjoyable and people like their work.
There's no rule that says you have to be a shitty boss.
You don't need a credit rating to do business.
But mostly, it's just all self-defeating negative nonsense. I've basically never been salaried, I started in business with no credit rating at all (I avoided credit cards like the plague, so I got a credit rating at all relatively late in life), and I've never had to slavedrive anyone.
It's easier to blame others than to look for solutions. Probably feels better. But it's nonsense. You can build a pretty good life with some effort. Takes effort, true. But it's there if you want it.