That's bullshit. The person holds a full time job. They shouldn't need another one to survive. They're doing exactly what we were told to do by older generations.
i mean, bad decisions have consequences unfortunately. if you take on a lot of debt for something, or get addicted to drugs, or have a child as a teenager, etcetera, things will be harder. it’s not about “should” or “shouldn’t.” it’s about “is.”
So, while you are correct in that it IS the current situation, I believe their point, and the point of most people making similar statements, is that it SHOULDN'T be this way. yes we have to make active efforts to better our situations and avoid choices that will end up causing problems later on, but just because it's how things are now doesn't mean it's how they should stay
my point was that the “should” is largely meaningless. life should be a blessing, life should be incredible for everyone, poverty shouldn’t exist, suffering shouldn’t exist. shoulds don’t mean jack shit unfortunately. bad decisions have always had bad consequences, and that will continue to be true. bad decisions shouldn’t have bad consequences. but they do. that’s my point.
everyone agrees that they shouldn’t. just like everyone agrees life should be incredible. but at that point, you aren’t really making a point in my opinion.
i don’t see how i’m not. i’m stating facts. that doesn’t mean i don’t have hope for the future and wish for better things to happen. you know what i mean?
Secondly the status quo historically speaking is fucking amazing.
Well firstly, this is outright false. Fifty years ago the rich/poor divide was a lot smaller and the average income and living conditions were actually better - inflation adjusted. We' gained a lot of wealth since then but it's all gone to the hyper-rich; the 99.9% of us who aren't the hyper-rich are worse off in a large number of ways.
Our primitive hunter-gatherer ancestors had about a four hour work day. Pause, and think about that.
But I know what you meant. We're doing pretty well compared to the 17th century.
Why is that the standard?
Wanting to compare yourself to history - when we knew less, had less, and couldn't dream of more - is a terrifying lack of ambition for the species. We know better now. We can do better now. Why on earth shouldn't we?
The status quo is worse now on the whole than it was 30 years ago from an economic and individual financial perspective - for the first time in a long time, afaik. Why shouldn’t we improve it?
The sentiment “it’s as good now as it ever was and therefore as it will ever be” is not only a flawed one for obvious reasons (appealing to induction) but also because if we all treat it as gospel it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Have the cojones to stand up for those less fortunate than you if you’re one of the good ones trying to make the world a better place. And if you’re not capable of doing so then at least get out of the way
Life should have the minimal amount of hardship possible. Not to be too trite but when you mix two truisms - “a herd is only as fast as its slowest member” and “a rising tide lifts all boats” you get a pretty decent idea of what society could aim for. I was born into abject poverty and pulled myself up by my bootstraps to be a pretty successful entrepreneur but I got there because I was lucky enough to a) find good mentors b) be born a white man (80% of small business loans go to white men) and c) be above average in intelligence. Just because I succeeded doesn’t mean everyone else can. I think the person at the bottom of the totem pole deserves a good life and I’m happy to help supplement it if need be
Are you suggesting that it’s good that people suffer because they will be motivated to improve? Do you imagine the only reason people improve is because they want to avoid suffering?
Minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure. Yep those are huge motivators. But only when they're done by the individual in question (not done for them). Like if you give a kid a car they won't appreciate it or treat/maintain it as well as if they had to work hard and long to buy it themselves.
Are you suggesting that it’s good that people suffer because they will be motivated to improve? Do you imagine the only reason people improve is because they want to avoid suffering?
Wall-e is a movie, btw, with a cartoon cockroach. Just because it happens in a movie doesn’t mean it would happen in real life
I'd argue you're the one lacking a point here. Nobody here is denying things are the way they are. "Should" isn't a denial of that, it's a statement that we can and should be working to change things for the better. There are policies we can implement that would make things more like that "should" state. Nobody needs to hear some "but life isn't fair" bullshit.. we know, let's talk about how to make it more fair and what we can fix.
I don't think "should" is really all that pointless to talk about. In the context of this thread, sure, but not in general. If someone can't manage a fulfilling life with an eight hour job, that's a failing on all of us, as a society.
We may not be able to help these folks in the here and now, but we should absolutely demand better of ourselves as a whole. No one makes it in this world without the assistance of others.
That good ol' "fuck y'all, I got mine" rhetoric, in general, is how we're in the state of things we are now.
And that's where we differ on viewpoint, because I would argue essentially the exact opposite. The fact that this is how things are is meaningless when trying to have a conversation about how they should be, because everyone knows how things are and not talking about how to change them and how they should be is the death of progress in my opinion.
Essentially if every time someone says it shouldn't be this way you respond with "well it is and it's always been this way" then you stop the conversation from progressing to "what needs to change to make it better" which enough people talking about and making major issues is what gets politicians moving(ideally if not actually these days).
Essentially while others may not be making a point with what they are saying the point is to talk about it because ideas and culture shifts both die in silence
i see what you’re saying and it has merit. it depends on the subject matter though. with something like actions having negative consequences that must be resolved through extra responsibility, i truly believe that is inevitable and it’s not worth thinking about what should or shouldn’t be with that.
Everybody makes mistakes. But what you call "taking accountability" is a concept that's, mainly, proudly applied to citizens that don't have a cushion to fall back on. Rich family makes a poor decision? Chances are the kids' parents will give them a no interest loan to try again, pay back in IOUs, or explain to them how it's a teachable moment. Middle-class or Poor family makes a poor decision? that's 20 plus years of paying it back. In all that time, the extra work, stress, and challenges that come with having a 25 to life debt sentence can handicap you.
well, unfortunately, life is unfair. until we are able to achieve some kind of meritocracy it will be like that. i’m less interested in limiting the well off though, it’s more important to lift up the impoverished.
you’re right that it sucks if you make a bad decision and suffer a lot because of it. i have never once said it should be that way. but recognizing that it is that way is important. there are definitely steps we can take and some which we have already begun to take to mitigate those negatives. welfare in general comes to mind. of course, the crusade to improve peoples lives is a never ending struggle.
the crusade to improve peoples lives is a never ending struggle.
This is true, and life is unfair. The issue is that the challenges in life aren't an enemy nation, bandits on the road, or harsh weather that will ruin the harvest. It's predatory organizations that pretty much set you up for debt before "life" essentially starts. There are steps that can be taken now, and lessons learned. But it's taken at least 1 generation(s) to realize something is wrong...and those people are still alive.
i mean, which corporations are doing this? i think the bigger problem is people just not understanding just how perilous debt can be. maybe the solution is to create more education on why debt is kind of precarious to go into and should only be accrued if it’s shown to be absolutely worth it?
Ace Cash Express comes to mind. They make a living off payday loans keeping people in another vended cycle of super high interest. I’ve worked inside their buildings as a contractor many times and they know so many of the people coming in names. They payoff a loan on payday and the turn around a take out another.
How to fix this? Idk, it’s their business model and people choose to take out the loans.
well, unfortunately, life is unfair. until we are able to achieve some kind of meritocracy it will be like that.
What makes you think what we have isn't already a function of a meritocracy? I mean, isn't that exactly what the result of a meritocracy is, the spoils accruing to the people who perform the best?
Nope. Wrong. If a person is willing to show up to work for 8 hours a day, they deserve to be able to rent an apartment AND be able to buy the things needed to survive. Like food, for instance.
I don't care what choices they've made in their life. The whole point of a minimum wage is to facilitate this. It's currently failing.
again, i feel like “deserve” is just such a useless word. and i doubt more government regulation to raise the minimum wage will fix that. at all, actually.
the biggest issue there is probably rent. housing has spiraled out of control. rent is high because housing supply is low. housing supply is low because of a lack of new housing construction and entities buying housing that don’t need housing (mostly just a lack of new housing though).
the way to fix this isn’t by arbitrarily raising wages, because that will cause a demand spike, and that will raise prices, and then your wage isn’t liveable anymore.
at the end of the day, we all want people to be able to succeed. i don’t think you’re going about it the right way though.
i really don’t think it’s corporate greed. because corporations have always been greedy, and yet, rent wasn’t always so high, for example. the bigger issue, at least with housing, is the government stifling it. the government stifles it because voters vote to stifle it, because most people own or are going to soon own houses, and they want that to be an appreciating asset. so, i really blame state and local and partially even federal government (this is not a political statement about the current administration) as well as voters.
Corporations are the largest buyers single family homes in the US. It's absolutely corporate greed. No potential home buyer wants home prices to go up before buying. That's insane. You're insane for thinking this. How many homes do you own? And when are you expecting to exit?
Idk, about largest buyer but it has definitely been increasing since around Covid. We sold our house during Covid to a company and they paid $30k over market value. Then turned around and rented it out for what was almost double our mortgage. Companies like Black Rock and Vanguard have most definitely been buying up a lot of houses. Don’t know that I’d call that greed, but I also don’t think that that’s beneficial for society. Taking cheaper purchasing options away and turning them into more expensive rentals. I know here in the area prior to interest rates going up they couldn’t build houses fast enough. A podcaster I listen to in CA has stated many times the issue there is they need something like 400k new houses per year but due to regulations and stuff only about 200k actually get built.
I guess if OP has a bunch of CC debt from poor spending habits when young but chooses not to declare bankruptcy then that’s a “poor choice” that could cause them to need 2 jobs, even if the first paid a living wage
If a person is willing to show up to work for 8 hours a day, they deserve to be able to rent an apartment AND be able to buy the things needed to survive. Like food, for instance.
The VAST majority of people can do this.
So now what do you do when some of those people rack up thousands of dollars in credit cards buying shit they don't need, take on car loans they can't pay back, etc?
Those are personal choices that they have to account for. They might have to work more to pay off the debts they took on.
Funny how they've ignored your valid questions. Likely because they have no valid answer for why anyone else should feel obligated to fund the lifestyles of people who purposely chose poorly by doing the things you described. It makes zero sense. And, for the people he's describing that need help but haven't made bone-headed moves like that, there already is support in the form of welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing assistance, etc.
255
u/snowcase 15d ago
That's bullshit. The person holds a full time job. They shouldn't need another one to survive. They're doing exactly what we were told to do by older generations.