Hacker News Reader

What if we took a more extreme version of this? Like your kid builds and sells a startup (this being HN), so now they're set for life financially, and they decide what they'll do with it is buy a lifetime supply of heroin, hire a caretaker to take care of their basic needs, and basically get high indefinitely. They're happy, they're not hurting anybody, they're even providing a living for someone. Assume they're perfectly happy too. Is that good?

I mean, you can certainly argue that the meaning of life is entirely arbitrary, and there is indeed nothing wrong with that if that's what someone wants to do. But I feel like the world is generally a better place when people in it strive for more than mere contentment. And for me personally, a couple of the key things that give life positive meaning are building relationships with other people, and striving to better myself—learning things, building skills, etc. I'm glad I do these things, rather than living an alternate life where I was equally (or maybe even if I were somehow more) subjectively happy, but less active.

> I'd be proud of it, if they were a good person, took care of themselves, took care of the people around them, and were truly happy in their lives

I'd be happy for them. I wouldn't be proud. An infinite amount of possible achievements is no excuse not to strive for anything.

> An infinite amount of possible achievements is no excuse not to strive for anything.

If they're striving for happiness and they are happy, mission accomplished right? I assume they'd still have their own goals and hobbies outside of work or things which bring in money. Why assume those things don't matter?

I didn’t say anything about work. I know people with interesting and worthwhile accomplishments or hobbies outside the field of career advancement. This is great and I’d be pleased if my child found something, money or no, to pursue passionately. I also know people (stoners being overrepresented) who are completely passive consumers watching life drift by, who only play games/watch shows and don’t do anything creative or challenging. It’s not a lifestyle I would take pride in. I don’t mean that as an attack, exactly - pride is earned, and to earn it you have to actually do something.

that's fair enough. I've never met anyone (stoner or not) who wasn't striving for something. I mean, in some cases it might not have been more than status in an MMO guild, or building/maintaining collections, or personal writing, but everybody I've ever met has something they're into and love doing.

I can't even imagine what a life of passive, mindless, consumption without any creative outlet would even be like. It's frankly depressing to think about!

FWIW, I have heard it said that the people who always expected to work at hourly-wage level are happier than the the college graduates next to them who didn't.

I'll bet the lack of so much student debt helps a lot!

doped into stupefaction is not exactly a scenario I'd describe as "striving for happiness"

> I'd be proud of it, if they were a good person, took care of themselves

I honestly don't know how anyone (good person or not) can properly take care of themselves on a Taco Bell hourly salary.

Yes, It is the workers fault that they do not get enough funds to properly take care of themselves while working full time.

Really dumb take.

It is possible that some jobs are meant to be stepping stones, not permanent positions (ie: you outgrow them, and someone lower on the learning totem pole steps into the role for a time).

Absolutely, and you should be paid enough to properly take care of yourself while you have those positions.

So I absolutely agree with your opinion, and I think everyone should be paid a livable wage and should be able to live a meaningful life off their work pay.

That said, I think the argument of “stepping stone” job salaries is less crazy in the context of people who are dépendants of other adults. If you’re a teen and you live with parents who provide food and housing and basics like that, you’re needs from the wages are different. Plenty of jobs make sense as “silly shit teens do for spending money” that would also be considered “awful life for full time adult worker”. Some of these jobs only exist because there are short term employees willing to do it for low pay. It’s fine IMO that they exist but it’d be wrong to assume that an adult should have to live of it.

I think we should push for livable wages and ensure everyone can be happy and healthy from their salary. I don’t know if it’s even possible to protect the adults in “low skill” jobs without making it hard to have “stupid summer part time jobs” for teens. If it is possible, then we should allow those teens to have their dumb low pay jobs and not raise too much of a fuss.

> I don’t know if it’s even possible to protect the adults in “low skill” jobs without making it hard to have “stupid summer part time jobs” for teens.

Why not just limit some jobs or minimum wages to teens who can demonstrate that they're already financially supported? Most people earning minimum wage are adults, but we could require companies to pay adults or teens supporting themselves higher wages. We could also set age limits on certain types of work, but then you run the risk of not having enough kids looking for work with everything else they've got going on.

This seems to be from the view point of a top percent home.

35 million Americans are on snap. 53 million Americans used a food pantry in 2021 (thesev groups don't always intersect)

Whether it's urban, rural, or suburban (high percentage shift since 2008), the percent of Americans that have parents that can provide food, shelter - much less plan for education and their own retirement is not a very high number for this phrasing.

Imagine if the expectation was that a part time fast food job could pay even half of college expenses.

‘Should’ != ‘is’ or ‘will be’.

>It is possible that some jobs are meant to be stepping stones, not permanent positions

Those same jobs definitely only operate outside of school hours, to help promote their employees growth, right?

Is the implication that we should promote cannabis to help people be content living low on the hierarchy in capitalism? Whose side are we on here?

They wouldn't be able too. It's a great job for a high school kid or one with a low IQ that has limited options to start with. But it should be temporary to teach you how to be responsible, show up on time, do your job correctly, etc.

You can be proud of achievements.

The harder the achievement, the harder it is to automate that achievement, the prouder I will be.

Working at Taco Bell is not that hard to obtain and may very well not exist in 10 years.