Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

We're a biased set, in that most of us have, at least, the option for mentally stimulating work. As fucked as the software industry is, it's better than most other places.

Most of them are choosing one (purportedly, although I think I'm right that neither of us has tried it) brain-dead lifestyle over another one.

That's why I get irked when people talk about housewives becoming "braindead" from being outside of the economy. What makes the typical mind-numbing office life superior to a (supposedly) mind-numbing domestic existence?

View on HN

>That's why I get irked when people talk about housewives becoming "braindead" from being outside of the economy.

Every housewife I know has some kind of mentally stimulating hobby, and most of them make some amount of income from it (photography, crafts etc...). In fact most of them shouldn't really be called "housewives" any more than male remote programmers should be called "househusbands".

Let's get real, most homemakers are simply indulging their bourgeois fantasies. Not that I blame them, I'd do the same thing if I thought I could get away with it, but I'd probably get served divorce papers.

...or they are providing their own childcare and managing their household.

However, they don't necessarily need to be that competent to provide their own childcare. It's not like the kid is going to fire the parent is the parenting isn't above average. A stay at home parent caring for kids is as likely to play on reddit while the kid watches tv as interacting with the kid all the time and teaching them information, good values and good habits.

Your comment ignores my original point which is that homemakers have economic value, but it's still worthy of a response.

Obviously children are not in control of who takes care of them, but that would be true whether the parents worked or not; parents decide how their children will be cared for in any case. Also, I'm not sure if you've ever tried to browse reddit and watch a toddler at the same time, but I can say from experience it's not as easy as you might imagine. Children, especially when they are younger than school-age, demand a lot of attention just to keep them safe and healthy let alone educated and civilized.

I don't argue for a mind-numbing office life. I argue that being stoned 24/7 doesn't fit how _I_ would spend my time if I were (f)unemployed _by choice_. I would backpack, ski, travel, hack, learn new trades, build things, etc. Maybe some of that requires money, but not all do.

I'm fairly certain there's more to living on the street than sitting around and being stoned 24/7. You're being quite judgmental and haughty toward a lifestyle which you most likely know nothing about.

Really, such as? The article doesn't present many of those and I doubt there are. All I am saying is it sounds boring as hell, stoned or not.

Busking, meeting people, concerts, parties, urban exploring. We get it, you like learning and being super-productive, but you don't have to put other people down just to get that point across.

personally productive, yes. not necessarily producing anything in the traditional sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com