A person who does nothing with their life when they could be doing something is really a narcissist. They take it for granted that others will support them even though they contribute nothing and they don't understand that there could be any reason to work hard other than their own immediate pleasure. Ironically, these people often complain that the reason for their situation is because others aren't doing enough to help them. In their minds, it's not really their fault that they are failures and they go to great lengths to convince other people of these lies.
Nah, lots of people just tend to follow the path of least resistance at the moment. They don't assume that others will support them forever, they just aren't thinking about it since it is bothersome. If they were forced to do other things then they will do other things, since the force changed what path has the least resistance.
I think your labels are part of the problem. They're not narcissists. They're people. And you look down on them just for being people.
If you want to help them, perhaps treat them as equals and listen to them rather than thinking of ways to change them.
I wish I knew their gamer tags so that I could play a few rounds of halo with them, or whatever they like to play. They seem chill.
How do you address this issue? I think it's cheaper and better for everyone to address unfairness than to try to fix people after they come to feel abused by the world. It would also be better than the status quo of Social Darwinism with a sprinkle of charity and busted social programs.
Dear downvoter, I'd be interested in reading why I deserved it.
Yes, but somehow forward thinking isn't a common phenomenon in our society.
> Dear downvoter, I'd be interested in reading why I deserved it.
Undoubtedly you didn't "deserve" it. The voting system is just a way for the prevailing cliques to signify who's present. This thread is ripe with the hateful and helpless young men referred to in the article, evident by many of the comments. The worse part is that growing trend in this direction on HN. I'd say HN is currently experiencing max Q and I'm not sure it will make it to the other side without succumbing to the pressure(ie decent people leaving the site for good).
The experience here is worse than before, but still better than elsewhere. I think that means HN is ripe for innovation!
I spent a mere year after college living with my parents, a very long and sad year, wondering if this was going to be the rest of my life. My next real job came somewhat out of sheer luck and I'm thankful for it because I could totally see myself having given up, still back there to this day, still having no idea how to take my first step in a direction that actually motivated me beyond the baseline survival mode of wage-slavery. Not for one second during that time did I want to live like that, but it could have very well been the case anyway. Narcissism is far from the truth
For what it's worth, I know several (good) engineers who became engineers much later than their late 20's.
It didn't sound very kind or even understanding.
I disagree. In principle I don't think anyone should work a low paying job, and I think opting out if you can afford it is the right thing to do.
Why should we have a race to the bottom on labor? I'd rather we have more blogs and interesting reading on the internet than cheap Starbucks thanks to full employment and high labor-force participation.
Work for the sake of being busy is silly, I believe industriousness like you profess is unsustainable for our planet, at least in our current social order.
The cultural pedestal of "working hard" is tragically misplaced. Market promotes those that work smart or gable at the right opportunity, corporate politics promotes the well connected, people that support their family or community the most deserve respect, but the poor folks stocking amazon warehouses 12 hours a day get screwed.
"In their minds, it's not really their fault that they are failures and they go to great lengths to convince other people of these lies."
sometimes it is really not their fault, but one day their parents will not be able to provide for them, and that's when the real tragedy will begin.
Go to a place like Italy or India or Pakistan and you'll find 30+ year olds living with their parents and it's no big deal at all.
It's true that we are supported until we finish education, however. Which I think is a good thing.
Also, a lot of jobs that would employee these men are disappearing. Retail in particular is the employer of last resort, but physical shops are slowly dwindling in numbers. People are a lot more aware of how bad the military is to be in, too; there is much less glamour around it culturally.
This is not narcissism. This is sloth.
Narcissim is a active behavior/disorder that seeks out positive and negative attention through manipulation.
That's not to say that a very small few people may somehow find meaning exclusively playing video games. However most people will eventually suffer from lack of self-esteam, low status and shame.
If you are looking for self-esteem through your job--for most of us those days are gone.
(I know way to many former Programers who aged out of the industry way to early, and gave up. Way to many are homeless. My point is don't expect too much psychological satisfaction from a job that barely covers the rent, has no real pension, and lousy medical. My father lived for work. He loved being an electrician. He didn't develop friendships, or hobbies. He died of liver cancer a few months into retirement. One of our last conversations was when he was dying. He got a letter from the union stating they will now cover his medical expenses 100%.)
That's a personal and existental question. What are your principles? What would you like people to say about you at your funeral?
1. Do you mean a meaningful life from the gamers perspective or from the perspective of outsiders?
2. If the issue is lack of self-esteem etc. Wouldn't it be better to focus on mental health instead of employment? Once again, I was interested in talking about gamers who are happy with their situation.
If you can derive meaning from your career, that's great. Otherwise, family or contributing to society or whatever you think makes a difference in the world and is worth working toward.
Like everything, gaming is great in moderation, but the gamer who does nothing with their life but game is probably going to have some regrets on their deathbed.
You have also used another word - meaning. Is that a synonym for principle?
I am sure the gamer interacts with his parents. I couldn't find anything in the medical literature about excessive gaming either. It is quite possible that he may have regrets on his deathbed like most people. However optimizing your life for the thoughts you will have in your deathbed might not be a great tradeoff if it means doing work that makes you miserable for most of your life.
Anecdotally, I just graduated from university and am gainfully employed. I'm really happy to be employed, yet I quickly realized that I have no idea what I want to do with all this money. I'm never going to be able to buy a house. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about having kids, and don't think I can afford children in the first place. I have no major life milestones to look forward to other than retirement. So why am I working? What do I do with all this money, other than dumping it in investments and generally hoarding the wealth? I've yet to find an answer.
Who knows, maybe I'll end up retiring before my 40th birthday.
Sounds like, in lieu of anything else, you should try and buy a rental property or two. Start slow, eventually FIRE, that whole thing.
That said, yeah, the same sentence could then be applied but with time: "why retire when I have nothing to do with my time?"
I'm 30 and still don't have a great answer for either, whether it be time or money.
It's not necessarily about being able to afford a house, but rather about whether home ownership is the best option financially when compared to other options. 20 years ago, homes were so cheap that I'd be willing to buy a home just for the sake of being a homeowner and enjoying the security that entailed. However, nowadays with sky high housing prices, home ownership would need to provide concrete financial benefits when compared to other investments.
Admittedly I'd likely be more motivated to look into buying a house if I wanted children.
>Sounds like, in lieu of anything else, you should try and buy a rental property or two. Start slow, eventually FIRE, that whole thing.
Yes this is the path I am most likely to go down. Buying some rental properties and retiring relatively young is an attractive option.
> Ownership would need to provide concrete financial benefits when compared to other investment
And
> retiring before my 40th birthday.
Are quite the Freudian slips
Even I a young tech worker know I will never get a pension and I will never own a "proper house" the closest I will get to that will be more like a caged house in Taiwan.
As for what to do with the money. Invest it, retire early if you want and if nothing else give yourself the freedom to make work whatever you want it to be.
Also do you realize that billions of people on this planet have a far worse life than you? You have the luxury of having problems like these. However purpose and meaning don't just appear out of nowhere, you have to actively go find them.
> why can't you buy elsewhere?
If you could see the view from my bedroom window, you'd understand. :)
That being said you can buy a house right more at negative real interest rates. If your salary keeps up with inflation you will be making money on it
>Who knows, maybe I'll end up retiring before my 40th birthday.
Does not compute
Hidden deeply on another page someone references a site with numbers from 50 years ago, 1971. (#1) I don't really care what the agenda of that site happens to be; but the numbers. Compare the numbers to today:
Everyone is FAR worse off today and in my generation.
US nationally (today 2021) about 85K is equivalent to the cited 25K 1971 numbers. :: ~10X cost of living (edited, I unconsciously compared to the wrong number.)
Seattle is far more distorted, with housing beyond out of control (I don't know what kind of house was being looked at for the 1971 numbers, but it really doesn't matter, there's almost nothing even remotely near the national price within the region).
Seattle's rent is completely out of control; beyond any rational measure. No wonder neither I nor my generation can make any savings; it's all being consumed by rent seeking land owners.
Income 10600 %Income71
House 25200 237.736
Car 3600 33.962
RentYear 1800 16.981
UniYear 2600 24.528
Gas5000mi 100 0.943
Mail500invite 40 0.377
-
USA 2021 Equiv71
House 269000 113151
Car 30500 89806
RentYear 14400 84800
UniYear 26100 106408
Gas5000mi 483.33 51233
Mail500invite 290 76850
-
Seattle 2021 Equiv71
House 750000 315476
Car 30500 89806
RentYear 36000 212000
UniYear 31200 127200
Gas5000mi 533.33 56533
Mail500invite 290 76850
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.#Powell_Mem...
The timing also coincides with the idea of neoliberal economics starting to take hold. Most famously in NYC when the city almost went bankrupt.
Living at home and working isn’t really a problem, but entering the labor force at 40+ is not going to go well.
We ran a huge deficit this year supporting the economy during covid. We are also seeing a spike in short term inflation and a weaker dollar. Treasury bond yields remain low but there is increasing speculation that decades of low rates could soon reverse.
Also are you attributing all value generated by Bezos's or Musk's companies to only them? What about all of the great people they employ?
https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/.DXY
Short term inflation is rising, but this has more to due with supply and outputs being constrained due to Covid and inflation rising from an abnormally low base. Many pundits and experts underestimated how quickly things would come back, even with the help of stimulus. I think having rising inflation and a booming economy is preferable to a weak economy and low inflation.
Not everywhere has money. I'm from a place where mortgages (with PMI) plus property tax are under $600/mo, families mostly own one vehicle (a van or truck), and people outside of regular blue collar either work six months out of the year trucking, at one of two local corporate offices, or hold multiple jobs part time (30-32 hours per so they don't ever get benefits).
That's how a lot of America lives, and that's who Medicare4All, free higher ed, and federal funding for K12 helps the most, which would do a lot to build and reinforce our lower middle class.
This is not a “replacement” screed, by the way, but quite the opposite. If your culture requires constant immigration to survive, that means it’s unsustainable in the steady state. Like, it would be bad if everyone adopted your culture. Your culture is the panda of cultures.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/05/24/will-birt... (Will births in the US rebound? Probably not.)
People respond to incentives. Living and having children in the US is expensive, so the results are what you’d expect.
Maybe we don’t need replacement rate, except for the part of an economic system that requires unending growth. I’d like to submit a bug report.
This is such a tired phrase. Like if we had socialism or communism or some other -ism it wouldn't matter.
But that's just not true. The issue is math and the fact that prime age working people (25-55ish) are the ones that, for the most part, make stuff. If you have a shrinking population then the % of the population that makes stuff gets a lot smaller so everyone has to be poorer. No "economic system" can change that.
If you have a shrinking population then the % of the population that makes stuff gets a lot smaller so everyone has to be poorer. No "economic system" can change that.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/japan-m...
/s
The difference is that the couples that do have children, have much fewer children. 2, instead of 4.
We need to look at the costs faced by couples with a lot of children. For example, you can accommodate 2 children in a standard 3 bedroom house, but 4 or 5 children are going to need a much larger and more expensive dwelling. Same thing with cars.
The USA seems to be doing alright with this, where housing is relatively affordable, and child tax credits and the ability to combine you income with your spouse. (The situation is much more dire in Central/Eastern Europe)
One way to improve this is to increase land value taxes, but offer a credit for each child of the owners under 18 living there. This would give families a formal tax advantage against baby boomers and investors.
Per modern standards. A whole bedroom per child is still today only an amenity that relatively richer people have, especially in desirable areas.
I also wonder how many women chose to have 4 kids. It might have just been an unfortunate byproduct of sex, but now it’s completely controllable. And after seeing what my wife went through in 2 completely normal pregnancies with no complications, you would have to offer me some serious cash if I was a woman to go through that.
I guess it depends how far back you go. Prior to child labor laws, having more children resulted in more family income. They could work on the farm or in factories, etc. In those times, childhood mortality was also high. So you may have had 8 kids but not that many would make it to adulthood.
What is "historically"? Is that in a society of cavemen where most men died before reaching maturity? Is that a polygamous tribal society? Is it ancient Rome where peasants had families and had loads of kids to help with farm work? Are we talking post-renaissance, where vast majority of people had families and contraception was non existent, so basically everyone had kids?
What is a%, 100%? 90%?
Since moving to the EU, when we explain to people how much our child costs, their jaw drops. If the US wants more children, they really need to solve the medical costs problem.
This is half-right, as both 10% and 90% are technically both percentages. The rest is very much [Citation Needed].
Better yet, who takes care of all the old people? Nobody.
I hope I can muster up the will to take myself out before someone else has to take care of me. Or maybe there will not even be anyone to take care of me, so it will be a moot point.
It isn't self-evident that life in the real world at the bottom of society is better than a videogame. Imaginary worlds are a lot more fun than reality. Throw in a minimum wage freezing out very low skill jobs, parental willingness to support, no particular prospect of a girlfriend and maybe a bit of access to some welfare programs. Then maybe the real world just doesn't offer very much.
If playing games all day was really their desire then yeah I'd agree with you.
Young people are simply responding to incentives to live at home longer. Living expenses keep going up relative to inflation and wages, such as home prices, rent, insurance, etc. Living at home is a good way save money, even for the employed. Family formation is expensive and fraught with risks such as divorce and having to pay child support.
In having to choose between playing video games at home, versus a low-paying job and commuting, video games may be the rational choice depending on one's individual preferences. So someone who values leisure over money, would stay at home. Someone who has a higher preference for money than leisure would go to work even if the pay sucks. I don't see anything wrong with people voluntarily choosing leisure over work, because there will always be some people who will choose work over leisure. Someone who makes a lot of money may be more inclined to work, not because they are less lazy than someone who plays games at home, but that earning $100+/hour and no video games is more enticing of proposition than $11/hour and not playing video games; if you give the $11/hour guy $100/hour, then playing video games at home becomes a less attractive proposition.