Living The Dream: What Do You Own – Really?

[Placid Dingo]

You need to eat to live; does that mean you don't own the food?

If somebody else actually owned my time, I would think I could be compelled to stare at a wall until I died, instead of choosing to go to work.

Choosing to staple yourself in the balls isn't a good choice, but it is a choice.

Also I don't even remember what the point of any of this is any more.

[Cramulus]

I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.

Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.

Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.

It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.

How do you propose surviving without money? Where will you live, and what will you eat?

I did not say one can survive without money.

The Rev posits that unless you are independently wealthy, you must choose between survival and "what you want to do". I disagree. You must spend a portion of your time addressing survival needs, but that's been true since long before money. Once survival is covered --- if you feel that you have to be wealthy in order to enjoy yourself, then I think you are being limited by your tastes.

[Scribbly]

I did not say one can survive without money.

The Rev posits that unless you are independently wealthy, you must choose between survival and "what you want to do". I disagree. You must spend a portion of your time addressing survival needs, but that's been true since long before money. Once survival is covered --- if you feel that you have to be wealthy in order to enjoy yourself, then I think you are being limited by your tastes.

Nicely said.

[The Rev]

I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.

Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.

Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.

It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.

How do you propose surviving without money? Where will you live, and what will you eat?

I did not say one can survive without money.

The Rev posits that unless you are independently wealthy, you must choose between survival and "what you want to do". I disagree. You must spend a portion of your time addressing survival needs, but that's been true since long before money. Once survival is covered --- if you feel that you have to be wealthy in order to enjoy yourself, then I think you are being limited by your tastes.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, do you wake up every single day wanting to go to work, or are there days that you have to drag yourself out of bed and force yourself to go? Here is what I mean by doing what we have to do, instead of crawling back in bed and going back to sleep, which is what we want to do.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.

Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.

Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.

It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.

How do you propose surviving without money? Where will you live, and what will you eat?

I did not say one can survive without money.

The Rev posits that unless you are independently wealthy, you must choose between survival and "what you want to do". I disagree. You must spend a portion of your time addressing survival needs, but that's been true since long before money. Once survival is covered --- if you feel that you have to be wealthy in order to enjoy yourself, then I think you are being limited by your tastes.

That's not what I got out of his post at all. What I got was that unless you are independently wealthy, you will spend most of your time doing what you have to do to survive, rather than what you want to be doing. This is true, and in my experience the lower your earning potential the more true it is, to the point where some people spent so much time working that they are too burned out/exhausted to do things just because they want to do them.

If this is not true in your reality, then bravo; you are a very lucky man.

[kingyak]

Rev, I think you're missing the key point of what Cramulus is saying. It's not a binary choice, it's a continuum. Once basic survival needs are met, you can choose how much "ownership" of your time you're willing to trade away for comfort.

[The Rev]

Rev, I think you're missing the key point of what Cramulus is saying. It's not a binary choice, it's a continuum. Once basic survival needs are met, you can choose how much "ownership" of your time you're willing to trade away for comfort.

I think Nigel addressed this better than I could in the previous post.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Rev, I think you're missing the key point of what Cramulus is saying. It's not a binary choice, it's a continuum. Once basic survival needs are met, you can choose how much "ownership" of your time you're willing to trade away for comfort.

Yes, but this seems to assume that everyone's middle-class or better. It is definitely a continuum, but most of the world falls at the low end of the spectrum in terms of owning their time.

Not to harp too much on an old tune, but one of my occasional complaints about this board is the entrenchment of a very privileged perspective that tends to assume that everyone is similarly privileged, which implies judgement on those who somehow fail to be as privileged. Don't have enough free time? Get a better job, ya lazy bum! Clearly, it's that you have the wrong priorities, and not that we live in a society that exploits the lowest-paid workers and is structured to keep them from doing better.

[LMNO]

Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!



Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time.  He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time. 

Life is hard work, even for us rich white men. 

And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost.  I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.

[Cramulus]

It sounds like you're saying that we have no choice about how we spend our time and are basically victims of our capitalist environment.

I think that we have to take responsibility for our own happiness DESPITE having to work shitty jobs and shitty hours.

I do not think happiness is a middle class privilege. I think it's something that we all have control over, even if we are poor.




"It ain't all about the dolla bill. You could be flat broke and be a scholar still." - MF DOOM

[Cramulus]

Not to harp too much on an old tune, but one of my occasional complaints about this board is the entrenchment of a very privileged perspective that tends to assume that everyone is similarly privileged, which implies judgement on those who somehow fail to be as privileged. Don't have enough free time? Get a better job, ya lazy bum! Clearly, it's that you have the wrong priorities, and not that we live in a society that exploits the lowest-paid workers and is structured to keep them from doing better.

and not to harp on this too much, but I kind of resent having my argument framed as calling poor people lazy.

I came to these conclusions about mental autonomy and owning my own happiness (despite capitalism) when I was eating Ramen Noodles 3 times a week. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Dude, no. My patience is very thin this morning.

"I know what it's like to be poor; sometimes I had to live on ramen noodles in those lean months after my parents put me through college, before I was able to secure my first office job".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And you're totally right, Cramulus. The system isn't fucking anyone over; it's their choice to remain impoverished. We all have choices, and they just make the wrong ones. The system is just right exactly the way it is.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm sorry, but the argument you appear to be sincerely making is specious, spoiled, and elitist, and the reason I am sorry is because I am profoundly disappointed in you.

[kingyak]

In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.

It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"