
“People simply empty out” - tantaman
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/10/people-simply-empty-out.html
======
blackhole
I feel like too many people get sucked into the idea of furthering their
career, to the point that they forget to further their own life.

What is the point of existence if we never get around to experiencing it?

 _" It's not the things we do in life that we regret on our death bed, it is
the things we do not." \- Randy Pausch_

~~~
_delirium
Hence the somewhat curious (and I think, very American) idea of the "Golden
Years". If you put your head down and work hard, taking no vacations, until
you're age 65, then you flip 180 degrees in the other direction and retire
into a life of full-time leisure. So if you live long enough, it really won't
be a waste; you cash it in all at the end!

A Scandinavian psychologist somewhat recently proposed a typically
Scandinavian reversal of this: he suggested people should work to age 80, but
work proportionally less in all the years up to there. Basically redirect the
pension system to subsidize more early-age vacation and less pension.

edit: [http://cphpost.dk/business/researcher-advocates-25-hour-
work...](http://cphpost.dk/business/researcher-advocates-25-hour-working-
week-%E2%80%93-until-age-80)

~~~
greenyoda
Working until 80 might sound reasonable to a software developer, but if you
have a job like a construction worker or a firefighter, you may not be
physically capable of doing your job at 80, even part time. So you'd have to
switch careers to work into your 80s, which not everyone would be successful
at pulling off.

~~~
_delirium
I agree that's an open question. Whether a large proportion of people could
work in _some_ job up to age 80 (possibly after changing jobs) is definitely
an important part of whether it would produce a plausible system.

It doesn't have to be the same job, or to be gap-free, though. If you have a
strong retraining/welfare system to cover the gaps, as Denmark has, it's not
as big a deal if someone needs to take a year or two off to change jobs. If
you can't do your job anymore at some point for health reasons, there is a
generous system for disability leave. And, a common unemployment insurance
system (a-kasse) covers being unemployed for up to two years, with up to
~$36k/yr salary and retraining / job-finding assistance. As a last resort,
there's a floor of ~$22k/yr welfare that anyone can get if they have no other
source of income, with no time limits. That's comparable to the low end of
U.S. Social Security, so at least nobody would really end up with _no_ income.

The wager is that enough people would be productive post-65 to have a
significant overall effect.

~~~
ttflee
> a large proportion of people could work in some job up to age 80 (possibly
> after changing jobs)

It would be an interesting question given most of the aged people change their
job. Then those categories of jobs would probably be overrun by aged people
seeking those jobs, and hence poor wages and rampant unemployment.

------
Casseres
Today, too many people have jobs to support their lifestyles, not their lives.
People end up working to continue making monthly payments on houses larger
than they need, cars fancier than they need, and they won't be able to fully
enjoy those things because they're always working 9-5. Today, we are a lot
further along than we were 50 years ago. People aren't working in factories to
put bread on the table, people are working in offices to pay for their next
new car or big screen TV.

My goal is to make as much money as I can as fast as I can so that instead of
trying to become the next billionaire, I can stop working and become the next
great thinker. I value knowledge and happiness over money.

~~~
Afforess
_People buy things they can 't afford, with money that they don't have, to
impress people that they don't like_

I realized I could live off of $25000/yr and maintain a modestly comfortable
lifestyle at the same time. I am on track to retire before I am 40. Anyone can
do it.

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-
from-...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zero-to-
hero-in-one-blog-post/)

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Anyone can do it.

Correction: anyone who graduates without debt and starts their careers making
good money can do it.

~~~
eropple
And is willing to live in fairly shitty places.

(You're not retiring on $25K a year in any part of Boston, NYC, Seattle, or
any other reasonably vibrant urban area without making brutal compromises in
terms of quality of life.)

~~~
lotharbot
There are plenty of areas that are cheaper than Boston, NYC, or Seattle, and
yet not "fairly shitty".

For example, $25k a year can be quite comfortable in Denver, which is a
reasonably vibrant urban area.

~~~
eropple
If you like flyover states (I don't, but I'll grant that you might), Denver
with even just one kid and a car--because the RTD isn't very good, and
honestly for me at least that's a huge gamebreaker because I am happy to never
own a car again--is going to be a pretty shitty life.

~~~
lotharbot
> "Denver with even just one kid and a car ... is going to be a pretty shitty
> life."

I'm living in Denver with one kid, a car, and less than $25k in income. And my
life is awesome.

Maybe you have a different definition of "shitty" than me. Or maybe you don't
realize how well you can live on that kind of money with a paid off house.

------
tankbot
Can I just say that I love Charles Bukowski? If you've never read him go buy
his books now. There's so much humanity in there. Some will think he's a
downer or depressing, but I think he's genius. His life reminds me of this
quote by Hokusai:

 _When I was 50 I had published a universe of designs. But all I have done
before the the age of 70 is not worth bothering with. At 75 I 'll have learned
something of the pattern of nature, of animals, of plants, of trees, birds,
fish and insects. When I am 80 you will see real progress. At 90 I shall have
cut my way deeply into the mystery of life itself. At 100, I shall be a
marvelous artist. At 110, everything I create; a dot, a line, will jump to
life as never before._

Never stop learning, folks.

~~~
rhdoenges
I can't stomach the guy. He was an abusive drunk who thought it was funny to
kick women.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KJiay6EI0)

~~~
mkrecny
I watched that. Here's my take:

Fiance: I am and will continue to sleep with other men.

Bukowski: You f __ _ing w_ *re [kicks].

Relationships are hard. While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I
think in this case Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he
did with his kick. It certainly didn't seem like he was kicking her because he
"thought it was funny to kick women".

~~~
king_jester
> While I don't agree with physical or verbal abuse, I think in this case
> Fiance probably hurt Bukowski more with her words than he did with his kick.

So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says
something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic abuse
101.

~~~
mkrecny
> So you do agree with physical abuse. According to you, if your partner says
> something that upsets you, its totally OK to hit them. That is domestic
> abuse 101.

That's absurd. Where did I say "if your partner says something that upsets
you, it's totally OK to hit them"?

I stated that:

a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on
him) more than he did by kicking her.

b) It didn't seem like his reasons for kicking her were because he "thought it
was funny to kick women."

Please read more carefully before you troll me, sir.

~~~
king_jester
> a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on
> him) more than he did by kicking her.

Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? You
said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put physical
abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something someone said.

I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone
that has been, but these kinds of statements happen all the time as a way to
create a justification for the abuse inflicted on someone. It's not only
abusers that do this, but people that are friends and acquaintances of both
the abuser and abused.

~~~
mkrecny
> Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner?
> You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put
> physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something
> someone said.

1\. I stated that I don't agree with abuse (physical or emotional).

2\. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's fiance
inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted on her.
That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him with her
infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive.

I don't know all the facts, only what I saw in the video. I don't know if
Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's not relevant to what
happened in the video, which is the subject of this discussion.

You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or
know anyone that has been" \- the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever
been cheated on by someone you're in love with.

~~~
king_jester
> 2\. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's
> fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted
> on her. That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him
> with her infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive.

How exactly is being honest about not wanting and not committing to a
monogamous relationship on an equal playing field as getting hit? Moreover,
even if you considered that verbally and/or emotionally abusive, that in no
way justifies hitting someone.

> I don't know if Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's
> not relevant to what happened in the video, which is the subject of this
> discussion.

If Bukowski was a serial abuser, it is most certainly 100% relevant to the
video in question. Domestic abuse isn't about a single incident, its about a
continuum of behavior and events.

> You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or
> know anyone that has been" \- the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever
> been cheated on by someone you're in love with.

I have, but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the
same playing field. In fact, it is a common tactic for abusers to accuse or
blame partners for the abuse by insinuating or referring to actual past
instances of cheating.

~~~
mkrecny
> "but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same
> playing field"

Hey man, I think we've covered some interesting ground here, but I think we
just have to agree to disagree. I certainly don't think that cheating should
be punished with physical abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on
someone who you're engaged to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than
hitting someone once. I just do.

Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by
her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly unsolicited.

~~~
king_jester
> I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical
> abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged
> to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I just
> do.

Cheating on someone is a violation of that person's trust. Hitting your
partner is violation of their physical integrity.

> Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by
> her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly
> unsolicited.

What is the point of making this statement if not to excuse her getting hit or
to make her getting hit seem like "she was asking for it"?

------
enraged_camel
>>You know my old saying, "Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended
to include all the colors."

Some people balk at the idea of "wage slavery," primarily because they think
it is so different from the traditional slavery that it should not be called
that.

But the question is, if you are doing something and the alternative is
starvation and death, are you really a free human being? If you think about it
for a while, the answer becomes clear: you are not free. Sure, you have the
freedom to switch from one slave-owner to another, but at no point in the
process do you have real freedom.

~~~
ritchiea
I agree that wage slavery exists but let's be serious, slavery in many
societies, including the US was a brutal existence that included beatings &
intentional separations of families, often even if you as a slave were
compliant in the system. If you weren't compliant you were subject to torture
and/or a violent death. The cruelty of slavery stretches far beyond the lack
of freedom you're describing here.

~~~
Everlag
Okay, you have an excellent point that modern slavery is a kinder, more gentle
version. Now, instead of being beaten physically, you are gutted mentally via
long hours and unreasonable schedules. Now, you "choose" to live away from the
rest of your family because a job could earn you so much more money.

Even the punishment has become more moral and more evenly applied to all to of
course avoid discrimination. You are subject to mental assault by all others
and even by yourself when you do not follow the game of the wage slave. A
violent death? A violent death would be a needle prick relative to the 60
years you are expected to slowly break yourself in half.

Indeed, the lack of freedom is but one facet, but honestly, while we have
become more free have we really gained anything in terms of long term ability
to do what we actually desire or be our own masters?

~~~
rfnslyr
I have to disagree. Strong people will pursue their passion and find their
ways. Weak people will succumb and be scared. It depends entirely on the
person. Most people simply prefer stability, that's all there is to it.

Not everybody has this amazing idea they are absolutely passionate about and
prioritize above everything else.

I just started working in a corporate environment. I'm the best at what I do.
I work beyond hours. I also have a life. I can choose to go home and have a
four hour game of thrones session, or I can invest my time into personal
interests and developing myself.

It's up to the individual entirely. We live in a world where we are capable of
forging our own path.

There is no lack of freedom, there is simply too much of it.

> while we have become more free have we really gained anything in terms of
> long term ability to do what we actually desire or be our own masters?

YES. You have all the resources at your fingertips. Institutions, counselling,
meetups for specific interests, the INTERNET where you can communicate with
anybody in a millisecond.

It's up to you what you do with these powers. Will you be complacent, or will
you use them to your advantage? It's sad that most people use our new found
technological superpowers to bore themselves instead of learn about our
beautiful planet and all it has to offer.

~~~
trstowell
The attitude that came through in your comment is exactly what I try to
uphold. I say 'try', because after 21 years of complacency the discipline
needed to bring this attitude into the next day has humbled me for how often I
fail to do so.

I'm in the middle of making monumental changes in my life, and if I had helped
ingrain a lesson or mindset into another person as much as your outlook helped
me, I would've liked to know.

~~~
rfnslyr
All the best to you!

------
nhangen
I have three things to say about this:

1\. Many people are horrified by the thought of not being a simple worker bee.
They say they want change, but they don't. They want the security of someone
else taking care of them. The reason wealth exists is because there are people
that cannot live this way, and thus, make their own way. You cannot fault hard
working business owners because their employees put themselves in a place to
require said employment in order to sustain a life they consider normal.

2\. There will always be wealth. If the US gave up capitalism in favor of
socialism, the money would be placed in the hands of the whole, and in this
case, the government. At that point, the government has the money and the
power. We're screwed.

3\. Life is suffering. There is no perfection on this realm. Solve this
problem and another will follow. This is a symptom of life in samsara.
Bukowski recognized this, which is why he talked of a simple life without
possessions. If you truly want to break free of 'the man,' you'll have to life
a life defined by something other than money, objects, and achievements. For
most of us, this is nearly impossible. Middle ground is an illusion.

~~~
blottsie
>They want the security of someone else taking care of them.

Performing a job, even a "simple worker bee" job, is still a job, not charity.
As a worker, you perform a function, and the company pays you for your
time/expertise/ideas/efforts/output/etc. What the hell part of that is
charity, or being "taken care of"?

I find your implication that the employer is somehow doing the employee a
favor by paying them for their work baffling and wrong-headed.

~~~
Guvante
Everything in life is a trade-off. Being an employee at a decently sized
company is about trading certain pleasantries (e.g. having to deal with the 9
to 5 drill) for certain benefits (e.g. a stable income).

Similarly in jobs that have no paid overtime, you are usually compensated a
bit more and don't always have to work overtime.

Taken care of in this context is talking about the stability a company
provides you. It isn't given to you out of charity, you certainly earn it, but
it doesn't come free either.

------
DanielBMarkham
I support and understand what he's saying, but I think too many times we set
up this false choice between "pursuing our dreams" and "working for the man"

There's honor -- and authenticity -- in making choices for your life that
involve working in the system.

I used to look down on those who worked jobs they hated and would say things
like "That's just not for me. I don't know how you can do it." until one day
somebody took me aside and pointed out what an insulting and condescending
attitude I had. I was being a jerk, a well-paid, able-to-pick-what-I-want-to-
do jerk. Other people did not have the same lives or face the same choices as
I did. I should respect their uniqueness and decisions -- even if they loudly
and publicly complained about them.

I have learned that for myself it is too easy to go off on a wild tangent
about how one lifestyle is so much better than another, talking about slavery
and such, just like in this letter. Basically I was being a judgmental prick,
substituting my values for other people's and then declaring that my choices
and values were best for everybody.

I finally realized that the quality of life is something each of us owns
through our own personal choices.

So I don't do that anymore.

~~~
PavlovsCat
That other people don't have a choice in doing that jobs they complain about
doesn't mean there is "honour" in that. It's degrading to be forced into doing
something you see no value in.

And what does "authenticity" even mean in this context? There is authenticity
and uniqueness in the things people do _despite_ their soul killing jobs, but
what's authentic about, say, selling your body? I find this just as
condescending, sorry: If those people complain, i.e. if they say it sucks for
them, then it sucks for them. Talking about authenticy and uniqueness, and
pretending they have much a of a choice, is respecting a strawman (i.e.
decisions they never got to make), while disrespecting their actual situation.

------
ececconi
You know, I don't see the career ascent about forgetting my own life. I see it
as a way I can do good for this world. If I have people under my span of
control, I can impart what I believe to be good in this world as a part of my
leadership and management style.

I also want to be a motivational speaker when I 'grow up'. I came from humble
beginnings. Some people's talks have really changed my life. In order to give
those talks and be invited to speak, yes you have to ascend the established
social order.

Am I wasting my life by working a lot? No. The things I work so hard for have
real effects in this world. My mom has been working for over 40 years of her
life. If I do things right, she'll be able to retire eventually. Do I work
harder than other people do for the same, or less, compensation? I'm sure I
do. But you know what, you have to make the best of the situation you're in.

I was recently invited to give my first talk. Here is the abridged executive
summary:
[http://www.evernote.com/shard/s34/sh/9a92bf45-27e1-4470-be7e...](http://www.evernote.com/shard/s34/sh/9a92bf45-27e1-4470-be7e-4aca3aba5cac/4a5fdbf41d26cb91d0aa5cff7b093f96)

~~~
fudged71
>>I don't see the career ascent about forgetting my own life. I see it as a
way I can do good for this world. If I have people under my span of control, I
can impart what I believe to be good in this world as a part of my leadership
and management style.

I'm saving this for later, because I love it. Thank you.

~~~
ececconi
thanks for the comment

------
zoba
_They never pay the slaves enough so they can get free, just enough so they
can stay alive and come back to work._

I do love my job, though there is so much more I want to do with my life - so
much more I could do that (as far as I can tell) would really help humanity.
Unfortunately I'm locked into working because of student loans and overall
cost of living. I try to do work in my free time but sadly 3 hours a night
does not build a company with enough revenue to grant me freedom.

By the time I've earned enough from my job to afford not having a job I worry
I'll have moved on to a different life stage where kids will take up my
evenings.

I know I'm not the only talented, driven 20-something in this situation and
with student loans recently so high, it is a pity to think that overall out
generation will have fewer who are able to make their ideas real because of
it. Thanks to YC for offsetting that effect and helping us believe we can "get
free".

~~~
bmac27
Unfortunately, the modern day tech incubator model serves a very narrow
audience with a very limiting set of criteria (e.g. billion dollar markets).
There are lots of other people like the gentlemen referenced in the article
that simply want to build a self-sustaining income stream. Crowdsourcing is
helping to fill that vacuum at least partially; but I think more can be done
in this arena to help people escape the awful "Office Space"-like dronework
that, unfortunately, is still the norm today.

------
wwweston
I've been at my current full-time job a bit over a year. The previous six
years were a mix of freelance, contract, and startup work -- sometimes full-
time, sometimes way-more-than-full-time, and sometimes not at all... but
usually part-time.

There are some things I like about the current job, and if I stick around at
least another six months, I'll likely play a key role in overhauling the front
end of a major automaker's website using state-of-the art. Not a bad feather
to stick in a cap.

On the other hand, the chances that I'll do anything else in the meanwhile
seem pretty slim. I notice in the last year alone, my energy for
original/personal projects is diminished, I feel less creative/thoughtful in
general -- and arguably even less _interesting_ than during the aforementioned
freelance period. I do feel, as Bukowski put it, somewhat emptied out by my
work.

It's possible what I really need is a different full-time gig, since I have
been in some full-time situations that felt energizing. But I'm starting to be
convinced that when I'm hiring myself out part-time, I stay more personally
grounded _and_ sharper as far as my general skills and strength in the field
goes.

Unfortunately, steady skilled part-time employment seems to be considerably
more difficult to find than full-time.

------
djim
i sold my startup about 3 months ago, and immediately starting looking for
another job. after a couple months, a couple interesting but-not-exciting
offers, and one interview process that ended in me not getting an offer, i
finally took a worthy vacation. while on a boat in the caribbean, a couple
things occurred to me: (1) i really don't need to work for the next ~10 years
(2) in that time, i will likely stumble on another opportunity similar to the
previous one, which has afforded me this financial freedom (3) i am way more
interested in learning, exploring, and art than a "real" job, even a job like
my previous one, that i particularly enjoyed. (4) i am very fortunate to be in
this position, and i really don't want to waste it.

so i've been giving this topic some serious thought. to work or not to work?
that is the question.

~~~
pyoung
I am currently taking a sabbatical of sorts after slaving away and saving up
for 5 years. I threw most of my savings into index funds, and then set up
automatic withdrawals to my savings account. This forces me to try and live
within a certain budget. If all goes well (i.e. market stays healthy), I will
have only spent down a small amount of my savings by the time I return to the
labor force. In the mean time, I have been taking some coursera classes,
toying with some side projects, and doing some R&R. I highly recommend it for
people who can afford to do this.

~~~
decadentcactus
How much savings did you have? I'm considering doing the same at some point,
though my quick glance at index funds makes it seem like I'd get basically
nothing. What sort of budget does this afford you?

~~~
pyoung
Vangaurd low cost index funds. Supposedly, you can count on 8-10% annual
return. I also did/do some occasional stock picking which has gotten good
results (but I wouldn't count on that being sustainable). I probably spend
about 20k a year, and have savings in the low 6 digits.

I waited until I had 5-10x my annual expenses, but obviously you can do it
with less. My main recommendation would to be have at least an extra 6 months
of living expenses beyond what you need (so if you are taking a year off, have
at least 1.5 yrs of living expenses) in case it takes a while to find work
again. The main advantage of saving more than that is you can use the returns
from your investments to offset some of your costs a bit.

~~~
resu
You can also count on index funds to lose 50% of their value in two years in
an upcoming crisis. The roaring 90s and mid 2000s isn't a pattern that will
continue to repeat itself. The fed can't keep printing the S&P500 up forever.

I think made a great decision, but you ought to diversify your nest egg.

~~~
pyoung
I agree that there is some risk, but I am not sure how I would be able to
diversify any more than I already have. I have my money split into about 6
different index funds, primarily diversified globally, although I have a few
industry/sector specific funds. And then I have about 30% of my savings in
stocks that I picked, most of which are pretty stable companies with fairly
long term future/outlook (so they would, in theory, come out of a recession in
good shape, even if they took a few hits).

If there is some other asset class I am missing, let me know. In the meantime,
I think I will take my chances with the market. Worst case, if things get bad,
I can just go back to work (left my old company, in a fairly recession proof
industry, on good terms)

------
revelation
$100 are about $650 in todays money [1].

[1]:
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100%24+from+1969](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100%24+from+1969)

~~~
pdx6
No. It is $3323.

    
    
      1oz gold coin price in USD:
      1969 40
      2013 1362

~~~
JoeCortopassi
You are taking the value of a tangible asset from 1969 and comparing it to
todays value of said tangible asset. This in _no_ way illustrates the
inflation rate. All it shows (assuming your numbers are right) is the increase
in the perceived value of gold in that time frame. The original comment's $650
number is close enough to be considered accurate

~~~
baddox
What's the distinction between "perceived value" and just normal value?

~~~
jusben1369
Little but that's sort of a distraction to the main point of the discussion.
Using gold is no more helpful than say using the price of a barrel of crude
oil then and now.

~~~
mikeash
Interestingly, using crude oil gets you about the same results as gold. The
figures above show a 34x nominal increase in the price of gold, while crude
oil over the same period went up 32x.

------
20130816
_> In 1969, publisher John Martin offered to pay Charles Bukowski $100 each
and every month for the rest of his life, on one condition: that he quit his
job at the post office and become a writer._

this makes me think of basic income, which might be one approach to ending
wage slavery:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)

------
thinker
Such beautiful words. Love the last line: "To not to have entirely wasted
one's life seems to be a worthy accomplishment, if only for myself."

~~~
jorgecastillo
I am adding this line to my .bashrc file.

~~~
glitch003
-bash: To: command not found

------
16s
I'm glad he made it out, but that's a sad story. When you stop and think about
what he's saying, it's depressing. And, it's true.

------
dnautics
I don't happen to believe the wage system is slavery (I do happen to believe
we have a modern slavery system, but that's another story)

"They never pay the slaves enough so they can get free, just enough so they
can stay alive and come back to work." But then why don't the slaves leave?
Unlike in the past, nobody is holding a gun to their head. One possibility,
probably popular among entrepreneurial types, is the slaves don't leave,
because they don't think they can leave. It's a problem that is easily solved!
All the boring types need is a little bit of education, for them to learn that
leaving is possibility.

But maybe, what scares us a little bit, is that maybe the slaves don't want to
leave. They value that security that the boring life brings them (that is why
they complain "it ain't right" \- because they have lost something they really
valued). This is the really scary thing, because we don't want to be boring
but we could see ourselves making the same choice. At the same time we don't
understand the choice of the slaves to not leave, we identify with it at a
level that we maybe can't explain. But is it a wrong choice? Who are we to
judge others for choosing security over wealth or self-exploration? Maybe we
are at a knife edge- a little bit less motivation here, a marginal preference
there, a taste of failure here, and we, too, would pick security over wealth
(of money, of intellect, of experience). I think that the strange
paternalistic attitude of the passage is a result of the fear - the fear of
that condition.

~~~
dsbmac
Django unchained briefly visited that idea when Leonardo pondered why don't
the slaves revolt or leave? The slave has nowhere to go.

Wage slavery, the term, was coined when industrial jobs were coming on to the
scene in the north and there was still slavery in the south. Groups of
laborers in these new factories soon went on protest. They self-described
their situation as being similar to slave work/living standards but with a
wage. Basically what we today would call inhumane.

This sentiment never diminished but instead was overwhelmed by the dominance
of industrialized work in this format. Their protest fell on deaf ears because
now all the jobs offered were like that and unions decided to fight for better
working conditions instead of the system at large. Which leads us to today.

It's hypocritical when employees lambaste labor movements but will gladly
partake the fruits of better wages and working standards.

It seem human nature will put up with a lot of things. An anthropological
account i read: The anthropologist visited some area around Tibet. The system
in place there required newly married women upon marriage to leave their
husbands and work for the lord of the area, often as a concubine. After a year
or so she would leave but not to return to her husband but instead go to a
work camp where she would serve as a comfort girl. After that she returned.

The obviously shocked anthropologist asked why did people put up with this
arrangement? It seems the reply was a "that's the way it was" sentiment.

~~~
dnautics
well, I guess I put a bit of a teaser in there. I don't believe in the concept
of wage slavery. I believe we have _debt_ slavery. I.E. Where someone else
owns your labor and enforces that ownership using the law.

This is not to say I think lending should be abolished, I just think that
paying back should be voluntary, the counterparty should assume all financial
risk and the borrower should assume all reputation risk.

------
brianpgordon
> What do they do it for? Sex? TV? An automobile on monthly payments? Or
> children? Children who are just going to do the same things that they did?

Hm... abject terror of homelessness.

------
foobarqux
This essay isn't particularly good. "The Abolition of Work" and "Quitting the
Paint Factory" are both much better essays on the same topic.

[http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm](http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm)

[http://paulbe.dreamwidth.org/961.html](http://paulbe.dreamwidth.org/961.html)

------
trustfundbaby
"A man can never drink his fill by waiting in line for the tap"

That quote motivates me everyday, because it reminds me that the things I want
in life will never be achieved by working at a place in any capacity where the
choice of my continued employment lies in the hands of any one person.

------
alexeisadeski3
_" They never pay the slaves enough so they can get free, just enough so they
can stay alive and come back to work."_

I suspect the author is being intentionally misleading regarding the costs of
staying alive. It doesn't take $20,000/year. More like $5,000, and even that
is being generous.

Early Retirement Extreme and other books cover this in more detail, of course.

I do agree with the overall sentiment of his article, but the concept that the
current state of affairs is some kind of intentional conspiracy is incorrect.
People like the security of being indebted and forced to work, it seems. They
are not forced into such a life.

------
jusben1369
I was struck by the fact that it was written in 1969 yet is incredibly
contemporary. Will we lament the same things in 2060?

~~~
chii
i would say yes, because the human condition hardly ever changes.

------
stuff4ben
I'm not sure the alternative is any better as a startup founder/employee.
You're putting in greater amounts of hours, blood, sweat, and tears for less
money in a lot of cases. Sometimes it pays off, oftentimes it doesn't. Bear in
mind I speak as a corporate wage-slave whose company just announced layoffs
after a "record quarter". The answer must be to win the lottery, maybe I
should start playing...

------
collinvandyck76
The early part of my career was spent chasing everything, and ironically, it
was when I had the least amount of money. In 1998 I got my first job and
immediately got a nice apartment in which to live and a decent car to get
around. Even with these somewhat reasonable purchases I was already butting up
against what I could afford. And by afford, I mean how much money I had. Soon
enough the credit card debt slipped in and I was trapped. Trapped by my debt
and all of the obligations that went with it.

This cycle did not stop until I was making a bit more money and finally got
serious about saving and investing. When this happened my other priorities
shifted dramatically. I was no longer obsessed about getting the newest / best
thing or what have you. I paid off my debts and vowed to from then on always
live well beneath my means, which I have.

Since that time I’ve never felt trapped. I’m disciplined about long term
saving and having at least six months of normal living expenses in the bank.
I’ve quit jobs that I simply did not like and later found other jobs that I
did. I only regret that I did not do this sooner.

------
morgante
Reminds me how lucky I (we?) are to be free of the monotonous prison of every
day life which most Americans are stuck in.

~~~
enraged_camel
Who is "we"?

~~~
morgante
In general, most developers have a lot of freedom in employment and can
probably escape it given a little planning.

------
taigeair
It's my opinion that people live the life they choose. No one is tricking you
into it. Who's to say which way of life is right?

Some people enjoy the pleasures of material things and stability. Some enjoy
risk and experiences. People always are a bit jealous of the other side but
probably are happier with the road they chose.

~~~
specialist
1/2 true.

I didn't choose...

To have my ass kicked, repeatedly, both at home and at school.

To be bounced around as a child, moving 28 times before graduating, having 3
foster families

To have a grave life threatening illness.

To become a young parent (thought I was sterile, but it only takes one,
right)?

Things I did choose...

Somehow avoided drugs.

Books and computers, mostly as escapism, lucky me geeks now do well
economically.

Became a stable parent, deferring my dreams until my son graduated.

Always trying to improve my well being, eg exercise, nutrition, seeking new
treatments for my diseases, etc.

Conclusion...

I've been on the streets and in support groups with others who had their
choices taken away, didn't have access to the resources and opportunities I
had, or simply didn't know they were born awesome and could choose life.

And I recognize that many have had things far worse than me.

We're all just trying to do the best we know how.

So I try not to judge.

------
EGreg
One link: [http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/)

------
nickthemagicman
IS even the question of leading a meaningful fulfilling life uniquely modern?

How many cavemen or Egyptians or middle age serfs were running around saying
"Boy I need more experiences to give my life meaning"?

Maybe we have amazing lives and because we are human beings we are always
looking for more.

~~~
GFischer
"How many cavemen or Egyptians or middle age serfs were running around saying
"Boy I need more experiences to give my life meaning"?"

They did. We don't have recordings on the cavemen, but in the Middle Ages you
had people becoming monks, joining the Crusades, etc..

------
cafard
One of the scoutmasters of my troop, 45 years ago, was a warehouseman. I doubt
that his job was exciting. I imagine he took some satisfaction in doing it
well. I suspect that his true satisfaction came from his family and community.

I have relatives and shirttail relatives who never attended or never finished
college and have worked at blue-collar trades. Some are happy, some aren't, I
don't know how many would recognize themselves as emptied out. Some rightly
would not.

Anthony Trollope spent his working life in the British post office. Having
more regular ways than Bukowski, he rose to responsible positions, but he
worked steadily. I imagine that the readers of 2113 will mostly rate Trollope
higher than Bukowski.

------
hcarvalhoalves
Employment is, by definition, exploitation. If the objective of the company is
to profit, it _has_ to pay the employee less than the value he generates. The
alternative is profiting out of non-internalized costs (e.g., exploiting
natural resources).

~~~
chii
there are other forms of organization out there - a non-profit, "cooperative"
organization could and should be the norm. This form of organization means
that everyone in the org is an owner, and is paid according to the work they
do. There is no fat cat at the top that don't do work but takes in money. I
believe in brazil there is a manufacturing company that is like this - each
worker gets a slice of the profit.

~~~
GFischer
Here in Uruguay, we have lots of "cooperatives" (our country has a long
socialist story), most work out well, but they come across many of the same
problems that faced the old Soviet Union, and you do get "fat cats" at the top
regardless of the supposed equality system.

[http://uruguayeduca.edu.uy/Userfiles/P0001/File/Cooperativis...](http://uruguayeduca.edu.uy/Userfiles/P0001/File/Cooperativismo%20en%20Uruguay.pdf)

We have:

\- Transport cooperatives

\- Dairy products cooperative (Conaprole)

\- Healthcare cooperatives, which serve most of the population ("Mutualistas",
based on Mutualism)

\- An Insurance cooperative

\- Credit Union cooperatives

\- Housing cooperatives (those are the ones that worked out for the worst)

In many cases, they compete with non-cooperatives.

Edit: while they should be equal, even if they get same or slightly better
pay, cooperative directors have lots of actual power, which can be turned to
money if they so desire (kickbacks, etc...)

------
ezolotko
Buk, you are great when you are a farmer's son. But then, when you take your
first job, then second, and then you start to think about art of yours, and
then you drink more, and then you found a firm with the best friends of yours,
and then you quit because one of them start to bully you in a pursuit of
power, and then you go to Shanghai to earn your salary in response to a
generous proposition - you realize - one thing to do is to work hard, another
is to rest; it's up to you to choose. I am choosing hard work, no matter for
what's purpose. And that is why I love you, Buk.

------
sspiff
He seems to speak of the supervisor of the packers as someone who is above the
working life, but the fact is that he is trapped for life as well, he just
happens to be trapped one sport higher on a very long ladder.

I figure this being trapped is a sentiment a lot of people share, although I
know of a significant minority of people who enjoy their jobs and lives, even
after 30 years of "paycheck slavery".

The whole story reminds me of the song Factory by Bruce Springsteen.

------
orofino
This goes off the tracks for me about midway through. While for many people
the reality described is actually their life, there are many of us (and I'd
imagine a huge percentage of those reading this) that aren't slaves. If you're
making over 70-80k/year, you have the capacity to save a lot and do the things
you want to do before you hit 55, 65, or 75.

------
anactofgod
I enjoy Bukowski's work.

But the insights he shares in this letter are tempered by the fact that he
didn't quit his job at the Post Office until _after_ a would-be patron
"employed" him to write.

Still... Some people never go crazy...

------
agsamek
The letter and people here do not get that most people simply want to be told
what to do. This gives them main sense of work and accomplishment. This also
lays down fundation for creating societies.

------
ojbyrne
One thing to realize is that Bukowski always considered his full time job to
be being a drunk. He just switched his second job from various menial jobs to
writing.

------
rooshdi
Sad reality, but one hopes we finally crack the code, so to speak, within our
lifetimes.

------
nilved
What a terrible submission title.

------
LekkoscPiwa
Interesting fact: 100usd in 1969 bought you nearly 3 ounces of gold. Price of
gold today is 1350usd. Today's value of 100usd in 1969 would be about $4k. Not
bad at all.

~~~
GFischer
100 USD from 1969 would be equivalent to 636 USD today. So it would have been
a great buy, but you have to take inflation into account.

Also, 100 USD from 1969 invested in the stock market (S&P 500) in 1969 would
have given you 5403 USD from 2013 today, so buying those ounces wouldn't even
have been the best investment.

Almost any solid investment over 50 years would give absurd returns.

[http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/](http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

Edit: source for the S&P quote:

[http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm](http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm)

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
In my book equating for inflation is simply representing price in gold. I.e.
did you know that the oil price for the past 50 years is the same if you use
gold to measure it? Flat line. The same goes for the cost of living, etc.
Salaries are down though. Here is your inflation. Gold isn't an investment.
Gold is just a currency that can't be created out of thin air. It represents
energy and labor needed to get it out of the ground. Currently the mining cost
is about $1,200 with gold price about $1,300. That's why looks worse than S&P
the price is as low as the production cost at the moment.

If you are interested in the real inflation rate, I'd advise to use formula
that was last used by the US Government in 1980s in Reagan years. By that
formula the current inflation is at 10%. In 1990s the Government added a lot
of absurdities to the formula confusing technological progress with inflation
hence the official inflation is non-existent while the average healthcare
premium is up from 5 to 20% every year not to even mention about the cost of
necessities like gas, food, energy, all the result of doubling monetary base
by the FED in 2008-2012 to rescue zombie banks.

------
hnnnnng
So beautifully voices exactly what I've been thinking.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Beautiful _and_ depressing.

------
goggles99
This guy worked at a bunch of "shitty" jobs. I think he would be better served
advocating that people get a good education and perhaps end up doing something
that they actually enjoy. Sorting mail and packing lighting fixtures sucks...

Don't force your reality on the rest of us Hank.

------
seanconaty
Wow. Never thought Bukowski would make it on HN, let alone this high.

------
blacksqr
Bukowski = automatic upvote

