Comment

Comment by _delirium

This makes some sense, but honestly I'm not seeing much new in these endless repetitions of the same debate. It goes back to at least the 1960s and the debate over the "Me generation" [1]. Probably earlier. There's a tension between raising armies of cogs-in-the-machine on the one hand, and beautiful butterflies on the other, and some orthogonal other questions besides.

Some of it also interacts with politics, and I'm not sure I accept all the premises. For example, from my current vantage point in Denmark, society does generally believe that you are entitled to at least a basic living (food/shelter/healthcare), even if not a great one. Then it becomes a question of what you wish to do above that, in both economic and non-economic senses. One presumably wishes to both earn more money than the absolute minimum, but also to contribute to society beyond the absolute minimum; the two desires may or may not be aligned, and there are many paths to doing either/both. In other countries (notably the USA), political views are different on that question. In my own personal opinion I do think it is, in part, "a moral or systematic failure on the part of society" that the situation in the USA is as it is, but that's sort of its own debate (I'm not really anti-market, as I feel they're useful and in any case inevitable, but I don't necessarily think that maket valuation is everything).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation

parent _delirium 14 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton