We need to make adulthood more desirable(artofmanliness.com)
artofmanliness.com
We need to make adulthood more desirable
https://www.artofmanliness.com/people/sunday-firesides-we-need-to-make-adulthood-more-desirable/
198 comments
> I wish this article was longer
I submitted the link because it was the first time I saw this "elephant in the room" clearly defined and identified - not because the article proposed great solutions. Anyway, the author will see the traffic spike.. Let's wait for a longer article.
I submitted the link because it was the first time I saw this "elephant in the room" clearly defined and identified - not because the article proposed great solutions. Anyway, the author will see the traffic spike.. Let's wait for a longer article.
> I submitted the link because it was the first time I saw this "elephant in the room" clearly defined and identified
Really? Is there such a medical condition as "elephant blindness," because I can't see it.
It's unclear to me what the author thinks adulthood is, why we need it, why people aren't (or don't want to) be adults, whether we suffer some kind of societal adult deficit, etc.
This article's message is effectively "you kids get off my lawn - and stop being kids, too!"
Really? Is there such a medical condition as "elephant blindness," because I can't see it.
It's unclear to me what the author thinks adulthood is, why we need it, why people aren't (or don't want to) be adults, whether we suffer some kind of societal adult deficit, etc.
This article's message is effectively "you kids get off my lawn - and stop being kids, too!"
> This article's message is effectively "you kids get off my lawn - and stop being kids, too!"
I'm not reading that at all. My reading of the article is: "Being an adult sucks." It doesn't really talk about kids at all, and if anything seems like a defense of youth being 'stuck in prolonged adolescence'. The important paragraph (imo):
> For many, adulthood means trading a life entirely devoted to learning for one in which you only read (maybe) two books a year. It means swapping a full schedule of sports, clubs, and music lessons for having exactly zero hobbies (unless watching Netflix counts). It means going from hanging out with peers for the bulk of each day to (maybe) seeing friends a few hours a month. It means shifting from experiencing plenty of firsts to being stuck in a hamster wheel of thousandths.
I'm not reading that at all. My reading of the article is: "Being an adult sucks." It doesn't really talk about kids at all, and if anything seems like a defense of youth being 'stuck in prolonged adolescence'. The important paragraph (imo):
> For many, adulthood means trading a life entirely devoted to learning for one in which you only read (maybe) two books a year. It means swapping a full schedule of sports, clubs, and music lessons for having exactly zero hobbies (unless watching Netflix counts). It means going from hanging out with peers for the bulk of each day to (maybe) seeing friends a few hours a month. It means shifting from experiencing plenty of firsts to being stuck in a hamster wheel of thousandths.
I can‘t second your critique.
The author describes a valid “problem” in many western societies:
That many youths are not eager to take over the reigns and responsibilities of adult life. Arguably “western” society suffers from a lack of generational “handing over” of the many important roles and functions that a complex society requires to persist and build a successful future. That however, is probably a whole debate on its own.
The author describes a valid “problem” in many western societies:
That many youths are not eager to take over the reigns and responsibilities of adult life. Arguably “western” society suffers from a lack of generational “handing over” of the many important roles and functions that a complex society requires to persist and build a successful future. That however, is probably a whole debate on its own.
How do you define responsibilities of adult life, though? Isn't that still such a broad choice of things you should do and possibly are doing? Or maybe I'm actually doing it wrong, but I'm a lot happier since I've been working full time and cosplay as an adult. (Was working during uni and overall disliked it more than I liked it, maybe too involved but I find myself with a lot more free time now, also a lot more money, guess the only difference is that they expect me show up every day).
To answer your question I would have to step into ideological territory.
IMO, these things count as signs of adulthood: Having a stable relationship, building a family, building a business or being engaged in your community somehow.
In essence giving and contributing, instead of (only) taking and benefiting from society. Kids are allowed that, adults have to be pillars of society.
I know this sounds conservative, but it isn’t. Its just the only way a society can work and persist. The OP argued that we should make adulthood more attractive. I agree. Depending on where you live, life as an adult can be worthwile. I find that the key ingredient is community and social bonds.
IMO, these things count as signs of adulthood: Having a stable relationship, building a family, building a business or being engaged in your community somehow.
In essence giving and contributing, instead of (only) taking and benefiting from society. Kids are allowed that, adults have to be pillars of society.
I know this sounds conservative, but it isn’t. Its just the only way a society can work and persist. The OP argued that we should make adulthood more attractive. I agree. Depending on where you live, life as an adult can be worthwile. I find that the key ingredient is community and social bonds.
> Also having children changes things quite a bit for all adults.
> I wish this article was longer.
Agree on both accounts. To the first point, I had a lot of friends and hobbies before having a kid and it feels that I'm slowly losing control of my time to the point where most of it is gone and I only have like 2 hours to myself. 4 if I want to be sleep deprived the next day.
Agree on both accounts. To the first point, I had a lot of friends and hobbies before having a kid and it feels that I'm slowly losing control of my time to the point where most of it is gone and I only have like 2 hours to myself. 4 if I want to be sleep deprived the next day.
Did you expect more free time? Judging by the parents I know, 2 hours of free time for yourself every day is not bad.
> 2 hours of free time for yourself every day is not bad.
Two hours of free time to yourself is horrible. The fact that it's expected doesn't change that it's a horrible answer.
We need to reduce the amount of time we spend at work. Ironically, the best way to do that is to spend your early years working 24/7 to try to get wealthy enough that you can spend 4 hours a day doing meaningful work.
Two hours of free time to yourself is horrible. The fact that it's expected doesn't change that it's a horrible answer.
We need to reduce the amount of time we spend at work. Ironically, the best way to do that is to spend your early years working 24/7 to try to get wealthy enough that you can spend 4 hours a day doing meaningful work.
Yep, I agree. Parenting in modern world while not being wealthy just sounds terrible. It's one huge regression from how it was done before we started civilization, and especially since we started modern living (with atomic families, mass loneliness, rootlessness, jobs devoid of meaning, spending most of the day at the job instead of at the house, jobs so complex that your child can't understand them and can't learn them from you). Amenities and state help such as free kindergardens are just a drop in a bucket and will not help with falling reproduction rates in any meaningful way.
To be fair, yesteryears' solutions to that for the typical non-rich people were to outsource parenting to grandparents and family friends, which are still applicable now.
... And have the elder siblings help take care of the younger, but I don't know if that's acceptable at all nowadays in the West or if that's one way to get the CPS involved.
... And have the elder siblings help take care of the younger, but I don't know if that's acceptable at all nowadays in the West or if that's one way to get the CPS involved.
> To be fair, yesteryears' solutions to that for the typical non-rich people were to outsource parenting to grandparents and family friends, which are still applicable now.
It's way less aplicable because people move so much. Nowadays, not many people live around (say within 1 km distance) their extended family, whereas in pre-modern times it was the absolute norm. What's more, grandparents often lived in the same house and children were raised by multiple adults and not just their parents. The burden on parents was way lower.
It's way less aplicable because people move so much. Nowadays, not many people live around (say within 1 km distance) their extended family, whereas in pre-modern times it was the absolute norm. What's more, grandparents often lived in the same house and children were raised by multiple adults and not just their parents. The burden on parents was way lower.
To anyone who thinks two hours of free time is horrible - don’t have kids and don’t do anything big or great.
I went to a pretty intense university to study computer science with a baby. I had zero free time. It was 100% class, study, kids, and barely any sleep - for FOUR years!
All the people I know who do great things? Zero free time. They work like animals to fulfill dreams and responsibilities.
I went to a pretty intense university to study computer science with a baby. I had zero free time. It was 100% class, study, kids, and barely any sleep - for FOUR years!
All the people I know who do great things? Zero free time. They work like animals to fulfill dreams and responsibilities.
> All the people I know who do great things? Zero free time.
The people I know who do great things? Seriously, they have free time. They have kids and don't feel bad about spending time with them.
Maybe college isn't the best example for what the real world is like.
The people I know who do great things? Seriously, they have free time. They have kids and don't feel bad about spending time with them.
Maybe college isn't the best example for what the real world is like.
In that case those great things they’re doing is probably fulfilling their innate desires.
>get wealthy enough that you can spend 4 hours a day doing meaningful work
Sadly, for the absolute majority even a partial "early retirement" is unachievable regardless of how much or how hard they work
Sadly, for the absolute majority even a partial "early retirement" is unachievable regardless of how much or how hard they work
Even as someone with a decent job, I'm starting to doubt I can have an early partial retirement at 60. I think the majority of people aren't going to be able to retire at all, at least not above the poverty level.
I think raising kids is meaningful work. Having raised 3 kids I can tell you I rarely had 2 hours of free time for myself, let alone having that kind of time every day! It's just not going to happen.
Now that I've become an empty nester I have more time to myself than I probably ever had in my entire life! And I have great kids who've turned into awesome people that I can visit and enjoy doing things with.
I would argue you reap what you sow. Put the time and work in now and enjoy the fruits later in life. Don't worry about silly things such as "free time."
Now that I've become an empty nester I have more time to myself than I probably ever had in my entire life! And I have great kids who've turned into awesome people that I can visit and enjoy doing things with.
I would argue you reap what you sow. Put the time and work in now and enjoy the fruits later in life. Don't worry about silly things such as "free time."
Two hours of free uninterrupted time is actually pretty good. One can accomplish fairly significant things with that if they're disciplined and don't spend that time goofing off.
I doubt most parents get two hours of free time though.
I doubt most parents get two hours of free time though.
Spending time "goofing off" is invaluable. People need time for that too.
There's no point in being mindlessly productive at all times.
There's no point in being mindlessly productive at all times.
Two hours a day gives you plenty of time to goof off during the week. If you need to goof off every day then you are likely compensating for things that should be addressed.
Saying as someone whose been there
Saying as someone whose been there
Maybe you are using "goof off" differently than I am, but I see no reason not to goof off every day.
But you actually said "2 hours is plenty to get stuff done if you don't goof off". Now you're changing it to "2 hours a day gives you plenty of time to goof off."
But you actually said "2 hours is plenty to get stuff done if you don't goof off". Now you're changing it to "2 hours a day gives you plenty of time to goof off."
You misinterpret.
2 hours a day is 14 hours a week. What I'm saying is that goofing off for 2-4 hours a week still gives you 10-12 hours a week to get a lot done.
But if you need to goof off for an hour per day (as many do feel they need to), then there are likely underlying reasons - problems in your life causing distraction, procrastination, etc. If you can address those reasons, you'll get more time to do fun work.
The book The Now Habit addresses similar themes.
2 hours a day is 14 hours a week. What I'm saying is that goofing off for 2-4 hours a week still gives you 10-12 hours a week to get a lot done.
But if you need to goof off for an hour per day (as many do feel they need to), then there are likely underlying reasons - problems in your life causing distraction, procrastination, etc. If you can address those reasons, you'll get more time to do fun work.
The book The Now Habit addresses similar themes.
For a lot of people (IMHO), it's one of those "walking the path is different than knowing the path" kind of things.
2 hours also seems like a lot more than it is, in part because people severely underestimate how much "free" time they had before.
For example, they think they are working from 9-5, but really, most people do lots of little things during that time - browse reddit, whatever.
That time also now can get eaten by kid stuff - scheduling, signups, etc, especially if you have 2+ kids.
It's also rare that it's a single block of 2 hours.
2 hours also seems like a lot more than it is, in part because people severely underestimate how much "free" time they had before.
For example, they think they are working from 9-5, but really, most people do lots of little things during that time - browse reddit, whatever.
That time also now can get eaten by kid stuff - scheduling, signups, etc, especially if you have 2+ kids.
It's also rare that it's a single block of 2 hours.
The problem is not having two hours of spare time, it's that you feel so drained at the end of the day that you don't have the energy left to to anything meaningful.
For a long time for me the problem wasn’t the amount of time for myself so much as that it wasn’t blockable time. 15 minutes 8 times a day is very different from one two-hour chunk.
I used to wonder why many older people in the office would find a productive use of the 10 minutes between meetings while younger people would just grab a drink or get distracted. Now I'm a parent and I have learned that you can do something in 10 minutes.
You can certainly do many things in 15 minutes but for most hobbies, partaking in that hobby requires a longer block of time.
I didn't expect more free time. I will say that a lot of people told me what it would be like but it was hard for me to believe how hard it is to be a new parent until it actually happens.
Honestly I'm glad I'm not the only one. With one kid it was still possible to have some hobbies but with two it became almost impossible.
How is one single kid cared by 2 adults so time consuming?
It's amazing how it happens. I think it comes down to someone has to keep an eye on the kid at all times until it gets to a certain age and you generally trust the kid. It's unfair for one parent to keep an eye all the time so there's a lot of unscheduled switching off.
At first, kids need basically 100% attention & surveillance, except when they’re asleep.
So between two people, one is occupied with a kids almost all the time.
So between two people, one is occupied with a kids almost all the time.
This is obvious untrue… unless parents are not entitled to sleep! Are parents not sleeping at all (aside from when they are woken up by a cry ofc)? Newborns can’t even move from where they are!
I meant "almost all the time except when they're asleep". Fortunately newborns sleep a lot but they also feed every 4 hours (if you're lucky) so whatever sleep you're getting isn't "quality sleep" because of interruptions.
> Newborns can’t even move from where they are!
You're right, I was implicitly assuming that you wouldn't leave the baby to just cry because that just sounds cruel to me.
> Newborns can’t even move from where they are!
You're right, I was implicitly assuming that you wouldn't leave the baby to just cry because that just sounds cruel to me.
On the other hand also running every times it cries it might be wrong (there are studies on this regard)
Can you send me any such studies?
> Researchers from Australia worked with families who said that their babies (ages 6-16 months) had a sleep problem.
Quite a big caveat here. I’d never let my 1 week or 1 month baby cry at night (or during the day) and in any case, he started sleeping well without any sleep training.
Quite a big caveat here. I’d never let my 1 week or 1 month baby cry at night (or during the day) and in any case, he started sleeping well without any sleep training.
I do agree that 1 week or 1 month old is a completely different matter… But having less time for yourself for 3/4 months doesn’t seem a tragedy to me!
When they are born it’s really chaotic. All the stereotypes apply: sleepless nights, etc. after they grow, it gets easier. After my kid was past that phase it was really smooth. My wife and I got our hobbies, had time to do stuff we liked, etc. It all comes down do partnership. We had our second after our first was in his early teens and all the chaos is back and it’s a bit harder now because its 2 but we still manage to have our private time, although it’s been limited.
tl;dr: it shouldn’t be time consuming.
tl;dr: it shouldn’t be time consuming.
> Suburban adults go home and tend to stay home.
Is this genuinely how you imagine life in the suburbs? You don’t think anyone socialises here or takes part in any culture?
Is this genuinely how you imagine life in the suburbs? You don’t think anyone socialises here or takes part in any culture?
That's what life in the suburbs looked like when I was a child growing up there. I got out as fast as I could, and I will never, ever go back. Your experience is different, I take it?
My suburb experience is more social than my downtown one. My neighbours all talk to us for starters. That just about never happened in the condo buildings downtown. Kids play in the not busy streets. There is a lot of joy in even just watching a road hockey game for a few moments.
> My neighbours all talk to us for starters.
Having suburban neighbors constitute one’s close friend group is obviously possible, but it would be almost entirely a matter of luck. One has very little control over who their neighbors are, and limited ability to survey a neighborhood before deciding to move in.
Having suburban neighbors constitute one’s close friend group is obviously possible, but it would be almost entirely a matter of luck. One has very little control over who their neighbors are, and limited ability to survey a neighborhood before deciding to move in.
There is a degree of interaction that can be nice beyond having close friends. None of my neighbors are my close friends and we don't go into each others houses. But we say hi on the street, and sometimes talk for a few minutes about what's going on in our lives and how the kids are doing. It's friendly but not friends. There is a lot of value in having these sort of interactions especially if you're the type of person who prefers having a few close friends to many less close ones.
The kids factor changes things far more than the location
We have coffee shops, bars, restaurants, museums, historical sites, theatres here in the suburbs as well. We even have a Michelin-starred restaurant in my suburb. Plenty of cities don’t have one of those. It’s obviously not as fast-paced or cutting-edge, but people don’t just sit at home in silence.
Where do you live that you can have such a mix of uses in a suburb - and what suburbs are old enough to contain historical sites? I can't imagine you are describing anywhere in the USA... from my California-raised perspective, suburbs are a largely post-WWII creation: sprawling miles of relatively recent construction, with residential, retail, and commercial purposes all so strictly separated that there is virtually no reason to leave one's house by foot.
There were coffee shops, bars, restaurants, and the occasional movie theater among the suburbs I grew up in, sure, but they were all spread out and far away, tucked into little strip malls along the main roads - not really part of the neighborhoods people lived in.
There were coffee shops, bars, restaurants, and the occasional movie theater among the suburbs I grew up in, sure, but they were all spread out and far away, tucked into little strip malls along the main roads - not really part of the neighborhoods people lived in.
There are many types of suburbs in the US (and worldwide, of course).
I grew up partly in a suburb of New York. The towns around there date back 300 to 400 years, and feel like it. There are walkable town centers with coffee shops and train stations etc.
I also spent a few years in a suburb of Dallas. It was considerably newer, and wedged between a couple of highways. Everything depended on cars.
As I’ve moved around, I’ve seen lots of other points on the suburban spectrum. But for sure, the connotations of “suburb” are nearly uselessly vast.
I grew up partly in a suburb of New York. The towns around there date back 300 to 400 years, and feel like it. There are walkable town centers with coffee shops and train stations etc.
I also spent a few years in a suburb of Dallas. It was considerably newer, and wedged between a couple of highways. Everything depended on cars.
As I’ve moved around, I’ve seen lots of other points on the suburban spectrum. But for sure, the connotations of “suburb” are nearly uselessly vast.
> But for sure, the connotations of “suburb” are nearly uselessly vast.
Yes. From past HN threads, I've come to realize that "suburb" is so undefined that it can mean pretty much anything. We all agree Manhattan isn't a suburb and that remote agricultural land isn't a suburb either. But aside from those, everything else in between is someone's definition of suburb. So it's difficult to talk about it as it could mean any kind of place between those extremes.
Yes. From past HN threads, I've come to realize that "suburb" is so undefined that it can mean pretty much anything. We all agree Manhattan isn't a suburb and that remote agricultural land isn't a suburb either. But aside from those, everything else in between is someone's definition of suburb. So it's difficult to talk about it as it could mean any kind of place between those extremes.
I suppose that while geographers define "suburbs" in terms of their proximity to a larger metropolitan area, the "suburban" quality I actually care about is the urban form characterized by sprawling, auto-dependent, single-family development.
Well, just be aware that others might conjure up an entirely different picture in their head when you use the term.
My silly little town in NJ is 300 years old.
[deleted]
The suburbs around San Francisco don’t really count, in my opinion. I also live in one with a Michelin star restaurant and plenty going on, but I still struggle to participate in a lot of it with a toddler. It’s a far cry from the Texas suburbs I grew up in that more closely resemble the description above.
From what I hear, time begins to return as they reach some amount of independence around 4-5. If you have more than 1, that’s a pretty big window.
That said, my daughter is incredible, and the issue isn’t that I don’t have any time. It’s that I choose spend as much of it with her as I possibly can.
From what I hear, time begins to return as they reach some amount of independence around 4-5. If you have more than 1, that’s a pretty big window.
That said, my daughter is incredible, and the issue isn’t that I don’t have any time. It’s that I choose spend as much of it with her as I possibly can.
Meanwhile in my suburb, I have a 40 minute walk to the nearest thing.
When I get there, I can see a Walmart, a BestBuy, six pizza places, two dentist offices, three chain sandwich shops and a couple of grocery stores.
Everything I need. Nothing I’d ever be excited to go to. Plus I have to get back into the car.
I’ll just stay home in silence. My neighbours do too.
When I get there, I can see a Walmart, a BestBuy, six pizza places, two dentist offices, three chain sandwich shops and a couple of grocery stores.
Everything I need. Nothing I’d ever be excited to go to. Plus I have to get back into the car.
I’ll just stay home in silence. My neighbours do too.
I'm not sure you're accurately describing a suburb.
There’s a lot of variety in how different sub-urban places are. Americans think there’s global metropolises and hell-scape sprawl and nothing in between, but there’s plenty.
Small sample size of course, but I have friends who I have hardly met outside their house since they had a kid and it's not too uncommon. Of course there are others where you don't notice any difference, except that they're bringing the kids now. (Yes, I am simplifying, but moving to the suburbs + having a kid kinda goes hand in hand most of the time here).
[deleted]
Definitely felt like the thesis statement to a longer piece, but I suppose if the answers were obvious we’d already be doing them.
[deleted]
The author does brief weekly “deep thought” type posts and this is one of them. There is plenty of long form content on that site, just not this particular series.
NYC is brutal for having kids in.
[deleted]
So go live in a city? Why are we having this discussion? Nice things cost money, that's well known.
> Nice things cost money, that's well known.
Isn't there a quote from Sir Roger Scruton that goes like "Beauty was taken away from the people and now it's being sold back again as a luxury"?
Isn't there a quote from Sir Roger Scruton that goes like "Beauty was taken away from the people and now it's being sold back again as a luxury"?
Beauty is free. Urban infrastructure is not.
Now, what was your point again?
Now, what was your point again?
Suburban infrastructure is much more costly per resident than urban infrastructure. However, we massively subsidize suburban infrastructure and restrict urban environments with zoning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ...
Even small villages in southern European countries offer a better life than American suburbia.
The point is exactly that: nice things (especially in the public arena) don't have to cost much - and this cost doesn't have to privatized.
The point is exactly that: nice things (especially in the public arena) don't have to cost much - and this cost doesn't have to privatized.
Are you really sure about that? Southern Europe is not Germany, it doesn't have that famous high quality universal healthcare. Not even countries such as Italy are able to guarantee consistent quality - what you get in southern Italy will resemble Mexico or Thailand much more than Germany. Real estate costs a lot there compared to the US, and finding well paid work (or any work at all) is much harder. Anything you heard about EU public transit mostly doesn't apply in the south, you will need a car; but the roads aren't prepared for today's amount of traffic, and there's not enough money for maintenance nor construction.
What a bullshit comment. Define “better”
Better as "there is no money in the world that you can pay me and my wife to move to any American suburbs, while the only thing stopping us to go to the Cyclades or somewhere close to Braga (for now) is that she can not find some remote job.
The places to live, by themselves, have all the infra we need. The problem is the lack of local jobs.
The places to live, by themselves, have all the infra we need. The problem is the lack of local jobs.
Oh so by better you mean COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE
"Beauty is subjective" is one of the favorite rationalizations for those who are so used to live in ugliness that they forgot what a good life can be.
Your logic is so flawed it’s almost endearing.
Why are you are trying to apply "logic" here? Do you want us to establish a formal system in order to discuss what would be "a better life" lived in different places?
So, I'm sorry if you are disappointed because I am not giving you a "reason" to state that life in suburbia is so bad. All I can say is that I have (briefly) lived in the Boston suburbs and I've lived in cities of many different sizes before and - looking in retrospect - no place gave me a sense of hopeless dread as much as Newton.
Yes, of course my first statement was "subjective" in the sense that it can not be formally measured or defined.
Thing is, just like "beauty is subjective" but we all can still find things (and beings) with qualities that transcend time and cultures to the point of considering it objectively beautiful, there are some aspects of living in "traditional" urban environments that will never be replicated in American Suburbia, which makes life in Suburbia objectively worse.
So, I'm sorry if you are disappointed because I am not giving you a "reason" to state that life in suburbia is so bad. All I can say is that I have (briefly) lived in the Boston suburbs and I've lived in cities of many different sizes before and - looking in retrospect - no place gave me a sense of hopeless dread as much as Newton.
Yes, of course my first statement was "subjective" in the sense that it can not be formally measured or defined.
Thing is, just like "beauty is subjective" but we all can still find things (and beings) with qualities that transcend time and cultures to the point of considering it objectively beautiful, there are some aspects of living in "traditional" urban environments that will never be replicated in American Suburbia, which makes life in Suburbia objectively worse.
I could take your last sentence and flip urban and suburbia. Your argument has no substance.
Not that the article gives us much, but by and large the people who fail to launch into adulthood are people with extremely comfortable childhoods.
I'll give you an example, I have a friend of mine whose parents take good care of him. They all have a great relationship, so it's fine for him to live with them well into his thirties.
I've also met the reverse, someone who has a horrible relationship with their parents but still live with them well into their twenties, even after the parents repeatedly try to kick them out. After a ton of thought, and a bit of emotional maturing on my part, I stopped feeling sorry for these people. If your parents no longer have the capacity to care for you, figure something else out.
You don't have a right to sit up and demand someone take care of you. This is my biggest red flag with dating, if you feel that level of entitlement to your parents, you'll feel it towards everyone else.
My childhood was a living hell of evictions and other chaos, the best day of my life was when I got my first apartment. I couldn't wait for adulthood because instead of waiting for these grown ups to the side to pay a cable bill before rent, I could make those choices.
I think everyone should strive to move out in their early twenties, and I won't really go out with someone who doesn't have their own apartment and a job.
Luckily since I left LA, I've had no trouble meeting fantastical folks with great careers. Most dating/ socializing advice is absolutely useless since it won't mention how important location is.
I'll give you an example, I have a friend of mine whose parents take good care of him. They all have a great relationship, so it's fine for him to live with them well into his thirties.
I've also met the reverse, someone who has a horrible relationship with their parents but still live with them well into their twenties, even after the parents repeatedly try to kick them out. After a ton of thought, and a bit of emotional maturing on my part, I stopped feeling sorry for these people. If your parents no longer have the capacity to care for you, figure something else out.
You don't have a right to sit up and demand someone take care of you. This is my biggest red flag with dating, if you feel that level of entitlement to your parents, you'll feel it towards everyone else.
My childhood was a living hell of evictions and other chaos, the best day of my life was when I got my first apartment. I couldn't wait for adulthood because instead of waiting for these grown ups to the side to pay a cable bill before rent, I could make those choices.
I think everyone should strive to move out in their early twenties, and I won't really go out with someone who doesn't have their own apartment and a job.
Luckily since I left LA, I've had no trouble meeting fantastical folks with great careers. Most dating/ socializing advice is absolutely useless since it won't mention how important location is.
> I think everyone should strive to move out in their early twenties, and I won't really go out with someone who doesn't have their own apartment and a job.
Why would I do a ridiculous money churning move like that if I don’t have to? Why not instead work and save until I have enough to confidentially and financially save for a house?
Why would I do a ridiculous money churning move like that if I don’t have to? Why not instead work and save until I have enough to confidentially and financially save for a house?
A maturity switch flips off in your head when you get your own apartment.
You're not wasting money, you're spending it on learning how to become an adult. Plus you'll be more open to moving to different cities, which is much much easier as a young adult than it is as an older person with obligations
You're not wasting money, you're spending it on learning how to become an adult. Plus you'll be more open to moving to different cities, which is much much easier as a young adult than it is as an older person with obligations
You can't generalize that, or we'd see vastly different outcomes in 'adults' over things like... country or urban/rural.
From my understanding it's simply a lot owed to culture. When I was in my early twenties, Americans tended to buy a house (with the attached mortgage) much more likely because it's a thing you do. In comparison here in Germany, NOBODY (except with very rich parents) would get or even buy a house. Also no one would give you the money for the mortgage in the first place. (Compounded by the fact that we'd typically finish university later than Americans would have their master's, don't even talk about a Bachelor's). Especially in the city, living with your parents until after uni (so around 25-28) was completely normal. Exceptions like going to a different city and getting an apartment notwithstanding.
From my understanding it's simply a lot owed to culture. When I was in my early twenties, Americans tended to buy a house (with the attached mortgage) much more likely because it's a thing you do. In comparison here in Germany, NOBODY (except with very rich parents) would get or even buy a house. Also no one would give you the money for the mortgage in the first place. (Compounded by the fact that we'd typically finish university later than Americans would have their master's, don't even talk about a Bachelor's). Especially in the city, living with your parents until after uni (so around 25-28) was completely normal. Exceptions like going to a different city and getting an apartment notwithstanding.
Well, for my American context, it's the best way to grow up
Once you have to pay your own rent, you quickly understand how the world works. When it comes to dating, I've never had a good experience with someone who was past 25 and wasn't independent.
I got my first apartment when I was 19, and for the most part, I've been on my own ever since.
The typical person I've met who's 30 or whatever and lives with their parents, has a massive entitlement problem. They're simply owed things. Their mom's being mean because their mom wants them to get a job.
Once you have to pay your own rent, you quickly understand how the world works. When it comes to dating, I've never had a good experience with someone who was past 25 and wasn't independent.
I got my first apartment when I was 19, and for the most part, I've been on my own ever since.
The typical person I've met who's 30 or whatever and lives with their parents, has a massive entitlement problem. They're simply owed things. Their mom's being mean because their mom wants them to get a job.
> Once you have to pay your own rent,
This doesn’t make sense to me cause you can still live at home and pay rent. That’s a reality for many Americans.
> The typical person I've met who's 30 or whatever and lives with their parents, has a massive entitlement problem. They're simply owed things. Their mom's being mean because their mom wants them to get a job.
It seems you have this notion that anyone still living with their parents at that age doesn’t have a job rather than having a job and saving money for an actual house.
This doesn’t make sense to me cause you can still live at home and pay rent. That’s a reality for many Americans.
> The typical person I've met who's 30 or whatever and lives with their parents, has a massive entitlement problem. They're simply owed things. Their mom's being mean because their mom wants them to get a job.
It seems you have this notion that anyone still living with their parents at that age doesn’t have a job rather than having a job and saving money for an actual house.
This is based off of the people I've actually met.
I'm not meeting people who are living with their parents so they can save up enough money to buy a house.
Again, this is just based off of my experiences. One of my own uncles never moved out or did anything with his life, unfortunately there's just a lot of people like this.
I have had a very unique life, and according to the lessons I've learned I'm extremely selective of who I'm around. If you're in your late 20s or 30s and you live with your parents, I'm going to have major doubts about your maturity. This is fine, not everyone is going to be attractive to me, and vice versa.
The biggest issue is when you deal with someone who's used to having mommy and daddy take care of them, they'll want someone new to take care of them. I've known guys like this, I've known girls like this.
I'm not meeting people who are living with their parents so they can save up enough money to buy a house.
Again, this is just based off of my experiences. One of my own uncles never moved out or did anything with his life, unfortunately there's just a lot of people like this.
I have had a very unique life, and according to the lessons I've learned I'm extremely selective of who I'm around. If you're in your late 20s or 30s and you live with your parents, I'm going to have major doubts about your maturity. This is fine, not everyone is going to be attractive to me, and vice versa.
The biggest issue is when you deal with someone who's used to having mommy and daddy take care of them, they'll want someone new to take care of them. I've known guys like this, I've known girls like this.
Some people might be saving for a house. I would be that a significant portion of the people not growing up are spending money on vacations and "stuff".
I agree. My wife never lived alone and her mom took care of her financially. She has no idea of the responsibilities of running a household, paying bills, etc. She thinks she should spend her money on fun stuff because that's all she's ever needed to do with it. She also wants a bigger house that we can't afford.
There's no doubt in my mind that living independently is necessary for someone to grow up, and that too comfortable a life removes the desire to be independent.
There's no doubt in my mind that living independently is necessary for someone to grow up, and that too comfortable a life removes the desire to be independent.
I'd lay the blame more on the parents then (or maybe no one, really?), and yeah, some people need to learn this only when they move out - others don't have to move out because that's clear from the start.
Simply not buying this argument, it's nowhere near necessary - maybe it's just a good reality check for people who weren't really independent or 'grown-up' before.
Simply not buying this argument, it's nowhere near necessary - maybe it's just a good reality check for people who weren't really independent or 'grown-up' before.
I don't know of anybody who has been coddled at home and had a good understanding of money and thw true scope of responsibilities before moving out on their own. Certainly some are better equipped than others, but unless you've had to deal with all the minutiae and legal stuff, it's unlikely they really know.
What location did you find, if you don't mind saying?
No problem, I moved to Chicago instantly cut my cost of living by about 50%.
Met the first girl I've ever gone out with for any significant amount of time, and I no longer had to drive.
But you have to be the one who makes this choice. I had to stop using social media since I'd have jerks tell me I was the problem. No no I'm just not compatible with LA.
Even LA used to be a much better place to live, in my early twenties. It was still affordable and people are nicer. You can still find a two bedroom in Chicago for $1,500, within walking distance from a metro line.
Good luck finding a two bedroom under $3000 within distance of a Metro line in LA, and finding a job within walking distance of another Metro stop.
Met the first girl I've ever gone out with for any significant amount of time, and I no longer had to drive.
But you have to be the one who makes this choice. I had to stop using social media since I'd have jerks tell me I was the problem. No no I'm just not compatible with LA.
Even LA used to be a much better place to live, in my early twenties. It was still affordable and people are nicer. You can still find a two bedroom in Chicago for $1,500, within walking distance from a metro line.
Good luck finding a two bedroom under $3000 within distance of a Metro line in LA, and finding a job within walking distance of another Metro stop.
Possibly an unpopular opinion but we have spent the post WWII period making prolonged adolescence more desirable, what exactly did we think was going to happen? We built a welfare state that removes most of the penalty of not having children, removed all the stigma of out of wedlock sex, most of the stigma of drug use and abandoned religion. We let identity marxism sneak into the spot previously occupied by religion, replacing the goal of becoming an adult with mass confusion from an unintelligent, wrong headed ideology. I don't see any example in history where the carrot of more desirable adulthood beat out the equivalent of being a tinder f#ck boi across a whole society where there was no stigma of that behavior. This leads me to believe the stick works far better than the carrot
I think this article is skirting around the edge of the issue. Yes, we need to make people more willing to enter adulthood. Yes, adulthood has more responsibilities which should be more privileges. The problem is that we're granting privileges in society without the associated responsibility.
Only a fool would assume responsibility when there's no benefit or requirement to do so. This is the society we've created for people. They're only just using it to their advantage, and I can't blame them.
Instead of drinking, driving, voting, etc... Being conveyed at an age perhaps there's some other meaningful metric that could be used in combination with a minimum age.
One idea I've considered, but not fully, is the idea of being able to vote only if you pay taxes. The adage was "no taxation without representation" but what we've constructed is "representation without taxation" in a large portion of the population.
Despite all the uproar over anything federal in the US, governance is still primarily at the state and local levels. Since nearly everyone pays some sort of state or local tax (income, sales, property, etc...) Voting would remain intact for nearly everyone at the level that really matters. The federal level it would not be as the number of tax payers is a lot less because it's primarily income based.
Obviously this isn't a fully fleshed out idea, but putting an incentive to monetarily participate in society needs to be strong one. With no skin in the game, so to speak, you have no incentive to consider both the collective good with your own good.
Only a fool would assume responsibility when there's no benefit or requirement to do so. This is the society we've created for people. They're only just using it to their advantage, and I can't blame them.
Instead of drinking, driving, voting, etc... Being conveyed at an age perhaps there's some other meaningful metric that could be used in combination with a minimum age.
One idea I've considered, but not fully, is the idea of being able to vote only if you pay taxes. The adage was "no taxation without representation" but what we've constructed is "representation without taxation" in a large portion of the population.
Despite all the uproar over anything federal in the US, governance is still primarily at the state and local levels. Since nearly everyone pays some sort of state or local tax (income, sales, property, etc...) Voting would remain intact for nearly everyone at the level that really matters. The federal level it would not be as the number of tax payers is a lot less because it's primarily income based.
Obviously this isn't a fully fleshed out idea, but putting an incentive to monetarily participate in society needs to be strong one. With no skin in the game, so to speak, you have no incentive to consider both the collective good with your own good.
While I agree that maybe we should use since other metric for adulthood, I completely disagree about only being able to vote if you pay taxes. That has to be the most regressive idea I've ever seen on this site.
So because you're so poor you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote? What if you don't believe the laws are fair and that's why you're too broke to pay taxes? Oh well, your voice will never be heard.
> With no skin in the game, so to speak, you have no incentive to consider both the collective good with your own good.
This idea that how much money you make shows merit and how responsible are and that you have "skin in the game" is completely absurd. Everyone who lives in this country has skin in the game. How much money you make doesn't imply merit and worthyness to vote. A rich person paying capital gains taxes as their only taxes isn't a better person than someone working multiple minimum wage jobs.
The results of elections can affect everyone. They can put us at war for example. They can affect the environment you live in and your quality of life.
Also, how would this even be implemented. At the local level what if you pay sales tax? Do you show a receipt to vote? At the federal level what if you pay taxes but you're so poor you get it all back? Is it that you paid taxes to begin with that gives you the right vote? Do you have to net lose money to the government. Can I just donate a dollar to the federal government and call it a federal voting tax, then be able to vote?
Anyway, I honestly want to know what problems you're solving by treating poor people like felons.
So because you're so poor you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote? What if you don't believe the laws are fair and that's why you're too broke to pay taxes? Oh well, your voice will never be heard.
> With no skin in the game, so to speak, you have no incentive to consider both the collective good with your own good.
This idea that how much money you make shows merit and how responsible are and that you have "skin in the game" is completely absurd. Everyone who lives in this country has skin in the game. How much money you make doesn't imply merit and worthyness to vote. A rich person paying capital gains taxes as their only taxes isn't a better person than someone working multiple minimum wage jobs.
The results of elections can affect everyone. They can put us at war for example. They can affect the environment you live in and your quality of life.
Also, how would this even be implemented. At the local level what if you pay sales tax? Do you show a receipt to vote? At the federal level what if you pay taxes but you're so poor you get it all back? Is it that you paid taxes to begin with that gives you the right vote? Do you have to net lose money to the government. Can I just donate a dollar to the federal government and call it a federal voting tax, then be able to vote?
Anyway, I honestly want to know what problems you're solving by treating poor people like felons.
You're missing the entire point. None of what I said was about treating poor like felons. It's was a broadly conceived idea, which admittedly not fully formed, was about having everyone have a stake in what's happening.
If your only stake is, my vote can be used to get me more money with no perceptible downside to me then I'll always vote more money. This is the situation the poor is in currently. Why would they not vote for more subsidies? They literally have no downside to wealth redistribution.
My point wasn't about finding a way to punish then, but you encourage them to not be in that situation. That's all. Just as the OP, enter adulthood.
If your only stake is, my vote can be used to get me more money with no perceptible downside to me then I'll always vote more money. This is the situation the poor is in currently. Why would they not vote for more subsidies? They literally have no downside to wealth redistribution.
My point wasn't about finding a way to punish then, but you encourage them to not be in that situation. That's all. Just as the OP, enter adulthood.
I thought about this, it's not enough to limit voting to those that pay taxes because only a small percentage of people pay taxes in an amount anywhere near what they cost in taxes and taxes are not voluntary. You need to make the person voting have skin in the game and that means it need to be voluntary and it also needs to be enough that it will sting if things go badly. I think the best way to do that would be to make potential voters post a nontransferable nonredeemable bond for some number of years (say 10 years) amount of money with the government if they want to vote. I would suggest averaging the last five years of income tax and setting that number at the equivalent of 2 weeks of income with a floor at full time minimum wage so that guys that earn a lot have to put a lot at risk and guys that earn a little have to risk less. then for that whole period the bond is with the government the bond should be at risk if the government runs a deficit above some small wiggle room, say 1% of government revenue. When the next election comes you have to top up your bond.
> being able to vote only if you pay taxes
You legitimately don't see any problem with this?
There's a huge swath of people who are unemployed, disabled, or otherwise unable to work. There's people with criminal records who effectively are barred from most jobs. There's entire towns where the factory that employed most of the people went out of business and now everyone is unemployed, unless they move- which they can't because their homes are now worthless and they have mortgages.
You're talking about taking away the voting rights of all of those people because they're too poor for you. Bad luck on their part, not being born to privilege.
And of course you don't even see where this goes next. Once you start to take away the voting rights of such people, they have no ability to fight as you keep going, as you take more away from them. They have no votes, no voice, no ability to stop those with power.
I cannot imagine a more sociopathic, heartless idea than the one you've just proposed.
You legitimately don't see any problem with this?
There's a huge swath of people who are unemployed, disabled, or otherwise unable to work. There's people with criminal records who effectively are barred from most jobs. There's entire towns where the factory that employed most of the people went out of business and now everyone is unemployed, unless they move- which they can't because their homes are now worthless and they have mortgages.
You're talking about taking away the voting rights of all of those people because they're too poor for you. Bad luck on their part, not being born to privilege.
And of course you don't even see where this goes next. Once you start to take away the voting rights of such people, they have no ability to fight as you keep going, as you take more away from them. They have no votes, no voice, no ability to stop those with power.
I cannot imagine a more sociopathic, heartless idea than the one you've just proposed.
Not to mention, specifically made illegal in multiple constitutions for more than the reasons stated above.
> I cannot imagine a more sociopathic, heartless idea than the one you've just proposed.
I would refrain from calling someones idea sociopathic, when left unelaborated. I've theorized myself with the idea of having only people that pay taxes vote, or rather, having representational democracy an opt-in system via taxation. Currently there is no way to opt out of taxes, and the things you get in return are rather slim privileges and benefits.
I only have a shallow understanding of the form of democracy that the US employs, but what impression I have of it, is that representational democracy is just a facade when big corporations have the budget to push their agendas via lobbying.
When I think of people championing for the unprivileged, I can only think of the civil society (NGOs) as having a direct effect. If the world had in place something more akin to liquid democracy, I would have better trust in the system. Do you think that currently democracy is working, when we can pull up recent examples, like a few select people having the power to make abortion illegal?
I would refrain from calling someones idea sociopathic, when left unelaborated. I've theorized myself with the idea of having only people that pay taxes vote, or rather, having representational democracy an opt-in system via taxation. Currently there is no way to opt out of taxes, and the things you get in return are rather slim privileges and benefits.
I only have a shallow understanding of the form of democracy that the US employs, but what impression I have of it, is that representational democracy is just a facade when big corporations have the budget to push their agendas via lobbying.
When I think of people championing for the unprivileged, I can only think of the civil society (NGOs) as having a direct effect. If the world had in place something more akin to liquid democracy, I would have better trust in the system. Do you think that currently democracy is working, when we can pull up recent examples, like a few select people having the power to make abortion illegal?
> One idea I've considered, but not fully, is the idea of being able to vote only if you pay taxes
I've seen some variant of this on HN recently, proposing ways to TAKE AWAY voting rights.
(The last time that sticks in my mind was someone saying you should only be allowed to vote if you do so under the guidance of a sanctioned organization like a non profit social organization!)
After all the progress in voting rights during the last century, it is disheartening to read people seriously proposing taking rights away from people.
I've seen some variant of this on HN recently, proposing ways to TAKE AWAY voting rights.
(The last time that sticks in my mind was someone saying you should only be allowed to vote if you do so under the guidance of a sanctioned organization like a non profit social organization!)
After all the progress in voting rights during the last century, it is disheartening to read people seriously proposing taking rights away from people.
Everyone likes democracy. But only until the will of the people goes real hard against their views
> Yes, we need to make people more willing to enter adulthood.
People age into adulthood on their own. I really don’t understand this attitude of enticing folks to grow up
People age into adulthood on their own. I really don’t understand this attitude of enticing folks to grow up
The issue with a voting tax is that the people who pay it might vote to make it harder for the people who don't to start paying it and voting.
You could just as well argue that the issue with a voting age is that the people of that age might vote it make it harder for younger people to start voting.
With age every year you are guaranteed to have your age increase by one year. You and people your age will eventually reach the voting age. At that point you can vote to change the voting age.
When it comes to wealth, you are not guaranteed to ever make enough money to pay taxes. You could go your whole life not being allowed to vote.
When it comes to wealth, you are not guaranteed to ever make enough money to pay taxes. You could go your whole life not being allowed to vote.
I will really try hard to not make this feel like a personal attack as I don't think you have bad intentions at all, and as you admit, you didn't flesh out this idea. But the above reads with so much complicated and murky language and the subsequent child posts have similar ones which makes it a very nervous read. (sorry, this will be a wall of text since for me there's a lot to unpack in this discussion)
The point of this post is that I think it's wrong to assume we can perfectly define a system of privileges and rights because it's so wildly inconsistent in everyone's understandings. We debated such things for literally thousands of years with some fairly prestigious minds and the best we can do is just try to fix the issues introduced by previous attempts, and that is getting more and more difficult each year. Worse, monetary influence acts outside of the societal system and the desire for improved revenue/profits has undue power over that of an individual participating in society.
How exactly do we define or quantify a proper amount of responsibility and privilege? How do we define the proper threshold of such things? How do we explain comparisons to other societies where the threshold for such privileges is far lower or even non-existent, and they _don't_ have the troubles that are prognosticated during discussions on social policy?
Society is a very tricky subject I think and the fact that collectively humans have been debating it since we figured out how to communicate to each other tells me it's not such an easy issue to solve, and more like something you just need to constantly be revisiting and fixing/improving.
Societal judgements on responsibility is wildly inconsistent and I find it exceptionally challenging to even refine a lot of privileges and responsibilities that a given individual has. I'm relatively successful in a technical career; I take on a lot of responsibilities (person management, policy making, judgment calls on constant grey-area situations), and I'm not sure what privileges I actually have that many of my staff or that a sandwich maker at a corner shop doesn't have in most cases. I have more money, sure; socially, I'm more respected because it's a "respectable" position, I have more opportunities because I tend to meet a lot more people in places of power who see results and want the results. But is that actually my privilege or is it the choice and privilege of others who grant it to me? That is, can I actually enact such privilege or is it exposure to opportunities that others wouldn't get? What exactly is privilege in practical terms, not dictionary definitions?
Conversely, the sandwich maker arguably makes more people happier and society better on a day to day basis than I do; a lot of my job is telling people either what they did wrong or just flat out "no", and that leaves a lot of people unhappy, while not really making anyone else happier. After all, I didn't really make their lives better directly, I just fulfilled a role in a process which has a neutral outcome for most people. Isn't the sandwich maker far more important in their role in society than I am? Is this responsibility on their part that they bring more overall good to society by working a difficult and low-paying job? What exactly is responsibility in practical terms, not dictionary definitions?
I'm not just trying to muddy the waters with semantics; I think these are real things you need to consider if you want to start a discussion to attribute privilege to responsibility since there is a very wide gap in understandings here and often I can't really fault the logic.
My personal take is that society at large works because collectively most people realize it doesn't and by all means it shouldn't, and that society requires constant maintenance and evolution to keep it running. Don't forget the classic xkcd[0] about modern software dependencies, as I think this is a fairly apt comparison for society. One of the ways that technology _does_ address this is that it constantly evolves, and the former pillars of society end up becoming vestigial and eventually dropped.
In society, much happens the same -- previous "givens" that were logically and heavily debated by some pretty smart people end up being completely dropped as new advances come.
> "representation without taxation" in a large portion of the population.
The issue I have with this is that the opposite is also true -- governance without representation is increasingly becoming more and more common for reasons that have very little logic behind them. In the US anyways, a few grams of weed in many states is enough to remove your representation. Having a lower class job or not enough money is enough to remove your representation. Living on the wrong side of the street after rezoning a district is effectively enough to remove your representation. Laws I consider to be woefully outdated/misinformed or laws that are actively hostile towards populations are a far bigger concern for me than "are the lazy stoners Bob and Alice responsible enough to vote on issues."
And I don't think the answer is some council that arbitrates and thinks on these things, as it seems our willingness as humans to worship such entities is just too built-in, and furthermore, I think it's not really reasonable to claim that we can have objective systems in such a matter. The US Supreme Court is under fire for this right now (and has been from basically all ideologies for awhile), and they're suppose to be the highest court in the land [1] that are practiced and careful logicians and reasonable persons. The US still has complete worship of its constitution and its authors, despite the fact that mostly the constitution was a brainchild of a few individuals, and they borrowed a lot of it from earlier works. The original intent of design to change and be rebuild/revisited was attempted to be done with amendments, but even that has a glacial pace, with the most recent amendment taking 202 years to come to fruition [2].
Even if we did have a perfectly working council that was constantly, it doesn't really address the fact that so much of society is influenced and controlled by non-governmental entities. Remember, it as an abhorrent idea for most employers to hire people who use recreational drugs besides alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. The horror stories of what might happen were paraded around for decades, right up until a global pandemic happened and suddenly the workforce vanished, and suddenly all those stoners destined to destroy society seemed to be acceptable candidates to drive trucks. Seems the stoners have been doing pretty alright with their new jobs and none of the doom and gloom came to be, and arguably it was good for society that a lot of these services kept working. But this wasn't legislated or governed societal advancement, this was that revenue lines wouldn't go up if businesses didn't change their minds. Corporations having "rights" is a very strange concept to me, as I'm not sure what responsibility they actually take on that contributes back to society; an exchange of services is not a responsibility, and demonstrably throughout history, businesses and corporations have fought for the _right to not be responsible towards certain persons_, and many times they won. Nevermind that corporations are awful at judging what is a needed responsibility as we saw during the pandemic (think of how many "essential workers" had to go to work during the early parts, holding advertising signs and wearing costumes for shops that no one could go to anyways)
It's wrong in my opinion to think about this in terms of quantifying contributions and required responsibilities versus privileges, because when we see what actually happens and how society actually works, there is not even a passing correlation between the two, with extreme power imbalances and responsibilities and privileges that fall far outside the realm of government and society.
[0] - https://xkcd.com/2347
[1] - I'm not interested in discussing Supreme Court decisions, so I'd rather people read this and just agree that the court makes contentious decisions, perhaps by design.
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unit...
The point of this post is that I think it's wrong to assume we can perfectly define a system of privileges and rights because it's so wildly inconsistent in everyone's understandings. We debated such things for literally thousands of years with some fairly prestigious minds and the best we can do is just try to fix the issues introduced by previous attempts, and that is getting more and more difficult each year. Worse, monetary influence acts outside of the societal system and the desire for improved revenue/profits has undue power over that of an individual participating in society.
How exactly do we define or quantify a proper amount of responsibility and privilege? How do we define the proper threshold of such things? How do we explain comparisons to other societies where the threshold for such privileges is far lower or even non-existent, and they _don't_ have the troubles that are prognosticated during discussions on social policy?
Society is a very tricky subject I think and the fact that collectively humans have been debating it since we figured out how to communicate to each other tells me it's not such an easy issue to solve, and more like something you just need to constantly be revisiting and fixing/improving.
Societal judgements on responsibility is wildly inconsistent and I find it exceptionally challenging to even refine a lot of privileges and responsibilities that a given individual has. I'm relatively successful in a technical career; I take on a lot of responsibilities (person management, policy making, judgment calls on constant grey-area situations), and I'm not sure what privileges I actually have that many of my staff or that a sandwich maker at a corner shop doesn't have in most cases. I have more money, sure; socially, I'm more respected because it's a "respectable" position, I have more opportunities because I tend to meet a lot more people in places of power who see results and want the results. But is that actually my privilege or is it the choice and privilege of others who grant it to me? That is, can I actually enact such privilege or is it exposure to opportunities that others wouldn't get? What exactly is privilege in practical terms, not dictionary definitions?
Conversely, the sandwich maker arguably makes more people happier and society better on a day to day basis than I do; a lot of my job is telling people either what they did wrong or just flat out "no", and that leaves a lot of people unhappy, while not really making anyone else happier. After all, I didn't really make their lives better directly, I just fulfilled a role in a process which has a neutral outcome for most people. Isn't the sandwich maker far more important in their role in society than I am? Is this responsibility on their part that they bring more overall good to society by working a difficult and low-paying job? What exactly is responsibility in practical terms, not dictionary definitions?
I'm not just trying to muddy the waters with semantics; I think these are real things you need to consider if you want to start a discussion to attribute privilege to responsibility since there is a very wide gap in understandings here and often I can't really fault the logic.
My personal take is that society at large works because collectively most people realize it doesn't and by all means it shouldn't, and that society requires constant maintenance and evolution to keep it running. Don't forget the classic xkcd[0] about modern software dependencies, as I think this is a fairly apt comparison for society. One of the ways that technology _does_ address this is that it constantly evolves, and the former pillars of society end up becoming vestigial and eventually dropped.
In society, much happens the same -- previous "givens" that were logically and heavily debated by some pretty smart people end up being completely dropped as new advances come.
> "representation without taxation" in a large portion of the population.
The issue I have with this is that the opposite is also true -- governance without representation is increasingly becoming more and more common for reasons that have very little logic behind them. In the US anyways, a few grams of weed in many states is enough to remove your representation. Having a lower class job or not enough money is enough to remove your representation. Living on the wrong side of the street after rezoning a district is effectively enough to remove your representation. Laws I consider to be woefully outdated/misinformed or laws that are actively hostile towards populations are a far bigger concern for me than "are the lazy stoners Bob and Alice responsible enough to vote on issues."
And I don't think the answer is some council that arbitrates and thinks on these things, as it seems our willingness as humans to worship such entities is just too built-in, and furthermore, I think it's not really reasonable to claim that we can have objective systems in such a matter. The US Supreme Court is under fire for this right now (and has been from basically all ideologies for awhile), and they're suppose to be the highest court in the land [1] that are practiced and careful logicians and reasonable persons. The US still has complete worship of its constitution and its authors, despite the fact that mostly the constitution was a brainchild of a few individuals, and they borrowed a lot of it from earlier works. The original intent of design to change and be rebuild/revisited was attempted to be done with amendments, but even that has a glacial pace, with the most recent amendment taking 202 years to come to fruition [2].
Even if we did have a perfectly working council that was constantly, it doesn't really address the fact that so much of society is influenced and controlled by non-governmental entities. Remember, it as an abhorrent idea for most employers to hire people who use recreational drugs besides alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. The horror stories of what might happen were paraded around for decades, right up until a global pandemic happened and suddenly the workforce vanished, and suddenly all those stoners destined to destroy society seemed to be acceptable candidates to drive trucks. Seems the stoners have been doing pretty alright with their new jobs and none of the doom and gloom came to be, and arguably it was good for society that a lot of these services kept working. But this wasn't legislated or governed societal advancement, this was that revenue lines wouldn't go up if businesses didn't change their minds. Corporations having "rights" is a very strange concept to me, as I'm not sure what responsibility they actually take on that contributes back to society; an exchange of services is not a responsibility, and demonstrably throughout history, businesses and corporations have fought for the _right to not be responsible towards certain persons_, and many times they won. Nevermind that corporations are awful at judging what is a needed responsibility as we saw during the pandemic (think of how many "essential workers" had to go to work during the early parts, holding advertising signs and wearing costumes for shops that no one could go to anyways)
It's wrong in my opinion to think about this in terms of quantifying contributions and required responsibilities versus privileges, because when we see what actually happens and how society actually works, there is not even a passing correlation between the two, with extreme power imbalances and responsibilities and privileges that fall far outside the realm of government and society.
[0] - https://xkcd.com/2347
[1] - I'm not interested in discussing Supreme Court decisions, so I'd rather people read this and just agree that the court makes contentious decisions, perhaps by design.
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unit...
It's not a personal attack at all. You have a well reasoned post to a spitball of an idea. I've been poor, very poor, the poor that requires government assistance to live and I've been uppper middle class. The thing is the friends that I made when I was poor, are still poor. They are not they for lack of intelligence, but only for lack of ambition.
Positive encouragement only works so much. Eventually there much be a consequence that is used as encouragement. Both methods work toget to build up a better overall tomorrow.
I don't know the correct answer but the current methods do not seem to be working.
Positive encouragement only works so much. Eventually there much be a consequence that is used as encouragement. Both methods work toget to build up a better overall tomorrow.
I don't know the correct answer but the current methods do not seem to be working.
I'm really glad and appreciate you took my post in the spirit I meant it, as I absolutely get the premise behind it. I just don't fully subscribe to your initial post, but really I appreciate your understanding.
For full disclosure, I dream of Star Trek Space Socialism (post-scarcity), basically a world where yes, society ensures a minimum standard of living, but it's a pretty okay standard of living. A home with 4 walls + a roof + hot water, access to information, food, and no need to worry that this safety net gets removed.
I've been poor as hell in the US (lived on eggs and rice in creative ways for many years), I've been rich as an oligarch in Eastern Europe, but my lowest point defined what I really wanted/needed, and I want this for everyone. I want a world where you just don't have to worry about the basics of life and instead focus just on what you want to. And it's a pretty good base-level living.
I grew the most when I didn't need to worry about the basics, and I ready thousands of stories of the same, so I can't help but think this is the way to get society in a good spot. There will be freeloaders, sure, but I don't think it's statistically more than the current system enables. :)
For full disclosure, I dream of Star Trek Space Socialism (post-scarcity), basically a world where yes, society ensures a minimum standard of living, but it's a pretty okay standard of living. A home with 4 walls + a roof + hot water, access to information, food, and no need to worry that this safety net gets removed.
I've been poor as hell in the US (lived on eggs and rice in creative ways for many years), I've been rich as an oligarch in Eastern Europe, but my lowest point defined what I really wanted/needed, and I want this for everyone. I want a world where you just don't have to worry about the basics of life and instead focus just on what you want to. And it's a pretty good base-level living.
I grew the most when I didn't need to worry about the basics, and I ready thousands of stories of the same, so I can't help but think this is the way to get society in a good spot. There will be freeloaders, sure, but I don't think it's statistically more than the current system enables. :)
At least in Texas, 6-year-old pay sales tax on Candy (unless it’s under 50c and sold from a vending machine). Should they be allowed to vote?
I am highly supportive of reforming both the tax code and the requirement to exercise of responsibility instead of just rights, but this approach definitely does not feel particularly thought through, as you call out.
I am highly supportive of reforming both the tax code and the requirement to exercise of responsibility instead of just rights, but this approach definitely does not feel particularly thought through, as you call out.
No, 6 year old would not be allowed to vote
>>perhaps there's some other meaningful metric that could be used in combination with a minimum age
>>perhaps there's some other meaningful metric that could be used in combination with a minimum age
> Only a fool would assume responsibility when there's no benefit or requirement to do so.
I take issue with this statement. It’s such an American take to say that we need to reward all responsibility monetarily or meaningfully.
A lot of time taking on responsibility for something is a privilege that you’re granted by a community, and you get a feeling of fulfilment and sense of meaning/community out of it.
Replacing that human feeling with money a lot of the time cheapens it and makes the whole thing transactional.
I take issue with this statement. It’s such an American take to say that we need to reward all responsibility monetarily or meaningfully.
A lot of time taking on responsibility for something is a privilege that you’re granted by a community, and you get a feeling of fulfilment and sense of meaning/community out of it.
Replacing that human feeling with money a lot of the time cheapens it and makes the whole thing transactional.
I don’t live in America so I can’t say if GP is right or not, but I don’t think GP is saying those aren’t benefits, just that those benefits are given out to everyone regardless of taking responsibility, so there’s no incentive for anyone to do so.
At least that’s how I read it.
At least that’s how I read it.
Reminds me of that infamous comment[1]
The reward doesn't have to be only monetary, but honestly? Actual responsibility is stressful when the cost of failure is high. It can also cost lots of time
Responsibility isn't rewarding by itself to me - the things you've mentioned as intrinsic rewards can be achieved without it
Maybe if I am ever financially independent and bored with everything else in life I'll rock that way to fill the void. Not before that
[1] >paulriddle on Nov 16, 2019 It's funny how carefully you're stepping around financially rewarding people who do the work. It's like you know your status does not allow you to own the money generated, so you're settling for owning the results, the process, the method, the responsibility, the all. You are weak.
The reward doesn't have to be only monetary, but honestly? Actual responsibility is stressful when the cost of failure is high. It can also cost lots of time
Responsibility isn't rewarding by itself to me - the things you've mentioned as intrinsic rewards can be achieved without it
Maybe if I am ever financially independent and bored with everything else in life I'll rock that way to fill the void. Not before that
[1] >paulriddle on Nov 16, 2019 It's funny how carefully you're stepping around financially rewarding people who do the work. It's like you know your status does not allow you to own the money generated, so you're settling for owning the results, the process, the method, the responsibility, the all. You are weak.
Thing is, people are not being rewarded even monetarily. Wages have been stagnating for many years.
Many will end up homeless if they're not paid enough, and it's getting there.
So no, replacing money with feel good benefits is not good enough. Most importantly it causes a problem where you're tied to a particular benefit if it is important.
You cannot really have a community when people don't have enough to eat or place to live. Even more so, when some cop will arrive and force you out ignoring that community if you don't pay.
It is also hard to build a community when you work 40+ hours a week, as people tend to be drained and need serious alone time to rest, especially if their work involves constant contact with others.
So no, replacing money with feel good benefits is not good enough. Most importantly it causes a problem where you're tied to a particular benefit if it is important.
You cannot really have a community when people don't have enough to eat or place to live. Even more so, when some cop will arrive and force you out ignoring that community if you don't pay.
It is also hard to build a community when you work 40+ hours a week, as people tend to be drained and need serious alone time to rest, especially if their work involves constant contact with others.
I've seen estimates of 40-60% of all households not paying anything in taxes even if they are filing them. Conditioning voting rights on having paid taxes would disenfranchise a huge swath of low income people as well as people with accounting strategies to minimize their taxes. It'd certainly wouldn't help the US's underwhelming voter turnout.
I agree with your overall point about rights without duties.
I agree with your overall point about rights without duties.
The 50% number is for people who don't pay federal income tax (because their refund exceeds the income tax amount). Most of those still have payroll tax, ssn and Medicare deducted from their paychecks, and also pay sales tax.
I am sure those low income people are still expected to die for their betters on a foreign battlefield?
Teacher: Why are only [veterans] allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward for doing government service.
Teacher: No. No! Something given has no value.
Teacher: What's the moral difference between a civilian and [veteran]?
Student: A veteran accepts personal responsibility for safety of the body politic, defending it with his life. A civilian does not.
I believe the traditional incentive to enter adulthood used to be sex availability. Things clearly changed.
It's one of them, sort of.
Yet another reason we should be protecting sex workers more and prosecuting them less. I think a lot of the negative acting out we see in young men would be dramatically reduced if they had more safe, legal options here.
Yet another reason we should be protecting sex workers more and prosecuting them less. I think a lot of the negative acting out we see in young men would be dramatically reduced if they had more safe, legal options here.
You think teens didn’t have access to sex in every generation before ours?
Even now 27% of Americans aged 15 to 24 are virgins. I have to assume this number was higher for single people 50 years ago.
I don't think 15-24 is in any way a reasonable bucket to sort people into... seriously. That's everything from high school to uni students to working adults...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Anecdotally (according older people I know) having a supply of regular sex was way more difficult before. More shaming, more religion, less welfare, etc, may explain it. At the time, marriage could solve that biological need.
edit: 80+ year old's in conservative Europe
edit: 80+ year old's in conservative Europe
[deleted]
Before the 1960s, teenage sex lead to having a family—whether you wanted it or not—for the most part.
So no, they generally didn’t have access to consequence free sex like we do.
So no, they generally didn’t have access to consequence free sex like we do.
No it was "can we throw you at the enemy". Which depending on how the war is going can be as low as 12.
Depends on when you mean by “used to be” but I was a teenager in the early 90s and there was definitely no such gate on availability back then. In fact it was almost the opposite (super mature, responsible kids weren’t getting any as far as I know).
Of course going back to the 60s “free love” was a major thing. Maybe you’re referring to some time before that?
Edit: ah I see, 1940s in especially conservative parts of Europe. That I have no idea about.
Of course going back to the 60s “free love” was a major thing. Maybe you’re referring to some time before that?
Edit: ah I see, 1940s in especially conservative parts of Europe. That I have no idea about.
I don't know what I expected but this short text, not even an article or a rant, left me completely unsatisfied. Why bother writing, let alone promoting on HN, when you don't have anything to say.
In my frustration, I opened the front page and it's even worse.
In my frustration, I opened the front page and it's even worse.
Agreed. The entire site reminds me of the racks of magazines I browsed growing up. Lots of bait, but in the end just a bunch shallow articles and lots of ads.
I often learn more reading HN comments than the article that is being discussed.
I often learn more reading HN comments than the article that is being discussed.
[deleted]
what for? congrats, you old enough to pay taxes! now your choice is to be willingly enslaved for half of your waking life or die from starvation
that's freedom of choice fo'ya.
that's freedom of choice fo'ya.
Making “adulthood more desirable” is more of the same coddling and extending childhood indefinitely. More prompting, enticing and encouragement isn’t going to help.
At some point kids are going to have to make decisions on necessity, not desire. Based on hunger.
At some point kids are going to have to make decisions on necessity, not desire. Based on hunger.
You got downvoted, but you're hinting at a good point.
Today we are told that any discomfort is unacceptable, and you are owed living a life without it.
I think a lot of "adulting" is rejected because it comes with downsides. And more and more people seem to demanding no such downsides. They are owed cherry picking the gains, with no requirement for any of the work for it.
E.g. take this comment, where this person is saying "someone else" owes them all financial compensation for a child, and on top of that they deserve a living wage salary to just be a parent:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31638715
Today we are told that any discomfort is unacceptable, and you are owed living a life without it.
I think a lot of "adulting" is rejected because it comes with downsides. And more and more people seem to demanding no such downsides. They are owed cherry picking the gains, with no requirement for any of the work for it.
E.g. take this comment, where this person is saying "someone else" owes them all financial compensation for a child, and on top of that they deserve a living wage salary to just be a parent:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31638715
I think it's the opposite. We don't need more "coddling" or protection from decision making. We don't need less adulthood... what we would benefit from IMO is keeping more of the positives of youth into adulthood. Things like a shared social context, freedom of play, continued education, and encouragements of creativity.
There’s not much to this article beyond the headline and even that I basically disagree with.
Adulthood grants you freedom and autonomy over your life. Childhood is highly variable and you often have very little control.
I went to a decent public school in the US, a lot of the teachers I had were dumb if not cruel. It was like spending a lot of time doing busy work in a prison run by the least successful adults of the previous generation.
Great teachers made a difference and were outliers, but were rare. I’ll take being an adult and having control over my life a thousand times over being a child that has to wait until they can be free.
Adulthood grants you freedom and autonomy over your life. Childhood is highly variable and you often have very little control.
I went to a decent public school in the US, a lot of the teachers I had were dumb if not cruel. It was like spending a lot of time doing busy work in a prison run by the least successful adults of the previous generation.
Great teachers made a difference and were outliers, but were rare. I’ll take being an adult and having control over my life a thousand times over being a child that has to wait until they can be free.
The best thing about childhood to me was probably being worry-free. After you've done your homework or passed a test in school, there was absolutely nothing more to worry about your mind was 100% free to play and explore. Such state is practically inobtainable for people with complex office jobs such as software engineering, and even in mindless menial jobs you can be gnawed by existential doubts ("Am I wasting my life here?") which didn't torment us in childhood.
Your childhood sounds nice.
All the money in the world couldn't convince me to go back to trying to take care of so many adults with such a limited set of resources as I experienced in my childhood.
To me, agency is everything. If you don't have the resources to enforce your boundaries, they don't exist, so childhood is entirely luck of the draw.
As an adult, I get to say, "No," to things and have that matter. Things may not go exactly as I'd like them to, but I have options, and that makes adulthood infinitely better than childhood ever was.
All the money in the world couldn't convince me to go back to trying to take care of so many adults with such a limited set of resources as I experienced in my childhood.
To me, agency is everything. If you don't have the resources to enforce your boundaries, they don't exist, so childhood is entirely luck of the draw.
As an adult, I get to say, "No," to things and have that matter. Things may not go exactly as I'd like them to, but I have options, and that makes adulthood infinitely better than childhood ever was.
I believe it's not unobtainable but just very hard because of our 'work ethics'.
A weekend is barely enough to calm your mind down, 5 weeks holidays a year by far not enough to actually relax. Some people save a year or more to waste 12 hours going somewhere and trying to enjoy one week of pseudo luxury so they can say themselves they are so relaxed and far from work now.
I do code for a living, but maybe 20/52 weeks a year (plus a hour per week of support). I spend weeks doing mindless stuff without wasting a thought on work. And it's the most free I've felt ever since being a sentiment human. Not only can I play whenever I want, I can afford to play what I want to, my child me would be proud I guess.
What I am actually trying to say is do whatever you can. Get a 4 day week, try get a free afternoon once a week at least. Time really is the most valuable thing. And if you are a creative spirit you will be surprised how much more productive your free time can get once you have time.
A weekend is barely enough to calm your mind down, 5 weeks holidays a year by far not enough to actually relax. Some people save a year or more to waste 12 hours going somewhere and trying to enjoy one week of pseudo luxury so they can say themselves they are so relaxed and far from work now.
I do code for a living, but maybe 20/52 weeks a year (plus a hour per week of support). I spend weeks doing mindless stuff without wasting a thought on work. And it's the most free I've felt ever since being a sentiment human. Not only can I play whenever I want, I can afford to play what I want to, my child me would be proud I guess.
What I am actually trying to say is do whatever you can. Get a 4 day week, try get a free afternoon once a week at least. Time really is the most valuable thing. And if you are a creative spirit you will be surprised how much more productive your free time can get once you have time.
I am actually living like that as well (I've worked maybe 10-12 of the past 20 years). Still, even when I'm between contracts, the rat race and hamster-on-a-wheel syndrome prevents me from fully relaxing. I will always worry about getting next job/contract, worry about investments etc. I'm thinking that the only way to at least partially quiet down that anxiety is to get a lot of money (at least 100% more than I realistically need) and retire on it.
I feel you. Contract work is just as stressful if not more sometimes.
The majority of my income comes from different smaller projects, I can afford one dying. The other thing that gives me peace is being me is actually relatively cheap. My house is cheap, I don't own a car, I enjoy nature more than clubbing these days, monetary bad months don't leave a huge dent.
The majority of my income comes from different smaller projects, I can afford one dying. The other thing that gives me peace is being me is actually relatively cheap. My house is cheap, I don't own a car, I enjoy nature more than clubbing these days, monetary bad months don't leave a huge dent.
Working adult life feels worry-free compared to school. There was always more homework or studying to do after a full day in the classroom.
One of the privileges of adult life is leaving work at the office. (I know not every adult does this but every adult has the option.)
One of the privileges of adult life is leaving work at the office. (I know not every adult does this but every adult has the option.)
Caveats:
* If you can afford it
* If you don't have to take care of dependents or parents
* If your boss isn't an asshole and allows it
* If you have the time remaining to actually do anything
There's many kinds of work that are required of adults, and the consistent low key worry of ending up on the street or starving.
* If you can afford it
* If you don't have to take care of dependents or parents
* If your boss isn't an asshole and allows it
* If you have the time remaining to actually do anything
There's many kinds of work that are required of adults, and the consistent low key worry of ending up on the street or starving.
Yeah, but you have agency and the ability to improve these things as an adult - often you don’t as a kid.
It’s still unfairly skewed of course by the initial starting point and highly dependent on IQ (or if you don’t like IQ however you consider varied innate ability).
Still, all things equal having the agency is better than not.
It’s still unfairly skewed of course by the initial starting point and highly dependent on IQ (or if you don’t like IQ however you consider varied innate ability).
Still, all things equal having the agency is better than not.
School always ended in the early afternoon, after which you had enough time to finish homework, and you could start playing/tinkering/relaxing before parents returned from work.
Highly variable depending on childhood (parents, location, opportunities).
There’s also just way more uncertainty about the future and future success etc.
I find working adult life way less stressful and a large part of that is the autonomy and independence I have over it.
There’s also just way more uncertainty about the future and future success etc.
I find working adult life way less stressful and a large part of that is the autonomy and independence I have over it.
The problem with this is that reality is cruel. People who don't understand this are sacrificing long-term happiness for short-term happiness.
My friend group from college is split nearly 50/50 of people who "made it" and people who didn't. One half has jobs, girlfriends, cars, etc. The other half lives with their parents working part time, smoking weed, and playing video games. The second half seems a lot happier than the first, to be honest. However if (God forbid) were they ever to get into an accident, or have some medical problem, or need to do major repairs on their houses, or finally find someone they want to settle down with - there's no money to pay for that. And then they'll probably not seem as happy. Recently I asked a few people if they would be interested in a summer vacation to Europe, and the most common response was "I wish I could go but I can't afford that." Not very fun.
People use to walk a lot more and do a lot more menial labor. It probably wasn't very "desirable". Now I drive everywhere and 99% of what I buy is made with machines. That's a lot more fun... Until the global warming hits. There is no free lunch.
This is not to say we can't try and improve things. But for the foreseeable future life won't always be rosy.
My friend group from college is split nearly 50/50 of people who "made it" and people who didn't. One half has jobs, girlfriends, cars, etc. The other half lives with their parents working part time, smoking weed, and playing video games. The second half seems a lot happier than the first, to be honest. However if (God forbid) were they ever to get into an accident, or have some medical problem, or need to do major repairs on their houses, or finally find someone they want to settle down with - there's no money to pay for that. And then they'll probably not seem as happy. Recently I asked a few people if they would be interested in a summer vacation to Europe, and the most common response was "I wish I could go but I can't afford that." Not very fun.
People use to walk a lot more and do a lot more menial labor. It probably wasn't very "desirable". Now I drive everywhere and 99% of what I buy is made with machines. That's a lot more fun... Until the global warming hits. There is no free lunch.
This is not to say we can't try and improve things. But for the foreseeable future life won't always be rosy.
I’ve noticed this in my friend groups as well, but the tables are starting to flip as we enter our later 30s.
On the broadest level this is pernicious nonsense. My vocabulary is failing me this morning. What's the word for when something (humans) is like a version of something else (other primates) that hasn't fully grown up?
We are like chimpanzee babies that do not mature into chimps, instead we mature into these weird big-headed talking hive apes. Um, the point is that remaining young is a large part of how humans became human.
What we need to do is create a more Sesame Street-style sane and healthy environment.
What we call "adulthood" is the stress and trauma of dealing with physical constraints from which we protect children. Now that those physical constraints are largely gone (thanks to science and technology) the remaining constraints are mostly leftover logistical glitches. Ergo, life should get easier, the responsibilities less onerous, and people should remain young at heart.
We are like chimpanzee babies that do not mature into chimps, instead we mature into these weird big-headed talking hive apes. Um, the point is that remaining young is a large part of how humans became human.
What we need to do is create a more Sesame Street-style sane and healthy environment.
What we call "adulthood" is the stress and trauma of dealing with physical constraints from which we protect children. Now that those physical constraints are largely gone (thanks to science and technology) the remaining constraints are mostly leftover logistical glitches. Ergo, life should get easier, the responsibilities less onerous, and people should remain young at heart.
> What's the word for when something (humans) is like a version of something else (other primates) that hasn't fully grown up?
I think that the word you're looking for is neoteny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
I think that the word you're looking for is neoteny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
Thank you! My brain kept trotting out "neonate" and I'm all like "No brain! That's not it!" Coffee didn't help either. So close, so close...
"You're a scholar and a gentleman."
"You're a scholar and a gentleman."
[deleted]
> For many, adulthood means trading a life entirely devoted to learning for one in which you only read (maybe) two books a year. It means swapping a full schedule of sports, clubs, and music lessons for having exactly zero hobbies (unless watching Netflix counts).
I don't get it. You can still do those things as an adult. In fact, it's easier, because you don't need the cooperation of your teachers or parents. You can just do whatever you want.
If you're an adult, and you haven't got any hobbies, and you want hobbies, just take up a hobby? I honestly don't get it.
I don't get it. You can still do those things as an adult. In fact, it's easier, because you don't need the cooperation of your teachers or parents. You can just do whatever you want.
If you're an adult, and you haven't got any hobbies, and you want hobbies, just take up a hobby? I honestly don't get it.
I think the idea is the modern adult has an insane commute due to the unaffordability of housing, a full-time demanding job that often requires more than eight hours a day and child-raising responsibilities. Finding the time can be a challenge if you’re consuming 11 hours of your day on work+commute and try and invest another 3 hours a day minimum in family. That leaves two waking hours for eating and chores on a weekday. Many people use weekends to catch up on things they can’t get done during the week. It’s very possible for adulthood to be a grind that’s unlikely anything that came before it.
The way adulthood is defined here, as in not having hobbies or personal time, strikes me as strange. I disagree with it - but I’d like to hear what people think of as adulthood.
I suppose I’m an outlier (aren’t we all) but most things I have to do, I like to do them. My job is an extension of an immensely satisfying and enriching hobby. If something breaks, it’s interesting to attempt to fix it. Having a choice AND not having one are both, to me, liberating in a sense. I’m a hands on person when I can be. The things I don’t like to do I often give them to family members or friends who do like to do them. Is there an air of petulance over needing to do things from time to time? Sure, but that’s normal.
Perhaps it’s to do with facing death, or seeing close friends and family pass away, or relinquishing a part of your time and energy to your kids, or seeing people change for the worse over time. But if this is what adulthood is, then whoever thinks so has not even begun to question what life is all about.
But this is a sliver of contemplation, it is not a be all end all to things.
I suppose I’m an outlier (aren’t we all) but most things I have to do, I like to do them. My job is an extension of an immensely satisfying and enriching hobby. If something breaks, it’s interesting to attempt to fix it. Having a choice AND not having one are both, to me, liberating in a sense. I’m a hands on person when I can be. The things I don’t like to do I often give them to family members or friends who do like to do them. Is there an air of petulance over needing to do things from time to time? Sure, but that’s normal.
Perhaps it’s to do with facing death, or seeing close friends and family pass away, or relinquishing a part of your time and energy to your kids, or seeing people change for the worse over time. But if this is what adulthood is, then whoever thinks so has not even begun to question what life is all about.
But this is a sliver of contemplation, it is not a be all end all to things.
I went through the dropping all my hobbies and was happy with that decision for about 6 months when I had a newborn and didn’t have time for anything else because of unpredictable sleep and returning to work after my paternity leave. There is room to do a great job raising your kids, remain involved in their lives, work a full time job and find a bit of personal time for hobbies. I’m doing that again now that my son is nine months and mostly sleeps through the night. Honestly, some hobbies only need 3 hours a week of time commitment and you should be able to find that in your life if you have the right people around you. It’s definitely different if you’re trying to raise a kid alone (I have so much sympathy for the difficulties of single parenthood now that I know how hard it can be with two people.)
Older generations have been walking away for responsibilities, like caring for the climate.
Why would the current youth want to become one of them?
Also, youth is not launching into adulthood because they simply can't have certain privileges that older generations have, like owning a decent house.
Why become something if you only get downsides?
Why would the current youth want to become one of them?
Also, youth is not launching into adulthood because they simply can't have certain privileges that older generations have, like owning a decent house.
Why become something if you only get downsides?
What do you mean? Where are you from? It’s totally possible for “the youth” to own a house from my perspective.
Possible, sure. In reality it's unlikely though.
Unless you still believe in the american dream, I'm pretty sure we can agree that the increase in housing prices makes it exceedingly difficult for young people to buy a house without a significant inheritance.
Unless you still believe in the american dream, I'm pretty sure we can agree that the increase in housing prices makes it exceedingly difficult for young people to buy a house without a significant inheritance.
"Children have leisure, adults don't. School is entertaining, work isn't." I suppose I agree.
The one thing adulthood brings is money. That's really the big thing. But its best use is to be saved so you don't have to continue the "adulting" thing, so it's all a bit circular.
The one thing adulthood brings is money. That's really the big thing. But its best use is to be saved so you don't have to continue the "adulting" thing, so it's all a bit circular.
Obviously. What's the beauty of being an office... ahm, worker wasting your life to repay loans/mortgages and raise the next generation of office workers?
It'd be great to research and promote alternative adult lifestyles, where you don't need rich parents or be super lucky, but that may require some hard work and dedication to build. For example, the prospect of becoming a digital nomad could be definitely more interesting for teens than turning into a typical hardworking suit.
It'd be great to research and promote alternative adult lifestyles, where you don't need rich parents or be super lucky, but that may require some hard work and dedication to build. For example, the prospect of becoming a digital nomad could be definitely more interesting for teens than turning into a typical hardworking suit.
> Obviously. What's the beauty of being an office... ahm, worker wasting your life to repay loans/mortgages and raise the next generation of office workers?
So many people knock the 9-5 office worker and honestly, I think it's a really sweet gig. I used to work warehouse jobs, and when you went to work, you worked. I contrast with my life now where i wake up, make coffee, flip on the computer, code and take some calls for a few hours a day, it's great!
So many people knock the 9-5 office worker and honestly, I think it's a really sweet gig. I used to work warehouse jobs, and when you went to work, you worked. I contrast with my life now where i wake up, make coffee, flip on the computer, code and take some calls for a few hours a day, it's great!
I did nomad after I had a burnout after I landed what I thought is my dream job.
The one thing I learned most is that these people value their time. And with a relaxed mind and plenty of time come great ideas. Obviously most had luck or at least some business experience before they went nomad, but everyone had those small or big ideas and time to make them reality, and for a lot it just worked.
If you start looking closely you'll find them anywhere, people who by luck and dedicated work found _their_ way to survive in this society.
The one thing I learned most is that these people value their time. And with a relaxed mind and plenty of time come great ideas. Obviously most had luck or at least some business experience before they went nomad, but everyone had those small or big ideas and time to make them reality, and for a lot it just worked.
If you start looking closely you'll find them anywhere, people who by luck and dedicated work found _their_ way to survive in this society.
You can choose not to have kids- unless Christianity wins in America and turns the country into the republic of Gilead.
> You can choose not to have kids
https://childfreefriendlydoctors.com/ is a resource for those folks.
https://childfreefriendlydoctors.com/ is a resource for those folks.
The point of adulthood is to live a virtuous life, in the old sense of the word virtuous, not this modern chaotic thing where people equate a snippet of a political stance with the most desirable aim for men.
Dressing up 'privileges' is just a 50c excuse for people in hierarchical positions to go to do whatever they please in the attempt to 'advertise' the value of adulthood. It's going to be summertime for the promoted.
This will go poorly and the spill-over from misbehaved 'adults' will make adult-looking responsibilities less relatable. As we've already seen with Boris Johnson's covid parties and whatever else. That pattern of public discontent with loose behavior among the upper crust will continue to cascade down the hierarchy until we're all upset with project managers wasting time and killing relationships. The system falls apart and we leave it's "adulthood privileges" in the trash.
The article is short and is written like a statement of intent, not an honest attempt forwarding an idea or promoting conversation.
Dressing up 'privileges' is just a 50c excuse for people in hierarchical positions to go to do whatever they please in the attempt to 'advertise' the value of adulthood. It's going to be summertime for the promoted.
This will go poorly and the spill-over from misbehaved 'adults' will make adult-looking responsibilities less relatable. As we've already seen with Boris Johnson's covid parties and whatever else. That pattern of public discontent with loose behavior among the upper crust will continue to cascade down the hierarchy until we're all upset with project managers wasting time and killing relationships. The system falls apart and we leave it's "adulthood privileges" in the trash.
The article is short and is written like a statement of intent, not an honest attempt forwarding an idea or promoting conversation.
> Unless we do something worthwhile — fun, interesting, desirable — with those privileges, young people won’t want to apply to the society of grown-ups, and adults won’t be able to wholeheartedly encourage them to join its ranks.
This is the crux of TA. It's encouraging us (adults) to live in such a way that makes adulthood look worth pursuing.
It really can be tempting to waste adult years on things that won't matter next month. I know I'm guilty of foofing away a lot of my adult life on inane web surfing, for example--if only because I wasn't thoughtful and determined about focusing my relaxing time towards better goals. Just a little self denial (sleep or read a book instead) would have yielded exponentially better results.
This is the crux of TA. It's encouraging us (adults) to live in such a way that makes adulthood look worth pursuing.
It really can be tempting to waste adult years on things that won't matter next month. I know I'm guilty of foofing away a lot of my adult life on inane web surfing, for example--if only because I wasn't thoughtful and determined about focusing my relaxing time towards better goals. Just a little self denial (sleep or read a book instead) would have yielded exponentially better results.
The biggest cultural phenomenon I have seen recently that revolves around encouraging young men to adopt responsibility has been Jordan Peterson.
It was bizarre to see the popular media make him out to be somehow a "alt right misogynist fascist".
I found he has well articulated and interesting points of view, and there were a lot of women who appreciated his message to young men, as they'd be dating this cohort of men.
I think a lot can be taken with a pinch of salt, but to see the reaction against rather mild conservative viewpoint showed I think a problem.
It was bizarre to see the popular media make him out to be somehow a "alt right misogynist fascist".
I found he has well articulated and interesting points of view, and there were a lot of women who appreciated his message to young men, as they'd be dating this cohort of men.
I think a lot can be taken with a pinch of salt, but to see the reaction against rather mild conservative viewpoint showed I think a problem.
The same Jordan Peterson who took responsibility for his benzodiazepine addiction by nearly killing himself with a gimmicky treatment rather than toughing out detox? Perhaps that's an ad hominem, but I have a hard time taking him seriously, though I truly wish him well with his psychological/addiction/medical issues.
That said, what reward does Peterson say these men should get for their adoption of responsibility? Does it entitle them to any rewards?
That said, what reward does Peterson say these men should get for their adoption of responsibility? Does it entitle them to any rewards?
> what reward does Peterson say these men should get for their adoption of responsibility?
I believe he offers it as an antidote to a life dearth of meaning.
I believe he offers it as an antidote to a life dearth of meaning.
I'm pretty sure that's what religion is for.
He would say the reward is a meaningful life.
Is that to say you provide very measurable toil for intangible benefit?
I'm not a big fan of his so I'm not sure, I just remember him saying responsibility is a prerequisite to a meaningful life.
I think in some sense I agree with that idea. I think most people actually want to work and be a part of their community. The problem with modern Libertarian types (and I think Peterson is one) is that it's this utter Little House on the Prairie fantasy that has no idea how to deal with the modern realities of capital, and how it can subvert your freedom more effectively than the government they seek to vilify. And I think most people sense that now intuitively even if they can't put that into words. I believe Marx called it alienation of labor, but of course he's been quite effectively vilified as well.
> modern Libertarian types (and I think Peterson is one) is that it's this utter Little House on the Prairie fantasy that has no idea how to deal with the modern realities of capital
Peterson often talks about the realities of capital, referring to the "Matthew effect" and the dangers of "disenfranchisement of the people at the bottom", making the Left essential in his words.
Peterson often talks about the realities of capital, referring to the "Matthew effect" and the dangers of "disenfranchisement of the people at the bottom", making the Left essential in his words.
With the traditional family gone, that is probably the only thing left. Luckily, meaning can be found in different ways.
[deleted]
But children are the most controllable demographic. Surely it behooves us (as rulers and marketers) to encourage permanent childhood.
Was this written by someone who peaked in high school?
For me, my life began the morning after I graduated high school. The only people from before that I'm NOT in touch with but want to be are unfindable on Google because their names are too common. I know I probably could locate them with a little more time & money, but really, who cares?
What adulthood always promised, and delivered, was choice. I wouldn't have to be in situations and around people that I didn't want to be and around. Mostly.
I can't say about having kids, not having any. If you hate it, you're probably doing it wrong, or maybe the rewards are deeper and more spread out, and when you really think about it, you think "it was worth it."
What adulthood always promised, and delivered, was choice. I wouldn't have to be in situations and around people that I didn't want to be and around. Mostly.
I can't say about having kids, not having any. If you hate it, you're probably doing it wrong, or maybe the rewards are deeper and more spread out, and when you really think about it, you think "it was worth it."
Adulthood for me was a blessing! Finally I got time (I do have much more free time since I started working than when I was studying), money (god bless software engineers salaries) and no stress whatsoever (I was very stressed in high school and university… now work comes so easy that it’s a breeze ). Why would someone not become an adult???
Was mixed for me. I spent my whole youth holding out for that autonomy and making sure as soon as I was legally an adult I was culturally an adult. Missed out on a lot for it, but I was desperate, living with people whom I could never get along with.
And then, after hats I got what I wanted, and it was great, but over time I realized that was it, this was I had been planning for and now that I got it that's it. Now I've just kinda stagnanted, I ended up well economically, but every other part of my life has faced severe regression, including physical and social health. I have the time, and the resources now, but not the environment.
And then, after hats I got what I wanted, and it was great, but over time I realized that was it, this was I had been planning for and now that I got it that's it. Now I've just kinda stagnanted, I ended up well economically, but every other part of my life has faced severe regression, including physical and social health. I have the time, and the resources now, but not the environment.
I am sorry to hear that! I was lucky enough to have loving parents with whom I get along very well, I met the love of my life when I was 18 and we have been together ever since (I’m 37yo) and have plenty of friends with whom I spend a lot of quality time!
I actually get along with them these days, looking at other relationships they've had change over the years however, it seems that distance should be maintained to maintain a good relationship.
"Adulthood means taking on more responsibilities, and in turn, receiving more privileges."
What privileges? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot that changes when you hit 18.
What privileges? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot that changes when you hit 18.
The article says, "Adulthood means taking on more responsibilities, and in turn, receiving more privileges" and this begs the question in regard to, from whom?
The notion of "adult," has an intrinsic inferiority in the sense it's from the perspective of what children and dependents believe about men and woman relative to themselves. It's an important distinction, because if you see adults as others and can't admit to yourself that you are a man or a woman, it's likely because on some level you still identify as a dependent - if not in a specific relationship, then to society at large. (Arguably, some even moralize it where to be an adult is to submit to being a dependent of society.) Acting as an adult is something one does for the reflected approval of others, and it is relative to the perspective and aspirations of children. Discomfort from talking about men and women directly is indicative of how disconnected we are from our true and natural identities. (If you believe nothing is true or natural and take Derrida's view that everything is an artifact of language, I'd ask if you've thought about what made choosing that belief so appealing.)
Adulthood itself is a concept that is the actualization of personhood - an abstraction that includes corporations, higher primates, zygotes, and imminently some lines code. Imo, adulthood is unappealing because it has become poor substitute for concepts of manhood and womanhood. By including these non-human entities, personhood itself is a diminished and low bar.
The common insult I see in public discourse is that a man is a baby or a child, and the person wielding it truly believes these words are powerful. The insult is lobbed as though the implicitly maternal lens of criticism and shaming someone as a baby has meaning to actualized men and women. Actualized men and women by definition have developed an internal locus of control, and a level of self acceptance and awareness where criticism from a rando saying they are being a bad dependent doesn't even register. When you pull it apart, what adulthood means to most people is the ability to internalize supervision and the values of a broadly social supervisor. What's worse is that this kind of transactional adulthood yields some truly psychotic moral licensing in the form of, "I've taken all the humiliations and done what was expected of me, and now it's my turn." And you can still be a good person when you act on this belief, because compared to a corporation or a primate, you're still doing pretty well.
In this sense, "we" don't need to do anything about adulthood. "You" and "I" need to take responsibility for ourselves first, and then for children and other dependents, then by becoming good men and women we become our brother's and sister's keepers. This is all to say, the framing of adulthood is part of the problem. When someone occasionally admonishes me to be "an adult," I typically respond, "thanks, I'm a man," and the people who get it, get it, and the ones who don't, I just don't remember.
The notion of "adult," has an intrinsic inferiority in the sense it's from the perspective of what children and dependents believe about men and woman relative to themselves. It's an important distinction, because if you see adults as others and can't admit to yourself that you are a man or a woman, it's likely because on some level you still identify as a dependent - if not in a specific relationship, then to society at large. (Arguably, some even moralize it where to be an adult is to submit to being a dependent of society.) Acting as an adult is something one does for the reflected approval of others, and it is relative to the perspective and aspirations of children. Discomfort from talking about men and women directly is indicative of how disconnected we are from our true and natural identities. (If you believe nothing is true or natural and take Derrida's view that everything is an artifact of language, I'd ask if you've thought about what made choosing that belief so appealing.)
Adulthood itself is a concept that is the actualization of personhood - an abstraction that includes corporations, higher primates, zygotes, and imminently some lines code. Imo, adulthood is unappealing because it has become poor substitute for concepts of manhood and womanhood. By including these non-human entities, personhood itself is a diminished and low bar.
The common insult I see in public discourse is that a man is a baby or a child, and the person wielding it truly believes these words are powerful. The insult is lobbed as though the implicitly maternal lens of criticism and shaming someone as a baby has meaning to actualized men and women. Actualized men and women by definition have developed an internal locus of control, and a level of self acceptance and awareness where criticism from a rando saying they are being a bad dependent doesn't even register. When you pull it apart, what adulthood means to most people is the ability to internalize supervision and the values of a broadly social supervisor. What's worse is that this kind of transactional adulthood yields some truly psychotic moral licensing in the form of, "I've taken all the humiliations and done what was expected of me, and now it's my turn." And you can still be a good person when you act on this belief, because compared to a corporation or a primate, you're still doing pretty well.
In this sense, "we" don't need to do anything about adulthood. "You" and "I" need to take responsibility for ourselves first, and then for children and other dependents, then by becoming good men and women we become our brother's and sister's keepers. This is all to say, the framing of adulthood is part of the problem. When someone occasionally admonishes me to be "an adult," I typically respond, "thanks, I'm a man," and the people who get it, get it, and the ones who don't, I just don't remember.
Young people are opting out because they’ve seen what the deal looks like and say “nah, I can do better” by doing less, or nothing at all (China’s “lie flat/tang ping” movement and similar elsewhere).
You can’t make unnecessary/unenjoyable responsibility desirable to people who see through it.
You can’t make unnecessary/unenjoyable responsibility desirable to people who see through it.
I have no idea what the author is talking about.
Life is what your make it. I just turn 40 and my life looks nothing like the description of adulthood the author does.
It is all about choices, if you decide to have a house, 2 cars and 2 kids, yes... it may look like that.
Life is what your make it. I just turn 40 and my life looks nothing like the description of adulthood the author does.
It is all about choices, if you decide to have a house, 2 cars and 2 kids, yes... it may look like that.
Not sure I can relate to this message. I've been working full time since 14, paying for bills and food.
Mom didn't want to be a "mom", and dad fucked off when I was 5. They should have considered abortion, but they are protestants.
Childhood has no autonomy where adulthood gave me more freedom, I will never go back.
Mom didn't want to be a "mom", and dad fucked off when I was 5. They should have considered abortion, but they are protestants.
Childhood has no autonomy where adulthood gave me more freedom, I will never go back.
I did read the text and I have to say it doesn't say anything ... there's no substance in it whatsoever.
TL/DR: make X more fun so people want X (X being adulthood)
Also - is the entire premise even true? Do people not want to become grown ups? Actually I think this is inevitable. Maybe the author comes from a proviliged pampered background but anybody else will have to pay the bills which makes you responsible for that and is pretty serious and tends to make people also mentally pretty serious. So, I don't know what that guy even intends to communicate.
To me it looks like the author is trying to push his Art Of Maniless brand and last week he didn't know what to write about. Then he coughed up this half cooked piece of tofu ...
TL/DR: make X more fun so people want X (X being adulthood)
Also - is the entire premise even true? Do people not want to become grown ups? Actually I think this is inevitable. Maybe the author comes from a proviliged pampered background but anybody else will have to pay the bills which makes you responsible for that and is pretty serious and tends to make people also mentally pretty serious. So, I don't know what that guy even intends to communicate.
To me it looks like the author is trying to push his Art Of Maniless brand and last week he didn't know what to write about. Then he coughed up this half cooked piece of tofu ...
> Unless we do something worthwhile — fun, interesting, desirable — with those privileges, young people won’t want to apply to the society of grown-ups,
I don’t get why we have to make a life of adult freedom desirable to anyone else
You don’t have to apply, your time will just come up
I don’t get why we have to make a life of adult freedom desirable to anyone else
You don’t have to apply, your time will just come up
Also having children changes things quite a bit for all adults.
I wish this article was longer.