The businessman and the fisherman (1963)(thestorytellers.com)
thestorytellers.com
The businessman and the fisherman (1963)
https://thestorytellers.com/the-businessman-and-the-fisherman/
130 comments
Businessman (American) vs Fisherman (European), if we try to assign cultural values to these characters.
There's a very broad range of (work) cultures within Europe, broader than the avg of US vs avg of EU of there was such a thing.
Since driving a taxi isn't hard work he should just do 'epic' ten hour shifts every day.
I hope I'm missing the sarcasm or irony but saying driving a taxi isn't hard work is a really ignorant comment.
It's the kind of privileged statement coming from naive knowledge workers who believe that intellectual challenges are the ultimate measurement of difficulty.
Personally, I think having a job where your only challenge is solving puzzles is one of the most privileged and lucky one could have, especially if it pays well.
I'd invite anyone who's a knowledge worker to go work a 'dumb' job for multiple, mindnumbing and nonstop hours. Love this idea that taxis and McDonald's aren't "hard work" and therefore undeserving of respect or fair payment.
Hardest jobs I've ever had were those that were the most boring and you were explicitly unable to distract yourself to get through the day. Driving a taxi would actually be up there for me in terms of difficulty because at least if you were doing some repetitive manual labour like washing cars you could throw on music/podcast, zone out and you'd be healthier on your feet all day.
Driving a taxi means you have to go through repetitive, mind-numbingly boring operations for hours a day, but the whole time you have to maintain focus to avoid accidents. You cant watch anything, and because you have customers who might not like what you're playing, you probably don't have a choice in what music you listen to either. You're sitting all day barely moving, so by the end of the day you're completely stiff and don't even have the satisfaction of having physically worked hard.
It's the kind of privileged statement coming from naive knowledge workers who believe that intellectual challenges are the ultimate measurement of difficulty.
Personally, I think having a job where your only challenge is solving puzzles is one of the most privileged and lucky one could have, especially if it pays well.
I'd invite anyone who's a knowledge worker to go work a 'dumb' job for multiple, mindnumbing and nonstop hours. Love this idea that taxis and McDonald's aren't "hard work" and therefore undeserving of respect or fair payment.
Hardest jobs I've ever had were those that were the most boring and you were explicitly unable to distract yourself to get through the day. Driving a taxi would actually be up there for me in terms of difficulty because at least if you were doing some repetitive manual labour like washing cars you could throw on music/podcast, zone out and you'd be healthier on your feet all day.
Driving a taxi means you have to go through repetitive, mind-numbingly boring operations for hours a day, but the whole time you have to maintain focus to avoid accidents. You cant watch anything, and because you have customers who might not like what you're playing, you probably don't have a choice in what music you listen to either. You're sitting all day barely moving, so by the end of the day you're completely stiff and don't even have the satisfaction of having physically worked hard.
I used to work in construction and was lucky enough to find an escape route before my body eventually gave in to the daily punishment. The toll wasn't just physical either, after working hectic long hours, day in day out, constant travelling, working away from home for weeks at time and far too many night-shifts, there was an inevitable mental breakdown. I found my feet again eventually but it wasn't easy.
Driving a taxi isn't hard work and if you think it is then I congratulate you for having such a blessed and entitled life that you are able sit in judgement and call me ignorant.
Driving a taxi isn't hard work and if you think it is then I congratulate you for having such a blessed and entitled life that you are able sit in judgement and call me ignorant.
add on the fact that most of your take-home pay is made through tips, you also now have to be subservient and overly nice to everyone lest you run into some entitled piece of shit who loves the personalized control they get from influencing someone's behavior with tips.
This is all btw under the assumption of a "classic" taxi job that barely even exists now. Most actual drivers work for uber/lyft, which adds a whole other layer of exploitation, pressure and stress. Good highlight of this is the Financial Times Uber Driver game. https://ig.ft.com/uber-game/
This is all btw under the assumption of a "classic" taxi job that barely even exists now. Most actual drivers work for uber/lyft, which adds a whole other layer of exploitation, pressure and stress. Good highlight of this is the Financial Times Uber Driver game. https://ig.ft.com/uber-game/
People love to take this story apart. I always took the message as “stop when you have enough”. It’s a lesson about contentment.
I have enough, and I turned my entrepreneurial spirit towards public good instead of revenue. I take days off when it’s sunny, and reintroduced play into my work. I am back to Paul Graham’s “do things that don’t scale”.
I am dismayed by the amount of greed among people far wealthier than me. Their quest to grow a number beyond rational purposes causes them and a lot of people around them immense grief. We would all benefit if they worked on other goals.
I have enough, and I turned my entrepreneurial spirit towards public good instead of revenue. I take days off when it’s sunny, and reintroduced play into my work. I am back to Paul Graham’s “do things that don’t scale”.
I am dismayed by the amount of greed among people far wealthier than me. Their quest to grow a number beyond rational purposes causes them and a lot of people around them immense grief. We would all benefit if they worked on other goals.
Maybe it's not money that motivates some people? Money is just a marker of success in this game. The real achievement might be building a business or growing a product or out competing a competitor.
Money might just become a convenient metric, because it can be traded for whatever your other metrics are later.
In any case, the pursuit of money beyond meeting your own needs is more often than not destructive. I find that this story is a good reminder that you can have a financial goal beyond which you enter maintenance mode and focus on other things.
In any case, the pursuit of money beyond meeting your own needs is more often than not destructive. I find that this story is a good reminder that you can have a financial goal beyond which you enter maintenance mode and focus on other things.
Money is the metric for power
At the highest levels it’s about power and control and shaping the world to what you want it to be
It’s all neurotic anxiety about not having the ability to do whatever you want unimpeded forever and generating “generational wealth” so that literally your kids kids kids will be ensured that they don’t have to go to public school
Go live around billionaires a while and it’s blatantly obvious that everything is just about calming fears and anxieties but with a never ending desire to get more on behalf of whatever in group they relate.
At the highest levels it’s about power and control and shaping the world to what you want it to be
It’s all neurotic anxiety about not having the ability to do whatever you want unimpeded forever and generating “generational wealth” so that literally your kids kids kids will be ensured that they don’t have to go to public school
Go live around billionaires a while and it’s blatantly obvious that everything is just about calming fears and anxieties but with a never ending desire to get more on behalf of whatever in group they relate.
Or causing a lot of people immense grief.
Couldn't agree more.
'But those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin
For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have stabbed themselves all over with many pains'
'But those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin
For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have stabbed themselves all over with many pains'
problem is that its really hard to know what exactly is enough. Old age is a bitch and full of uncertainty. What if you need in house nursing care for last 20 yrs of ur life.
Only way to know when is enough is if you make a pact with yourself that you;d end your life when it becomes miserable and you are no longer independent.
Only way to know when is enough is if you make a pact with yourself that you;d end your life when it becomes miserable and you are no longer independent.
Looking at greed as a disease / mental health issue changed my outlook.
Absence of content is exhausting.
It is happening to them.
The problem is that our culture also suffers from this disorder and glorifies the disease.
Absence of content is exhausting.
It is happening to them.
The problem is that our culture also suffers from this disorder and glorifies the disease.
When folks are surveyed about what level of wealth would make them 10/10 happy, without variation, every wealth bracket reports back “double.” It’s a sickness.
Well it really depends on what you have to sacrifice for it. I decided that at 1.5x the median income, I'd stop caring. I stopped caring much sooner.
citation needed?
The far more elegant original version is from Heinrich Böll (1972 Nobel laureate in literature) and is entitled: "Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral", published in English as "Anecdote Concerning the Lowering of Productivity" (but literally translated: "Anecdote on Lowering the Work Ethic"). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbei...
I'd like an extended version of the story where the businessman realizes he's wrong, invites all his friends to give up their lives in the business-world and revert to subsistence living that provides freedom.
Then society collapses because if everyone is doing the bare minimum, there isn't anything left over for basic government services.
Then society collapses because if everyone is doing the bare minimum, there isn't anything left over for basic government services.
Nobody said that the fisherman is engaged in subsistence living.
I'd also like a citation on the claim that "basic government services" require profit-making (and presumably taxation to go with it) that is substantively different than the fisherman's approach to life.
I'd also like a citation on the claim that "basic government services" require profit-making (and presumably taxation to go with it) that is substantively different than the fisherman's approach to life.
Government services obviously require a resource surplus (and some mechanism to direct that surplus to paying for these services, of which taxation is the most common one). If everybody are chill fishermen, there's no surplus - there's no reason for the fisherman to create one.
The surplus is created by the environment that grows the fish. Sunlight, plankton, little fish, big fish, plate.
Then someone brings in a trawler that scoops up all the fish, and the heretofore independent fishermen now need to do something to convince the seafood company to give them the fish sticks now pooped out by the ship.
So the fishermen become tax accountants and baristas, to provide services for the fish company's clerks.
Net, there is now more economic activity and more GDP. Whereas before, the country only produced as much fish as the fishermen needed to eat (and some surplus to sell at the local market), now it also produces tax services, and espresso services, and fishstick exports.
This lasts for about a decade until the fish stocks are depleted.
The fishermen, who used to live in bamboo huts they'd rebuild themselves every few years, now live in concrete apartment blocks, and they can no longer afford rent.
Then someone brings in a trawler that scoops up all the fish, and the heretofore independent fishermen now need to do something to convince the seafood company to give them the fish sticks now pooped out by the ship.
So the fishermen become tax accountants and baristas, to provide services for the fish company's clerks.
Net, there is now more economic activity and more GDP. Whereas before, the country only produced as much fish as the fishermen needed to eat (and some surplus to sell at the local market), now it also produces tax services, and espresso services, and fishstick exports.
This lasts for about a decade until the fish stocks are depleted.
The fishermen, who used to live in bamboo huts they'd rebuild themselves every few years, now live in concrete apartment blocks, and they can no longer afford rent.
The idea that the archetypical businessman in this story is ultimately necessary to provide for government spending is a pretty unique take.
No, it's actually not unique at all. If you look at the history of any civilization - in its broadest sense, as the change of human society from hunter-gatherer tribes to fixed settlements to development of cities to the modern urbanized society - you'll see that "archetypical businessman" existed pretty much since forever. In fact, if you remember the story of Abraham - the one from the Bible, the first Jew - his father was a businessman, namely the idol trader. There was no word "businessman" back then, but the concept of trade - which necessitates the surplus (you need something to trade) and follows from it (you need to do something with that surplus) existed in the history of every civilization and is widely covered in virtually every historical work, of course. If anything, the idea that we could ignore all the civilization history and go back to hunter-gatherer subsistence model is something that would be "a pretty unique take". It sounds good when we're sitting in our comfortable chairs, with bellies well filled and our other needs taken care of, and wax fashionably nostalgic about "simpler times". But somehow most people moved away from this paradise as soon as they were able to. I wonder why?
David Graeber and David Wengrow would like a word with you regarding your simplistic, monotonic version of human history.
"The Dawn of Everything" covers, with multiple redundant stories, why this concept of "the way human civilizations evolved" is wrong. That doesn't mean that none of them did, but absilutely not all of them. It certainly wasn't a straight path from hunter-gatherer to <what came next> more or less anywhere in the world.
"The Dawn of Everything" covers, with multiple redundant stories, why this concept of "the way human civilizations evolved" is wrong. That doesn't mean that none of them did, but absilutely not all of them. It certainly wasn't a straight path from hunter-gatherer to <what came next> more or less anywhere in the world.
I never claimed it was a straight uniform path. I only claimed whatever path there was, the concept of production surplus likely played a role, and the concept of trade too - and the tradesmen, aka "businessmen" - were somewhere nearby to facilitate it.
Generally they were moved way from this paradise by force, according to virtually every historical work.
By force of what? Alien invaders from space? Random natural phenomena? Or some other humans, who somehow became more powerful and numerous? How did they manage to achieve that and why they chose to achieve that, instead of staying in their own paradise?
There was a statistic saying that top 10% of income earners pay something like 80% of all income taxes (not exact numbers but you get the gist).
Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of income.
In a society where few people earned more than Nx the lowest (pick your own N), this distribution of tax origin would look very different.
Think of it a different way: suppose a government explicitly targets being able to spend 23% of GDP on government (i.e. publically) chosen goals. How does it collect 23% of GDP? Well, if everyone earned precisely the same, it would collect it equally from each person. On the other hand, if one person earned 99% of GDP and everyone else combined collectively earned the remaining 1%, then obviously the super rich person will be be paying almost all of the tax revenue themselves.
The current situation in the US is obviously not this extreme, but the thought experiment shows why it works the way it does.
Also important is the concept of marginal utility of income, which describes how each additional currency-unit of income becomes less and less significant as your total income grows.
In short, 10%-pay-80% reflects the other decisions that have been made about how the US economy works (or doesn't work), and don't have much to do with taxation in general, or the provision of public services.
In a society where few people earned more than Nx the lowest (pick your own N), this distribution of tax origin would look very different.
Think of it a different way: suppose a government explicitly targets being able to spend 23% of GDP on government (i.e. publically) chosen goals. How does it collect 23% of GDP? Well, if everyone earned precisely the same, it would collect it equally from each person. On the other hand, if one person earned 99% of GDP and everyone else combined collectively earned the remaining 1%, then obviously the super rich person will be be paying almost all of the tax revenue themselves.
The current situation in the US is obviously not this extreme, but the thought experiment shows why it works the way it does.
Also important is the concept of marginal utility of income, which describes how each additional currency-unit of income becomes less and less significant as your total income grows.
In short, 10%-pay-80% reflects the other decisions that have been made about how the US economy works (or doesn't work), and don't have much to do with taxation in general, or the provision of public services.
> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of income.
Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation.
I've also lived under communism, where they ignored this uneven contribution and tried to squash the incomes uniformly. The result was quite predictable: we were equally starving, of course. Except the nomenklatura, but that's another story.
Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation.
I've also lived under communism, where they ignored this uneven contribution and tried to squash the incomes uniformly. The result was quite predictable: we were equally starving, of course. Except the nomenklatura, but that's another story.
> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation.
Well, I can't disagree with that claim. But it's not really all that interesting, in and of itself. The question is: to what extent, and with sort of multiples, should differences in wealth/income reflect the distribution of productivity/value creation?
There are a wide range of answers to that question, all the way from pure commune-style uniformity to contemporary US "capitalism". The only thing that is abundantly clear is that neither of these extremes work all that well for the majority of the people who live under them.
Well, I can't disagree with that claim. But it's not really all that interesting, in and of itself. The question is: to what extent, and with sort of multiples, should differences in wealth/income reflect the distribution of productivity/value creation?
There are a wide range of answers to that question, all the way from pure commune-style uniformity to contemporary US "capitalism". The only thing that is abundantly clear is that neither of these extremes work all that well for the majority of the people who live under them.
The only one who can answer that question is the free market. And while not satisfying for everybody, it certainly is the best answer we found so far while trying various forms of organisations with this humankind of ours.
The best answer in that not only was the only one that got us fed unlike the alternatives that only brought suffering, death and starvation but also got us such an amazing wealth that we have the luxury to sit and debate such issues from opposite corners of the earth, in real time, on magic devices connected to the freaking cloud.
As an Eastern European, I lived through the transition from the horrors of communism to the benefits of capitalism and while it wasn't easy I am a living testament to the immense success story this change brought to these lands.
And you can also plainly see the reverse transformation from wealth to misery brought by switching away from free markets in countries such as Argentina or Venezuela.
The best answer in that not only was the only one that got us fed unlike the alternatives that only brought suffering, death and starvation but also got us such an amazing wealth that we have the luxury to sit and debate such issues from opposite corners of the earth, in real time, on magic devices connected to the freaking cloud.
As an Eastern European, I lived through the transition from the horrors of communism to the benefits of capitalism and while it wasn't easy I am a living testament to the immense success story this change brought to these lands.
And you can also plainly see the reverse transformation from wealth to misery brought by switching away from free markets in countries such as Argentina or Venezuela.
Who's "we" in the "best answer we found so far" statement?
Ignoring for a fact that having magic devices that do some esoteric operation isn't a useful measurement of any kind of 'wealth' (as if having the privilege to own an iPhone while working 10 hour mind-numbing days at an amazon warehouse is 'luxury'), you do realize that the fact you're posting here when most of the world under the free market lives in abject subsistence poverty speaks to the fact that our system only works when we're able to parasitically suck wealth, resources and labour from less powerful countries.
Also, somehow doubt those pensioners and others in the 1990's who lived through the former USSR's transition to "the free market" were really enjoying their new found freedoms as life expectancy, wages and quality of live plummeted except for a handful of the very same nomenklatura in charge before becoming even more insanely privileged than before.
The 'free market' in this conception is just letting the 'nomenklatura' types of people be even more insanely wealthy than everyone else because now they have even less guardrails preventing them from exploiting and manipulating everyone around them for self-enrichment.
Ignoring for a fact that having magic devices that do some esoteric operation isn't a useful measurement of any kind of 'wealth' (as if having the privilege to own an iPhone while working 10 hour mind-numbing days at an amazon warehouse is 'luxury'), you do realize that the fact you're posting here when most of the world under the free market lives in abject subsistence poverty speaks to the fact that our system only works when we're able to parasitically suck wealth, resources and labour from less powerful countries.
Also, somehow doubt those pensioners and others in the 1990's who lived through the former USSR's transition to "the free market" were really enjoying their new found freedoms as life expectancy, wages and quality of live plummeted except for a handful of the very same nomenklatura in charge before becoming even more insanely privileged than before.
The 'free market' in this conception is just letting the 'nomenklatura' types of people be even more insanely wealthy than everyone else because now they have even less guardrails preventing them from exploiting and manipulating everyone around them for self-enrichment.
"those pensioners and others in the 1990" were enjoying the fact that they could finally buy bread and other foodstuff in the store. And have medicine in hospitals. And the fact that they could talk to one another without wondering who is a secret service collaborator.
I mean those who stayed in the country, because an amazing number were enjoying their new found freedom of simply going to a capitalist country to try and improve their lot in life. Funny how none of them western exploited were in any hurry to go and enjoy the communism wonders. The walls and bullets at the border were all to keep us "lucky" communists in!
And you haven't seen abject poverty and dehumanization until you've visited a communist orphanage...
I mean those who stayed in the country, because an amazing number were enjoying their new found freedom of simply going to a capitalist country to try and improve their lot in life. Funny how none of them western exploited were in any hurry to go and enjoy the communism wonders. The walls and bullets at the border were all to keep us "lucky" communists in!
And you haven't seen abject poverty and dehumanization until you've visited a communist orphanage...
> The only one who can answer that question is the free market. And while not satisfying for everybody, it certainly is the best answer we found so far while trying various forms of organisations with this humankind of ours.
I do not agree with you.
First of all because "the free market" is so vague as to be capable of encompassing a huge variety of economic arrangements with wildly different outcomes. Secondly because it absolutely was not "the only one that got us fed" - any sufficiently long read of history will make that clear. Thirdly, because it is far from clear what the role of the ill-defined "free market" has been in the development of magic devices connected to the freaking cloud. Involved? Probably? Responsible? I'd say probably not.
But it's fine, I'm not trying to convince you. We just don't see the world in the same way.
I do not agree with you.
First of all because "the free market" is so vague as to be capable of encompassing a huge variety of economic arrangements with wildly different outcomes. Secondly because it absolutely was not "the only one that got us fed" - any sufficiently long read of history will make that clear. Thirdly, because it is far from clear what the role of the ill-defined "free market" has been in the development of magic devices connected to the freaking cloud. Involved? Probably? Responsible? I'd say probably not.
But it's fine, I'm not trying to convince you. We just don't see the world in the same way.
Also, setting up the only other alternative to an uncontrolled free market as being Soviet communism to begin with is incredibly ignorant and naive.
I'm sure this same scenario played out during aztec human sacrifices. Someone asks "do we really need to do all these human sacrifices to ensure a good harvest?" and the other responds "well, maybe not, and its not satisfying for everybody, but its probably the best answer we found so far. Do you want to live off bugs in the jungle? That's your only other choice, sorry"
I'm sure this same scenario played out during aztec human sacrifices. Someone asks "do we really need to do all these human sacrifices to ensure a good harvest?" and the other responds "well, maybe not, and its not satisfying for everybody, but its probably the best answer we found so far. Do you want to live off bugs in the jungle? That's your only other choice, sorry"
If you found a better system, by all means - propose it here. But usually when leftists say that they just mean some form of watered down communism and completely skip over stuff like Stalin's, Mao's or Pol Pot's blood baths bringing up Aztecs instead...
You managed to burn another 212 words that added nothing to the
statistic you were replying to.
Surplus can come in the form of a small number of large surpluses, or a large number of small ones. The fisherman is quite capable of being part of the latter example.
He is capable, but the whole point of the story is that he doesn't want to use this capability, and is lauded for that.
He doesn't wish to organize his life around maximizing his output.
The entire point of the story is to get people to consider to what extent that makes sense, and under what circumstances.
If you consider a good life to be precisely how the fisherman already lives, it takes a rather compelling argument (and it make even require compelling force) that he should behave otherwise.
The entire point of the story is to get people to consider to what extent that makes sense, and under what circumstances.
If you consider a good life to be precisely how the fisherman already lives, it takes a rather compelling argument (and it make even require compelling force) that he should behave otherwise.
> If you consider a good life to be precisely how the fisherman already lives
That's a pretty big if. I'd start with asking how is dental care in his village. Does the village doctor use anesthesia? Would the anesthesiologist accept fish as a payment, and how many fishes a pain-less root canal treatment costs? Maybe after learning the answers to these questions I'd consider some other definition of a good life.
That's a pretty big if. I'd start with asking how is dental care in his village. Does the village doctor use anesthesia? Would the anesthesiologist accept fish as a payment, and how many fishes a pain-less root canal treatment costs? Maybe after learning the answers to these questions I'd consider some other definition of a good life.
I strongly encourage you to take a vacation in the Greek Islands, preferably with some incipient emergency dental issue just starting to flare up.
I think you'll find the dentist to be just fine.
I think you'll find the dentist to be just fine.
Please cite your assertion "Nobody said that the fisherman is engaged in subsistence living."
Society would collapse also of everyone decided to do internet marketing. Or baking. Or anything, for that matter - since society requires that different people make different choices.
>Society would collapse also of everyone decided to do internet marketing.
Sometimes it feels like we are already half way there.
Sometimes it feels like we are already half way there.
Exactly. (Especially now that ChatGPT makes those people even more productive.)
The moral of story isn't you should be a fisherman or something. It's that you shouldn't change your career (that works for you perfectly) just because someone who looks successful told you so.
Oh I do understand the moral of the story. But to me it's not a very practical lesson. Perhaps the software developers here at HN could realistically coast in life, but to the vast majority of people who want 2 kids (and a good education for them), want to travel, want to own a home, have enough money to hire a good lawyer in case someone screws them over or are falsely accused of a crime, it's not really realistic to work just enough to get by and relax with free time.
God forbid they’d have to cut the military budget and fire some bureaucrats.
They cut things like schools, health care and welfare long before the military budget saw any cuts
is the businessman friends with everyone in society?
While I appreciate the message, the experience of creating and running a successful business really does get a bad rap.
Yes, there are pains and stresses along the way... as with most things worth doing. However, the feeling of having created something is just as satisfying to some as sculpting or fishing to others.
There's also something to be said about creating meaningful employment for the people in your community.
Yes, there are pains and stresses along the way... as with most things worth doing. However, the feeling of having created something is just as satisfying to some as sculpting or fishing to others.
There's also something to be said about creating meaningful employment for the people in your community.
A few years later, the fisherman gets an expensive, debilitating disease and dies penniless and destitute and alone. But at least he had fun before that.
Well, apparently the story was conceived by a German, in which case the social system would catch him, provide the health care he needs, and when recovered he'd be back on that beach...
It's also quite improbable when one lives stress free. Also, looking at the water clears your head and makes you more productive in the end.
Maybe if one engages in rock fishing or cliff jigging and slips off a wet rock, they could get a debilitating accident.
Didn't like for years it but I've finally taken up sport fishing myself last year, after a Greek taught me how they do it and let me try. Shore spinning can be very relaxing and one can enjoy water sports at the sea even in a Bf 4 breeze or during swell conditions when the red flag is up.
https://youtu.be/ayZ-x8CWH4k
Now if I go to the seaside I also bring my tackle along with the wetsuit and swimming goggles. In some countries you need a fishing permit (Croatia, Italy). In Greece you only need it for commercial fishing.
Maybe if one engages in rock fishing or cliff jigging and slips off a wet rock, they could get a debilitating accident.
Didn't like for years it but I've finally taken up sport fishing myself last year, after a Greek taught me how they do it and let me try. Shore spinning can be very relaxing and one can enjoy water sports at the sea even in a Bf 4 breeze or during swell conditions when the red flag is up.
https://youtu.be/ayZ-x8CWH4k
Now if I go to the seaside I also bring my tackle along with the wetsuit and swimming goggles. In some countries you need a fishing permit (Croatia, Italy). In Greece you only need it for commercial fishing.
My grandfather was a fisherman. Had a massive heart attack that killed him at 60. I barely met him. Years of hard work, exposure to the elements, the ever-present stress of the next catch, family worries and a general life of subsistence were not kind to him.
He was "lucky" he died too, if he survived he would've faced a disabled life in a place with no health care or general services beyond basic. Such was the life on the remote undeveloped seaside.
His wife and kids though surely would have liked to be left with something more than the fishing tools, boat and shack...
He was "lucky" he died too, if he survived he would've faced a disabled life in a place with no health care or general services beyond basic. Such was the life on the remote undeveloped seaside.
His wife and kids though surely would have liked to be left with something more than the fishing tools, boat and shack...
You realise I wasn't talking about commercial or subsistence fishing.
Anywhere in Europe actually.
Europe is big, made of many different countries, with very different policies on public health care and very different standards for that public health care. For example, in Romania (part of the EU!), the big cities usually have good hospitals, but if you're in villages or smaller cities, good luck! Also, to be able to benefit from free public health care, there's a list of conditions you have to meet, it's not available by default to anyone. The requirements are quite reasonable (be employed, be on maternity leave, be in school, etc.), But there are people who are not covered.
But who pays for these social services to pay the doctors that heal him?
Immigrants waiting to get citizenship so they can enjoy the same safety net.
Residents also enjoy the same safety net. German social benefits do no distinguish on status. The only exception is if your residence permit is tied to your employment, in which case it’s a little more complicated, but only due to the horribly slow immigration office.
It sounds a lot like a ponzi, doesn't it?
Better to enjoy your life before your debilitating disease than to be miserable up until your debilitating disease. The fisherman was going to die anyways.
We are all racing to the same destination.
He doesn’t die alone. His children and wife watch him die. Without him, they must toil endlessly to survive.
His son already got into YC2024, via his participation in a worker-owned tech coop that is bringing big data, AI and crowd sourcing to the fishing business.
His wife, who in the 1800s, would never have been recognized for her work, is today known as one of her country's greatest contemporary sculptors, and has exhibited at Tate Modern, the Guggenheim and has a show next month in Rio.
The fisherman used to talk with pride about his family's accomplishments when sipping retsina with his friends on the dock.
His wife, who in the 1800s, would never have been recognized for her work, is today known as one of her country's greatest contemporary sculptors, and has exhibited at Tate Modern, the Guggenheim and has a show next month in Rio.
The fisherman used to talk with pride about his family's accomplishments when sipping retsina with his friends on the dock.
i wonder how the fisherman got to know and marry an internationally successful artist and what are the odds of that happening...
He's a retired businessman. They met, by chance, years ago when he was in South Korea to close the construction contract for his 50-boat fishing fleet with Hyundai.
So he still lived a happy an fulfilling life doing exactly what he wanted. Sounds good to me.
And 30 years later the businessman dies of old age, alone in a fancy care home with only his nurse there to watch him pass and his last words are “if only I had listened to the fisherman”
I'd wager there are more ways to die in modern society than in the fisherman's village. If we're speculating, a few years later the businessman gets hit by a truck crossing the street, or addicted to opiates, or has a heart attack from his sedentary lifestyle. And he doesn't even seem to have had much fun before that!
[deleted]
Yeah healthcare is the one thing I want financial security for. Big house, nice car, expensive food is all whatever, but I have some weird paranoia that in the next 30-40 years some longevity treatment will start rolling out or I will develop some condition that I will be priced out of.
Wouldn’t the same thing happen even if he were rich?
In a similar spirit there's Tolstoy's classic short story, "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" [1]
I'd start just before chapter V if you want to get right into it -- the ending is truly delicious, and quite inline with OP's story, enjoy.
[1] http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2738/
I'd start just before chapter V if you want to get right into it -- the ending is truly delicious, and quite inline with OP's story, enjoy.
[1] http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2738/
I could guess the ending from the title... As great a writer as Tolstoy is this one was a pretty obvious conclusion. We're all here temporarily anyway, amassing wealth on expense of health and well being is a fool's errand. Sure misery is frightening, but I find we sell our dignity too cheaply because of that fear. A life of servitude, selling nearly half our waking time in the prime of our time for fear of destitution strikes me as madness. Wouldn't it be preferable to die than to live with a leash, as golden as it may be painted? The comforts we can buy, of gadgets, big house, big car, fancy travel... As long as we report back and spend 90% of the year saying 'yes sir' to boss, client or market. What have we become? Well dressed, comfy serfs.
Short story by Tolstoy… chapter V…
Short and concise indeed. But then again, I read full Ana Karenina, and it was worth it.
Short and concise indeed. But then again, I read full Ana Karenina, and it was worth it.
It was used by historian Anthony Beevor when talking about the German invasion of the USSR.
Hasn't that happened in Somalia? There were happy fishermen until their fishing grounds were depleted by businessmen and their big boats which led to the pirate industry?
On land, it's hunter gatherers and farming or logging.
On land, it's hunter gatherers and farming or logging.
The closest parallel might be how native americans lived for thousands of years subsisting on the land. The level of sustainable living they maintained was extraordinary. Everything from 3 sisters farming, to fish stocking in lakes, to controlled burns to prevent wildfires... they found a harmony with their environment to just live enough, and no more.
> How cruel the whites are: their lips are thin, their noses sharp, their faces furrowed and distorted by holes. Their eyes have a staring expression. They are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites always want something, they are always uneasy and restless. We do not know what they want, we do not understand them, we think that they are mad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochwiay_Biano
> How cruel the whites are: their lips are thin, their noses sharp, their faces furrowed and distorted by holes. Their eyes have a staring expression. They are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites always want something, they are always uneasy and restless. We do not know what they want, we do not understand them, we think that they are mad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochwiay_Biano
Don’t forget the raping and pillaging of other tribes when times got tough.
Very few of the tribes in the more barren west lived on land bountiful enough for this utopian fantasy.
Very few of the tribes in the more barren west lived on land bountiful enough for this utopian fantasy.
Yeah everyone here is totally missing this point
“Who would make the iPhones then?”
Nobody cause they wouldn’t exist
“Who would make the iPhones then?”
Nobody cause they wouldn’t exist
No they aren’t. They are pointing out that it’s a childlike fantasy that ends in pain and agony because a society based on subsistence is missing basic things like anti-bacterials, insulin, anesthesia for surgery, etc.
The remedy to pain and agony is opium not modern medicine. Stretching out the lives of workers is an economic imperative not a humanistic one. Our fear of suffering and death makes us easy to manipulate.
My grandfather got a heart surgery and a pace maker and lived 20 more years gardening, going to the cabin, helping raise his grandkids, and playing cards daily with his wife. Those 20 years were arguably many of the best of his life considering he grew up in the Great Depression and then went to world war 2.
Getting ripped on opium is no different than getting ripped on morphine. Modern medice has that too. The difference is that modern medicine has far more tools in the bag before something becomes a terminal illness.
Getting ripped on opium is no different than getting ripped on morphine. Modern medice has that too. The difference is that modern medicine has far more tools in the bag before something becomes a terminal illness.
I'm starting a business.
No, it's not a startup. It is just a business to take care of my wife and me.
This is why. This story is what I tell people when they say I should make it a startup.
No, it's not a startup. It is just a business to take care of my wife and me.
This is why. This story is what I tell people when they say I should make it a startup.
I call mine a startup but… same as you,
I considered investment and growth, but having been down that path a couple of times, instead decided to just set modest goals and work hard to achieve them.
I feel better already.
I considered investment and growth, but having been down that path a couple of times, instead decided to just set modest goals and work hard to achieve them.
I feel better already.
I’m doing similar so I think the tide is changing
Not a story you’d hear in a poor fishing village I’d imagine.
this is 'the parable of the mexican fisherman' it's the kind of story that is in every book like 7 habits of effective people or 4 hour work week or probably books by Malcolm Gladwell or ones like him
7 Habits is a great book everyone should read
> First off, I'd suggest buying "Seven Habits of Highly Successful
People", and NOT read it. Burn it, it's a great symbolic gesture.
-- Linus Torvalds
Myself... I'm not that extreme, but the good ideas from so many business books could be summed up in a few paragraphs.
-- Linus Torvalds
Myself... I'm not that extreme, but the good ideas from so many business books could be summed up in a few paragraphs.
> the good ideas from so many business books could be summed up in a few paragraphs
Sure. You can also forgo reading most fiction by simply reading the Wikipedia plot summary.
Sure. You can also forgo reading most fiction by simply reading the Wikipedia plot summary.
Given limited time, I’d rather read War and Peace in its entirety, and a blog post on 7 Habits.
Most non-fiction has little literary value (which consists of more than plot) though.
Sure, and most good self-help books have examples and rephrasing and re-examining of ideas to help the ideas take root, which is lost in a blog post summarising it
Twist: the fisherman is already rich and has a fleet doing his work.
twist twist: the fisherman is a retired startup millionaire who wants to stay incognito and just trolls the businessman
and is waiting for one of the boat to come back and give him some fish, because he doesn't know how to fish himself and be patient after he spent all those years making business instead
Love what you do and you’ll never work a day in your life.
Let’s be honest: fishing in the USA is a tough full time job, even if you love it. You can’t relax by the ocean catching a few fish to pay rent and support your family.
Let’s be honest: fishing in the USA is a tough full time job, even if you love it. You can’t relax by the ocean catching a few fish to pay rent and support your family.
Anybody want to take a crack at tracing the origin of this one?
It’s a classic folklore story that seems to be present in many different cultures. (Found a Brazilian one: https://paulocoelhoblog.com/2015/09/04/the-fisherman-and-the...)
For a classic Western version, see Plutarch’s story:
‘What the favourite of the King of Epirus said to his master may be applied to all men in the ordinary situations of human life. When the king had recounted to him, in their proper order, all the conquests which he proposed to make, and had come to the last of them; “And what does your Majesty propose to do then?” said the Favourite. “I propose then,” said the King, “to enjoy myself with my friends, and endeavour to be good company over a bottle.” “And what hinders your Majesty from doing so now?” replied the Favourite.’
For a classic Western version, see Plutarch’s story:
‘What the favourite of the King of Epirus said to his master may be applied to all men in the ordinary situations of human life. When the king had recounted to him, in their proper order, all the conquests which he proposed to make, and had come to the last of them; “And what does your Majesty propose to do then?” said the Favourite. “I propose then,” said the King, “to enjoy myself with my friends, and endeavour to be good company over a bottle.” “And what hinders your Majesty from doing so now?” replied the Favourite.’
"[...] it looks like the original story was written by German writer Heinrich Böll in “Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral” (“Anecdote concerning the Lowering of Productivity”) and published in 1963."
Source: https://www.sloww.co/tourist-fisherman/#
Source: https://www.sloww.co/tourist-fisherman/#
I remember this from the old book "the 4 hour work week", it was a good read and really was ahead of the curve even though it was cheesy at times.
If you are rich, you can enjoy the beach. You can’t do the same if you are poor and have a family to feed.
The only time I was ever homeless (about forty days, well over a decade ago) I slept between beaches and couches, and quickly discovered that having one's own secure space is essential to healthy living.
Although I was worth less than nothing (i.e. negative money from CC/student loans), these are among my happiest days. Once I found employment as a nanny/driver I was allowed to sleep in the servant's quarters — and eventually built my own room in an unused garage.
Definitely having a family to feed, in addition to one's self, would make this kind of lifestyle impossible — but I fear as wealth inequality increases, and more people are living in multi-generational living arrangements: family entrapment (both caring for children and parents) will increasingly be how destitute get by [taking care of them].
I will never be homeless again. Just an awful existence.
Although I was worth less than nothing (i.e. negative money from CC/student loans), these are among my happiest days. Once I found employment as a nanny/driver I was allowed to sleep in the servant's quarters — and eventually built my own room in an unused garage.
Definitely having a family to feed, in addition to one's self, would make this kind of lifestyle impossible — but I fear as wealth inequality increases, and more people are living in multi-generational living arrangements: family entrapment (both caring for children and parents) will increasingly be how destitute get by [taking care of them].
I will never be homeless again. Just an awful existence.
Above a few million it's simply an ego thing, it's what keeps folks like Jeff Bezos paying his staff a pittance so he can accrue more wealth.
This is like the Footprints poem for founderbros.
The story from the wall on Jimmy John's?
[deleted]
Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
Wow. That's a great response by everyone. I posted this link after finding out of its existence when I asked ChatGPT if there was a similar story to my Dad's anecdote he used to tell. My dad past away and I always kept thinking about this story. ChatGPT recognized and point me to the other stories similar to his. Here it is:
""" An elderly man was strolling when he noticed a young man lying under a tree, appearing relaxed. Curious, the elderly man asked him why he was resting and doing nothing. The young man responded with a question of his own, "Why should I do anything?" The elderly man, slightly puzzled, answered that by doing something, the young man could become rich. The young man inquired, "Why do I need to be rich?" The elderly man explained that being rich would allow him to have everything he wanted and ultimately do nothing. The young man responded with a smile, "Well, I'm already doing nothing. """
Also I asked ChatGPT about different philosophical aspect of the story:
""" This anecdote touches upon several philosophical themes, including the nature of happiness, the purpose of work, and the concept of wealth. Here are some angles we can consider:
1. Hedonism: The young man's attitude can be seen as hedonistic, as he focuses on enjoying the present moment and experiencing pleasure by doing nothing. This philosophy prioritizes personal satisfaction, suggesting that happiness is found in the pursuit of pleasurable experiences.
2. The Paradox of Work and Wealth: The elderly man's response reflects a societal belief that hard work and accumulating wealth are necessary for a fulfilling life. However, the young man challenges this belief by demonstrating that he has already achieved a state of relaxation and contentment without wealth. This highlights the paradox that people often work hard to achieve a state of happiness or relaxation that they could have experienced without the need for wealth or material possessions.
3. Simple Living: The young man's perspective can be seen as an endorsement of a minimalist or simple living philosophy, which values experiences and well-being over material possessions. This viewpoint suggests that happiness can be found in a simple, unencumbered lifestyle that prioritizes personal fulfillment over the pursuit of wealth.
4. The Myth of Sisyphus: The anecdote can be seen as a variation on the story of Sisyphus, a character from Greek mythology who is condemned to roll a boulder up a hill only for it to roll back down each time. This story is often used as a metaphor for the human struggle to find meaning and purpose in life. In this anecdote, the young man has seemingly found his own sense of meaning by rejecting the common belief that wealth and success are necessary for happiness.
5. Taoism and Wu Wei: The young man's attitude can be linked to the Taoist concept of wu wei, which means "non-action" or "effortless action." This philosophy emphasizes the importance of living in harmony with the natural flow of life and not forcing change or action. By lying under the tree and doing nothing, the young man could be seen as embodying the concept of wu wei.
6. The Pursuit of Happiness: The anecdote raises the question of what it means to be happy and how to achieve happiness. Both the elderly man and the young man have different perspectives on what is necessary for happiness. This can lead to a broader discussion on the nature of happiness and the various ways individuals seek to attain it.
These are just a few philosophical angles that can be derived from this anecdote. The story serves as a starting point for deeper discussions on the meaning of life, happiness, and the value of work and wealth in modern society.
"""
""" An elderly man was strolling when he noticed a young man lying under a tree, appearing relaxed. Curious, the elderly man asked him why he was resting and doing nothing. The young man responded with a question of his own, "Why should I do anything?" The elderly man, slightly puzzled, answered that by doing something, the young man could become rich. The young man inquired, "Why do I need to be rich?" The elderly man explained that being rich would allow him to have everything he wanted and ultimately do nothing. The young man responded with a smile, "Well, I'm already doing nothing. """
Also I asked ChatGPT about different philosophical aspect of the story:
""" This anecdote touches upon several philosophical themes, including the nature of happiness, the purpose of work, and the concept of wealth. Here are some angles we can consider:
1. Hedonism: The young man's attitude can be seen as hedonistic, as he focuses on enjoying the present moment and experiencing pleasure by doing nothing. This philosophy prioritizes personal satisfaction, suggesting that happiness is found in the pursuit of pleasurable experiences.
2. The Paradox of Work and Wealth: The elderly man's response reflects a societal belief that hard work and accumulating wealth are necessary for a fulfilling life. However, the young man challenges this belief by demonstrating that he has already achieved a state of relaxation and contentment without wealth. This highlights the paradox that people often work hard to achieve a state of happiness or relaxation that they could have experienced without the need for wealth or material possessions.
3. Simple Living: The young man's perspective can be seen as an endorsement of a minimalist or simple living philosophy, which values experiences and well-being over material possessions. This viewpoint suggests that happiness can be found in a simple, unencumbered lifestyle that prioritizes personal fulfillment over the pursuit of wealth.
4. The Myth of Sisyphus: The anecdote can be seen as a variation on the story of Sisyphus, a character from Greek mythology who is condemned to roll a boulder up a hill only for it to roll back down each time. This story is often used as a metaphor for the human struggle to find meaning and purpose in life. In this anecdote, the young man has seemingly found his own sense of meaning by rejecting the common belief that wealth and success are necessary for happiness.
5. Taoism and Wu Wei: The young man's attitude can be linked to the Taoist concept of wu wei, which means "non-action" or "effortless action." This philosophy emphasizes the importance of living in harmony with the natural flow of life and not forcing change or action. By lying under the tree and doing nothing, the young man could be seen as embodying the concept of wu wei.
6. The Pursuit of Happiness: The anecdote raises the question of what it means to be happy and how to achieve happiness. Both the elderly man and the young man have different perspectives on what is necessary for happiness. This can lead to a broader discussion on the nature of happiness and the various ways individuals seek to attain it.
These are just a few philosophical angles that can be derived from this anecdote. The story serves as a starting point for deeper discussions on the meaning of life, happiness, and the value of work and wealth in modern society.
"""
Hyper capitalism is destroying everything. It’s just a question of whether we chose to change course.
A businessman gets into a taxi and starts talking to the taxi driver about (of course) business. The taxi driver is in a great mood and explains that today is a good day, this is his last trip since he has made the $400 he aims to make in just two hours. The businessman asks him what a bad day looks like, and the taxi driver says he might have to drive for ten hours to make that $400, and he’s miserable the whole time.
The businessman asks why he stops at that specific number, and the taxi driver replies that he starts out $300 ‘in the hole’ for car and medallion rental, so he has to make that back plus some more for his take-home pay. The businessman suggests to the taxi driver that good days like these are when he should do his epic ten hour shifts, and he should go home early on the bad days even if he loses money that day, as the extra money from the good days will more than cover the small losses on the bad days.
I guess the moral of both of these stories put together is that sometimes businessmen have good advice and sometimes they don’t.