If You Didn't Need Money, What Would You Do? 201
permaculture had this simple but philosophical query to run by you all, today: "I was once asked this question: 'If you didn't have to work for money, what would you do with your time?' I've put that question to many people since I first heard it, and got a lot of different answers. It seems to me that the answer to this question is what you should be aiming for even though you do have to spend most of your time earning a crust."
Easy (Score:3, Funny)
Work. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Of course its a basic characteristic of humanity. Its not a cultural product.
The idea that work is bad-- that's a cultural idea. It goes with the idea that people are bad, money is bad, and all that other puritan thinking.
IF you're not creating, you're doing nothing worthwhile.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
He talks extensively about the "work ethic".
You seem to have strong opinions about the topic. I predict you'll either really enjoy the book or else totally hate it
Re:Work. (Score:2)
If it was written recently, I haven't read it. I read a bunch of books like that awhile back, but I suspect that was not one of them.
Can you give me a short summation as to what he means by the work ethic?
While this work is what I would choose, other work, say for a non-profit, or purely for the sake of art-- fits my ethic as well. As long as you are striving the be the most excellent person you can be... which is a standard that will naturally will be different for everyone.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Fairly new, first out in hardcover Jan 2001.
Urk. It's a fairly deep book by a Ph.D. in philosophy...
He talks a lot about Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, and compares the "Protestant Work Ethic" to the "Hacker Work Ethic".
Protestant Ethic- I identify strongly with my work (Hi, I'm Bob, I'm a sysadmin). Work is a duty, not just a job.
- Life rotates around work, and everything else is stuffed into evenings and weekends
- If I'm not working (get laid off etc), I feel lost, uprooted, useless
Hacker ethic:I'm afraid the above is not a very good summary. I hope it's enough to pique your curiousity and get you to read the book :)
BTW, here [slashdot.org]'s a Slashdot book review and discussion.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Ah, I think I've already got it.
I'll keep an eye out for the book, but as I said in another post, some of my most productive work time occured north of the arctic circle in isolation while on "vacation". No bells or schedules and the ever-present sun throwing my clock off so much that I never slept the same time s two days in a row. The entire purpose of that trip was to escape work, and not think about it at all, but by the time I crossed the circle, I was working on a new product idea... its natural.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Well, I never really considered myself a hacker, but it seems that I am... I just happen to be employed as a sysadmin.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Two sides of the same coin--if thinking that work is bad is a cultural idea, then thinking it is good must be as well. I don't think it's bad either--I just don't think it's a goal in and of itself. You might enjoy your work, if so, go to it. You might need to work to do what you enjoy, if so, again, go to it.
But to believe that life wouldn't be worthwhile without work--to not see the value of life and existance outside of work, even outside of creation--well, I feel very sorry for anyone who could put such a simplistic worldview into practice.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
You misunderstand. Whatever form your highest ideal takes it will take *work* to get there... even if its is *work* to make a sculpture, or help cure a disease, or build a bridge somewhere, or remodel your house, or raise your kids.
For me, its the act of creating software for profit.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Re:Work. (Score:2)
The irony is thick since my philosophy is grounded in direct observation of the world around you, and yours in the denial of it existence-- Yet you tell me to watch the world carefully. Maybe I should ask you to at least open your eyes. (Oh, and if you hate being human so much, the exit door is easily found.)
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Thanks for playing. But it takes endeavour to get there. If you consider it work, you are a slave, otherwise, you are free.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Sure, if you choose to redefine work to suit your agenda (whatever that is.)
The first definition of work from dictionary.com fits my usage of it:
"Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something."
Therefore, to say I'm wrong in my usage is stupid.
Endeavor, used as a verb means: "To work with a set or specified goal or purpose"
So your distinction is only in your mind.
Good day.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
If that's truely the case, then you haven't been human for years.
But somehow I doubt it. I suspect you have been working on something.
Or you've been wasting your life... whatever you do that is worthwhile enough to make "wasting your life" and inaccurate characterization, it takes work.
Re:Work. (Score:2, Insightful)
You wouldn't know they were rich when you met them, nor when you saw the cars they drive, nor their houses. Their children do not have every toy they ever wanted.
If I didn't have to worry about money, I would still work, but I doubt that I would be as committed, or as financially savvy.
I think I would start a company, and work on the ideas and dreams I have. I think the dangerous thing for people who "come into money" is the ability to follow through on flights of fancy, where most people sort out their priorities and make goals of those dreams they have.
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Dude, that's also the thing that makes people like Howard Hughes so compelling. He was nuts, did crazy stuff, and it kicked butt. Built the biggest plane ever and flew it once. Built a ship with a 2-mile long claw to raise a submarine off the seabed. Had an army of people spread across the US to find him the most, um, pneumatic woman, then cast her in the Outlaw, then called up preachers and conservative groups telling them how immoral it was so they'd protest and give it free publicity (thereby making Jane Rusell a star).
And all those billionaires who want to parachute out of a balloon at over 15000 feet just to beat (google for "Project Excelsior" for a description of the original). [af.mil]
Sure, it's not _useful_. But it's entertaining as hell.
Sumner
Re:Work. (Score:4, Insightful)
I might. Or I might wander through the wilderness in quiet contemplation. Or analyze great tomes of philosophy in the Library. Journey across the world. Talk to interesting people. I
It strikes me as sad that so many (perhaps not yourself) wouldn't be able to find something to do without asking some company or government for a job...
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Re:Work. (Score:2)
Re:Work. (Score:3)
Does this mean I have all the money I need? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd give lots and lots to charity -- I don't want to leave any money to my kids -- they need to earn whatever they get in the world
I'd buy a farm -- 1000 acres or more, build a sweet house, build barns and outbuildings, raise horses, and grow and harvest my own hay.
Yeah, that's about it.
Re:Does this mean I have all the money I need? (Score:3, Funny)
Call it whatever you want. We know what you mean :)
You mean besides 2 chicks at once? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd do what I'm doing now... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'd do what I'm doing now... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I'm married, own a house, have a stable 9-5 job, and am compensated handsomely. And I want to go back to school
two chicks at once (Score:5, Funny)
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on me do.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
Lawrence: What about you, what would you do?
Peter Gibbons: Besides two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Well yeah.
Peter Gibbons: Nothing.
Lawrence: Nothing, huh?
Peter Gibbons: I'd relax, sit on my ass all day, I would do nothing.
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.
Fisherman story (Score:2, Funny)
Fisherman: What do you mean?
Guy: Well, if you had 2 or 3 fishing lines you could get more fishes...
Fisherman: And than?
Guy: You could go to the market and sell them!
Fisherman: And than?
Guy: You could earn some money!
Fisherman: What would I do with that?
Guy: You could by a small boat and a net and fish more!
Fisherman: And than?
Guy: You sell the fishes and earn even more!
Fisherman: And than?
Guy: You could by a big boat and hire a crew and they could fish for you! You could be a milionare, you could just sit here all day and
Perhaps, (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is not (or at least, should not be), what would you do with infinite money? Rather, it's, if you could earn your current salary doing anything at all, what would it be? What would you rather be doing from 9 to 5 (or before, or after)?
In my mind, that's a very important distinction. I don't care if you'd buy a Beowulf cluster of Xserves. I don't care if you'd buy enough food to feed the world. I don't care if you'd buy Australia. All I care about is, if you received the same amount of money you do now, but you didn't have to work for it, what would you do?
Re:Perhaps, (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a lot of us like what we do (otherwise we'd be in a different profession already.) What gets to be a drag about any job is the fact you do it whether or not you feel like doing it on any given day.
There are things I do on the side that I do for enjoyment, but if I switched careers to do those things full-time, then they would become tedious too. Doing things when you WANT to do them is fun
Re:Perhaps, (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, not everyone can say that. Many people are forced into doing a job that they dislike, or truly hate, just because they need the money and they have no options. Maybe no one's hiring in their field, or they don't like the particular job they have though they like the field, or maybe their field just doesn't lead to a specific line of work. Either way, it happens, and those people are who the question's directed at.
Re:Perhaps, (Score:3, Interesting)
The question has nothing to do with politics. It is not, should everyone receive a living wage without working, or should everyone be given a living wage while they're finding work, or anything like that. It's a philosophical question: *If you didn't have to work, what would you do?*
Anything about politics is missing the point (unless, of course, you'd go into politics with your free time). Anything about money is also missing the point; that's why I put in the bit about assuming not infinite money, but the same amount of money you make now.
Whatever you may wish to be true, the fact is there are many people who take whatever job they can get, because they need a reliable source of income, and those people would much rather be doing a different job. And there are other people who simply can't find a line of work the enjoy. So the question is directed at those people: *What would you rather be doing?*
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
I gave a philosophical response. You wanna call it a political rant, fine.
You miss the point.
People aren't forced into jobs they hate. They settle for jobs they shouldn't settle for.
Wishing it werent' so, doesn't make it so. Maybe you hate your job and want to believe you didn't have a choice. Fine.... but you'd be happier if you went and made the correct choice.
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
Yessum, that's a good piece of philosophy there.
Now, I could say just the opposite - *if* people had a guaranteed source of income, that they received whether they made $2 bil, didn't have a job, or anything in between, then perhaps you'd gain that additional flexibility?
Many people are already working well over 40-hour weeks, and they still barely make enough to feed their family; do you expect those people to start a business? No, though you occasionally hear "success stories" where people are catapulted from poverty to upper-class, most entrepreneurship comes from people who can work on it full-time.
Read my other post to this article, and give me one good reason why that would be a bad idea. We're talking philosophy here
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
Actually this is a common notion but its false. The reason most people don't have enough money to invest much of it is that they took on way too much debt and rather than pay it off, they continue to live beyond their means. But also, those who choose to have so many children that they can barely support them have also CHOSEN to be in this situation-- they didn't have the job forced on them, they choose to have too many children. Did they think children were cheap?
But excluding those with lots of kids, the average family is short on cash only because they are carrying way too much bad debt, often at %18.
do you expect those people to start a business?
Hell yes. How else are they going to get out of the quagmire. There is no other way. Pay off your debts, cut up your credit cards. Then start putting all that money that was sucked away into the cards into a prudent investment for your future. A side business is an excellent one, or if you like your job and want to keep working there, put it into stocks and other investments. Hell, many people have gotten wealthy by buying real estate for investment-- I'm not talking the peopel you see on Tv, I'm talking my friend the CPA-- the tenants pay the mortgage, and you have to deal with toilets. For me, the toilets aren't worth it, but the leverage you can get with real estate loans is huge and this makes the bar for entry to this kind of business rather low, if you want to do it. And you could do something like that on the weekends. AFter all, if you have a duplex you're renting out they aren't going to have 4 breakdowns a month! So, most of your weekends would be free.
No, though you occasionally hear "success stories" where people are catapulted from poverty to upper-class, most entrepreneurship comes from people who can work on it full-time.
Wrong. This is quite factually wrong. Most entrepreneurship is done part time. Eventually it becomes full time, but for every startup business with venture capital there are 10 or a hundred small side businesses done by housewives in their part time, or people who are moonlighting.
As to people escaping poverty-- I have first hand experience with this. All it takes is working, even at a minimum wage job, and managing your money carefully while getting the job skills to get better jobs. The opportunity is there for anyone who wants to take it. In the US at least, being in poverty is a choice.
Hell, you talked about working over 40 hours a week just to put food on the table-- I know its a common expression, but literally it is wrong. There are many agencies that will provide enough food for free that you never have to buy food to live. In this state someone who gets minimum wage with a full time job has $852 a month after taxes. With free food and a $300 apartment, a $100 bus pass, that leaves $452 a month to put into something useful that improves ones situation. If there are two of your, then your apartment costs are cut in half. If you have 6 children, well you chose to have them... but at least you can feed them for free.
You don't have to work full time to start a side business. Most people who do, do it part time. And the vast majority of people who chose not to are doing so to their own detriment... its not like they are being prevented.
There is plenty of opportunity.
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
It seems that your beliefs can pretty much be summed up in one sentence: It is possible, with extreme amounts of work and self-discipline, to pull oneself out of any situation into success, therefore anybody who doesn't do that deserves their place in life.
While that is valid philosophy, I personally find it morally repulsive. Give me one good reason why we, as a society, should not consider it our obligation to ensure that every member has as high a quality of life as possible, even if for some reason they are unable to do work. I don't mean that people should be paying for other people to have Mercedes-es, just that it's an outrage that in one company, you have one person whose job it is to pass down management decisions from a higher-level manager to a lower-level manager, and he gets paid about 100x what the janitor does.
Your arguments also assume that society bears no blame in people's misfortunes. Maybe people have so much debt because credit cards are so agressively marketed? Studies have shown that the human brain is wired to cooperate; you can derive from that that, unless taught otherwise, people are naturally gullible, and thus will believe a credit card company's ads. People from better backgrounds, in addition to being able to pay off debt, generally know better than to fall prey to those cards.
Also, what about illegal immigrants? They sneak into the US, attempting to find whatever job they can get; there's a house-cleaning service around where I live, staffed by Portuguese immigrants - though I have no evidence to back it up, I'd be surprised if a single one was legal. And these immigrants provide many services that US upper-class citizens enjoy, that very few non-recent-immigrant US residents want to do. Yet, because they don't want to get deported, these residents are unable to qualify for any benefits - so they really are working huge weeks to put food on the table.
Here's my point. In a "perfect world" (though such a world isn't perfect in my mind), what you're saying would be true; the amount of success people get would be directly proportional to the amount of work they put in, and people would be able to get a job doing whatever they want. In the real world, opportunity is not as widely available, and many factors can mean that certain people are unable to achieve success on the scale you describe, even if they worked 150 hours a week (ignoring the fact that they would die after about a month of working such a schedule, from lack of sleep). A civilized society cannot rightly ignore such factors, and should insure, at the least, that nobody starves.
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
Well, as I pointed out, nobody starves in this society. At least nobody with enough sense to go to the local food bank.
This idea that I am responsible for your well being is an absurd one, created by those who want to get rich off of my sense of guilt. IT has nothing to do with helping the poor- I do that, I and I do that of my own free will. IT is completely about forcing me, and others, at gunpoint to help the "poor" baurocrats who take our money.
Charities answer that need you speak of. And charities do not require the violation of human rights that you so easily advocate.
If my sister's farm is failing and I need to help her out, who are you to show up with a gun and take my moeny from me -- money that would go to her, but instead goes to fraud, waste and abuse in the guise of "helping others". Taxes are exactly this kind of robbery.
You say I should not be allowed to help my sister becuase your "cause" is more important.
I say, "begone thief!"
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
Sure I was quoting her. What relevance does it have that it was her I was quoting?
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
When all is said and done, it is worth the possible loss of resources in order to rehabilitate someone (in the sense of giving them a job, food, whatever) on the off-chance that they might actually BE rehabilitated and contribute back to society.
This may be true in theory, but since you are representing my opinion here, I want to be a clearer on what I think--- I think that welfare should be abolished. I think that the tax money wasted on it would be better spent invested in private charities. My SO grew up on welfare and when I met her had never had a job in her life, I've seen her become a productive member of society. I have first hand experience with this stuff (having been homeless myself for a brief period and penniless a couple times. Something people who know of my current wealth assume never did, or could, happen.) First off the money put into that system is lost to graft and waste, and whats left is mismanaged. Instead of encouraging people to become productive members of society, it actually encourages people to breed more children, which deepens their hole, and makes it less likely that they will ever be financially solvent.
Not that it isn't their choice-- they have the right to have too many children. They just don't have the right to depend on me for support- and sPiCe doesn't have the right to demand at gunpoint that I pay it.
immigration
I love that on one hand SPice is complaining about how people who don't want to work don't get paid enough money, and on the other hand he's complaining about all these "illegals". Such contempt for humanity.
Anyone who sneaks into this country to find a better job is welcome to work for me. I'd much rather have someone who has shown initiative in finding work than someone who thinks life should be handed to them on a silver platter. You go out into the wild and expect the forest to give you food? You got another thing coming... the bear that kills you doesn't care that you don't have as nice a set of teeth and claws as he does. Civilisation is not about turning productive people into unproductive ones (as welfare does).
Its about providing laws to protect human rights-- and THATS IT. Nothing more.
Forced redistribution of wealth is a violation of human rights.
All this whining about immigrants is really racism, plain and simple. They dont' say it outright-- but in their mind you know they're thinking "Dirty mexicans" or "damn indians". Lets not forget that they pay taxes too.
If someone halfway around the world can do your job better than you with a language barrier and time zone issue to over come, that reflects on you, not on them. And I say, more power too them.
I was a liberal because I thought liberals believed in human rights. Now that I actually do, I see liberalism as very anti-human rights. They just don't realize it. But the right of free association is not to be infringed upon.
And when you look at it, most of this "charity" type work that they do is just a scam. The only reason liberalism still exists in this country is that the government work force is so huge, and between them, the contractors that do business with the government and the mafia/unions, they represent half the population.
Its in their personal financial interest to keep big government and high taxes.
So when this guy whines about people starving, what he's really talking about is his own paycheck, and he wants more. Either that, or he's a fool who thinks these people really mean what they say, despite all the evidence of reality, and about a hundred years of history showing the constant failure of socialism.
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
Immigration: I find it interesting that you misinterpreted me so...strangely. Isn't it clear from my earlier piece that I'm on the side of the immigrants? I believe that citizenship should be abolished, and laws should be made around residency instead; if you currently live in the US, then you vote in US elections, qualify for US benefits, and pay US taxes, regardless of where you came from.
I fully support free trade, as long as there's no human rights abuses going on in developing countries by companies that take advantage of NAFTA or similar agreements (I'm pretty sure that there's no human-rights abuses going on at the car factories in Michigan
Call me a socialist fool, but I know better. The system I advocate has been used successfully in many places around the world - including Alaska, not exactly a leftist paradise. The goverrnment of Alaska, quite simply, collects 12.5% of all oil revenues in the state, and pays every citizen an equal share of the money. No means-testing, no bureaucracy, no qualifying; everyone gets a check, simple as that. No person in Alaska is destitute (unlike every other state), because of that system. A similar system exists in Alberta, Canada, about as right-wing as Texas.
Suppose such a system was expanded to include other monopolies. Mining, local telephone service, electricity, you name it. A huge portion of revenues from monopolies was collected by the states, and distributed in even proportions to all residents, rich and poor. That system could theoretically provide an income large enough that flexibility in the labor market could be dramatically expanded, so that unemployment insurance and similar programs were made redundant. (Read my reply to the reply to "Full disclosure", a top-level comment.)
So I'm not just waiting for a successful implementation of my theory to be used. It's been done many times, and people love it.
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
BZZT. Nice try. You know, I grew up in Louisiana. I know poor. I know poor real well. Alaska is the only state of the 49 I've been to that reminds me of Louisiana more than Mississippi.
Nobody is destitute in alaska? Are you that ignorant, or are you deliberately lying? They payout-- which, by the way, you have to meet strict qualifications to get, contrary to your statement-- is only around $6,000. I'm sure its gone up in the past two years, but even $8,000 in alaska doesn't buy nearly as much as $8,000 in California-- and california isn't exactly a cheap state. And the weeks that it occurs, every car dealership in the state is offering to "double it" if you sign over your payment check.
Yeah, there are billions in that fund, but it isn't exactly social security--- and Alaska is a poor state. A poor state with a very high cost of living.
Unlike you apparently, I have BEEN to alaska, I've travelled the length of the state and been to many of the towns there. Its a great state, but it is not without poor people, as you claim.
There are not many jobs, there are a lot of people out of work, and the economic situation isn't ideal. Sure, the oil money has helped (and its absurd the way that resource as been mismanaged-- an example of why government DOESN'T work, not one of why it does.)
You are living in a dream world where Communist russia was a paradise and people in Alaska have their needs met by oil money. But reality is quite different.
But then, I knew this going it-- its just nice to have you prove it for anyone else reading this. You believe your little fantasy about alaska, and about how glorious russia was, but everyone knows the reality. Objective fact is, you're wrong. Alaska's oil payout doesn't come close to covering a single person's financial needs, let alone a family. Most of the money goes into a fund, or to state programs, some of which are good, but there is no "direct payout" as you claimed. What people do get is a small cut of the interest of a huge fund that is collected...
You're either ignorant, or a liar, or both. Shame on you. And what makes you think you can say such a frankly bald faced falsehood? Oh, that's right, you had no way of knowing I'd been to alaska and know people who live there.... well, you're caught red handed.
Just another socialist swindler. Moral high ground my ass. You should go live in one of these socialist paradises -- preferable Russia. You deserve to live in the aftermath of what you advocate. But if not there, go to canada. You deserve what you would force on others.
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
It was a mistake. When I copied the quote, I didn't include the name. It wasn't deliberate, and when I noticed it, I didn't think people would care that much.
After all, it was in quotes, and I did say that I was providing a quote that I had heard.
Re:Perhaps, (Score:2)
Not angry at you, Buck2. I misunderstood your first comment on the quote, and this response was mostly directed at the other guy, not you.
But I am angry that the feds take %50 of my gross income and people walk around talking about how I should be giving more, and should have my human rights violated.
I'm angry that I grew up believing this liberal ideology, only to discover it was a lie, and that I was a fool to believe those people cared at all about human rights.
But mostly, I'm angry that it seems that the vast majority of the population is too stupid or too comfortable to use their brains and actually think things thru-- that I didn't think things thru for many years-- and that we have a country that could be great but is ruled by two parties-- neither of which respect human rights and both argue back and forth over exactly how they are going to spend the money they steal...
But what really makes me angry are self righteous little shits (and I'm not talking about you) who claim that it is the moral high ground to advocate violence, brutality, and thievery.
That people vote for little shits like that makes me very sad-- I don't want to believe that people are idiots and deserve the misery they bring upon themselves-- but it is hard not to given the evidence we see every day.
Airport security sucks because the local governments are in control? Lets federalize it so the federal government is in control... what happnens? The quality of airport security goes down. And every person who does not protest this stupidity deserves what they get.
There's a scene in Atlas Shrugged where a train tunnel collapses killing all the poeple on the train... I'd thought those people were innocent and found that scene really offensive when I first read the book... but now I understand. How many of the people who died in 9/11 voted for the measures that ended up killing them? How many of those people deserved to die? Since the WTC was what came down, its probably a smaller percentage of the population than a random one, as WTC occupents are more likely to be free market, free choice supporters.... But when the obvious rational solution (putting airlines in charge of their own security, they have more vested interest in keeping their planes safe than anyone else.) is ignored and instead we go for complete disarmament (making us more vulnerable to any thug who comes by, as Ms. Rand pointed out many years ago.)
The airlines are the rails of today, and the parallels to the decay of the rail system in Atlas are impressive.
Yes, I have a weakness. Stupidity makes me angry. I wish it didn't, but I cannot just not care.
School. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Note: Getting revenge on those that bother me, such as religous fundies, classifies under "helping others".)
Re:School. (Score:2)
That's exactly what I'm doing. I've spent too long as a commercial programmer, so in my "retirement" I'm going to university for the first time in my life, and I'm working on a science degree which I hope to steer towards nanotechnology.
I don't have the free money as yet, so I'm doing the university part time while working full time, and at some point I'll cut the work hours and increase the university hours. In the meantime, it's the learning which keeps me sane.
We've had this discussion a few times at work (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking personally, I love performing. I love jamming music, I love writing music, I love listening to music. I even enjoy the physical act of playing (I'm a trumpeter). The idea of being able to dedicate myself to that properly is immensely tempting. Heck, when writing music I've got many challenges similar to writing software.
I'll probably always write a little software for personal amusement but it's not exactly a relaxing discipline, as I'm showing by posting this from the office in the UK and I've been here at or around this time for most of the last week.
If I wasn't a musician, I'd teach. Infant or lower primary, so probably the under 8-9s. I do a bit of voluntary work with that age group in my spare time and it's immensely rewarding, but quite frustrating in that you just don't get to see that much of the kids' development.
Equally, I know that there's a strong theory going round in the UK now that says part of the reason we have significantly lower educational attainment in boys than girls is that most primary school teachers are female. The girls have teachers to look up to - the boys have footballers, TV presenters, parents (who, statistically speaking, aren't likely to be models of educational attainment)
(Yes, I know teaching's hard work and it wouldn't be an easy ride after software!)
actually "live" for once (Score:2, Interesting)
I would... (Score:2, Interesting)
Aquire a small plane and fly around the world.
Play Hockey alot more.
Those are just a few of my dreams for when I retire so I guess I could get a head start on them.
Start now... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you wait to do these things, you may never get to do them. Besides, when you retire, do you think you'll still be interested in those things?
We're all here for a very limited period of time, so chop chop!
Oh, and stop stressing out about death. You don't remember the time before you were born do you? I didn't think so. So don't sweat it. What will be, will be.
So just be.
Re:Start now... (Score:2)
There's probably a ton of research on this stuff going either way in the debate. We'll probably never get to the point where we can demonstrate it definitively for the average person.
Which pretty much leaves us where we started...
Re:I would... (Score:3, Interesting)
IF you live near water, I say, start now. I've gone down this path. This is my retirement dream.
You can get a small old sailboat for $2,000 to learn on and get used to sailing, and then get a bigger better one when you retire.
The years of sailing on the weekends will come in handy when you're island hopping and will make you happier in the interim than you would be otherwise.
Sailing isn't somethign you stop work one day and go do the next... so start early.
There are those who say "if your dream is to sail around the world, just do it. You don't need money, you don't need nothing. I did it, I get by on odd jobs". And they are right. I'm not "just doing it" in part because I want more sailing experience and to get my lovers up to speed so that they can sail well too... but if you want to sail around, mostly hitting third world countries to dock (Say the pacific, the carribian, south america, etc.) you can do it very cheaply.
Say, $5,000 a year. And a little work getting a skill can make it free-- one couple knows how to repair sails and goes to antigua for regatta week-- spends the whole week repairing blown out sails working 24x7 and then has enough money to fund the rest of their year!
Don't dream it, be it.
A few simple things (Score:2, Informative)
2. Build a house with all the stuff I want in it.
3. Take the time to see my friends and meet other people.
4. Open source development - probably starting with Python.
Re:A few simple things (Score:2)
Dude, hate to break it to you, but someone already started Python [python.org]
Books books books! (Score:2, Interesting)
Anybody else have about umpteen thousand books on their to-be-read list?
First thing - read until my eyes hurt!
(And then go to the optometrist.)
Re:Books books books! (Score:2)
(glasses break)
What? No, it's not fair! It's not fair! It's not faaaaaair!
Forward Engineer Life as Toys (Score:2, Interesting)
If it were up to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I didn't have to show up at work, and I still got paid, I would do the following
Why are you asking? Are you looking for the best answer and then giving that person a stipend to quite their job? If you are...I can come up with fifty other things I'd rather do.
compassion for suffering humanity (Score:2)
for the orphaned children of AIDS victims.
Re:compassion for suffering humanity (Score:2)
Yeah, and I'd buy puppies for orphans. No, really.
Re:compassion for suffering humanity (Score:2)
Go outside (Score:2, Interesting)
There are 196 lakes within 2 hours north, and east of my home. Getting out into nature is my idea fun. Rafting, camping, hiking, kyaking, even just rollerblading 'round the neighbourhood.
Sketching with graphite, charcoal, and chalk pastel is another good way to relax and loose track of time.
Now that you have brought up the topic I have to ask myself, "why I am sitting in a dark room posting platitudes to slashdot while the sun is shining outside?" I'm logging off, see y'all tommorow.
Raising a family (Score:5, Interesting)
But, the number one reason I enjoy it so much: I get to play with Lego's every day!
Re:Raising a family (Score:2)
Hey- and there's nothing to stop you from working while you take care of the kids.
Become a freelance programmer.
Make a product you like and sell it.
you have the perfect opportunity-- what you save in daycare will more than cover the costs of funding a one man software development house.
And in my experience, when you go this route you find there are others who are doing similar things who can use the business to help you out in areas you're not good at (designing the icons for your application, maybe?)
Taking a couple years and just spending them on the kids-- no problem. But when you start wanting more challenge for yourself-- at least try going into business for yourself.
There's nothing like being a self employed programmer-- my boss works me hard, never forces bad technology decisions on me, does put a lot of pressure on me, but I do get all the financial rewards. ITs a great life.
While my previous company was a wonderful one to work for, a team of engineers is always going to involve compromise. With modern tools, I've found that one person can get an amazing amount of development done and a one-person product done in a couple months that is worth paying for is totally possible.
Re:Raising a family (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I would recomend against doing *nothing* but caring for the kids. Be sure to do some community service or volunteer work that will count as "experience" to a future employer. My father did this for 10 years after my brother and I were born, he spent almost 5 years after reentering the workplace to get a reasonable job, and the first 2 years were actually as a telemarketer because he couldn't find a better job.
If nothing else, offer to be a jr. coder for a larger non-profit group (volunteer). Explain your situation clearly, and say that your family currently comes first in your life. You will find in the long run it's far more productive to volunteer 15hr/week (or whatever) than to play catch up in a few years.
Re:Raising a family (Score:2)
Here's my dilema:
Good: I have a good idea for a web application
Bad: I don't like the business model for web services. I don't see a way to measure your sales pipeline to be able to accurately forcast.
Good: I have a marketable idea for a business automation application.
Bad: I'm not a salesman and don't know how to sell it.
Bad: If I became successful, I'd be too busy to play with Lego's everyday.
...actually, CyberKnex have been a lot of fun lately
Re:Raising a family (Score:2)
Yeah, I have some web business ideas too. One with a bad business model, one with a good one... but it was inferior to the idea I eventually went with.
You don't have to sell software one at a time. you can sell the application wholesale to a company that then sells it to its customers. Don't forget that.
This type of sales is more like an interview combined wiht a demo than the typical salesman's selling on the road bit (I've actually done that and learned a lot.)
You have a leg up in that you know a lawyer too.
But the other thing I've found is that learning the technology and doign the work in creating this stuff is rewarding, but also gives new ideas for new products, and eventually one of them will be right. I spent about a year working down paths of ideas that ended up being non-workable (Bad business models, for instance) Before I hit something that I think is really workable...
Good luck...
Re:Raising a family (Score:2)
-russ
R1 (Score:4, Interesting)
likelihood: zero
*sigh*
Here [yamaha-motor.com] is what I want...
Re:R1 (Score:2)
Now that's an excellent example of turning the dream into a business.
If you built your track in a wise location, you could end up making more from it than you did working.
I'd chase my hobbies... (Score:2)
Oh, my... my last wish has just blown up my time. I'd play Civ II/Freeciv all the time, do nothing else and THEN I'd complain of lack of time.
OTOH, if I had infinite money to spend, I'd mount my own FM radio and play the music I like (which you can't hear on radio anymore), free of commercials, free of "radio friendly format" and all that.
Learning stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
I've never really understood people who say "But what would you do if you won the lottery; wouldn't you be really bored?" Perhaps it's because I don't automatically come from the perspective that says 'work is my life, and anything I do outside of that is frivolous entertainment'. I find it's more like 'work is something I do to survive, and unfortunately it takes up a lot of time that I would rather spend doing things I enjoy'.
I would love to have all the time in the world to study and learn about all the subjects I'm really interested in, but don't have time to get deeply into because of real life. I'd read into academic subjects, like genetics, neuroscience, philosophy, pure maths; I'd spend much more time practising the piano, improving my technique and increasing my repertoire; I'd read lots of novels; I'd learn all the programming languages and other techie stuff that I never have time to devote to.
Basically, without the pressure of having to focus my attention on skills that will make me attractive in the job market (or at least in the able-to-make-money market), then I don't think I'd ever run out of interesting things with which to occupy my mind!
Work on my farm (Score:2)
my essay (Score:2)
see my sig
Photography (Score:2)
Start A business. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd start another business.
Somehow people got this idea that working was dirty and only necessary for money. But if I had a million bucks (About twice the amount necessary to retire and never work again) I'd start a business.
Sure, I'd spend a couple years travelling the world, but that would be the early, formative years where I was working out the idea, methods and execution of the business plan. There's nothing, for getting creative juices flowing that I've found better than being in an extremely remote place, chile, north of the arctic circle in alaska,
Working isn't what we have to do rather than what we really want to do-- that's the recipe for an unhappy life and its no suprise so many are unhappy. Working is the expression of our highest human self. The most noble and heroic thing any person can do is start a business. Not only is it the most fun, but it brings to your core the challenges, self realization and self understanding necessary.
I know there are lots of people who will say self indulgent things like "I'd go feed poor people" or "two chicks at once" --- hey if that's all your life is worth, fine. (BTW, two chicks at once is a lot of fun, I do recommend it.) But these things will only entertain you for awhile.
Eventually, you'll be at a crossroads and you'll have to choose between two courses- on one hand you can be a lazy person just doing nothing but spending money (this goes for both the "feed the poor" and the "party every night" types) and on the other hand you can pursue a challenge that brings out the best in you.
Challenge isn't hardship-- its opportunity to excel. Butsiness isn't about money, its about personal expression. Sure, money is involved.. but if you're only interested in money you won't get much of it and you won't be happy. If, instead, you're pursuing your personal best, both money and happiness are easy to come by.
Its unfortunate, though, that there are so many who tell you that you don't have a right to be happy, and they give you the recipe for unhappiness to insure it. Don't fall for it.
Since many people will probably post in response to this that they'll do something that involves sacrificing their lives so that others can be better, I've got a little quote for you. I'll leave out for now the proof that this activity actually damages the people you try to help, more often than not... but I provide rebuttal for the many voices insisting that EVERYONE should be sacrificing themselves:
"...just listen to anyprophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice-- run. Run faster than from the plague. It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where' there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. But if ever you hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that its your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself-- that will be the man who's not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain from you. But let him come and you'll scream your empty heads off, howling that he's a selfish monster. So the racket is safe for many, many centuries."
I know some people who are amazon wealthy, and do a person they are not out challenging themselves. They are being lazy, pointless people. And they are not happy.
If you find yourself in this position-- rise to your highest, most noble calling. Start a company, or pursue an invention. Create.
Re:Start A business. (Score:2)
I was certain she was full of it and I'd hate it and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into reading Atlas Shrugged, but after I did I realized I was wrong.
Hopefully you enjoy them... I find the re-readability to be high as well.
besides two chicks at the same time? (Score:2, Funny)
Minor League Baseball Team (Score:2)
That, and own a pinball shop.
Full disclosure: (Score:2)
Right now, the government uses welfare and other means-tested programs. They very strongly encourage people to get to work. They also make it very hard for anyone without hordes of money to be an entrepreneur.
Now, suppose that the government eliminated welfare and all other means-tested programs, and replaced them with a single program, providing every citizen a guaranteed income; say also that that guaranteed income was the same as the federal poverty limit.
I personally think that instituting such a plan would do wonders for... well, everything. Companies would be free to hire and fire workers at will, without notice or severance, because they wouldn't be denying anyone a livelihood; and likewise, employees would be free to leave a company at any time, because they wouldn't be leaving their family stranded. And many people might choose to eschew a proper job, or work part-time, and become an entrepreneur.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing missing is the money.
Re:Full disclosure: (Score:2)
HOW STUPID ARE YOU!! CAN'T YOU READ!! DON'T YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF "GUARANTEED" AND "MEANS-TESTED"!!
The program that I want to institute has been used successfully around the world, including in Alaska. Every resident of Alaska, whether they make $2 trillion/yr, nothing, or anywhere in between, receives a check; Alaska collects 12.5% of all oil revenues in the state, which nets each citizen about $1,000/yr. The program's popular in right-wing Alaska; a referendum sponsored by the oil companies tried to remove the program, but that measure failed by an overwhelming margin.
Here's the part you missed. You can't lose your benefit! Everybody qualifies. There is no means-testing, no bureaucracy deciding who qualifies; everybody with a Social Security # (in other words, everybody) receives a check. If you're stuck in a cubicle busting your rump, you still qualify. If you get promoted to the CEO of your company, you still qualify. Everybody receives an equal share, just by being alive.
Because every single person qualifies, there is absolutely zero incentive not to take a job. In Japan, I think it is, you're financially better off not working than working minimum wage; in the US, you only gain on average 50% of minimum wage if you were on welfare and you go off of it. With a system like this, because the income is guaranteed, you wouldn't lose a penny of it if you started to work - so why not work?
In fact, I believe this system would be a huge benefit to capitalism. In addition to taking the place of welfare, it can replace unemployment insurance, and similar programs. People can take jobs, knowing that they can quit at any time, and find a new job, if their employer mistreats them; the way it is now, people are locked into their jobs, because they need the income and the benefits. And employers would also be more free to lay off workers, because they wouldn't need to provide severance (workers would still receive the check). The huge addition of flexibility into the labor market would mean that people never get stuck doing jobs they don't like, and there would be better jobs for everybody.
Now, tell me exactly how your family would have been harmed by this system...?
Re:Full disclosure: (Score:2)
Alaska has petroleum. That's simply a natural fact. Unlike almost any other industry, an oil company can't just pack up and leave, and find a new home; there's a limited amount of oil in the world, and inevitably some companies will try to harvest oil in Alaska.
Now, in Alaska, the state owns the land the oil companies work on. So as part of the lease agreement, Alaska collects 25% of oil royalties from leasees. There is no danger of companies leaving Alaska as a result, because Alaska's got so much oil; if one company leaves, another will take its place. And companies extracting in Alaska are still tremendously rich, even though they have to give 25% of royalties to the government.
The government of Alaska owns land. Right now, they give all revenue generated from that land to Alaskans; last year, they gave each Alaskan almost $2,000. Alaskans did vote for this, of course; they voted for the program's enactment originally, and against its removal quite recently. You propose giving the money instead to the oil companies extracting in Alaska.
Theoretically the oil companies would lower prices. But those companies are already rolling in much more profit than they in any way need. If they don't lower prices with all the money sitting around now, why would they with the tiny (for them) amount of extra money they'd receive if Alaska collected 0% royalties? In effect, you're saying that the rich oil companies deserve public revenue more than the people themselves do. Not even the Alaska Libertarian Party says that (the AK-LP supports the oil dividend.)
Of course, the Alaska program is different from the program I propose, in the sense that mine would aim to provide much more money to residents. But I don't plan to do that by raising income taxes, or property taxes; both of which I want to eliminate. Rather, I simply want to increase the amount of money generated from public land, maybe collecting 50% or higher royalties from oil and mining companies, and the use of ER spectrum, and similar use. And then, I want to take all that money, and turn it into an endowment; and reinvest most of the interest (paying the rest out Alaska-style), and keep collecting more money, until interest payments alone are more than enough to cover the guaranteed minimum income. It will take a number of decades before nobody is in poverty, but people could still receive (reduced) checks every year, starting as soon as the program is implemented.
In effect, all I'm saying is that public revenue should be stored in a trust fund, and multiplied, until interest is sufficient to lift all people out of poverty, by paying everybody an annual check. To argue otherwise is to say that private oil companies deserve public revenue more than the citizens themselves.
Re:Full disclosure: (Score:2)
Though your loop is true under peculiar circumstances, in practice it doesn't play out that way. Most importantly, oil companies will *not* raise prices, simply because they're already rolling in the dough, and if they face competition from other oil companies, they're going to lower prices; despite having monopolies on extraction, they don't have monopolies on distribution. If an oil company needs to eat the price of a lease, thereby reducing their revenues to $5.9 tril from $6 tril, the company will do it - the extra revenue they get from higher volume will more than make up for the reduced margins. Your loop would be correct if Standard Oil was still around, or another oil monopoly; but if they were, then its prices would be federally-set and regulated, meaning that an increase in prices wouldn't be allowed.
Either way, though 2-8a are correct, they're dependent on 1 - which, because of the wonders of the free market, is false. The state of Alaska is living proof of that.
Re:Full disclosure: (Score:2)
The numbers you're throwing out don't prove anything. In the end, you're still saying that oil companies that lease public land, and pay royalties on it, would be better off if they could buy that land for cheap from the state, or better yet be given it for free, and can pass along the savings to shareholders, or maybe if we're really lucky pass a tiny bit onto consumers in the form of lower gas prices. These oil companies are using public land, with natural resources. Moreso, they have a monopoly on revenues from that source. Cars you can build anywhere, or microchips, or software; but oil you can only extract where it exists, and the oil companies have monopolies on the places it exists.
So by saying that companies should be entitled to free or one-time cost use of public land, you're saying that monopolies should be unregulated and allowed to do whatever they want. Right?
I had a idea once (Score:4, Funny)
Thats what I'd do if I didn't have to worry about money.
If I repent of anything, it's my good behaviour (Score:2)
I'd probably do a master's degree in the liberal arts at St John's in Anapolis, before buying a farm in Iceland and raising ponies, from which I'd launch my campaign for high political office.
Hell - I might just do those things anyway...
If I had unlimited cash (Score:2)
My need no money dreams (Score:2)
2. I would write books, scifi books, and since I don't need money who cares if anyone ever reads them I wrote them because I had Ideas and I wanted too.
3. Travel, Lots of places I want to see....
4. I would not donate my time to some worthy cause, honestly I see doing such as a way of gicving time to something I believe in as an escape from the things I have to do....If I have to do nothing then donating my time would feel like work instead....so I wouldn't want to do it...call it selfish if you like but thta my opinion....
I think I'd mostly keep on going (Score:2)
My all-time favorite job was when I worked as a bicycle mechanic (about 16 years ago), though it did not exactly pay the bills. But it was a lot of fun, and I was pretty good at it. If that wasn't a concern, I might well give thought to going back into it. But maybe as a sideline.
I think, ultimately, work should be fun, at least to a degree. If you enjoy what you do, there's no reason to not work even if you don't need to. In fact, it might be more fun then because all the financial pressure is off.
I'd probably write books. (Score:2)
Hire artists, and explore nature (Score:2)
I have ideas. Lots of good ideas. I have no interest in actualy following through with them though, I'd rather come up with the next idea. Therefore I would hire a lot of things. I would have 10 artists (mostly stone carvers) on my payroll at any time, carving statues, plaques (thoughtful sayings), and sculptures. I would turn my yard (and my neighbor's yard after I bought their house) into a large sculpture garden. Romantic areas, thoughtful areas, concert areas, maybe a zoo... I don't know exactly. Essentially a large park that is all mine, but you are welcome to visit.
I'd also spend a lot of time exploring nature. Alaska has always interested me, I'd go. Utah has the most amazing geography, I'd have to spend a lot of time there. Fishing, hiking, hunting, camping. I like living in tents for short times. Watch lions kill, visit the pryamids (Egyption and Myan), explore castles.
And as a rich person I would also have a few less useful things. The world's longest brige, streching 100 miles in the ocean, and then ending, with the plan from the start to never cross. Or maybe a life size replica of flood control dam #3. (underground of course)
Hike & Projects (Score:2)
-Waldo Jaquith
Everquest (Score:2)
I could tell you... (Score:2)
actually, that's not all that informative. I think you can look at old_index.html to get to the underlying ideas.
My two Euros' worth (Score:2)
* Finally get that electronic music thing together
* Polish up my languages (foreign and computer)
* Get some land and learn -- very slowly -- how to farm it
* Go to university again (See no. 2)
er, that's it for now....
Work on research projects, more outdoors (Score:2)
Also, I would be spending more time travelling around the world, and spending more time doing expeditions in strange places.
Hmm ... I'll post to /. (Score:2)
Work out, join the WWE (Score:2)
Jeez, what would be fun? (Score:2)
And, of course, I'd like to hang out with wonderful women (met lots, many more yet to meet, and more appearing every day!) and carouse.
My dreams (Score:2)