Poll of the Day > 7 ways men in America live without working

(+) Yeah! (+)

All I can say is it must be nice not to have to work.

Almost a third of all working-age men in America don't do diddly squats. You do not have a job and you are not looking for one. One-third of all men of working age. That's almost 30 million people!

Ways some people live without working!

Unemployment

Early retirement, pensions, disability, lawsuits

Savings, trading stocks, bitcoin

Working for cash, AKA under the table economy

Living off family members

Ilegal work

Living off the land

https://www.latestbreakingnewsvideo.com/news/business-news/watch-7-different-ways-men-live-without-working-in-america-yahoo-finance-news.html


---

BUMPED2002 posted...

diddly squats

---

Half the list is work

---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Half the list is work

---

Only two of those (unemployment and family members) would actually count as "not working." The rest either involve working (two of them are even explicitly identified as work) or having worked previously.

---

If 1 out of 3 men dont work and the states current unemployment rate is 7.5% (divide that in half for men/women), then there's roughly 1 man out of 10 currently on unemployment, leaving 9 to fill the other options listed above o_o

Theres a record number of adults still living with their parents

Wow

---

Sigh. If there was one thing I would change about society I think it would be this: let's define the minimum we would morally want someone who doesn't contribute to society to have: I'm thinking something like a (safe) 100 square foot studio apartment with basic food and basic health care, although we're still going to need prisons and treatment centers (hopefully more of the latter) for those who can't follow rules. And somewhat more space for families with kids. I don't care about the details, frankly, so long as we all agree it's the humane minimum. We could take pride in how we treat our poor.

Let's also define the maximum wealth that a single person can accumulate (anything over is donated to the gov or charities, perhaps as a matter of pride). Everything inbetween is free game based on your work ethic, resources, etc etc as traditional for America. In that system, do I care if you don't work? Not really: you can live in your hole if you want. If employeers want to lure you out they'll have to offer you something worth your time. Presumably you are going to want electronics, services, interesting food/drink etc even if you choose the hole so the motivation remains.

That's not going to happen, of course, but it is clearly the answer to many of our biggest problems. If we could only be honest and do that all of these conversations about minimum wages, 1%s, health care, etc would disappear. The tax debates would be simplified and based on these agreed-upon minimums/maximums.

Illegal aliens? Reform the system so there is an appropriately difficult (but realistic enough that it's used) pathway to citizenship. It's again the only way.

If we would stop complaining about each other we might actually have a pleasant and productive society again. I can dream.

---

I'm not lazy. I will work until I die.

---

So working counts as not working now?
---

There's only two ways you can live without working: be very rich, or be very poor.

---

wpot posted...

Let's also define the maximum wealth that a single person can accumulate (anything over is donated to the gov or charities, perhaps as a matter of pride). Everything inbetween is free game based on your work ethic, resources, etc etc as traditional for America. In that system, do I care if you don't work? Not really: you can live in your hole if you want. If employeers want to lure you out they'll have to offer you something worth your time. Presumably you are going to want electronics, services, interesting food/drink etc even if you choose the hole so the motivation remains.

While some of your other ideas are fine, Im not really sure I like this one much, tbh
---

Does living off your girlfriend fall under family? My cousin has been going from woman to woman for decades now. It's actually quite impressive.

---

party_animal07 posted...

Does living off your girlfriend fall under family? My cousin has been going from woman to woman for decades now. It's actually quite impressive.

It would, generally.

---

wpot posted...

Sigh. If there was one thing I would change about society I think it would be this: let's define the minimum we would morally want someone who doesn't contribute to society to have: I'm thinking something like a (safe) 100 square foot studio apartment with basic food and basic health care, although we're still going to need prisons and treatment centers (hopefully more of the latter) for those who can't follow rules. And somewhat more space for families with kids. I don't care about the details, frankly, so long as we all agree it's the humane minimum. We could take pride in how we treat our poor.

Who's going to be paying for all that?

---

LinkPizza posted...

While some of your other ideas are fine, Im not really sure I like this one much, tbh

Which part? The wealth part or the hole part? :) I'm well aware that most people will hate my idea for one reason or another...so that's OK.

JixHedgehog posted...

Who's going to be paying for all that?

We're paying for a worse, highly inefficient system now: we just don't admit it to ourselves. Hospitals don't turn away people who are very sick: we pay for all of that pro bono work in our bills. Our strange tax system only applies to half of the population and it gives money back to people already. There are many social services that provide parts of this in patchy and inconsistent (and unfair) ways. We have a TON of bureaucracy set up to force employers to provide social services. There's plenty of money: it just needs to be adapted to a clear/honest/straightforward system.

...to say nothing of the money acquired from the wealth cap, which could theoretically make a big difference.

Point being, if we had an honest national conversation and defined the minimum at the intersection of morally acceptable (I'm not talking about a comfortable or "desirable" minimum...just a safe one) and nationally affordable...oh what a world it could be.

---

Dont forget about mental illness

I doubt you want some of our crazy asses in the workplace tbh

---

wpot posted...

We're paying for a worse, highly inefficient system now: we just don't admit it to ourselves. Hospitals don't turn away people who are very sick: we pay for all of that pro bono work in our bills.

Reminder: The US government pays twice as much per capita for health care as the next country on the list (Canada, which is rife with its own horrendous inefficiencies and isn't exactly a flattering metric to begin with), but doesn't have anything remotely resembling an actual health care system to show for it.

Mead posted...

Dont forget about mental illness

I doubt you want some of our crazy asses in the workplace tbh

That'd fall under "disability," generally.

---

JixHedgehog posted...

Who's going to be paying for all that?

The fact that you reference Afghanistan in your sig and then ask something as fucking stupid as this question says a lot about you, @JixHedgehog

Mead posted...

Dont forget about mental illness

Certainly, although wed have to argue as a society which particular physical/mental conditions everyone deserves to have treated. That would be ugly.

And certainly agreed that the current system is horribly inefficient! Theres a ton of money there

---

wpot posted...

Which part? The wealth part or the hole part? :) I'm well aware that most people will hate my idea for one reason or another...so that's OK.

Id rather not have a maximum limit to my money. And the part where your employer would have to pay you in there stuff like electronics, services, interesting food/drinks, etc Id rather just have the money, and not have a limit on it
---

wpot posted...

although wed have to argue as a society which particular physical/mental conditions everyone deserves to have treated.

disagree

---

LinkPizza posted...

Id rather not have a maximum limit to my money.

fortunately you're highly unlikely to make enough money to hit the limit

---

Kanatteru posted...

fortunately you're highly unlikely to make enough money to hit the limit

Probably. I guess it depends on where the limit is set. But Id also treat people the way I want to be treated. And I wouldnt want to be treated that way if I had that amount. And they probably dont either. Plus, if they are that rich, they probably find a way to still keep it. Plus, money is the better incentive rather than random items from your boss

wpot posted...

Certainly, although wed have to argue as a society which particular physical/mental conditions everyone deserves to have treated.

Probably all of them
---

LinkPizza posted...

Probably. I guess it depends on where the limit is set. But Id also treat people the way I want to be treated. And I wouldnt want to be treated that way if I had that amount. And they probably dont either.

Most suggestions for wealth caps I've seen are in the $50-100 million range. That'd mean people couldn't take joyrides into space, but that's really about the full extent of the quality of life impact that would have. Nobody's suggesting that people shouldn't be able to become rich enough to live in luxury for the rest of their lives (there's ample room to question whether or not a given person in that position deserves it, but by and large, the concept of becoming successful enough to live such a life is perfectly valid), just that there's zero benefit and a whole lot of harm to be had from people hoarding a thousand times that much.

---

Money can be hidden in so many different ways that capping maximum wealth isn't realistic.

How are you going to define wealth? By how much income they make on tax forms?

11110111011 posted...

Money can be hidden in so many different ways that capping maximum wealth isn't realistic.

How are you going to define wealth? By how much income they make on tax forms?

ideally you wouldn't be able to hide your money away

that's kinda where this conversation tends to logically go; the whole system is broken, so if you fix this problem, you have to fix a bunch of other problems too or else there's no point

---

So it's mostly men who are being lazy and not working properly? I'm sure there exist women who are lazy and don't want to work as well.
---

LeetCheet posted...

So it's mostly men who are being lazy and not working properly? I'm sure there exist women who are lazy and don't want to work as well.

I remember a few years ago there was an ASMR Youtube channel who did ASMR to fund their Meth addiction.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Probably. I guess it depends on where the limit is set.

you planning on making 500 million dollars in your life?

---

LeetCheet posted...

So it's mostly men who are being lazy and not working properly? I'm sure there exist women who are lazy and don't want to work as well.

dude you are always way too eager to try to find some sexist angle to everything

stop acting so persecuted and you might stop feeling that way too

---

Mead posted...

you planning on making 500 million dollars in your life?

I mean, I would sure hope to...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I mean, I would sure hope to...

best of luck, but after that point I hope you get taxed to hell and back

---

Mead posted...

best of luck, but after that point I hope you get taxed to hell and back

And I sure hope I don't get taxed to hell and back...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And I sure hope I don't get taxed to hell and back...

even after having made $500 million? That seems very greedy dude

---

Mead posted...

even after having made $500 million? That seems very greedy dude

Maybe. But realistically, nobody wants to get taxes. So I don't really see myself as greedy... I'd rather have the money and use it the way I please. I can donate some to charities I liked. But being taxed also means less to donate...
---

Mead posted...

LinkPizza posted...
And I sure hope I don't get taxed to hell and back...

even after having made $500 million? That seems very greedy dude

What I would say is that after reaching nine figures additional money is more about competition with other uber rich people: it doesn't provide much day to day benefit anymore. And even if it did, that money could make a HUGE difference to the workers in the company said millionaire probably owns. Societally we should encourage (make?) the uber wealthy share the load. There is still plenty of incentive to get to the cap (whatever it is in the first place). And in MY system the uber wealth person "losing" money has a hand in deciding what charity (or government) benefits.

adjl posted...

Most suggestions for wealth caps I've seen are in the $50-100 million range. That'd mean people couldn't take joyrides into space, but that's really about the full extent of the quality of life impact that would have. Nobody's suggesting that people shouldn't be able to become rich enough to live in luxury for the rest of their lives (there's ample room to question whether or not a given person in that position deserves it, but by and large, the concept of becoming successful enough to live such a life is perfectly valid), just that there's zero benefit and a whole lot of harm to be had from people hoarding a thousand times that much.

...so yeah, that. :)

11110111011 posted...

Money can be hidden in so many different ways that capping maximum wealth isn't realistic.

Oh I know: my cap isn't realistic. Its the RIGHT thing to do, but it would have huge implementation issues.

Mead posted...

wpot posted...
although wed have to argue as a society which particular physical/mental conditions everyone deserves to have treated.

disagree

Does everyone deserve all chiropractic treatments? Preventative treatments? Costly experimental treatments? Treatments for conditions that debatably exist? Costly testing for conditions that Drs think are unlikely to be found in a patient? Appearance enhancements? Weight loss? The left (of which I am a member) needs to understand there MUST be a difference between basic medical and optional medical if we ever hope to succeed with a more nationalized system. Some of those things are hugely expensive and the cost far outweighs the benefit in any scientific sense.

Yes, I'm aware I'm ignoring practicality with my wealth thing and focusing on it here. :)

---

wpot posted...

There is still plenty of incentive to get to the cap

The problem is no incentive to go past the cap...
---

I do diddly squats to work out, they're slightly easier than regular squats

---

wpot posted...

there MUST be a difference between basic medical and optional medical if we ever hope to succeed with a more nationalized system

sure but letting the public at large decide on such things is a terrible idea

---

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is no incentive to go past the cap...

Unless you like the idea of benefiting the charities you would be helping. Or building your business for its own sake. Societally there would be a ton of good associated with spreading the money and little downsidethats my deal.

---

Mead posted...

sure but letting the public at large decide on such things is a terrible idea

Im being idealistic again and imagining that we could have a rational conversation through our politics. Clearly not the case.

The discussion needs to be open and clear, however it (theoretically) occurs.

---

wpot posted...

Im being idealistic again and imagining that we could have a rational conversation through our politics. Clearly not the case.

The discussion needs to be open and clear, however it (theoretically) occurs.

why is it clearly not the case? I dont think Ive been unreasonable

---

wpot posted...

Unless you like the idea of benefiting the charities you would be helping.

But you can do that on your on own time with your own money. There's no benefit to me letting them donate my money when I could donate it myself. The only way that works is if they pay the charity double what they pay you. Otherwise, there's no incentive...

wpot posted...

Or building your business for its own sake.

If you aren't making more money, there may not be a reason to keep building. Like once I'm at the cap, the business is good where it is for now...
---

Mead posted...

why is it clearly not the case? I dont think Ive been unreasonable

We as in society, not you and me. :)

---

You can also continue generating wealth for your business even if its not making you personally richer

---

wpot posted...

We as in society, not you and me. :)

ah I see, my mistake

---

Mead posted...

You can also continue generating wealth for your business even if its not making you personally richer

Only if I can use the money for my business instead of it being forced to charities before I get a chance to use it
---

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is no incentive to go past the cap...

Why's that a problem? There's only so much money to go around, after all. Why shouldn't people that have reached the cap content themselves with that and leave the remaining market share for others to capitalize on? That means fewer monopolies and more competition, which is a good thing all around.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Only if I can use the money for my business instead of it being forced to charities before I get a chance to use it

what if after a certain point its more like you can use 75% for whatever but 25% is taxed, and as you make increasingly more millions/billions that tax rate steadily goes up until it reaches a cap

thats how it used to work in the US, pretty effectively

---

adjl posted...

Why's that a problem? There's only so much money to go around, after all. Why shouldn't people that have reached the cap content themselves with that and leave the remaining market share for others to capitalize on? That means fewer monopolies and more competition, which is a good thing all around.

Depends on the business... Without a reason to go past the cap, some places might even shutdown for a certain period if they basically didn't make any money past a certain point. Because at that point, there's no point in working for free... IF all the money you made after a certain point was taken away, that is... Which can be bad for some people depending on what that business is...

Mead posted...

what if after a certain point its more like you can use 75% for whatever but 25% is taxed, and as you make increasingly more millions/billions that tax rate steadily goes up until it reaches a cap

thats how it used to work in the US, pretty effectively

That's better, I guess...
---