[jdimov10]

The article doesn't really answer the question. It says adults are busy because they have too much stuff to do (duh..) But "why" is still a good question, and it remains unanswered.

The answer is that, as we grow up, we tend to develop the belief that our well-being needs to be justified somehow. In other words, we start to believe that we are not by default worthy of living a good, joyful, care-free, abundant life.. unless it is "deserved". And the way to justify, or "earn" our well-being, we are told, is by action. By doing things. So we become obsessed with doing things, as a way of seeking approval and justifying our well-being.

Of course, as any child knows... this is ridiculous. Action is not a means to an end. Action itself is one of the ways to enjoy life.

[dazc]

Having grown up in the UK I've always felt guilty about not doing anything in my free time. Partly because everyone else seems to be living such a busy and rewarding existence (or so they would have me believe).

Now, living in Spain, I feel it's OK not to do anything. Just sitting in the shade for 6 hours watching the world go by doesn't make me a weirdo, like it does back home.

[csydas]

Heh, I've noticed that Western culture does put a different emphasis on work ethics. After moving to Russia, I've just noticed a different approach to how work is perceived, and my partner and her mom have often cited this proverb at me:

Работа не волк - в лес не убежит. Work is not a wolf, it will not run to the forest.

Basically, the idea is work isn't going anywhere, so no need to worry that much about it. At my last job in the US, I couldn't understand why people were so adamant about how busy they were when most of the time people were doing what they could to look busy. It's not that they were actually burdened with work, it was that they wanted to appear like they had no time. My employees would frequently get into arguments over who had the busier and more difficult schedule. My family does the same (one of my brothers prides himself on how little free time he had)

I guess it's just this perception that important people are busy and the inverse of that is if you're not busy you're not important. Just speculation, of course, but it's my experience that once you get away from the US, you lose this mindset.

Edit: I guess in fairness I should note that I did have genuinely busy coworkers - our under-staffed programming team were constantly under pressure and in constant repair mode due to not having the time or resources to move out of a crisis state. This is a true "always busy" scenario in my mind.

[SerLava]

>I guess it's just this perception that important people are busy

Perhaps but I'm sure the primary thought in their subconscious is "don't back down or they will punish you by inventing new burdens for you."

[pbhjpbhj]

>Western culture does put a different emphasis on work ethics.

See "protestant work ethic".

[aianus]

That's not the inverse, it's the contrapositive. The inverse would be "busy people are important".

[coldtea]

>Having grown up in the UK I've always felt guilty about not doing anything in my free time. Partly because everyone else seems to be living such a busy and rewarding existence

In the UK? Have you been to Yorkshire?

[dazc]

I am from Yorkshire. Take the point though.

[coldtea]

Heh, didn't know it, no offence meant.

Was mostly referring to all the urban poor, crime, domestic violence etc that goes on in large parts of the UK.

[OwlsParliament]

Well, those are ways of keeping yourself busy.

[dazc]

There are certainly area of the UK where this is true, but not all. I guess it can seem that way because we have dense areas of population where the good and bad parts are so close together?

[coldtea]

That's part of the reason I guess (density).

[tonyedgecombe]

Is it really like that or is that the message you get from the media?

[mrec]

This post gives me hope. And a rekindled desire to learn Spanish. I just wish I coped with hot weather better.

[nextos]

Some areas, even in the South, are not that hot even during summertime.

[dazc]

True, I believe some of the the Northern regions can be relatively temperate? It is easy to forget that Spain is such a big country sometimes, especially compared to the UK.

[NetStrikeForce]

Some parts are colder than the south of England, see Burgos and surroundings (not to mention the Pyrenees with 3K high peaks!).

[dazc]

Yes, learning Spanish is tough and July/August is pretty hot, so much so I returned to the UK for 2 months.

[personlurking]

I'm in Sevilla for several weeks and was told by locals to come in September rather than August, due to the heat letting up. So far, it's been 40-45C every single day (save for the past few), and that leaves me couped up in the apt.

I'm missing Lisbon, where I usually live (over 300 days of sun yet it never really gets unbearably hot). I can't imagine being in Andalucia during the entire summer, though I hear Granada isn't as bad (probably due to being 30 min to the mountains and 30 min to the beach).

[Symbiote]

There's unusual weather in Europe at the moment. The UK recorded their hottest September day since 1911.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/13/uks-hottest-...

[dazc]

I'm in Alicante. It's been around 30-32C for the past two weeks which is hot enough to make me lethargic for most of the day. I couldn't bear 40-45C.

[patates]

I can speak maybe 5 words in Spanish but I was usually told that it was easy to learn?

[dazc]

I find the vocabulary isn't that hard to learn as you pick up new words each day and eventually they stick. The grammar required to put those words together is another matter though.

It really does depend on your situation though. I have one to one lessons twice a week but it's not really enough as I manage to get by without having to speak that much during the week.

However, I know people who have picked it up fairly quickly because they are working in a public facing environment where they really have to learn fast.

[ktRolster]

The grammar required to put those words together is another matter though.

I wrote down a grammar card with all the verb conjugations (-AR, -IR, -ER verbs) and carried it in my pocket everywhere. When I couldn't remember, I (as soon as practical) pulled it out of my pocket and double-checked.

The most difficult one for me was getting la/el correct. Although by that point I knew the correct gender of each noun, it didn't come out correctly when speaking quickly.

[gglitch]

The original author's distribution of time over responsibilities is not identical to mine, but it's similar enough to make me wonder where you're getting those 6 hours from. I'm not saying it's "weird," in fact I think it sounds lovely. But I doubt I could find six contiguous free hours in the next six months, except maybe if I spend my holidays with my in-laws.

Edit: typing on phone

[dazc]

During the week it would be tough but on weekends I have all the time in the world.

[godber]

I think what you are experiencing in Spain is kakonomics, a preference for low quality pay-offs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37108240

[sliverstorm]

I'm OK with not really doing anything, but I try to draw a line between totally squandering time (e.g. scrolling endlessly through facebook, or watching a show you don't enjoy, purely to kill time) and calm, idle time reading a book or watching nature. I haven't figured out how to describe it well yet.

[themartorana]

"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.”

Amen.

[geezerjay]

> we start to believe that we are not by default worthy of living a good, joyful, care-free, abundant life.. unless it is "deserved".

That may be your own personal motivation, but it is far from a generalization or even shared by many people.

For instance, people do work to make a living. For some people, making a living means paying the rent and put food on the table. For others, it means affording luxuries and materialist goals. Most people do need to work to cover these expenses, and the higher they cost the harder they need to work for them. This is the norm.

Then there are also other motivations. Some people decide to become entrepreneurs not because they seek riches, but because they believe they are able to create something new, something that no one else can provide, and believe that they have an obligation to be a source of progress and push the world forward in their own personal way.

[yodsanklai]

> It says adults are busy because they have too much stuff to do (duh..) But "why" is still a good question,

The article says that adults work, commute, clean, cook, take care of their dependent and so on... they don't do that to justify their existence but because it has to be done, unless you're rich enough to find other people doing these things for you...

[pbhjpbhj]

Not every adult needs to cook in order for all the people to be fed.

Shared homes, or shared meals, would reduce the need cook so often. And reduce resource usage.

We've moved to a social system where all adults are expected to work. This leaves less time for social cohesion, domestic management, childrearing, and such. We've lost a lot in no longer having half of all parents not encumbered by paid work.

[scott_karana]

> We've lost a lot in no longer having half of all parents not encumbered by paid work.

We've also lost the ability to financially survive in a one-worker household, overall. Inflation adjusted household wages have long stagnated, and that's when factoring in women entering the workforce! Twice the workers for the same pay...

[grondilu]

> In other words, we start to believe that we are not by default worthy of living a good, joyful, care-free, abundant life.. unless it is "deserved".

It's not about being "deserved". There is no merit, morality or legitimacy concern here. Just plain pragmatism : good things will not come to you if you just sit on your couch all day.

Take for instance item 4 in OP's list: cleaning. Well, I can assure you that if I don't clean my apartment, nobody is going to show up magically and do it for me.

> Of course, as any child knows...

Well yeah, because children have their parents do stuff for them. That's precisely OP's point.

[pjc50]

There absolutely is a 'morality' (in the socially enforced sense) of cleaning. It's not quite as bad as it used to be, but your level of cleanliness isn't entirely a free choice because it affects how people judge you. And, unless you're extremely independent-minded, how you judge yourself.

Similarly there is a 'morality' of leisure: Protestant work ethic and all that. Note that one of the sibling comments talks about feeling a lot more comfortable relaxing in (Catholic) Spain.

[TeMPOraL]

> Take for instance item 4 in OP's list: cleaning. Well, I can assure you that if I don't clean my apartment, nobody is going to show up magically and do it for me.

Maybe it should be like this. Our bodies clean themselves.

I keep wondering, how's the research in self-maintaining and self-cleaning materials going. Surely, getting rid of the need to constantly clean your house will require a lot of small breakthroughs, but it is a worthy goal given the time we all collectively waste.

(Personally I view all maintenance as waste - you have to pay your dues and not skimp on it, but you should at the same time minimize the cost as much as possible.)

[laichzeit0]

Maybe because the people with means and influence don't really worry about this problem: they pay someone to do menial tasks like cleaning for them. I know in the country I live manual labour is so cheap I have a maid and a gardener that do that for me. It's so cheap I probably wouldn't bother automating it even if I could. The furthest I go is packing a dishwasher. Just because I don't like dirty dishes standing around on the days that the maid isn't there.

[lagadu]

> Well, I can assure you that if I don't clean my apartment, nobody is going to show up magically and do it for me.

The roomba and our cleaning lady are magical?

It's very simple: I get paid x/hr, the roomba as time advances effectively approaches a cost of 0/hr of work (same goes for the clothes and dishwasher) and the 1 hour the cleaning lady spends here is cheaper than what either of us earn during an hour. Why would we possibly spend our valuable time doing that when we can outsource it to a person and a robot for much less?

[Pikago]

> But "why" is still a good question, and it remains unanswered.

Because maintenance takes time and it's not handled by your parents anymore.

[coldtea]

And yet people in certain European countries and tons of other parts in the world with different work attitudes can have tons of free time, despite having children et al.

[TeMPOraL]

Which ones are those? I'm from an European country and one of the biggest sources of internal stress for me is just noticing how much of my life gets wasted by having to have a job.

[coldtea]

>Which ones are those? I'm from an European country and one of the biggest sources of internal stress for me is just noticing how much of my life gets wasted by having to have a job.

Check out most small towns (200K or less) and villages in places like France, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc -- the one's I know off.

Or are small town residents not "adults"?

[TeMPOraL]

I'm a resident of 1M city. May be a part of the problem.

> Or are small town residents not "adults"?

Didn't mean to imply that. I was just whining about my own life ;).

[coldtea]

>Didn't mean to imply that. I was just whining about my own life ;).

Heh, I added that part to refer to the original parent's question.

From what I've seen (and lived myself) in such places, work is mostly something you do, quite casually, for 8 hours or so, and then (or even in between work, e.g. with "siesta" etc) there's lot of socializing, slower everyday pace, etc. And everybody knows everyone else. People are not "ambitious" in the stereotypical "make it big" US idea.

That said, this also holds in "smalltown USA" too -- well, except for the unfortunate souls who work as employees in nationwide firms like Walmart, et al. But for those with own businesses, farms, etc, it's mostly like that.

Of course in larger cities you can easily work 14 hour days for shit pay.

[tetraodonpuffer]

they have more free time in small towns because usually your grandparents and parents and in-laws live close by and will help with babysitting (often people these days are only children, so plenty of parents/grandparents available to help), cleaning and cooking, not to mention that in general you live within ~10 minutes commute of your workplace.

North America is a lot more "everybody fends for themselves" than Europe, I mean, here parents will charge rent to their kids and nobody bats an eye, so forget about free babysitting and/or your mom coming over to clean your place and leaving your fridge stocked with leftovers. Not to mention living in sprawly cities with huge commutes in general...

[grondilu]

Except this post was not about work but rather about everything else.

[coldtea]

Well, they have free time for "everything else" too.

E.g. kids can just go out and play or go to afternoon classes themselves, they don't have to be constantly supervised by their parents or be driven everywhere, so they get more freedom, and parents gets more self time, for one example.

[blfr]

It's more practical than that. If you want things, you have to make them happen.

You don't clean and cook because you need to justify your existence but because you want to eat a decent meal on a clean plate. Many actions are definitely means to an end.

[MichaelMoser123]

> ... But "why" is still a good question, and it remains unanswered

Mr. Clayton Christensen says its because adults like to invest their effort in stuff that gives them the most immediate sense of achievement - and that turns out to be their careers; spending your time with the kids (or doing other thing that might make more sense) doesn't give you this kick, often its a long term investment that gets neglected.

He says so in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHdS_4GsKmg (answering a question asked at 1:15:08).

i keep quoting this guy quite a lot recently...

[zer0gravity]

Actually our physiology, may constrain us to this type of behaviour, throught the inner reward system that releases certain dopamine and other "feel good" neurotransmitters only after a certain level of effort / stress has beed detected, that is after high levels of cortisol, which is connected to stress .

This is of course a very simplistic description and by no means explains the result but it may play an important role.

This is a mechanism evolved since our existence in the wilderness and may have very different/negative results in our modern lives if not filtered through higher level mental functions. But anyway giving the fact that it's such a low level mechanism is hard to control it totally..

[rdiddly]

If you ask that "why" question like a 3-year-old - i.e. keep asking it repeatedly until you get to the reason behind the reason behind the reason, the answer you'll arrive at is entropy. You can surrender to it or work against it. How much order you want, determines how much work you'll have to do. Western society has a certain baseline level of order that takes a fair amount of work to maintain.

[jandrese]

Or you know, you have responsibilities. I know where my free time went, it got soaked up by the kids. Get up, go to work, go home, kid time, bed time, now I have maybe an hour or two to cram in everything that makes me not a dull automaton, but half of that is spent fixing stuff or I'm too exhausted to do anything. You don't even get weekends, there's always stuff going on.

And I'm far from the busiest parent I know. One of the neighbors has a kid in competitive swim so she's up at 4AM every morning for swim class, then sending the kid to school, then sending the other kid to school, then a brief window to get stuff done during the day (at least she has that, with 3 year olds you don't get the school break), then bus pickup, then bus pickup, dinner, homework, then bedtime. Weekends are swim meets--every weekend. Often several hours away, plus whatever the other kid is doing.

Keeping a schedule like that up perpetually is exhausting, and there's basically no opportunity for adult activities. Nothing to talk about except swim meets.

[sras-me]

My thoughts exactly. The question is a very good one. But the article does not really answer it.

To add to your observation, I think there is also a social aspect to it. I have often felt that being "not busy" is not socially acceptable. Or in other words being busy is somehow more respectable. So we tend to brag about being busy, and helps to perpetuate this point of view.

[brain5ide]

"If you're not busy, why don't you help me doing this thing that we both kinda like? (but I have to do for reasons other than pure enjoyment)"

I think that social acceptance sums up into that sentence here.

[eitally]

I think reading The Little Prince should be required approximately every five years from college graduation until end of life. It's far too easy to fall into a "daily grind", where one operates in a zombie-like mode executing a lot of minute tasks that are mostly devoid of any legitimate impact.

[jdimov10]

Reading The Little Prince every five years has indeed been my routine (since high school). Glad I'm not the only one :)

[sridca]

Yes, this is called "social conditioning." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning

To get back to being a kid, one can decondition all that (while retaining adult sensibilities).

[pantalaimon]

> To get back to being a kid, one can decondition all that

I think that's what LSD does.

[agumonkey]

Please tell us more.

[sridca]

> Please tell us more.

To decondition oneself out of all of the social conditioning naturally involves giving up both cynicism[1] and pride[2] (they are socialized feelings).

[1] Urban Dictionary defines "Tell me more" as an expression of put-down: "When someone say something stupid or simple. It's used to annoy people by asking them to tell you more when the statement is final." http://tell-me-more.urbanup.com/6108370 And it takes the simple naïveté of childhood to dislodge the sophisticated cynicism of adulthood.

[2] such as pride at "being a fair social agent" (your words) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12496092

[agumonkey]

Ha, I should have been more careful, there was no hidden tone in my previous message. I genuinely wanted to know more about how to, and what are the limits (losing condition is probably not childhood regression either).

Do you consider asian philosophy (like buddhism I believe) that takes a contemplative approach on existence, to be childlike (from memories, I used to spend a lot of time contemplating things, lots of things are amazing when you're a kid, stone, river, rain, sky, ..)

ps: interesting interpretation of the nature of pride and cynicism. I'm not so sure about the social roots of pride, even though I agree that it's often socially distorded, but pride is also felt when doing something you feel about as beautiful, loving and right. For instance the other day instead of killing some annoying insect I took a step to tame my instinct and carefully move them out my room. This is also something I'd call "pride" even though it's far less social, but I agree it's not unrelated either)

pps: also not that I said 'your brain' as I believe it's a part of nature and evolution in our maturation from child to adult. As a child you enjoy asking things from others; a lot less later on though.

[sridca]

I find the word 'marvelling' more fitting to describe the childhood experiencing of "lots of things are amazing when you're a kid, stone, river, rain, sky, .." than 'contemplating' because the contemplation of Buddhism is a whole new ball game entirely (I find nothing childlike--much less naive--in withdrawing from the world of senses into a detached reality that forms the essence of meditative practices).

As you want to know more about this topic I'll refer you to: http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/naivete.htm ... and the "method" to deprogram oneself is: http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/thismomento...

[agumonkey]

Thanks a lot for the links.

About Buddhism, I thought the withdrawing was only a first step toward a stable "marvelling". But I'm completely not educated on the subject.

[fit2rule]

I think this is a wholly narcissistic point of view .. moreso, I believe that the reason adults are so busy is that they realize that none of the luxuries they've gained can be attained without the help of other people working for them and so in order to maintain a fair life, adults work just as hard as others need to - on average - in order to maintain civilized life.

Where civilized life is defined in the regions between childhood and adulthood.

[jdimov10]

This is not a realisation, it's a belief. And it's a very boring one. I quite enjoy my narcissistic views and have absolutely no interest in trading them in for your moralism ("fairness", "equality", "justice" and other socialist bullshit). Live your own hell all you want, just don't inflict it on others. Since you're a believer in "fairness", I'll cut you a fair deal: I'll keep my luxuries to myself and you keep your "responsibilities" to yourself. Deal?

[fit2rule]

I'm okay with your statement, its your right after all, but lets see if you have the same views in 5, 10, 20 years time from now. I wager not, but thats entirely up to you. Responsibility for ones social existence is one thing; calling it 'socialist bullshit' is another thing entirely. There is nothing in this statement of belief, that we are all very dependent on each other, that makes it a socialist ideal. Even the most rabid totalitarian-authoritarian imperialists have to admit, they can't make all the good shit themselves...

[dwaltrip]

Not all luxuries are necessary or beneficial.

[agumonkey]

I used to believe this, now a little bit less, at a certain age I'd say our brain takes pride/comfort into being a fair social agent (not a child anymore). You try to be independant while collaborating with others and satisfy your needs mutually. Society just amplified that trait.

- my 2 cents.

[ianai]

I see it more as people wanting to experience everything they can. Plus, modern life adds on many demands.

[pharke]

> I see it more as people wanting to experience everything they can.

I call this the buffet approach to life. Some people seem to want to cram a tiny bit of every thing onto their plate, nibbling at everything there is to offer. The alternative being a full course dinner with superbly executed dishes that compliment each other. Or you could just eat steak, whatever you prefer.

[rdiddly]

Or you can do like me and spend the first half of the meal eating so much junk food that you end up having to have veggies for dessert.

[VLM]

A "why" I'll give that doesn't violate Ockhams Razor or elaborately explain social signalling without mentioning the term is I'm an introvert and I'm massively recharging when I'm standing in front of my stove chilling out to my favorite podcast while tasting amazing flavors from a new recipe, just basically loving life, just soaking up the good feels. I'll probably need them later at work or something. Standing alone in front of a stove is one of many extrovert hells but, not being an extrovert it is extremely recharging for me. In fact just sitting here writing this I'm daydreaming of an interesting mushroom and potatoe vegetarian casserole I'm excited to try cooking this Saturday, I'm really looking forward to the experience.

And to get that kind of recharging experience without hurting feelings sometimes you have to tell other adults, well, sure I'd "love" to sit in a two hour traffic jam to get to some sportsball game (I don't care about sports), or I'd "love" to sit in a smokey (I don't smoke) bar full of obnoxious drunks (I rarely drink) all night (I rarely stay up all night or up late), but woe is me I gotta do yardwork or the HOA will ticket me (actually I don't have a HOA where I live), woe is me woe is me, you guys go on bravely without me, adults are just soooo busy what a shame it truly is. And everyone leaves happy.

Its important to note there's doing laundry as per the mom in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory all exhausted and sweaty and drudgery and heavy manual labor for a 16 hour working day, but lets face it, my "2 hours per week" from the insane article is less than 5 minutes of moving stuff from baskets to machines and more than 1:55 of reading an exciting new book or playing in my workshop or playing video games or goofing off online. Again see above paragraphs, I'm sure doing laundry is some circle of hell for an extrovert but I've got my headphones on and I am totally rocking it and having a great time, maybe the best time of my week.

If you think its ridiculous for extroverts to "extrovert" in some of the article activities individually, imagine how crazy my actual life is for an extrovert when I double dip. If you're not sweating you're not cleaning hard enough, so I count cleaning time as exercise time, and why not do that while the clothes are in the dryer, that's triple dipping? That's not extrovert compatible lifestyle, somehow I don't envision hearing "hey bros come on over for beers and sweaty toilet scrubbing party!" Yet weird as it sounds with the right music or right podcast blasting, cleaning the bathroom isn't the worst part of the week.

Its not socially acceptable in general to be an introvert or admit to it, but I'm old enough to have accumulated enough F-you points to get away with that kind of behavior.

[branchless]

Try explaining rent to kids. We have to pay to exist? We have to pay how much? And they are right! I don't have a problem doing nothing. I don't care what others think. But I have to work far more than necessary because of the labour skiming rentiers. They are living off my back.

Edit: landlords of HN unite to downvote!

[Tenhundfeld]

I'm sure it's different in different markets, different countries, etc.

That said, I know several people who own multiple homes and lease them out. They often barely break even with mortgage payments, maintenance, dealing with deadbeat tenants, etc. Sure, once a house is paid off, they have a nice source of income, but they're taking a decent amount of risk having so much of their money tied up in such a limited number of investments. Some of them are still under water on rental property mortgages after the 2008 crash.

They're not skimming labour off of their tenants. They're providing a service for a fee.

And if you're talking about large apartment complexes, that's not some landlord "rentier" class. That's a corporation, just like any other.

You don't have to pay to exist; just ask any homeless person. If you want to live in a home or any type of shelter, you have to make it yourself or obtain access to one that has been built. It has always been so. There are various ways to obtain access: squat, pay rent, perform services in exchange, couchsurf, join a commune, convince friends or family to accept you, buy, etc.

[branchless]

> They often barely break even with mortgage payments, maintenance, dealing with deadbeat tenants, etc. Sure, once a house is paid off, they have a nice source of income

So they get several hundred K for very little work that anyone could do.

There is no risk with the central bank land ramping. In urban areas they are limiting supply, forcing up prices and taking labour.

If someone does very little work and gets several hundred K that comes from somewhere.

[Programmatic]

If it was free money, everybody would be doing it. If it has no downsides, what's stopping you?

[branchless]

I don't want to exploit working people. Weird, eh?

[Tenhundfeld]

Why is it necessarily exploiting people to charge a market rate for a good or service?

That makes no sense, unless you just don't believe in private property – which is a different argument and not one I'm super interested in having.

And honestly, if you think it's so easy to be a landlord, you should try it. It's not. It can be fairly easy, until you have:

- a tenant who won't pay but also refuses to leave, necessitating legal action to evict, which is doubly expensive due to the legal fees and lost income

- a tenant who wrecks the property, e.g., letting their cat pee all over the wood floor, but refuses to provide any additional money to remedy

- a tenant who falls in the yard and initiates a frivolous lawsuit against you

- squatters who refuse to leave and require police action

- a roof that needs replacing, new HVAC, new appliances, etc.

Investing in rental properties often performs no better than just investing in the general stock market. Is that exploiting people? Is it exploiting people to have a savings account that pays interest? Anybody can do that and gets free money.

[lgieron]

That's just how the world is, you know. Back in prehistoric times, you didn't just happen to find a free shack and live in it - you needed to build it and maintain it. Right now, landlords take care of that for you - for a price.

[sapphireblue]

Building a shack isn't that hard, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P73REgj-3UE

Try building it in the forest though - it is most likely illegal due to some rentier (or government) already owning it. I think the grandparent has some truth to their words.

Existing outside the dwelling is illegal. Dwellings are owned by the elite rentier class, so you need some money just to exist (unless you are a rentier).

[branchless]

It's called "land enclosure". There is no common land and you must pay someone to stand anywhere.

I don't expect to exist for free given all the services the state supplies, such as healthcare, policing, roads etc. I also don't expect someone to own some land forever and derive rent from it as the workers pay taxes to build up infrastructure which augments the land value.

[lgieron]

Yeah, the land is not free, but, outside of metro areas, the land can be dirt cheap. You certainly don't have to toil for years to buy a piece of it. Plus, in places like Siberia or Northern Canada perhaps, you can live for decades in a public forest without anyone noticing.

[ghaff]

In all fairness, you can't build a shack or pitch a tent just anywhere and live off the land. (Though, in practice, there's a lot of empty space in Western US and unimproved land can be very cheap. On the other hand, I don't suppose the parent poster would seriously live in a shack with no utilities, transportation, food supply, etc.)

[branchless]

The land is the price. Maintenance is not much. They exploit the system, no way do most add the value they derive. They are parasites forcing up costs.

[cortesoft]

Ok, so we do away with private property ownership... How do you determine who gets to live where? Can I just build my house wherever I want? Can I block your doorway with a house I build right in front of yours?

[branchless]

No you have land value tax instead of income tax to redistribute gains from land.

[randomdata]

> Try explaining rent to kids.

When it comes to kids, we often call it sharing. Billy has a toy truck you want to play with. You have a action figure he wants to play with. If you each share what you have, then everyone is happy.

That is all rent is. Billy has a house, you have cash. He wants to play with cash, and you want play house. If you each share what you have with each other, everyone is happy. Pretty simple.

[kesselvon]

Sharing is a two-way transaction with the object being returned. Rent is one way, as the landlord isn't giving you your rent back.

[randomdata]

Why aren't you getting your money back? The only reason why you would want to occupy someone else's space is precisely because you see an opportunity to get all your money back.

[branchless]

Also rent is a proxy for labour. You are labouring and then handing it over via a medium of exchange to your landlord who does very little work. He doesn't have to because our banks and govt allow exploitation through land.

[branchless]

It's a very simple analogy that in no way reflects the real world complexity of fiat money and limited land supply.

[randomdata]

You're right. If we're explaining this to adults, it is even simpler: Create something of value and you can exchange it for things other people have created of value.

[branchless]

and the landlord creates nothing

[randomdata]

The landlord either created the house, or the landlord created someone else of value and traded it for the house that someone else created. Houses don't appear out of thin air.

[grondilu]

> We have to pay to exist?

No. Existing is free. You have to pay in order to live in a dwelling you could not afford.

[logfromblammo]

You also have to pay for the bounded, mappable area around that dwelling, unless you live in a ship on international waters or a perpetually-aloft aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.

In many places, homelessness, squatting, and camping without explicit permission are illegal. You might not have to continuously pay for the spot on which you stand, but if you stay on it for too long, eventually someone will come to collect or make you move on.

[grondilu]

> In many places, homelessness, squatting, and camping without explicit permission are illegal.

And in just as many places, if not many more, it's not. After all, shanty towns do exist.

[denim_chicken]

While raw "existence" is free, a sheltered existence is most certainly not. In many areas it is illegal to live in a tent or in a car, for example. It is also illegal to camp in a national forest for longer than 2 weeks.

[grondilu]

> While raw "existence" is free, a sheltered existence is most certainly not.

I was replying to "We have to pay to exist?", not "We have to pay for a shelter?".

Being free to do something does not mean the means to accomplish it should be free of charge. I know lots of people think otherwise and therefore believe things like food, healthcare or accommodation should be given to them somehow for free, fortunately most people don't agree.

[branchless]

And we can't afford it because fiat money issuance by the banks is unconstrained and therefore trends towards saturation of all excess labour above basic needs such as food and clothing.

And the banks and the landlords mop it all up using the state to guard their property whilst the workers pay the taxes.

The system stinks.

[gluggymug]

Easy. "Kids, it's time you started paying me rent. Got no money? No problem. I got a lot of chores: cleaning the house, dishwashing, laundry, cooking, etc. Mummy and Daddy are off to catch some Pokemon or whatever."

[branchless]

Nope, totally wrong. The service you deliver to your children will far outweigh that rendered by them, at least in their youth. Inverse for renter / landlord.

[gluggymug]

You asked how to explain rent to kids. They can't learn if you are a horrible landlord.

[branchless]

All landlords reap far less than they sow. They are rentiers, they do not create wealth rather they exploit our regressive property laws to extract labour.

[bbcbasic]

Upvoted you. You make a good point.

[gjm11]

I am not a landlord, but I downvoted you for complaining about being downvoted.

[branchless]

Ah well at least I don't have to pay you.