[Toine]

From a certain extreme perspective, there is some truth to what you're saying, but wow, this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people.

This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy. We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven.

I hope young people don't read this and blindly believe it.

[caffeine]

> We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven.

Totally agree.

> We are NOT companies

Actually, we are humans. However, when it comes to our economic activity, we are also a company. Both things can be true at once.

> this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people.

Woah. Anything you specifically disagree with?

I put it in economic terms to address the article, but if you replace “company of one” with “life” and “returns” with “outcomes”, the message is largely the same..

Edit:

I think you disagreed so hard because you think I’m saying “you’re only an adult if you think everything is about money and personal gain.”

But what I was trying to say was “you’re an adult once you realise you’re it; you can fail; and it’s nobody else’s job to make sure you don’t” - which I didn’t think was such a controversial point..

[kqr]

What set me off (not the one you're responding to) about your comment was the bit about not having a right to a good outcome.

Depending on what one means by "good", that one doesn't have a right to it is a fairly strong statement of political opinion, but it was presented as a universal truth.

I also think it's very important that people are allowed to enter risky ventures and "fail" while still being secure of a somewhat good outcome. Anything else puts a lid on innovation. (As they say, if you don't fail a lot, you aren't running bold enough experiments.)

----

You may have meant it descriptively ("I have observed that most societies don't allow for individual failure") and not prescriptively ("societies shouldn't allow for individual failure") but the rest of your comment was written in a prescriptive tone so it was hard to pick up on.

Either way, congrats on writing a popular and controversial comment!

[vasco]

How is it political opinion to realize a fact of the universe, which is that living beings need to take care of themselves and make good decisions for themselves or else "they fail". Barring the simplification, what you're responding to sounded like just a descriptive statement rather than a political stand.

[pavlov]

But it is not an axiom of the human condition that everyone must take care of themselves or fail. Taken literally that means no infant could survive, and then we'd have no adults either.

From that point of view it's probably more defining of humanity as a species that we take care of others, not that we survive personally at all costs. There are thousands or millions of species on this planet that only do the latter, and they don't write books and invent recipes and create startups.

[andrewjl]

This is a common pattern in social science discourse. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

[RosanaAnaDana]

>What set me off (not the one you're responding to) about your comment was the bit about not having a right to a good outcome. Depending on what one means by "good", that one doesn't have a right to it is a fairly strong statement of political opinion, but it was presented as a universal truth.

I think this is a really important thing to highlight in what I think is a real contradiction that is exposing its self and largely driving our global political narrative. Does one have the right to a "good life"? It looks like oop edited his original phrasing, but I'd like to take a moment and step into this question, because to me, it seems like its one that is still working itself out in real time. Its a question that for me, the US declaration of independence and framers were trying to address (for their identity, not necessarily for others).

Does one have an inalienable right to a "good life"? Do rights exist if we aren't will to fight, tooth and claw, to maintain them?

I think there is a real divide out in the wild about ones right to a 'good life', and a lot of people are being swindled by failing to think through and understand where the right to a 'good life' is borne. So many on one side argue that

Oop is getting a ton of flack for their framing, however, for me, it was once I adopted an almost identical framing that I started getting my worth at my place of employment. I started understanding that I was responsible for and being paid for or paying for all of my time. I may not like the game, but I didn't make it and playing ignorant to its rules wasn't going to help me.

There's clearly a lot of hate for neoliberalism in the responses to OOP's comment. I despise neoliberalism as much, and likely more than most of those respondents. But you can't fight something you don't understand. Sometimes its important to think through and understand how another group might frame something. Just because a belief happens in your mind doesn't mean you are that thought. Its ok to look at things from other perspectives, especially those you disagree with.

[andrewjl]

> “you’re an adult once you realise you’re it; you can fail; and it’s nobody else’s job to make sure you don’t”

There's an embedded ambiguity in your sentence in that there are two kinds of failure. One is a failure of endeavor where one don't get what one necessarily wants but who has the basics. Two is a catastrophic type failure with some combination of deprivation, insecurity, and health problems as a result.

Most people would agree with your statement when it comes to one. When it comes to two I don't think such a consensus exists.

My interpretation of the disagreement you are replying to is that possibly differing definitions of failure are being used.

[caffeine]

> There's an embedded ambiguity in your sentence in that there are two kinds of failure.

Fair enough.

In 2008 somebody asked me if I wanted to try cocaine. I didn’t. He eventually moved on to heroine and his life is now utterly “failed.” in the worst sense. My life is good.

In 2013 somebody told me I need to buy as much bitcoin as I can. I didn’t. That guy is now a billionaire and I’m still an average dude.

Personally I see those two situations as basically the same: decision -> outcome.

There is a continuum of outcomes and the “fail” end could be really catastrophic, for you, your finances, your life, loved ones, possibly even the whole planet in the extreme.

[dxdm]

What you wrote sounds extremely biased towards turning life into economical transactions on the labor market, while I think there's already too much of this mindset, and people need to be reminded that there is much more to life than economic theory.

[jbverschoor]

It’s the other way around.. a company act as a legal person. Companies are people. (natural person vs legal person in Dutch)

[blaser-waffle]

Maybe "people" in a "legal entity" sense, but companies are definitely not people, and shouldn't ever be.

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

Despite enjoying Smurfs, a show about hardcore social animals, as a kid, I still hope young people believe they can fail.

[javajosh]

Being a parent, you get a sense for what young people believe, and why. It comes from you, but also from friends at school, and of course media - books, tv, movies, games. IMHO the 'ability to fail' message is quite poor, overall, from media. Mr. Rogers being the (usual) exception. That said, failure occurs often in real life, desired goals always exceed capability, hopefully you can give them iterated games they can experience failure, adaptation, and success at their own pace. Often they will invent their own games, which we too often call "misbehavior".

But yes, entertainment obsession in kids (on-demand media plus working single parent works out quite badly for the kids), media emphasis on those who are unaccountably good at a thing, means media portrays failing far less often than is realistic, and when it does it's a Rocky style training montage. Plus no-one really wants to write the manual for kids on how to give up on your dreams.

[danielvaughn]

I think you're severely misreading the original comment, and to be frank, your interpretation is pretty juvenile. Nowhere does the person say that we are robots.

[beaconstudios]

the parent is critiquing the argument that we are all homo economicus - an agent whose primary function is to operate within the market at maximum efficiency to optimise for profit. The counterargument is that no, we aren't, and optimising for market exploitation is both an effort in frustration and anathema to human wellbeing. The GP is encouraging us to act like robots by living our lives in accordance with market calculations, not human actualisation and need-fulfilment.

It's an ideological position, and a harmful one at that. We aren't all totally independent actors competing in a ruthless market to maximise profits.

[danielvaughn]

I'm not sure if this is a new trend, or if I've only just begun noticing it over the last decade. People seem to have completely lost the ability to infer the meaning of words if it lies beyond face value. What a trite, shallow interpretation.

[willcipriano]

Watch older movies to see this in action. A older movie might say "The terrorists will get their hands on uranium!" and leave it at that, the audience understanding the implications. A movie from the early 2000's goes as far as "The terrorists will get uranium and make a bomb!", expecting less than the audiences from before. Now it's "The terrorists will get uranium, make a bomb, and blow up San Francisco, killing millions of people, including women and children!" and repeat that statement 4 - 5 times so that the lowest common denominator in the focus group gets it.

[ryandrake]

People are always playing the "I Never Actually Said" gotcha-game these days. Someone says A, B, and C, which strongly, and obviously imply D, but when you push back against D, the retort is "Ha! I never actually said D... You're putting words in my mouth!" This often happens when D is some abhorrent viewpoint, but A, B, and C are benign when taken strictly at face value.

Not saying there was anything abhorrent in this thread, but I agree with you that I'm seeing this pattern more and more in today's hyper-sensitive climate.

[beaconstudios]

Yeah but that's not what my comment was, was it? If anything, I might have been reading inferences that weren't intended by the author.

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending? Someone disagrees with your perspective and its because they are the least intelligent person in the room?

[beaconstudios]

my point is that we should oppose the system that forces everybody to be in market competition with each other. I understand the position being forwarded, but I think it's describing a system that's antithetical to human values and thus should not be just accepted as a fact like gravity.

Perhaps it is you who is being shallow and trite, not understanding the actual objection I have. I know that what the OP is saying is a description of how to optimise your economic standing - I've done it plenty myself because optimisation comes naturally to me; I'm saying that's a shite way to live and invest your time and energy.

[jka]

Markets can behave in ways that are either competitive (my tomatoes are better than your tomatoes) or co-operative (my tomatoes are a perfect complement to your cheese). And sometimes they morph from one mode into the other.

[beaconstudios]

Maybe this is a definitional argument, but I'd say the latter would be complementary, not cooperative. A cooperative model is one where people work together to achieve an outcome, like two kids working together on a school assignment.

Outside an individual company, competition is favoured over cooperation, except when companies work together on e.g. supply chains.

[cecilpl2]

This has always been the case, but you notice it more and more over time due to your own continually deepening perspective.

[BobbyJo]

> The counterargument is that no, we aren't, and optimising for market exploitation is both an effort in frustration and anathema to human wellbeing

I don't see how an argument that agrees with the parent is counter argument. They literally said we all need to look out for our own well being, and a part of that is managing our participation in voluntary exchange.

> We aren't all totally independent actors competing in a ruthless market to maximise profits.

I missed the part where the parent said that. Where was it?

[beaconstudios]

The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market.

While that's an accurate description of neoliberal economics, I'm arguing that it's neither natural, nor necessarily productive, nor conducive to human wellbeing to mould one's behaviour to fit that system. Or to be more concrete: you're wasting your life studying the labour market for opportunities, learning new disciplines to increase your wage, reading through employment contracts looking for advantages (obviously you should check for big fuck-you statements in contracts, just for self-protection). Not only is the market irrational, such that behaviour based on a rational model of the market is a poor guarantee of positive outcomes, but that living such a life based on market rationality is pretty immiserating and misaligned with what actually makes people happy.

[BobbyJo]

> The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market.

Parent never said totally independent, just that the assumption is the most useful operating mode. "Don't jump in a pool expecting a life guard" is good advice whether there is a tower nearby or not.

They also never said optimizing our participation should be a primary goal, but that our participation needs to be managed with our actual goals in mind. It's like he told everyone they should exercise and the counter argument is "Not everyone should quit their jobs to be a fitness model". It's nonsense.

[beaconstudios]

I think it's a matter of differing interpretations. When I hear "you are a company of one, and it's your job to manage your labour in the market and your investments to get the returns you want", it sounds to me like the commenter is saying that you should view yourself as a company operating in the marketplace and act accordingly. How do companies act in the market? They optimise for profit, they interact transactionally as opposed to through social and communal relations, and they hire specialised labour (or in the analogy, develop specialised skills) to fulfill their fiduciary and legal requirements. Your interpretation may differ, but that's the nature of perspectives.

[KptMarchewa]

OP did not say that you have to optimize for profit. However, they said that we have to optimize for something. In other words, there's opportunity cost to everything we do.

[beaconstudios]

> You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns.

> It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal hazard, reputational hazard, etc.

This is an argument that you have the responsibility alone to optimise your behaviour in the market. Yes, your utility function could be oriented towards something other than profit, but OP specifically oriented their argument towards getting "good returns".

While this is the direction that neoliberal capitalism pushes you in, what with the social alienation and commodification of everything in life, but that's because it's not aligned with human wellbeing. Your self-image should not be one of a company optimising its market behaviour; this precludes socialising, spending time in nature, exercising for reasons beyond increased economic productivity. It reduces human existence down to rational behaviour in a market.

To present an alternative, because criticism in a vacuum isn't very effective: I personally think that you should optimise your involvement in the economy, so that you are minimally involved in the economy, so that you can spend your precious little time on earth doing things that actually matter to you - whether that's social relationships, hobbies, communities, whatever. The market is something to be avoided, not exploited. To do this effectively you have to understand the market, sure, but it's the same way an accountant for an enterprise company has to deeply understand tax law in order to avoid paying taxes.

If that's also what OP was arguing for then that's a whole other thing, but that's not the impression I got at all with the whole "you are a company, start acting like one" spiel.

[KptMarchewa]

"Good returns" are what you'll make of your time that's worthwhile to you. The interpretation that this means only money is entirely your interpretation.

[nautilius]

Caffeine doesn't say that anywhere, though. Quite the opposite.

[bigbluedots]

The parent is critiquing an argument that the OP did not make.

[ravenstine]

Yeah, I took it as rather the opposite of saying that we are robots. Ultimately, being responsible for one's self is a choice, which is something robots can't do.

[danielvaughn]

Right. I didn't even take it as disagreeing with the piece - there's enough nuance there to see harmony between the post and the comment.

[lotsofpulp]

Different perspectives for looking at the same thing provide different benefits, and they can be held simultaneously. For example, getting married to someone involves love and commitment and all that jazz, but I also like to advise also looking at it as a business, especially if you have or are going to have children. It is no different in that the two parents (and maybe even other adults in a multi family household) need to manage tasks, inventory, money, etc.

That does not mean you should treat your family or yourself exactly as a business, but there are some aspects that are beneficial if managed in that manner.

[ftlio]

Yes, the idea that you can't hold "the neoliberal view" of your household, and "the communist view" and the "romantic view", and the "spiritual view" all together for all their benefits and tradeoffs seems worse to me than even subscribing to one holistically without this imperative.

I've had this called out as absolutely faux pas if not totally asinine by people who are deep into philosophy, but I'm doing great, a lot better than some of them born with silver spoons.

[bckr]

> faux pas if not totally asinine

These people are embarrassed that you can think for yourself.

Life has such a high fractal dimension. It's highly unlikely that a single theory, expressed in a serial language, can be a very good description of life, at all.

But it feels good to believe one thing strongly. It feels so, so good. And it feels good to hate people who believe the other thing, and to think they're wrong.

But the right way really is to believe in all the things at once. It's weird, schizoid, scary, and completely logical.

I'd like to put something together to help people understand this. I think the quickest way to get there is:

* math doesn't work the way you think: see Wittgenstein

* space and time don't work the way you think: see Einstein

* matter doesn't work the way you think: see the double slit experiment

* rationality doesn't work the way you think: see tons of psychology

Given the above, do you think anything could possibly work the way you think it works? The best way forward is to just be incredibly weird. (And yet, somehow, be incredibly normal at the same time).

[javajosh]

I like where you're coming from, but I think you're stopping too soon. You can learn how math works (well, that's the most general one, least likely to be mastered by a single brain, and it's not clear how meaningful that accomplishment would be). Spacetime theories can be mastered. Quantum theories can be mastered. You can become acquainted with psychological theories and even psychological practice. Moreover, you can do most of this within a single lifetime. So, why not get a physics degree and at least cross two things off your list?

But yes it's hard to describe life, because of that fractal complexity you mention. So the best we can do is go over and over it again and again with different lenses, at different scales, different rates, and get a feel for the thing that way. (Then you must sample all of that, cut it together with music, and release a Terrance Malick movie).

[BobbyJo]

> We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy. We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven.

We are companies. You can be a company of one and not a robot. Being a company of one doesn't imply giving up free will or somehow not being meat and bone. That's nothing to do with the statement he's making.

I hope every young person reads it and take it seriously, because it's reality. No one can manage your time, your money, your mental health, like you. No one will.

[sanderjd]

The parent comment didn't say that the "company of one" is all that you are. It is a useful concept for the part of a person's life that entails their career, and it's also critical to recognize that a career is only one of a number of the important facets of a life.

So I agree with you that it's a very partial treatment, but I didn't read it as attempting to be totalizing.

[jka]

> This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies

That's true, although, in a way, I think it's reasonable for the parent commentor to want to identify as a corporation if that's what they feel like.

Are there preferred pronouns for corporate identities? Perhaps people would display a personal stock ticker symbol instead?

[caffeine]

Hah! I hadn’t intended that at all but this is hilarious.

I wonder if the IRS would play along: “I identify as a corporation so you may only tax me on my profits not my income”

[jka]

Well, without agreeing or disagreeing yet: if corporate personhood is considered valid, then perhaps personal corporatehood should be as well.

(in practice: there are probably a lot of reasons why it's a terrible idea)

[FredPret]

It’s actually harsher than that. A company that fails typically doesn’t kill the owners.

But as the CEO of you, you can easily get yourself killed in a couple of minutes of bad calls.

The laws of physics are the only laws.

[lr4444lr]

It's harsh, but the conclusion of what he's saying is also very liberating, namely, that in your interactions with your employer, there is no "social animal" on the other side of the table caring about your needs, so learn its language to protect yourself and take responsibility over preserving your own humanity.

[leonroy]

> This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy. We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven.

I think you're taking the OP's comments out of context. They did not say that we are not social animals, etc. they made an allegorical comparison likening a person and their value in the marketplace to a company. That does not mean a person does not have value as a human being, as a member of the community, as a friend, partner, parent etc.

I think the comparison is apt when weighing up our careers - which is what the actual article is about - that is of course my own humble opinion, but you're implying meaning which I don't see in the OP's comment.

[knubie]

> We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy.

It’s just an analogy. A different way of looking at the decisions you make throughout your life.

[chc]

And so is "We are not companies," but you apparently felt the need to argue with that.

[KolenCh]

This comment is a very emotional, irrational response to a very logical analysis. What a contrast.

The kind of response is also very childish (, not in the sense I am insulting you as childish, but actually just some kind of reaction that would comes from a child. Eg emotion and incoherent thoughts.)

Eg

The “decades of brainwashing” comes out of nowhere and essentially projecting a political view to a logical argument. If you think the argument is wrong, argue with facts not branding it as something and attract that thing in general.

“We are NOT companies”. Again sounds like an argument made by a poor politician (I mean good politician wouldn’t fall into this kind of fallacy.) Clearly it was an analogy to illustrate a fact. I mean what’s this argument arguing against? What’s “are” means in this context? In Chinese there’s an idiom 白馬非馬 comes from a similar fallacy: is black horse a horse? Is white horse a black horse? Therefore white horse is not a horse.

“We don’t live in an economy”: what? What kind of brainwashing would results in that conclusion?

“We are … social animals” and then quote “scientifically proven”. What’s the point? “We are just a bunch of carbon and stuffs worth collectively not more than a few bucks.” This is scientifically proven too. We should all quote random facts to argues against some view we don’t like.

This is so sad, really. I hope any people would exercise more logic and stops politicize things and argue based on hatred, not on HN at least.