Radical unjobbing blog-yuck! GROW UP!

[pippi]

When I was young and angry I thought this person in particular among others was so right and cool, she had a website and a forum and followers (what radical yuppie didn't?)

I grew up and it's sad to see she has not-I guess being a total dipshit pays.

Her leave a comment is disabled. Surprise Surprise.

Warning-this is a bunch of crap

http://radicalunjobbing.wordpress.com/

I am a radical unjobber because I believe people should have lives based on living, not on making a living.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe that leisure is more than “free time”.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe in an ecological ethic of service, interdependence, and care…not a “work ethic.”

I am a radical unjobber because I don’t believe people’s value in a relationship, family, or community should be diminished because they do not have jobs or earn wages. Having a job and making a “contribution to society” is not a measure of worth, and people should not be expected to work to justify their existence any more than a tree or a river should. (I do believe that most people have a desire to be useful and creative, rather than just being consumers; we need to find ways for people to fulfill this desire outside the wage economy, as there simply aren’t enough jobs to go around, even for those who want jobs.)

I am a radical unjobber because, although I’m not “anti-work,” I am critical of jobs and the entire job culture.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe there is an important and oft-overlooked difference between work and jobs. Work is intrinsically worth doing, and may or may not involve earning money. A job is a set of tasks performed for wages or other compensation, and controlled by an employer. (The two are not mutually exclusive; I’ll have plenty more to say about this in future writings.)

I am a radical unjobber because I believe in the importance of rethinking our cultural and societal assumptions about the proper relationship between work and leisure.

I am a radical unjobber because I have spent my entire adult life trying to figure out ways to live a life that is not based around earning income, and encouraging people to find ways to live a less job-centered life in general.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe that freedom from the job culture is an inside job that starts (but doesn’t end) within the minds and hearts of human beings – which means, among other things, that it is possible to be free of wage slavery even if you hold a conventional job.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe in not letting whatever you do for income interfere with your life’s work.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe lowering expenses is preferable to increasing income through having a job. Like Amy Dacyczyn (author of “The Tightwad Gazette”), I prefer the luxury of freedom from a job to the luxury of material goods.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe “do what you love, the money will follow” is essentially a lie. Though there is a kernel of wisdom in that saying, it’s often misinterpreted as “if you can find a job you love, eventually you’ll earn money.” Not everyone can do what they love through finding a job, and it isn’t their own fault; that’s simply not the way the economy functions. Conventional jobs in the wage economy have an underlying purpose, and it is not to allow people do what they love. It is to facilitate the movement of money, and concentrate wealth in the hands of the elite.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe the job culture impoverishes us by creating conditions where so many of us are forced to abandon our Work to take jobs, and then impoverishes us even more by diminishing our opportunities for true restorative leisure.

I am a radical unjobber because I don’t believe that paid work is inherently more valuable than unpaid work.

I am a radical unjobber because I resist the brainwashing that paints people who don’t have a job in the wage economy as idle, lazy, parasitic, undeserving, good-for-nothing, worthless, or not trying hard enough.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe money (and the need to earn it through wage jobs) is the ultimate root cause of the ecological destruction we face. However, I am not inherently “anti-money” and I accept money without guilt or shame, since I live in a world that has made it near-impossible to function without it.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe in the value of working toward urban and rural interdependent self-sufficiency and homesteading skills (growing and preserving food, fiber arts, home brewing, cooking, baking, home building, passive solar design, etc.) as paths to freedom from the job culture.

I am a radical unjobber because I encourage people to dig deep and think critically about the toxic cultural messages we’ve absorbed about jobs, work, and money, and to do the hard work of uprooting them so that healthy attitudes can be consciously cultivated in their place.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe in the value of barter, gift economies, alternative currencies, community currencies, basic income schemes, and other alternatives to the use of money earned through conventional jobs.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe in small-scale farming, cottage industries, local production of goods, and in the value of handcrafted items made with love and care.

I am a radical unjobber because I want to live simply, mindfully, consciously, and deliberately…and I encourage others to do the same.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe that energy descent, climate change and resource depletion will require radical changes to our current way of life, and because I want to free myself and others from the demands of conventional jobs so that we can collectively devote as much time as possible to the necessary and urgent work of preparing for a different way of life.

I am a radical unjobber because I have made a conscious choice to live a car-free or low-car life as much as possible, in order to minimize expenses and dependence on earned income from jobs, as well as for health and ecological reasons. (I am fortunate to live in a pedestrian-friendly city with great public transit, which makes this much easier to do.)

I am a radical unjobber because I have chosen not to have children, partly in order to maximize my leisure, reduce my ecological footprint, and lessen the income I need to earn. (There are other reasons too, of course, such as the fact that I have never had a desire to be a parent.)

I am a radical unjobber because I believe that the best work is the kind that is done with joy, and if we are unable to take any joy in our work, it is a sign that something, somewhere, is fundamentally wrong.

I am a radical unjobber because I don’t believe success in a conventional job is necessarily proof of value, skill, or intelligence. Often, it’s simply an indication that someone is well-connected, wealthy, status-driven, and/or willing to play the game.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe in the value of thrift and frugality (as distinguished from cheapness) as a way of life that brings joy and increased freedom from the need to earn job income.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe it’s possible (even preferable!) to live very well far below the official “poverty line,” and in fact I am doing it right now, as I write this. What matters is access to resources – food, shelter, clean water, health care, etc. Money can facilitate this access, but it is ultimately nothing more than a means to an end; it should never be mistaken for real wealth.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe in asking radical questions: the kind that get to the roots of the problems, rather than “hacking away at the branches” (thanks to H.D. Thoreau for that phrase.)

I am a radical unjobber because I believe philosophies and practices such as deep ecology/ecophilosophy, ecopsychology, systems thinking, permaculture, Earth-centered ritual, herbalism, sacred plant medicine, folk magic, religious mysticism, polytheism, animism, feminism, LGBTQ rights, arts & crafts, music & dance, neo-tribal and village living, hunting and gathering, wildcrafting, home-based organic gardens, natural building, the tiny house movement, gift giving, barter, community currencies, and simple living all have an important role to play in building a world outside the job culture.

I am a radical unjobber because I consider indigenous peoples’ sovereignty and land-based ways of life/work to be essential. In particular, I take inspiration from the Himalayan Ladakhi peoples and the peoples of the Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan in thinking about how to repair our ecosystems and build a happier, less job-centered, less money-centered culture.

I am a radical unjobber because I believe that if enough of us can learn skills to support our basic needs, and can learn to do this work in an interdependent way…then together we can figure out ways to support each other using as little money as possible, and outside the bounds of conventional employment. I believe extended families, villages and tribes should support each other in times of need, instead of clinging to an ideal of “independence” that does not serve our needs. (The falseood that there is such a thing as a “self-made man” is so widely promoted in the media because it serves the needs of the elite.)

I am a radical unjobber because I believe that if we want to get out of the job culture, we will need to get the job culture out of us.

I am a radical unjobber because when I am asked what I do for a living, I respond with “I work for the land.” The natural world is my teacher.

A question for you to ponder, dear readers: Are you a radical unjobber? Why or why not?

Edited March 16, 2011 by pippi

[studiodekadent]

There's a lot of crap in that list.

However, there is also some wisdom. Objectivism shouldn't be confused with the Protestant Work Ethic. Work isn't an end in itself; its a means to an end and should be treated as such.

Productivity isn't an intrinsic value. Additionally, there's a difference between the ethical worth of a creation and its market price.

Rand's heroes unfortunately can easily be read as supporting a Calvinist-style work ethic. Hank Rearden is an obvious case of this (given his condemnations of Francisco d'Anconia for being a playboy) although to be entirely fair, the book itself presents this as a flaw (although readers often don't get this) when Ragnar tells Hank to accept a gold ingot and spend it exclusively on his own consumption.

Objectivism is pro-market. But pro-market and pro-human-ingenuity doesn't necessitate some sort of slavery (metaphorically speaking) to a job, especially when the job is one the employee hates.

[dansullivan]

Substitute "reactionary" for "radical" and the blog makes perfect sense. After all, claiming to be an "unjobber" focuses attention only on what one is against, not on what one is for. If these things she decries are irrational and counterproductive, what causes people to keep doing them? What exactly would she change?

Indeed, if she is against artificial forces that cause people to be more job-oriented than they would care to be, then I might agree with her to some extent. However, she does not identify any causes for the behavior she dislikes, so there is really nothing to agree with or disagree with - except to disagree with the superficiality of ranting without analyzing.

Even if she made the distinction between "jobs" and "work," there might be a great contribution in there somewhere. Studiodekadent is correct that there is a big difference between a Calvinist work-ethic and a natural work ethic, the former being imposed by social approbation and the latter arising from the natural desire for achievement and self-actualization (See Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs.") Indeed, a natural work-ethic, which the blogger sloppily condemns as part of the problem, is the secret to becoming an "unjobber."

The late Karl Hess, whom I regard as one of the more thoughtful members of the Libertarian Party, engaged in several experiments having to deal with escaping the state's contrived rat-race, and I believe Ayn Rand wrote a book about it.

Wasn't Rearden an unjobber? Did he do things because someone assigned things for him to do, or did he do things because it interested him to do them? I remember some billionaire saying, "After the first ten million or so, the money doesn't matter; it's just a way of keeping score. That is, it tells the person he had created something of value, which was his desire. Did Rearden develop Rearden Metal in order to have what money could buy? Didn't the novel start right off with him giving away $100,000 (millions in today's money) just because someone close to him had asked and it amused him to comply? No, when Rearden saw problems he instinctively tackled them, simply because solving problems was "self-actualizing."

(One of the problems with Rand's use of the word "selfish" is that the standard usage of the term implies a narcissistic, dishonorable, materialistic disregard for others. While her elaborations and examples show that this was clearly not what she had meant, the word as she used it invites misunderstanding. Maslow's term, "self actualizing," is much clearer, and hence less controversial, but it probably was not available to Rand, and it certainly was not understood by the public. Although he published the term in his Theory of Human Motivation in 1943, it only gained popular acceptance in the 1960s.

Anyhow, whether we look at the freest of societies or the most repressive, those who work for themselves have the strongest work ethics of all, and those who take no risks and do only what is required to get by have the "worst" jobs, with bosses to tell them what to do every step of the way. Everyone else (other than the idle rich and the idle poor) is in between, but, even then, the stronger one's natural work ethic, the more likely one is to gravitate to employment that is less "job-like."

[caroljane]

Substitute "reactionary" for "radical" and the blog makes perfect sense. After all, claiming to be an "unjobber" focuses attention only on what one is against, not on what one is for. If these things she decries are irrational and counterproductive, what causes people to keep doing them? What exactly would she change?

Indeed, if she is against artificial forces that cause people to be more job-oriented than they would care to be, then I might agree with her to some extent. However, she does not identify any causes for the behavior she dislikes, so there is really nothing to agree with or disagree with - except to disagree with the superficiality of ranting without analyzing.

Even if she made the distinction between "jobs" and "work," there might be a great contribution in there somewhere. Studiodekadent is correct that there is a big difference between a Calvinist work-ethic and a natural work ethic, the former being imposed by social approbation and the latter arising from the natural desire for achievement and self-actualization (See Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs.") Indeed, a natural work-ethic, which the blogger sloppily condemns as part of the problem, is the secret to becoming an "unjobber."

The late Karl Hess, whom I regard as one of the more thoughtful members of the Libertarian Party, engaged in several experiments having to deal with escaping the state's contrived rat-race, and I believe Ayn Rand wrote a book about it.

Wasn't Rearden an unjobber? Did he do things because someone assigned things for him to do, or did he do things because it interested him to do them? I remember some billionaire saying, "After the first ten million or so, the money doesn't matter; it's just a way of keeping score. That is, it tells the person he had created something of value, which was his desire. Did Rearden develop Rearden Metal in order to have what money could buy? Didn't the novel start right off with him giving away $100,000 (millions in today's money) just because someone close to him had asked and it amused him to comply? No, when Rearden saw problems he instinctively tackled them, simply because solving problems was "self-actualizing."

(One of the problems with Rand's use of the word "selfish" is that the standard usage of the term implies a narcissistic, dishonorable, materialistic disregard for others. While her elaborations and examples show that this was clearly not what she had meant, the word as she used it invites misunderstanding. Maslow's term, "self actualizing," is much clearer, and hence less controversial, but it probably was not available to Rand, and it certainly was not understood by the public. Although he published the term in his Theory of Human Motivation in 1943, it only gained popular acceptance in the 1960s.

Anyhow, whether we look at the freest of societies or the most repressive, those who work for themselves have the strongest work ethics of all, and those who take no risks and do only what is required to get by have the "worst" jobs, with bosses to tell them what to do every step of the way. Everyone else (other than the idle rich and the idle poor) is in between, but, even then, the stronger one's natural work ethic, the more likely one is to gravitate to employment that is less "job-like."

I don't know what the current views are on Maslow's needs theory, but I think he was right on the money. So to speak.

Carol

I love my job

[Martin Radwin]

There's a lot of crap in that list.

However, there is also some wisdom. Objectivism shouldn't be confused with the Protestant Work Ethic. Work isn't an end in itself; its a means to an end and should be treated as such.

Productivity isn't an intrinsic value. Additionally, there's a difference between the ethical worth of a creation and its market price.

Rand's heroes unfortunately can easily be read as supporting a Calvinist-style work ethic. Hank Rearden is an obvious case of this (given his condemnations of Francisco d'Anconia for being a playboy) although to be entirely fair, the book itself presents this as a flaw (although readers often don't get this) when Ragnar tells Hank to accept a gold ingot and spend it exclusively on his own consumption.

Objectivism is pro-market. But pro-market and pro-human-ingenuity doesn't necessitate some sort of slavery (metaphorically speaking) to a job, especially when the job is one the employee hates.

Very good reply! Atlas Shrugged was all about the theme of talented individuals deciding to become "unjobbers" by dropping out of the corrupt society in which they lived and working the most menial jobs they could find, generating just enough income to support themselves with nothing left over for the rest of society.

There's nothing at all wrong with an individual making a personal decision to work a minimal amount and to enjoy a maximal amount of leisure, as long as he/she does not end up subsisting on government money. Working hard at a job should be something a person does for his/her own enjoyment, not some kind of a quasi-religious obligation.

Some hard-core libertarians, such as Claire Wolfe, have made a conscious decision to live exactly this type of lifestyle, so as to free themselves from the government regulation/taxation grid. By doing this, they are refusing to support the increasingly corrupt, dictatorial, murderous government under which we are now living.

Martin

[Martin Radwin]

Didn't the novel start right off with him giving away $100,000 (millions in today's money) just because someone close to him had asked and it amused him to comply?

Actually, it was $10,000 that Rearden gave to his louse of a brother Philip, who then proceeded to insult Rearden for it and to assert his own moral superiority to Rearden. But, as you indicated above, $10,000 at that time was probably worth several hundred thousand dollars today, given the extent of inflation.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Didn't the novel start right off with him giving away $100,000 (millions in today's money) just because someone close to him had asked and it amused him to comply?

Actually, it was $10,000 that Rearden gave to his louse of a brother Philip, who then proceeded to insult Rearden for it and to assert his own moral superiority to Rearden. But, as you indicated above, $10,000 at that time was probably worth several hundred thousand dollars today, given the extent of inflation.

Martin

A ten multiplier will give you the best idea, assuming mid-1940s. You guys are assuming a 30 multiplier. In the last 100 years the dollar has lost between 95% and 98% of its value. By that metric gold today is about 40% over-valued, but it's hardly that simple to say the least. Gold as money, because of mining issues and ratio to increasing populations and greater wealth, should be able to buy more and more--goods and labor--over time in a deflationary environment. The tremendous amount of gold flowing into Spain from the New World had an inflationary impact on Europe centuries ago. This will never again happen. Production is declining. Peak gold happened already. Central banks can sell it and cause some price suppression, that's all. People and states generally want one thing from their currencies today: inflation to wipe out debt. Those that don't want inflation have savings, not debt. Those savings should not be mostly in paper currencies. Gold, silver, equities paying +3% dividends--but generally not bonds; bonds are debt instruments the inflationists are trying to cheapen. Buying a house might be a good idea today if one can put down at least 10% and get a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. If one has a low net worth one should not, generally speaking, have a high level of equity in a home because that represents a severe lack of diversification. If one's income is problematic one should be renting. And please remember that what I've written here is not enough information on which to base one's investment and housing decisions. I do not know you. There are other, complicating factors. A lot about the future is just not knowable.

--Brant

[Reidy]

Does this woman write for Obama? They both have a conspicuous fondness for the first person singular.

[caroljane]

Does this woman write for Obama? They both have a conspicuous fondness for the first person singular.

Good grief! You mean Obama is a secret Objectivist?

[jriggenbach]

Does this woman write for Obama? They both have a conspicuous fondness for the first person singular.

Good grief! You mean Obama is a secret Objectivist?

No, you misunderstand. The idea is that Obama is the most evil man in mankind's history (after Kant), and anything he does is evil and despicable. He writes in the first person, so writing in the first person is unimaginably evil.

QED

JR

[jriggenbach]

I haven't had a "job" in the conventional sense in more than a decade. I still work for a living, of course, and I currently do better financially than I did at my last job. Having work and having a job, even if one is looking for monetary remuneration, are not the same thing. I like having work. I don't much like having a job - though I've had a couple in the past that I liked fairly well.

JR

[Reidy]

Is there really a Protestant or a Calvinist work ethic? I wonder if it is, rather, like social Darwinism - a strawman belief that nobody actually holds but that plenty of people like to impute to somebody else.

My next question is: what does the notion mean? With a satisfactory answer to that in hand, I'd then ask:

- Did any important Protestant actually say this?

- Do contemporary Protestants (specifically the pro-market ones) believe this and try to practice it?

[studiodekadent]

Is there really a Protestant or a Calvinist work ethic? I wonder if it is, rather, like social Darwinism - a strawman belief that nobody actually holds but that plenty of people like to impute to somebody else.

My next question is: what does the notion mean? With a satisfactory answer to that in hand, I'd then ask:

- Did any important Protestant actually say this?

- Do contemporary Protestants (specifically the pro-market ones) believe this and try to practice it?

The "Protestant Work Ethic" is a complicated case.

Basically, the concept comes from Max Weber (the guy that argues free market economics and capital accumulation were the product of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)).

Calvinism believes in double predestination; you're going to heaven or hell basically on random allocation, saved entirely due to the grace of God, not because of any personal worthiness but because you won the Divine Mercy Lucky Dip.

Given how much Calvinism gets off on the Fire and Brimstone preaching about the torments of hell, this naturally creates a lot of nervousness on the part of Calvinists. "Have I Really Been Saved?" results in a need for Assurance Of Salvation.

Calvin basically believed if a person was virtuous (by his standards) that was evidence of being saved (i.e. you don't get saved by being good, you're being good because you've been saved). One of the elements of these standards was that you do a lot of labor and spend little time on frivolous, self-indulgent leisure.

And THIS is the Protestant Work Ethic that Weber was talking about; because Calvinists are nervous over being saved, they'll throw themselves into work to prove (to both themselves and others) that they're one of "the elect" and thus not going to hell.

As for important Protestants that actually say this, the attitude is based on Calvin's work.

Since not all Protestants are Calvinists, there are some pro-market Protestants that don't practice it.

In truth, supporting Free Market Economics and supporting the Protestant Work Ethic are very different things. But the Protestant Work Ethic does exist and unfortunately it does affect how people support, understand and justify free market economics. Indeed, I wrote an article about it here (please note, "Capitalism" in this article is intended to be synonymous with "free market economics") - http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5475

[caroljane]

And in the Catholic tradition, Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. I am going to Hell for sure.

Edited March 18, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Martin Radwin]

Didn't the novel start right off with him giving away $100,000 (millions in today's money) just because someone close to him had asked and it amused him to comply?

Actually, it was $10,000 that Rearden gave to his louse of a brother Philip, who then proceeded to insult Rearden for it and to assert his own moral superiority to Rearden. But, as you indicated above, $10,000 at that time was probably worth several hundred thousand dollars today, given the extent of inflation.

Martin

A ten multiplier will give you the best idea, assuming mid-1940s. You guys are assuming a 30 multiplier. In the last 100 years the dollar has lost between 95% and 98% of its value. By that metric gold today is about 40% over-valued, but it's hardly that simple to say the least. Gold as money, because of mining issues and ratio to increasing populations and greater wealth, should be able to buy more and more--goods and labor--over time in a deflationary environment. The tremendous amount of gold flowing into Spain from the New World had an inflationary impact on Europe centuries ago. This will never again happen. Production is declining. Peak gold happened already. Central banks can sell it and cause some price suppression, that's all. People and states generally want one thing from their currencies today: inflation to wipe out debt. Those that don't want inflation have savings, not debt. Those savings should not be mostly in paper currencies. Gold, silver, equities paying +3% dividends--but generally not bonds; bonds are debt instruments the inflationists are trying to cheapen. Buying a house might be a good idea today if one can put down at least 10% and get a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. If one has a low net worth one should not, generally speaking, have a high level of equity in a home because that represents a severe lack of diversification. If one's income is problematic one should be renting. And please remember that what I've written here is not enough information on which to base one's investment and housing decisions. I do not know you. There are other, complicating factors. A lot about the future is just not knowable.

--Brant

The rate of inflation is obviously just a weighted average over a huge number of different products and services. As I recall, in the mid 1940s, gold was selling for $42 an ounce. It is now selling for about $1400 an ounce, which is about 33x. Of course, gold prices may have reached a temporary peak and may perhaps experience a major decline in the next several years. Then again, maybe not; predicting the future is not easy.

One thing that has exploded in price is California real estate, even after the recent price declines. My parents bought a townhouse in Culver City, CA. in 1965 for $30,000. It is now worth about $500,000, a 17x increase. Real estate prices in other areas have increased even more.

On the other hand, you can now buy a personal computer for $500 that is more powerful and a lot more user-friendly than a mainfrain computer costing millions of dollars in 1960. Technology has created an immense array of electronic items at ridiculously cheap prices that could not be had for any price in the 1940s, because they simply didn't exist.

Martin

[Rich Engle]

If the ding-dong spent half the energy put into the screed on something venturous, they could stop living in a van, down by the river. Or asking daddy for money. Or enjoying public dole. Whatever they are doing now. Am I wrong? Does their lifestyle reflect their values?

And even if I am wrong, I freaking hate that style of writing. It is weaker than hamster piss. I can barely get through the best renditions of the "This I Believe" radio series, and that's almost as good as this kind of thing gets.

Ptui.

rde

I am a radical money-glommer.

[pippi]

Yep there are some grains of truth in what she writes-every bit of brainwashing contains a grain of truth, that is why it is so effective.

As I said-I subscribed to this theory in my (misspent) youth.

I can also see how a person with this mindset would like Objectivism - individuality over "the man", I get it, I got it.

Good:)

[pippi]

If the ding-dong spent half the energy put into the screed on something venturous, they could stop living in a van, down by the river. Or asking daddy for money. Or enjoying public dole. Whatever they are doing now. Am I wrong? Does their lifestyle reflect their values?

And even if I am wrong, I freaking hate that style of writing. It is weaker than hamster piss. I can barely get through the best renditions of the "This I Believe" radio series, and that's almost as good as this kind of thing gets.

Ptui.

rde

I am a radical money-glommer.

Ptui indeed.

My mouse may need disinfecting but I went back to the site and here is the answer to 'what are they doing now'? Is anyone surprised?

I call Cascadia (Portland, OR) my home. I have lived in a variety of places in North America, mostly in the Pacific Northwest. With the support of my loved ones, friends, and Pagan faith, I have somehow managed to remain mostly – though not entirely – job-free since 1998.

I proudly identify as a queer, a bookworm, a feminist, a Pagan polytheist, and an aspiring radical homemaker. I have a variety of academic credentials at the baccalaureate and post-bac level, having studied psychology, philosophy and accounting; however, I’m primarily an autodidact. My many interests include writing, tea drinking, tribal belly dance, gothic/industrial/rhythmic noise/neofolk music and culture, photography of abandoned places, Swedish language and culture, grammar and etymology, herbalism, hiking in temperate rainforests, home decorating, and maintaining my well-loved home library. 95% of my wardrobe is black.

This blog does not allow comments.

And last but not least

Currently, I am just barely hanging on by a thread; an unwanted divorce devastated me financially, and I have been looking for a paid job, preferably as an office file clerk, for more than a year. No success yet. If any of you reading this should happen to know of any such job in Portland – oh, the irony of posting such a request here! – please do contact me.

I know this is a waste of energy and I won't post any more on it-I already feel icky that I posted this and put thought into it, but it is like looking at a car crash to me I can't resist... I am just amazed at what I used to think was good and how full of shit some people are.

Pippi

Edited March 20, 2011 by pippi

[caroljane]

As I said-I subscribed to this theory in my (misspent) youth.

I think everybody misspends their youth in some way or other.

"and let the day be time enough to mourn

the shipwreck of my ill-adventured youth"

-Samuel Daniel, 1562-1619

[studiodekadent]

My mouse may need disinfecting but I went back to the site and here is the answer to 'what are they doing now'? Is anyone surprised?

I call Cascadia (Portland, OR) my home. I have lived in a variety of places in North America, mostly in the Pacific Northwest. With the support of my loved ones, friends, and Pagan faith, I have somehow managed to remain mostly – though not entirely – job-free since 1998.

I proudly identify as a queer, a bookworm, a feminist, a Pagan polytheist, and an aspiring radical homemaker. I have a variety of academic credentials at the baccalaureate and post-bac level, having studied psychology, philosophy and accounting; however, I’m primarily an autodidact. My many interests include writing, tea drinking, tribal belly dance, gothic/industrial/rhythmic noise/neofolk music and culture, photography of abandoned places, Swedish language and culture, grammar and etymology, herbalism, hiking in temperate rainforests, home decorating, and maintaining my well-loved home library. 95% of my wardrobe is black.

This blog does not allow comments.

Pippi,

I can understand some elements of your "ick" towards the writer of the Radical Unjobbing blog... I had a few shudders too. However, I don't think you should target her for having a mostly-black wardrobe or for liking gothic and industrial music.

I am a goth, wear heaps of black, and love electronic-industrial music. And yes, I'm aware Ayn Rand herself would probably allege I have a bad sense of life. I don't care; I'm an Objectivist because I agree with the essentials of Objectivism, I don't care whether or not Ayn Rand would personally approve of me.

So I'd hope that your "shudders" over that list of characteristics the blog owner ascribes to herself are over the more substantiative issues, as opposed to "likes black and likes gothic and industrial music."

[Brant Gaede]

Martin, the price of gold was $20/ounce in the 1920s, Roosevelt devalued the dollar to $32 shortly after taking office, Nixon took us off the gold standard completely in 1971 when the price was still officially $32--obviously in light of what happened over the preceding decades, that price had been artificially suppressed and it spent the 1970s rebounding--too far--to $850 (very briefly) in 1980 followed by a bear market of two decades then a bull market that went from about $276 to 1400 today. Obviously, the dollar did not depreciate to 20 cents during this bull market. If gold becomes a serious monetary unit again it will have to appreciate to at least 10,000. I don't think this will happen any time soon. But it's smart to own some physical gold and buy more as savings with a long term hold of 10-20 years in mind using a form of dollar-cost averaging. The same with junk silver coins, but much more modestly because of their comparative bulk. This way one wants the price to come down so one's dollar will buy more.

The various forms of inflation manifestation are very complicated. For instance, equity and commodity prices are frequently made at the margins depending on speculative push in turn depending on the availability of one's paper assets which might depend on the status of the current US Fed QE program, now due to expire in three months--will there be another? Ultimately, though, all those new dollars made necessary by one trillion dollar deficits will wash across American shores and prices will explode and one will love one's gold like a shipwreck victim loves his lifeboat.

The role of technology in reducing prices is irrelevant in terms of actual inflation. It does help mask what is really going on under the surface. Those prices in a non-inflationary environment would have simply come down even more. Inflation does not increase per capita wealth, increased human productivity does and the key to that is technological progress. We do not have 10 million ladies manning switchboards nor 200 million Americans living on farms nor 330 million engaging in hunting and gathering.

--Brant

Edited March 20, 2011 by Brant Gaede