Sure would. Even in Pakistan, India, Vietnam, Egypt, or etc. where USD goes a long way, a meal is usually at least $1–$3 (and I'd expect someone to eat a meal at least every couple days).
Timing v. trends:
- big game studios are already reviled as lazy, bloated
- nimble indies are hitting a lot of records
- gen. AI coming for many studio roles
- employees have lower friction to be entrepreneurial
It’s like if home cooking and self checkout were going really strong and then the restaurants workers picked that time to riot for higher wages
If things are really on the downtrend for the business while the industry is in various uptrends (in reality, GTA V is doing as great as ever and the anticipation around the GTA VI release dominates the industry) it still makes sense to push for quality working conditions for however long it makes sense for the business to be hiring people the same as it does when the business is doing well.
Pay related items also seem to be a small portion of what's being pushed for change.
It's kinda hilarious that on an article about said "dickovers", the page has one of these consuming 80% of the screen real estate: https://files.catbox.moe/ztjg15.png
This same point was also made clumsily in the OP; I’m very unconvinced.
The obvious question marks in that theory:
Lots of human labor happens in nondemocratic polities; slave-owning/repressive societies create lots of labor.
Democracy historically doesn’t advance in lockstep with labor; it’s arisen with many contingencies. The model (English Parliament) seems founded on concerns with right of some wealthy barons v. Kings.
Traditional common sense alternative is that military victory goes to people with largest army, so voting saves time. That’s been debatably less relevant with deadlier weapons, so democracy could be cooked.
It is not society that wants you to give up privacy, it is a few rech giants, and all the small wannabes, that want you to. And they are basically able to, since those tech giants control all online aspects of modern society.
Society so could step in via elected governments and stop this behaviour through laws. Not that I am holding my breath on this.
When are you going to understand that many people go into government to get power over others, not out of generosity? I don't mean civil servants (although some of them do chase power at the upper levels) but politicians, many of whom are as psychopathic as any corporate raider.
Nobody ever accused me of liking politians. The alternative to the various forms of democracy so is oligarchies, totalotarian rwgimes and even more rampant, exploitative capitalism than we see now. I know what I prefer.
This approach never worked well for me. Food and travel is so forgettable; it perishes much faster than nice clothes or shiny toys.
It also seems like people chase the dragon; keep going to restaurants and resorts. If experiences are so unforgettable, why would you repeat them each year?
And for most people it (for the outside) looks fraught with stupid dysfunction; the White Lotus kinds of things where everyone is just struggling to make it worth what they believe it is, and strain their relationships and lives in the process.
A resort is a vacation, travel is giong on a safari in African, trekking around the Khailash in Tibet, do a road trip through Uruguay. A resort doesn't give you experiences worth remembering, truely travelling and getting to know new cultures and regions does.
Depends. There is nothing intrinsically valuable in memories about sweating on an uncomfortable trip in Uruguay or a memory of being authentically harassed on the streets of Mumbai. (These are examples from my authentic trips). These fade away as everything else.
Simple resort stay in Greece with my SO is embedded in my memory forever.
I guess maybe the people trashing on resorts just had a better upbringing than me. Lazing next to the gently lapping ocean in a salt water pool and chatting with my wife while my small children splash around happily in the 82°F weather while it was snowing at our home was so great we decided to stay an extra day. It’s certainly like no experience I’m accustomed to. If it gets boring we’ll do something else.
> There is a “mindfulness” angle. Instead of taking it always for granted, pay attention and make time enjoy your stuff.
Being satisfied with what you have is what “poor” people (people who can’t have everything) do in order to be happy. What’s the benefit of being rich then?
Owning better material items is only meant to facilitate freedom. I'm not a collector and never will be, even if I inherit two billion bucks tomorrow.
Examples:
- I'll get an expensive bike so me and my wife can go on an impulsive picnic in the outskirts of the city.
- I'll get an extra house in rural France so we're free to go there if we need the scenery for a few weeks (but will otherwise allow a local family to take care of it).
- I'll just invent stuff in my shed -- or compose the programs I always wanted to write on my computers -- if I'm never worried about money in the future.
---
Rich people getting bored and even unhappy is just lack of imagination, intellectual and physical laziness.
Being rich and unhappy is entirely on them. It can be much better in every way but they're too busy complaining about non-issues to see it.
It is on them, but they are legion. That matters, because they influence the direction of our society on many levels. It’s not inaccurate to say American culture is a product of a rich and unhappy worldview.
You need to define American culture, which is no trivial thing. It's like saying "European culture"- just vague generalizations that fit whatever lazy stereotype you prefer
You took the question out of the context. Parent expressed that rich people would be happier by enjoying their wealth and changing and controlling what they want and how they enjoy it. That's the same thing 'poor' people can do - be happy by controlling their urges. For all your examples, as a poor guy:
- I can control to enjoy a scenery or a picnic from local park or nearby forest and
- I can control of being worried about the money and doing exactly what I feel like doing (considering it makes me trully happy)
As a rich guy:
- I'd not be sure why I should pedal and sit on a muddy grass instead of renting Hummer and going to some fine dining restaurant
- I'd not be sure should I be wasting my time having all this money when I could be treating myself with X and Y
Once again, what's the benefit if I need to take a mental and physical effort in order to be happy? Your last two paragraphs are the exact thing I am talking about, and can be applied to non-rich people as well.
I am not sure we disagree on anything, more like we look at it from different angles.
(There's a social and financial line below which you can't enjoy anything btw, and I don't wish even my worst enemies experiencing that -- because I did go through it).
RE: your expressed preferences: of course, they are your prerogatives. I'd go sit on a muddy grass every now and then, and travel with taxi to a fancy restaurant other times. One does not exclude the other.
> Once again, what's the benefit if I need to take a mental and physical effort in order to be happy?
You don't. It's quite the opposite: you drop the idea of status or belonging to special club or whatever, and you feel truly free. You don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's how I would be if I make it to the other side.
You could probably argue it's still effort as we have to learn to let go of certain toxic ego traits but that would be arguing semantics IMO. To me, letting go of stuff that's dragging you down is freedom even if you have to work for it a bit.
>Being satisfied with what you have is what “poor” people (people who can’t have everything) do in order to be happy. What’s the benefit of being rich then?
It's the ability to do what you want with your time, and to (increasingly with more wealth) say fuck you to people who try to force you into this or that.
It's also the increased ability to change things (for you, others, your city, or even your whole country) towards what you want to happen, aka power and influence.
"Being able to buy nice stuff" is the benefit of being rich that poor (or well-offish but still mostly aspiring to greater wealth) people think being rich is about...
This is rich people's take on being rich. It's not about buying expensive stuff - it can be about that for a while when you're newly rich, but it's a novelty that wears off really fast...
More freedom by virtue of having more money? Above a certain level of "enough" money, money becomes less and less important. Or it becomes an obsession, in which case more money takes away freedom. Falling into this trap is tragic if you ask me.
And there will always be sometjing you want but cannot have, regardless how much money have. E.g. art, the Mona Lisa will never be up for sale. Or some other unique piece of art. Accepting that fact makes you a happier person, or at least doesn't hurt.
“Being satisfied…” is what you do to not go bananas—-to consume for the sake of consuming in a society structured around consumption for the sake of society…
- Consuming is usually bad for the environment, even if you're rich. Being satisfied conserves resources.
- The work you devote to something gives it its value. I appreciate good food, good art, good engineering and good woodworking because I have repeatedly attempted them. If you just buy stuff without consideration, you rob yourself of a finer experience.
The point of being rich is to have all the good stuff.
To get there, it helps if you're not too easily satisfied.
Alas, many rich people go overboard on not being satisfied. When they get all the good stuff, the have forgotten how to enjoy it.
But if you're smart about it you can make sure you enjoy stuff, and also get more stuff.
You are allowed to (gasp) enjoy your previous victories, without getting complacent. You can be happy about your yacht and also work hard to get a jet.
Unless, you know, you can't. But that's just a (common) mindset problem and I don't think you're doomed to fall in that trap.
I bet this "rich but unhappy" trope is appealing as a cope for the less fortunate. Thus it gets overplayed as a trope and people wrongly think it's universal truth rather than a cliché.
