Fundamentals of Slacker Theory

[RubySlippers]

I've been working on this idea for some time on what exactly is Slacker Theory both economic and social. I've narrowed this into four focus points from my research and thoughts on this as a practitioner of the Slacker lifestyle.

Most People Insist on Working to Hard
Seriously any Slacker in history relied on the fact the vast majority of people work hard this could be slaves in Ancient times doing the work to free their masters and mistresses to do more important things, a laborer class that just wants to make money based on a work ethic and society expectations or a society that made allowances for Slackers (hippies and beatniks come to mind). The workers and go getters though pay taxes and are the backbone that supports Slackers who live off them one way or another I prefer getting tips for my Busking work and don't currently tap government benefits ,well, much. I exploit all the health care options I have many charity care and the free clinic while I support expanding Medicaid under the ACA the holy grail of Slacker health care options health coverage based only on income not trying to find a job or other silliness.

Modern Society is Good
This is important to modern society has safety nets and laws that help the poor. You get really sick in the US go to the ER. Your in some EU countries you get a neat safety net one can play. Modern families usually won't toss a child to the street and if they are disabled or has other issues its even better. And if someone is really in need most normal people will help the saps that work so hard. Of course Slackers do work in most cases enough to meet our low needs and wants, hopefully doing something we like doing just tend to be as few hours as possible for the best money ideally. But some don't and some work more doing things they like.

Its Not Illegal to Not Work or Not Work to Hard
This is the best part its not illegal to not work or work very modestly and apply for government benefits if needed, in fact Slackers find many other things more enjoyable than work. I am a gamer, I love reading books mostly non-fiction, I love watching movies and yes lounging around doing nothing or spending time with friends. And every hour I work more than I have to takes away from these more enjoyable recreational activities. When I was told to by a Social Worker to apply for jobs I did and set asked wages at $20 an hour what I felt was fair for mind-numbing stupid work full-time and the Social Worker class said to put down what was fair for the amount per hour. My High School shoved me a program when I was not properly motivated and planning for my future so had to go through his garbage when she found out she was angry but I wouldn't flip burgers having people order me around for less than $20 an hour. I went into Busking after High School finding I can make lots of money with modest hours at least enough for my needs and wants such as they are.

The Future will Take Care of Itself
Why worry about tomorrow? I pay my taxes for Social Security and Medicare but why save to much money and buy lots of things one hurricane in Florida you can lose all the stuff and money one has is better spent for fun now. And as an atheist (no afterlife to scare me) if things get bad one can always commit suicide I already decided if I get really sick to take that option doing so when one is "tired of life" is just as sensible. But as long as life is enjoyable and I don't have to work much then its fine by me to keep living. Other Slackers may have some savings or have some other things going on.

To end I will quote a line from the movies SLACKERS:  My life may be crap (its not as I see it just the quote from a character) but I didn't work hard to get here.

Hate or love us Slackers have been around for thousands of years in one form or another, and this are my basic ideas on Slackers.

[Blythe]

And as an atheist (no afterlife to scare me) if things get bad one can always commit suicide I already decided if I get really sick to take that option doing so when one is "tired of life" is just as sensible.

I'm only commenting because of the above quote. To essentially advocate suicide if things "get bad" is irresponsible. This is my opinion on it, not a statement of fact, but in my opinion, it's surprisingly unethical. This statement appears to be using atheism to justify suicide, and as an atheist myself, I find it pretty objectionable. If I'm wrong in interpreting what you've written, please correct me. But as it stands, the above quote looks...pretty bad.

[Valthazar]

I'm only commenting because of the above quote. To essentially advocate suicide if things "get bad" is irresponsible. This is my opinion on it, not a statement of fact, but in my opinion, it's surprisingly unethical. This statement appears to be using atheism to justify suicide, and as an atheist myself, I find it pretty objectionable. If I'm wrong in interpreting what you've written, please correct me. But as it stands, the above quote looks...pretty bad.

I think she's referring to being gravely sick, and having a poor quality of life.  Many religious individuals are opposed to euthanasia, so if I understood her correctly, she views that as an option as an atheist for her quality of life.

[Blythe]

Then why not just say euthanasia? It would have been much clearer, and I would have understood it much better.

EDIT: That, and she said, "One can always," not "I" initially, which is what throws me off.

EDIT 2: On second thought, I'll drop the subject. The wording in the quote still isn't particularly good, though. It's vague and unclear.

[Driskoll]

It's one thing to believe that you don't want to work regularly and are alright with having odd jobs here and there to support yourself when need be. It's quite another to refer to people who work hard as "saps". You also seem to enjoy the idea that others are forced to support you, though perhaps I'm reading that wrong.

Did you ever consider that this attitude might affect others who don't choose the Slacker lifestyle as you call it? That other people who are forced to take public assistance to survive are unfairly criticized as a result of Slackers ridiculing the work force?

[MHaji]

Of course, it could be that this was written under the shield of irony, making it impossible to counter in any decisive way, as the act of replying earnestly to something written flippantly loses that particular social game.

I don't deny that some people glorify work for the sake of work, equate money with virtue, and treat the economy as an omniscient free market god that rewards the good and punishes the lazy. That is stupid. But a person should also contribute more to the world than the sum of their waste.

[Shjade]

But a person should also contribute more to the world than the sum of their waste.

Why?

Seriously, slacker whatever aside, why am I obligated to contribute anything to the world? Is the world going to care if I do or don't? I doubt it.

[Moraline]

Why?

Seriously, slacker whatever aside, why am I obligated to contribute anything to the world? Is the world going to care if I do or don't? I doubt it.

I think another argument here might be, "Why does one have to work in order to contribute to the world?" I think a person can contribute to the world by simply being polite, kind, and courtesy. There is no need for a material contribution.

Disclaimer: I am neither supporting nor condemning the slacker concept.

[Driskoll]

Of course, it could be that this was written under the shield of irony, making it impossible to counter in any decisive way, as the act of replying earnestly to something written flippantly loses that particular social game.

I considered that, but I'd like to giver her the benefit of the doubt first. She did take the time to write out her views after all, and I'm interested in discussing them. If or when I feel like there's sufficient cause to believe that this is nothing more than an attempt to aggravate people, I'll leave.

Why?

Seriously, slacker whatever aside, why am I obligated to contribute anything to the world? Is the world going to care if I do or don't? I doubt it.

I don't think everyone across the board should feel obligated, but those of us who can help should.

I think I'm in a position where I can help others in some small ways, and I personally feel some obligation to do so. I consider that a contribution. It doesn't matter if anyone else cares whether I do it or not, since trying to please everyone is an impossible task anyway (trust me, I've tried).

Do my contributions make up for what I waste? I don't know really, but it's a step in the right direction for me at least.

Edit for grammar.   

[Beguile's Mistress]

When a person chooses to be a non-productive and non-contributing entity that sucks up the resources others need for survival they are a parasite.  That is my idea of what a slacker is.  They take without giving; use without replacing; destroy without creating; and, sow the seeds of laziness and reap the fruits of despair that poison the soil of humanity and leave it barren.

[Blythe]

Seriously any Slacker in history relied on the fact the vast majority of people work hard this could be slaves in Ancient times doing the work to free their masters and mistresses to do more important things, a laborer class that just wants to make money based on a work ethic and society expectations or a society that made allowances for Slackers (hippies and beatniks come to mind). The workers and go getters though pay taxes and are the backbone that supports Slackers who live off them one way or another I prefer getting tips for my Busking work and don't currently tap government benefits ,well, much. I exploit all the health care options I have many charity care and the free clinic while I support expanding Medicaid under the ACA the holy grail of Slacker health care options health coverage based only on income not trying to find a job or other silliness.

It's not about expectations of society. It's about being self-sufficient and independent. People who are capable of working and choose to take advantage of resources meant for the genuinely poor or needy are taking an unethical advantage of the system meant for people who need it; it's not for those who don't wish to work. It's "slackers" who give people who actually need assistance and welfare a bad name.

[Kythia]

Confused. According to your post you pay taxes and earn enough to meet your needs. What precisely differentiates you from "saps" who do exactly the same - beyond their lack of need to make posts about it of course.

[Inkidu]

Marx said that the only thing that matters, truly matters is one's labor. It is the effort that people put into their endeavors that gives them real value. Not stocks, not gold or money.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a praise or a condemnation of "Slacker Theory". :\

[Valthazar]

I think another argument here might be, "Why does one have to work in order to contribute to the world?" I think a person can contribute to the world by simply being polite, kind, and courtesy. There is no need for a material contribution.

Disclaimer: I am neither supporting nor condemning the slacker concept.

I agree with you on the principle that one can contribute to the world by simply being polite, kind and courteous.  As a result of contributing to the world in that sense, they will also receive the respect of others - and be treated politely, kindly, and courteously.

However, if they don't even have a desire or motivation to contribute materially, what is the rationale for them receiving any sort of material/monetary aide?

[RubySlippers]

I pay taxes but tie my income to my needs and wants which are low. Right now since I must qualify for a Federal Exchange in the ACA I "declared an income" and paid taxes on 2% over the Federal Poverty line last year and claiming that this year with a tweak. My actual income was lower but with no Medicaid expansion likely in Florida it was my best option. I also needed to get the best subsidies for this so aimed to get as close to the poverty line as I could. So am exploiting the law but since I am paying more than I should in taxes and my income is all cash tied to my vocations expected income and all the IRS likely won't bother me. But I choose to work around 40 hours a month and am taking June and July off since I can except for working July 4th. I aim for $800 a month income working ten months but the holiday season and special event days boost this. I suppose I could be a FREETER a more working side group of Slackers.

But the goal is to work as little as possible and use society to support weak points and get added benefits.

But for my critics ALL of you are on welfare. Do you drive on a highway your on welfare your paltry gas taxes does not pay for the costs of roads. Do you go to the library that is a government handout you could buy books and movies. Did you attend public schools another government benefit and handout. Were you hit by a tornado and the government came in to help again welfare. What you call a government beneficial program can be seen as a handout and welfare from my perspective since its your benefit its okay but a Slacker benefits its a bad program I say its a community benefit. I decide to just access it and private charity when needed in areas you do not and at some point could be more. It just depends on ones perspective.

[Valthazar]

While I can't say that I support your reasoning, I don't see any legal fault in your reasoning at all, because you are simply being savvy and street-smart with the way the system is set-up.  We wouldn't criticize an individual for arranging his/her retirement portfolio in such a way so as to minimize losses in taxes - the same way we wouldn't fault a business for making decisions to minimize their tax rate.

Whether or not it is 'moral' in the broad-sense of the term is in the eye of the beholder.  But ultimately it is only your own perspective on it that matters.  This is one of the reasons I feel that an expansion of government aide sets a dangerous path for individuals to abuse the system, with no real legal avenue for prevention.  It is entirely based on the moral values of the individual which varies considerably from one person to the next.

[Kythia]

Everyone ties their income to their wants. There's nothing special about that. Everyone makes sure they pay as little taxes as possible for as much benefit. Nothing special. The only thing you're doing different is writing long self congratulatory posts about your life.

I'm out.  This conversation bores me.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I am not really understanding how this comes into play as a slacker.  To live within your means is simply common sense.  This amount of money is the amount you are able/willing to make and this amount of money serves as your lifestyle.  Living beyond that lifestyle is foolish.  Essentially you are ridiculing people for having greater aspirations and goals than yourself.  So I am not quiet understanding how this is a trieste on slackers.  As for critics, might I also remind you that your original post was quiet critical of those that did work.  Also my small bit of tax money serves to pay for highways, libraries, public education, etc.  While my "paltry" payment does not purchase the entirety, my taxes do contribute to the whole.

[Inkidu]

I am not really understanding how this comes into play as a slacker.  To live within your means is simply common sense.  This amount of money is the amount you are able/willing to make and this amount of money serves as your lifestyle.  Living beyond that lifestyle is foolish.  Essentially you are ridiculing people for having greater aspirations and goals than yourself.  So I am not quiet understanding how this is a trieste on slackers.  As for critics, might I also remind you that your original post was quiet critical of those that did work.  Also my small bit of tax money serves to pay for highways, libraries, public education, etc.  While my "paltry" payment does not purchase the entirety, my taxes do contribute to the whole.

Anyone else suddenly think of Catcher in the Rye?

[Retribution]

I almost did not comment on this thread and this will be my only response. At first I thought it was satire, but now I am not so sure. Anyway, I actually personally know three people who live this sort of life style. One who is supposedly mentally handicapped was smart enough to start living with a woman who had kids to get more public aid. As others have pointed out living off welfare is a pretty low standard of living. But if one does not have much ambition it can be done. Also from what I have seen first hand it is not too great for the kids of such situations because they grow up to emulate the same life style many times.

This is why I also loath the welfare state and often get called hard hearted. I have no real issue with people getting help when they need it to get back on their feet. Heck, I recall my family being on food stamps during such a situation when I was a kid. It was not a life style though and I for one as a child wanted to better myself it was the way I was raised. And this is where I sound really hard hearted, if one chooses not to do a thing productive then well I do not think they should get one red cent that the rest of us produce. Yes, I drive on the highway and use other government resources but at least I do something to repay society for that besides taking up space.

I'm out.

[Inkidu]

I think the whole welfare thing is needlessly bureaucratic. It was funny, back in the late sixties early seventies thereabouts, one man, and his name escapes me stood up, and he ran the numbers. He said if we took all the money we were giving to welfare, section 8, social security, what have you, and just cut everyone in the nation a check every tax-paying citizen in the country would get something in the ballpark of sixteen hundred dollars a month and that was fifty years ago roughly.

I could use sixteen hundred dollars a month right now. :\
His reasoning was that people deserved a certain amount of money a year for the sake of basic human decency.

He was shut down by both democrats and republicans. :(

[Valthazar]

I think the whole welfare thing is needlessly bureaucratic. It was funny, back in the late sixties early seventies thereabouts, one man, and his name escapes me stood up, and he ran the numbers. He said if we took all the money we were giving to welfare, section 8, social security, what have you, and just cut everyone in the nation a check every tax-paying citizen in the country would get something in the ballpark of sixteen hundred dollars a month and that was fifty years ago roughly.

I could use sixteen hundred dollars a month right now. :\
His reasoning was that people deserved a certain amount of money a year for the sake of basic human decency.

He was shut down by both democrats and republicans. :(

I have read about this as well.  At the same time, there are periods of time when individuals really do need help.  One school of thought advocates a lower tax rate on all Americans, and providing any and all government aide as an extremely low interest loan.  Big banks on wall street are lucky to get government aide at a miniscule 0.75% interest, so why shouldn't the average American?   Compare this to the current loans that average Americans can get, like student loans, which are currently 3.4% interest and soon to double to 6.8%.   This kind of system may provide help to people who genuinely need it (and allow income-based repayment later on) while also deterring abuse  of the system.

[Inkidu]

I have read about this as well.  At the same time, there are periods of time when individuals really do need help.  One school of thought advocates a lower tax rate on all Americans, and providing any and all government aide as an extremely low interest loan.  Big banks on wall street are lucky to get government aide at a miniscule 0.75% interest, so why shouldn't the average American?   Compare this to the current loans that average Americans can get, like student loans, which are currently 3.4% interest and soon to double to 6.8%.   This kind of system may provide help to people who genuinely need it (and allow income-based repayment later on) while also deterring abuse  of the system.

I agree, but sometimes it just feels like they're adding layer upon layer in a stop-gap when they need to strip it all away and address the key issues. I hate my bipartisan some days. -__-

[Moraline]

A thought popped into my head...

Are you still a slacker if you're financially secure enough that you don't need to work? Someone in that position doesn't take anything from social programs but they'd still pay taxes etc... However, they don't necessarily actively contribute any sort of product/good/service for society to consume.

[Blythe]

A thought popped into my head...

Are you still a slacker if you're financially secure enough that you don't need to work? Someone in that position doesn't take anything from social programs but they'd still pay taxes etc... However, they don't necessarily actively contribute any sort of product/good/service for society to consume.

I wouldn't necessarily say so. I'd just say that person is exactly how you described, "financially secure." It's not that someone like that is avoiding work or doesn't necessarily want to work--they simply do not need to do it, and that's different.

[RubySlippers]

A slacker is a person who habitually avoids work or lacks work ethic. (Wikipedia)

So one may not work at all having an aversion to it OR lacks a work ethic this for me could go against the norms of society.

The society norms clearly are opposed to say working as little as you can and turning in part or to a greater degree on support from others.

As for rich Slackers how about Paris Hilton?

[Valthazar]

Think about all the jobs created, revenue, and publicity Paris Hilton brings in though - whether it is her movies, TV shows, music, etc.  A lot of these celebrities with a seemingly poor work ethic might be contributing to society in other ways.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

By your definition though Paris Hilton is not a slacker.  She does work, quite a bit actually, with her publicity stunts, activism, multitude of companies (clothing lines, perfumes, beauty products), her reality shows, etc. etc.  She obviously doesn't need the money since her fortune can keep her well within her lifestyle.  Yet she works to go beyond her lifestyle, thus is hardly a slacker by your definition.

[Lilias]

'Slacker theory'? Ha. Paul Lafargue was saying the same things nearly 200 years ago, with much greater skill.

Le droit à la paresse
The Right to Be Lazy (if you can't manage the original)

What became of him is also history.

[Love And Submission]

a user on reddit  gave the best defense of the welfare state I've ever seen.

Welfare has, historically, been a way to address an unfortunate but sobering problem: to put it bluntly, humans are their own worst pest species. At any moment in history you have a number of factors that lead to an unproductive class, even if membership in that class is temporary for most. War, disease, famine, recession, and technological redundancy are the biggest.
Humanity has tried many approaches to solving this problem, but they are all hamstrung by one inviolate restriction: we can't dispose of surplus human beings by killing them.

So if you can't kill-off the surplus, what do you do with them? You could train them to be productive with new technology ($$$), feed and house them ($$$), or let them fend for themselves and repair the damage and crime they cause ($$$).
In extreme situations where the unproductive class has been trapped in their situation for a long time, perhaps indefinitely, you tend to get revolutions and your $180,001/year productive earner has to decide which is better: a) being chased through the halls of his mansion by a mob who intend to redistribute his wealth five-fingers worth at a time, or b) paying taxes into some kind of welfare system.

Wealth redistribution is an unavoidable consequence of the human pattern of civilization: new technology leads to food surpluses which lead to population growth which leads to newer technology which leads to temporary mass redundancy. When someone realized that shining light on selenium generates an electric current, thousands of piano players lost their jobs. They used to provide the accompaniment to silent movies in the cinema, but now the soundtrack could be embedded in the film itself.

What do you do with a couple thousand unemployed piano players? Some of them got jobs elsewhere, some of them went back to school to learn a new trade, some of them moved back in with their parents.

A couple thousand is nothing, but let's say you have a couple million who have been thrust into the unproductive class over a decade or two by hundreds or thousands of individually small technological and economical changes. Half your steel mills shut down, then half your coal mines, then factories move overseas for cheaper labor, then people stop buying newspapers, land-line phones, and cigarettes.

The good news is that humans can learn how to do another job, and there usually is another job. The bad news is that it takes a long time, and not everybody is capable of learning the particular skills that are in demand. Some people will never wrap their heads around computers, or networking, or biotech, or web design. And we only need so many fry cooks.

Remember the saying "if you owe $1000 and can't pay, you have a problem; if you owe $1,000,000 and can't pay, the bank has a problem." It's like that with welfare: if you're out of a job, you have a problem. If a million people are out of a job, the government--and by extension, society--has a problem.

[Randall Flagg]

How about a compromise. Find out what you actually love to do and then find a way to get paid to do it.

Who was it that said, "Do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life?"  (or something to that effect)...


Anyway, that aside... I think this mentality brings negativity into the world. It's a mindset that is selfish and greedy... Yeah, from my perspective it's greedy to be lazy and live off of others when you have the intellect or physical means to do otherwise - regardless of how little you "want".

I did it for a bit. It's akin to finding loopholes in the system and is only a stone's throw from a criminal mindset. No, you aren't breaking any rules, but isn't it the same way a common thief or drug dealer might think? I don't want to go out and earn a living, so I'm going to find a way to get what I want without working for it.

At the end of the day, you've got to live with yourself and your actions. Personally, I feel really good when I do good work. It makes me feel good to know that I have earned everything that I've got. It makes me feel good to know that I can help out someone else that might need it too. This is something I could not do when I was living a life at the poverty level.

[RubySlippers]

I work, many Slackers work its just something we hate doing so do it for the best bang for the buck we can. Being a fair Busker, disabled and able to use that for "pity tipping" boost I can make on the best schedule $15 to $30 an hour (sometimes more) so if I need to make this amount of money I work to make that amount and no more. If I need $800 a month and I do well I could work 8 hours a week one day at the Flea Market for example each week. Why work more? That doesn't include taking a couple weeks off just because I feel like it. All that stress from working so hard and all. I usually have to work somewhat more but some months are just awesome like December.

My declared income to the IRS is higher and I paid more out to qualify for the state Federal Exchange under the ACA until the expand Medicaid its what I have to do. In fact if I got Medicaid I would work less since my health care costs I do pay would go away. I need to make $5000 to $6000 a year to live without health care covered that is free clinic fees, some drugs and dental care now and then. But for now I need to work more. Some drug company programs help me out a lot.

I'm disabled my parents let me live at home free and clear they won't toss me out of my earnings I give them something each week they said "whatever I can spare" so toss them something. And I go out everyday and do things I like that are cheap so they have no clue how little I actually work.

[Randall Flagg]

Uhm. Ok?

There is a difference between being a "slacker", as one who chooses to be lazy and someone who is literally unable to work.

Don't mix up the topics here. I didn't ask if you were disabled and that wasn't the topic you started off talking about.

I happen to believe that in this day and age, we should be re-evaluating what is considered to be "disabled". There are lots of things that people can do today that they couldn't have done 100 years ago with the same affliction(s). Hell, I'd even go so far as to say 20 years ago.

Here's a lesson I learned a few years back: The world doesn't owe me a damn thing.

I think you are asking the wrong question. You shouldn't be saying, "Why should I work?" you should be asking "Why shouldn't I go to work?" From the way you've put things thus far, you are making the choice to not earn more money because of whatever benefits you think you glean from not earning more. But really, your parents are shouldering the burden of providing for someone that should, by all rights, be providing for themselves. Your parents sound like they have huge hearts. Do your parents subscribe to the slacker mentality of only earning enough to get by?

[Inkidu]

As someone who could easily ask for disable benefits, but refuses because I've never wanted to as for them in my damned life I'm now thoroughly and completely disappointed.

Out.

[Slywyn]

This is just kinda reading to me like "Hear me brag about getting the most out of other people's money with as little effort put in on my part as possible" which just translates to "I'm lazy and take advantage of the system and like to brag about it" to me.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'd looking at like this.. a LOT of Gen Xers.. 30somethings to 40 something.. are looking at NEVER getting the retirement options their parents had. They are the first generation in a long while that DIDN'T come off better than their parents. If you saw that.. would you buy into the 'work hard for 30 to 40 years and retire in your golden years' when most folks in the system isn't getting that anymore. And you see the very very rich and influencial getting more and more while it seems that others are getting less and less.

As one self-proclaimed slacker I know said, 'Gordon Gecko stole my parents retirement, why should I do the same game when the corporate types are breakign the system they are promoting?' Working for what makes life enjoyable seems more appealing to some than working for what seems more and more unattainable.

[Randall Flagg]

I'd looking at like this.. a LOT of Gen Xers.. 30somethings to 40 something.. are looking at NEVER getting the retirement options their parents had. They are the first generation in a long while that DIDN'T come off better than their parents. If you saw that.. would you buy into the 'work hard for 30 to 40 years and retire in your golden years' when most folks in the system isn't getting that anymore. And you see the very very rich and influencial getting more and more while it seems that others are getting less and less.

As one self-proclaimed slacker I know said, 'Gordon Gecko stole my parents retirement, why should I do the same game when the corporate types are breakign the system they are promoting?' Working for what makes life enjoyable seems more appealing to some than working for what seems more and more unattainable.

We choose how we look at things. More importantly, we choose how we react to things.

Yeah, I think it's shitty that we can't rely on the government for things. We should be able to. But we can't.

So what's the lesson to be learned?
Don't work hard because you can't rely on the government to take care of you when you are at retirement age? Let me ask you something, how does that solve the problem exactly? Sounds like a petulant child that wants to stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum. 

Wouldn't a better lesson be: Work hard and manage your money better. At the same time, you've put your finger on a real problem we have here in the states. So let's work (uh oh, scary words when speaking to the slacker-minded!) to fix it. We have a voice. Let's put it to use. Let's pressure our government at the local levels to pressure the government at the mid and upper levels to change things. We have a shitty government because we allow it to be shitty.

But I digress.
I think by having a slacker mentality now, you set yourself up for failure not only right now but also for the future. It's more important now than ever before to work harder (or smarter)... Nope. I'm wrong in that. What I mean when I say "work harder" is really "earn more" and "be smarter" about the money we do earn.

[Callie Del Noire]

We choose how we look at things. More importantly, we choose how we react to things.

Yeah, I think it's shitty that we can't rely on the government for things. We should be able to. But we can't.

So what's the lesson to be learned?
Don't work hard because you can't rely on the government to take care of you when you are at retirement age? Let me ask you something, how does that solve the problem exactly? Sounds like a petulant child that wants to stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum. 

Wouldn't a better lesson be: Work hard and manage your money better. At the same time, you've put your finger on a real problem we have here in the states. So let's work (uh oh, scary words when speaking to the slacker-minded!) to fix it. We have a voice. Let's put it to use. Let's pressure our government at the local levels to pressure the government at the mid and upper levels to change things. We have a shitty government because we allow it to be shitty.

But I digress.
I think by having a slacker mentality now, you set yourself up for failure not only right now but also for the future. It's more important now than ever before to work harder (or smarter)... Nope. I'm wrong in that. What I mean when I say "work harder" is really "earn more" and "be smarter" about the money we do earn.

Didn't say I AGREED with it. But look at it from someone who knows.. say ME. I did the hard work. 10 years of menial jobs, 15 years service in the Navy before I was medically released. What did I get out of it. Disaiblity from the Navy.. craptasitc 1500 a month. GI Bill and 5,000 bucks in the savings program. (I LOST EVERYTHING.. TEN YEARS of work and savings because a bunch of men on Wall Street bounced a toxic bond issue around for 18 months till they couldn't play musical brokerages. I went from six fives to less than my initial investment). Now? I'm blacklisted by one company and another is playing musical qualifications because I'm OVERQUALIFIED. I have gone from 'No you can't have the job because you don't have an A&P license.' to 'No, you can't have the job because you have don't have a CURRENT Secret clearance.'

What it comes down to is the companies I am applying for WANT someone with my qualifications but in someone with less than 10 years experience. Why? Because that person can't be promoted out of the position in the time I can. I can be a tech, supervisor and with a formal degree (which I'm in the process of getting) a field engineer. (making from the low 80 to 100k range)

Now, when you see folks like me sitting at 40 having to run something like 20 resumes in my field a week to get jobs that are .. less than optimum (I got an offer for a harness building job with Sikorsky, 12.00/hour. 30 to 35/hours a week. In PHILLY. For six months. Or a contractor is 'Middle o' Nowhere' California for a contract that not ONE company in the last six years has kept for more than 18 months (and the new contractors clean house)). On paper.. I'm a success of education, training and experience in my field. Technically I'm unemployable. I'm at that point between worker and management taht seems to never get employed.

So, if you're someone just starting in the 'game' like my niece and nephew.. (who are late teens to early twenties) and you see more and more folks like me who 'did the game and lost' wouldn't you lose faith in the system? (I do NOT talk about my job woes with them.. but damn..they have ears)

Tell me.. by the way Randal, I managed my money with a AUTHORIZED government program that ran through TRUSTED WALLSTREET fund. How was I not responsible? I didn't have access to the funds when I was on deployment and when the bubble burst.. I was wiped out. Tell me with more and more folks like me coming forward.. who 'played the game' why wouldn't some folks want to 'cash out' and 'enjoy the now'.

And yes.. I'm a bit angry. I continue to 'play the game' because I enjoy my work and want to do it again.. but damn.. I can understand why some folks would want to 'opt out'. You seem to think the US method of working is best.. I hate to say it.. my neighbors in Spain worked.. just not as hard or intensely as I did.. and enjoyed a lot more of their life and seemed to be able to do more than my neighbors here.

[Randall Flagg]

We're talking about apples and oranges.

The entire idea of this thread is "slacker mentality".
This, to me, equates to laziness. Laziness equates with loser.


Does shit happen? Yeah, it does. I apologize for making the assumption that you were agreeing with slacker mentality - I don't really feel that I made a mistake though, your post did sound as if you were defending it. I'm also sorry that you are facing hardship. Sounds like you are facing more than your fair share, and that totally sucks.

I never said the United State's way of doing things is the best. In fact, I don't think the United States is the best at anything right now. We used to be a nation that was worthy of our pride. And we simply... aren't.

But again, that's a topic for another thread.

I like to think that everything that I've posted thus far kind of sends the message that we should earn what we have, and we should take pride in all that we do. I don't see any reason to have pride in circumventing "the system" just so you [slackers] can be parasites living off of others.

[Callie Del Noire]

We're talking about apples and oranges.

The entire idea of this thread is "slacker mentality".
This, to me, equates to laziness. Laziness equates with loser.


Does shit happen? Yeah, it does. I apologize for making the assumption that you were agreeing with slacker mentality - I don't really feel that I made a mistake though, your post did sound as if you were defending it. I'm also sorry that you are facing hardship. Sounds like you are facing more than your fair share, and that totally sucks.

I never said the United State's way of doing things is the best. In fact, I don't think the United States is the best at anything right now. We used to be a nation that was worthy of our pride. And we simply... aren't.

But again, that's a topic for another thread.

I like to think that everything that I've posted thus far kind of sends the message that we should earn what we have, and we should take pride in all that we do. I don't see any reason to have pride in circumventing "the system" just so you [slackers] can be parasites living off of others.

Sigh.. sorry.. I just got done with talking to a friend who lost her house and that tends to make me a bit angry with folks who don't understand that this might be a symptom of what we're going through. If you have, like me.. damn.. more than a dozen friends who lost their savings, livelihoods, and homes, and did nothing wrong. Would some folks think that perhaps the 'game' is rigged and decide to opt out?

Slackers are part of that outlook.

What I was trying to say was that. A symptom. Who wouldn't feel a bit disappointed after hearing folks like my friends who lost everything while pundits say that it was because those same folks 'didn't do it right'? I don't claim to know finance.. I was a damn good field tech, a good supervisor and an awesome on site teacher. I didn't play shop politics, I put planes in the air, got the maintenance to flight hours high on the right side of the equation and my sortie completion rates were consistently in the high 90+% (typically in the 98%+ range..which for a forty year old airframe was bloody awesome).

Before the 'turtling' of military forces of the last decade, my age... physical and mental issues, wouldn't have gotten me mustered out and I would have finished my 20 last week. I got DOZENS of fellow swabbies who got booted for things that were clearly a 'cleaning house' measure.  Who  didn't get disability because the VA in their area rated them so low.

Now.. you look on TV and it's strange how the folks who ruined these same people are still working in those high paying jobs, not going to jail, and only getting richer. The game, to the 'slackers', is clearly rigged. You got a lot of folks who are literally despairing of their livelihood and family. (I have my folks finding reasons to call at least once a week and my brothers email/text me more and more often as everyone senses that my options are drying up. Family stubbornness and pride keep me from asking for help.. but they don't quite offer either.)

I can relate to why the folks would want to 'opt out'. I yell a lot of them for saying they 'can't win' and refuse to vote because 'it's all rigged'. If only HALF the folks who didn't vote VOTED.. the entire system could change. The dynamics in so many areas would radically change if the electorate got awake. Sigh.. Sorry.

I do have to say this Randall.. don't assume that everyone is simply opting out. How many times do you have to be told 'No' before you give up? I've on my THIRD year of no jobs in my field. With the sequester it's going to get more. Hell, I'm down to trying out for Best Buy and Books-a-Million to keep my place and bills and meds. (and I have Tricare Prime.. so I'm not in serious trouble).

[Valthazar]

Callie Del Noire, I get what you're saying about how young people today might get discouraged.  Sorry to hear about your situation, and I hope things get better.  I can't say I'm a fan of the slacker mentality, but whether or not we want it to happen, the US is transforming before our eyes, and more and more people will become reliant on these programs (and these are hard-working people who want to be independent).  When people say that we are recovering from this recession, it's just a band-aid.  There's another crash coming in the next decade, which is only going to make things worse.  It's sad how greed and financial exploitation at the very top hurts people just trying to get by.  In my opinion, the solution to this comes from dramatically reducing corruption at the highest levels of government - especially their association with certain private banks (ex. Goldman Sachs).  Just look at how many government staffers  have financial interests with these gigantic wall-street banks.  Eliminating such appointees itself, and truly making government a "regulating" agency as opposed to a side-arm of private banks alone will avoid these financial disasters like in 2008.

If these types of hidden government-bank associations were ended once and for all, we wouldn't have these massive financial crises, and as a result, we all could easily say that slacking isn't a good thing - since the hard-working people would have a reasonable chance of finding jobs.  What's happening now though, is that because a lot of hard-working people are having to rely on these programs, a lot of people are more hesitant to embrace the policies that have traditionally always worked.

[alextaylor]

There's a big flaw in slacker theory: You'll be bored!

I think the biggest problem with 20th century economics is that it views work as punishment. You have to punish people to get them to work and reward their suffering with money.

As stated in the OP, one can make money from busking. That in itself is not slacking off, that is valid work! Someone enjoys the music, someone is willing to pay for it. You don't have to work menial jobs that underpay, look for something you enjoy and are willing to pay to do.

People have to be in flow for most of their lives, going from one challenge to the next. Economics is about finding someone who's willing to pay for you to be in flow. There's a constant demand for writers, musicians, and dreamers. But things like healing people and building bridges is fun too. We were just taught the wrong way, in that we're healing people for money (which is a really poor purpose in life) instead of healing people for good. We're taught that we have to slog through math because it gives us a good job, instead of being taught about math as logic and debate.

[Callie Del Noire]

Bored?

Honestly you can't find more to do? I can get literally HUNDREDS of books free (Project Gutenburg and others), you have massive amounts of entertainment for next to nothing. (With an Xbox and Amazon Prime you can seen HUNDREDS of shows free), and do all sorts of things out and about with little or no cost. A lot of enjoyment can be had by simply going out and walking, seeing all sorts of stuff for little to no cost depending on where you are or finding a hobby you enjoy.

Slacking doesn't have to mean sitting on the couch and doing nothing.

This, of course, doesn't even cover what you can do with your significant other. I know a lot of guys who work 50+ hours because they enjoy the work.. I know even more that do it to make money 'just in case'. My little brother does it because he enjoys it.. but when he's home..he has his wife, his dogs, his daughter (a charming little girl you wouldn't believe). 

Time and enjoyment aren't exclusive to workaholics or slackers. Boredom is an idleness of the mind and the inability to find something to occupy yourself. I know at least two of the 'slackers' I know voluneteer a lot (both in a gaming and actual community service sense)

[Randall Flagg]

The OP was set up in such a way as to try and say that it's ok to "choose" to opt out simply because of an unwillingness to work. The desire to simply live off of others and sponge off of society.

I get where you're coming from de Noire. I do. It sucks. And yeah it is a symptom. And yeah the game is totally rigged.

I wholeheartedly agree. We have to find a way to fix it. To be honest, I'm not completely sure that voting will make a difference - I have my concerns that that system isn't rigged too.

I don't think for a second that stay at home moms and dads are slackers either. Are there moms and dads that are slackers? Yeah.

There are also people in the workplace that are slackers... They sponge off the work of their fellow employees instead of doing their own. I think it's the mentality that I have a problem with. I don't want to work my ass off so that someone who doesn't want to work doesn't have to.

[Moraline]

WARNING! Rambling thoughts ahead...

I wonder if we could aim to redefine "Slacker Theory" to be more in line with what Lilias posted with, "The Right to be Lazy." And add to that a sense of, "not producing or supporting commercial excess." I'm certain we can define slacker by a few different terms then the narrow definitions proposed here and many of them might share equal meaning and weight.

Then it would be more of a theory about:

- Living in the moment,
- Only working when the wage paid is of a high standard,
- and doing the things that are beneficial to our own sense of well being in whatever way we define it on a personal level.
- Maybe enjoying the times between working when needed and not pushing ourselves to work more then needed.

- ...avoiding work for commercial gains, avoiding working for a system that we feel doesn't work for us.

It would become about sticking it to "the man" and living life on our own terms wouldn't it?

This subject also brings to mind, Thoreau's Walden. What do we really need to live? And/or Civil Disobedience to rally against the broken system by being a slacker or refusing to work within the system as it's currently defined. Why work in a broken system? Why contribute to something that doesn't work for the majority of people? I can see why some/many would choose to be a radical slacker - <my own term for how the original poster defines slacker.>

***Note: The following is just for fun and is in no way meant to be a serious definition or to be taken seriously ***

• Radical Slacker <def.> noun

1) A slacker that chooses to use the system to their own benefit and bend/or stretch regulations and laws to allow them to work as little as possible while remaining within the system. Often by using as many support systems as they can.

2) A slacker that chooses to redefine their lives by bucking the system, disobeying what they see as minor laws, and committing acts of civil disobedience in an attempt to live life on their own terms and/or possibly change the way the system works without producing any commercial goods or services.

I don't know, I'm just toying with ideas...



Personally, I fall into the category of not needing to work because I have enough saved and/or invested that I earn enough to live off of. I don't drive fancy sport cars or live in a big luxury house but I got all that I need which is about equal to a 50-100k/year salary (it varies based on investment returns) and I have no debts. I earned a good part of it but part of it was given to me and without the given part I wouldn't be in the position I am now. It's not a lot but it's mine.

I think I could be defined as a type of slacker though. I certainly don't personally produce any goods or services, although my investments in local businesses (mostly) do yield those types of results. I try to invest in community oriented and environmentally or socially conscious types of businesses but I also have some invested in more practical safer return types.

Mostly I live a life of leisure. I wake up when I want, I usually don't follow any sort of rigorous schedule unless I want to - Like making plans to travel etc... I play video games and watch movies a lot. I spend a good 1-2 hours a day at the gym... great deal of time online on the internet etc... Generally not doing anything productive with my time. However, I do find myself very busy and with a full schedule but only of my own choosing and it doesn't consist of any hard work, mental or physical. Unless you count going to the gym and sex as hard work. I don't.

I consider myself a slacker but certainly not on the same terms or methods that the original poster talks of.

I wonder if we have any other self proclaimed slackers that take a different approach?

[Retribution]

I suppose I am an odd duck the trust fund slacker does not bother me. As stated above investments are made and I am sure taxes are paid. Unless you won the lottery the trust fund came from someplace that someone left it to look after you. I got no issue with this *shrugs* maybe a little jealousy but no issue.

Or those down on their luck through government incompetence, corporate greed, what have you. I am all for people like that getting help. Hell, it is looking like I am going to come out alright but is still nip and tuck for me on ever having a retirement. Those higher up the food chain than I have jacked things up in this bankrupt state and after 23 years of service I may be SOL. So yeah help those who are down on their luck, heck I give a bit to charity.

But the openly playing the system as laid out in the first post...makes me scream.

[alextaylor]

Bored?

Honestly you can't find more to do? I can get literally HUNDREDS of books free (Project Gutenburg and others), you have massive amounts of entertainment for next to nothing. (With an Xbox and Amazon Prime you can seen HUNDREDS of shows free), and do all sorts of things out and about with little or no cost. A lot of enjoyment can be had by simply going out and walking, seeing all sorts of stuff for little to no cost depending on where you are or finding a hobby you enjoy.

Slacking doesn't have to mean sitting on the couch and doing nothing.

This, of course, doesn't even cover what you can do with your significant other. I know a lot of guys who work 50+ hours because they enjoy the work.. I know even more that do it to make money 'just in case'. My little brother does it because he enjoys it.. but when he's home..he has his wife, his dogs, his daughter (a charming little girl you wouldn't believe). 

Time and enjoyment aren't exclusive to workaholics or slackers. Boredom is an idleness of the mind and the inability to find something to occupy yourself. I know at least two of the 'slackers' I know voluneteer a lot (both in a gaming and actual community service sense)

Work is as natural as play. One cannot spend their life in play, they'll go into depression at not being able to do anything positive. Volunteering is not slacking. It benefits the world as a whole. If you are reading something, you're improving yourself in one way or another, no different to if you took a degree in literary criticism.

I have a cousin who is a slacker. He failed all his exams, and was 'jobless' for two years. In his boredom, he volunteered as a waiter and as a receptionist - doing a job for free instead of being paid for it! He even did a great job and became a good team leader! But when people pay him to do the same job, he instantly become useless, clingy, and demotivated.

I think most people, with their hobbies, do more 'work' than resellers and middle management do. The ultimate slacker is a middle manager in a large company. She tells people to do things that she won't do herself. She creates problems and then gets credit for solving the problems that she creates. And she even gets highly paid, with substantial benefits for playing corporate politics. Someone who buys things for cheap and resells them at a higher price creates no benefit to society.

The slacker who chooses to not work will be naturally attracted to doing work as long as it's not defined as work. Even in their unemployment, they contribute more to society than a lot of higher paid white-collar workers.

The exception are people who choose to spend all their time on games, Internet forums, and anime, stuck in perpetual addiction. And yet all of those addicts I know of are extremely intelligent and creative, and spend their 'work time' very efficiently. I'm legally unemployed, but I make double my previous salary from freelance work even though I'm working much shorter hours. Such is the knowledge economy.

[Caela]

I work, many Slackers work its just something we hate doing so do it for the best bang for the buck we can. Being a fair Busker, disabled and able to use that for "pity tipping" boost I can make on the best schedule $15 to $30 an hour (sometimes more) so if I need to make this amount of money I work to make that amount and no more. If I need $800 a month and I do well I could work 8 hours a week one day at the Flea Market for example each week. Why work more? That doesn't include taking a couple weeks off just because I feel like it. All that stress from working so hard and all. I usually have to work somewhat more but some months are just awesome like December.

My declared income to the IRS is higher and I paid more out to qualify for the state Federal Exchange under the ACA until the expand Medicaid its what I have to do. In fact if I got Medicaid I would work less since my health care costs I do pay would go away. I need to make $5000 to $6000 a year to live without health care covered that is free clinic fees, some drugs and dental care now and then. But for now I need to work more. Some drug company programs help me out a lot.

I'm disabled my parents let me live at home free and clear they won't toss me out of my earnings I give them something each week they said "whatever I can spare" so toss them something. And I go out everyday and do things I like that are cheap so they have no clue how little I actually work.

This doesn't make you a Slacker...it makes you a parasite leeching of the hard work and kindness of your parents. If you truly make what you claim you do, then (disability or not) you clearly have the ability to support yourself. Your parents should throw you out on your lazy, lying (to them as the bolded section of your quote clearly shows) butt.

[RubySlippers]

That is what a Slacker is at least the less ethical ones, I never said I was overly ethical as one, I use what I have. A large family household rather out of use in the main they just let people stay or go being disabled is a plus the unemployment rate is quite high if you hadn't notice and well I don't want to work more I favor my leisure time. If I could work less I would and if I could not work at all even better.  ;D

But working 32 Hours a month or so is enough, I might toss in some more hours from time to time mostly to take vacation time from my busy schedule.

I don't see the issue some people like working a lot or getting lots of crap and worrying about things and I don't.

[Tairis]

That is what a Slacker is at least the less ethical ones, I never said I was overly ethical as one, I use what I have. A large family household rather out of use in the main they just let people stay or go being disabled is a plus the unemployment rate is quite high if you hadn't notice and well I don't want to work more I favor my leisure time. If I could work less I would and if I could not work at all even better.  ;D

But working 32 Hours a month or so is enough, I might toss in some more hours from time to time mostly to take vacation time from my busy schedule.

I don't see the issue some people like working a lot or getting lots of crap and worrying about things and I don't.

Yea, as was just pointed out above you aren't 'slacking' as a philosophy. That would imply that you were getting by on your own merits and doing the minimum out of personal choice.

You're mooching. Your standard of living only exists due to your parents. The fact that you take pride in it only makes it more disturbing.