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.