I saw someone say recently "hobbies are a luxury" and I tend to agree.

Think back decades ago and you had a single person or a family supported by a single income who could afford the rent or to buy their house and put their kids through college.

By the late 1970s and 1980s the balance had shifted to where more households than not had both parents working.

Then people started having multiple jobs. This was in part because employers didn't want to employ people full-time as they'd have to offer benefits, most notably health insurance.

And the last 10+ years has taken this further where we now have "side gigs" or "side hustles" or people who are desperate to be "influencers" or "Youtubers" or whatever. Any hobby you have needs to be monetized to get by. You have to sell something, even if it's advice on how to do the thing.

That's what's meant by "hobbies are a luxury". It means you're earning enough not to need to monetize some portion of your life. And the number of people who can do that is continually decreasing.

The problem is capitalism. If you have a hobby, the capital owners haven't loaded you with enough debt (student, medical, housing). You're too independent. You may do unacceptable things like demand raises and better working conditions or, worse yet, withhold your labor. You're spending at least some of your time not creating value for some capital owner to exploit.

Every aspect of our lives is getting financialized so somebody else can get wealthier. Every second of your time and thing you do needs to be monetized and exploited.

Gambling isn't a net negative for society. It's just a negative. There are no positive aspects to it. Gambling addicts are incredibly likely to commit suicide. It's incredibly destructive.

▲

WalterBright 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> The problem is capitalism

Capitalist countries build walls to keep people out.

Socialist countries build walls to keep people in.

▲

michaelchisari an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is a trite response that doesn't engage with what was originally stated.

The double edged brilliance/danger of capitalism is that it constantly opens up and moves into new markets. This is good, it means once the market determines a need, capital investment can accelerate production of the good that meets that need.

But the flip side is it is coming for everything. Everything will be marketized and monetized and accelerated and made efficient. And there are genuine problems with that.

Regulation has been the historical response, but we've seen concentrated wealth chip away at regulations for decades or even rip them apart overnight.

This is a contradiction that needs to be resolved. One can be pro-capitalism or anti-capitalism and come to the same conclusion.

	▲	WalterBright 8 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> we've seen concentrated wealth chip away at regulations for decades or even rip them apart overnight. There are more and more regulations every day. Oil refineries are being abandoned in California due to regulations so heavy there's no way for them to operate anymore. A friend of mine pulled his business out of California due to stifling regulations. > Everything will be marketized and monetized and accelerated and made efficient. I give my unwanted items to the thrift store rather than the landfill. Others sell it on eBay. This is monetizing/making things more efficient. And it's good.
	▲	hunterpayne 4 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The problem isn't capitalism. That's just poor thinking from someone who has spent too much time thinking about political ideology. The problem is how we finance campaigns combined with gerrymandering. And if you want proof, look at corruption in communist and formerly communist countries. It makes the US look like a bunch of choir boys by contrast. Thinking that it is about capitalism is just an attempt to wedge in some political ideology into a practical problem of governance and a sign someone has never actually had to lead real humans before.

▲

42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]