Not the OP but as I grew older I started to realize that calling someone a “loser” (seen as bad) just because they haven’t “achieved” much is simply not ok, it only helps to prolong this (I think unhealthy) state of affairs where everyone should be seen as doing something, anything, preferably something “productive”.
This is unrelated to the article, but: Regarding the sense of the word loser you're using, there's also a fallacious aspect to it. Someone's worth as a human isn't defined by what they want to/are able to contribute with in society. You could live a perfectly good life that didn't contribute much more than your own survival and happiness.
I think that a majority of the people who post on HN are ambitious people who have such contributions as a very central part of their identity. Many people here might unfairly judge someone who works a part-time job, mostly watches Netflix in their spare time and is generally a good person in most interpersonal exchanges. And there's certainly a lot of people here who would judge themselves if that's all they did.
I find it fascinating how civil servant jobs don't pay well, yet the workers work for the government (and therefore, the people). David Graeber in Bullshit Jobs touches on this subject. And then just today there was this story about Kevin Rosenberg [1] who, after failing to pay off his debts by working hard, sued successfully to have his student loans discharged via bankruptcy. Yet he served 5 years in the military, and studied to become a lawyer (which he ultimately did not pursue a career in because of the conundrum between helping people versus getting paid well). Is he a loser? The word loser is a simple ad hominem, a DH1 based on PG's own essay about How To Disagree [2].
