Unless you need that job to keep your health insurance which keeps you or your family member alive.
> Paul shows us footage of a psychological experiment – a rigged 2 player monopoly game where they randomly pick one player to be more wealthy. The wealthy player starts with more money, gets double the income for passing GO, and moves more often. [...] After the game they were asked why they won – and they’d talk about their own actions & strategy, rather than reflecting on the advantages given at the start.
Even people like Gates, Musk, etc would probably agree they had a healthy amount of luck. Being in the right place at the right time, starting a conversation with the right person, being in the right college course or being at the right college. But saying that the primary cause of wealth is blind luck eliminates almost all the personal agency and hard work that actually goes into being a successful person. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten where they are without some luck, but the same amount of luck + being lazy would leave them just as poor (or worse).
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson (supposedly)
That's called the just-world fallacy. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-falla...
He has a repertoire, a college education, a job history, he's white, he's young, he's a man, he probably has no kids, he's able-bodied, he has a support system... so yeah, if this represents you, you will probably do okay if you quit your job. This probably represents a lot of his audience, too. But he's certainly not talking about everyone, he's talking himself and generalizing it to everybody else.
>“Zick Rubin of Harvard University and Letitia Anne Peplau of UCLA have conducted surveys to examine the characteristics of people with strong beliefs in a just world. They found that people who have a strong tendency to believe in a just world also tend to be more religious, more authoritarian, more conservative, more likely to admire political leaders and existing social institutions, and more likely to have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups. To a lesser but still significant degree, the believers in a just world tend to ‘feel less of a need to engage in activities to change society or to alleviate plight of social victims.'” – Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez from an essay at The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
"I'm successful in life. It must be because I'm a Good Person, who deserves success because I'm inherently better/more motivated."
And in this case I also think it is true, if your only goal is money, then you will not spend it and waste it on anything, which will results in more money
That said, this guy sounds astoundingly entitled and probably does not realize that every person working weekends in retail is thinking the same thing, but doesn't have the money to pursue it.
You can still retain ownership of your career and be an employee.
1) I'm not rich and I'm not yet successful (not by my own definition anyway). I am pretty much self-sufficient.
2) To the people who are complaining about poor people not having the same opportunity... My target audience are people who have access to the internet. If you can access the internet, you have access to wealth. That's my opinion, anyway.
3) Work hard, play hard. It's good, as long as it's not you working hard and somebody else playing harder because of it.
4) I haven't come from a rich background, I'm not university educated. You can't complain about me coming across as generalizing and then assume I'm a privileged white male.
5) There's plenty of tone in the article that suggests generalization. I appreciate the feedback and I apologise if it seems way too over-generalised but opinions in this area are quite hard to condense into a few words.
6) I still stand by the "if you truly want to have money, you will". If you're reading this, you're on the internet. If you're on the internet then you have access to free education and skills for you to build your own success.
Thanks
You do realize that being "self-sufficient" enough to quit your job makes you wealthier than a vast majority of people on the planet? Even people that "can afford internet".
Good luck in your endeavors, but you have a lot to learn.
Or are you playing games with the "you" bit? Anybody that doesn't have money isn't part of "you"?
Sure I still need money for food and stuff, but that is the sole motivation. I don't actually WANT it. It stays in the way and is just a means to an end.
I don't want to think about money, I want to use my mind for more interesting stuff.
Accepting that money is just money put my mind at ease.
Some trivial suggestions:
- becoming a monk
- begging for food
- steal for food
- roam the open land and life with the animals and eat what nature provides
- die
Some of these are not really attractive, but they show how it is possible to life in a way where you can truly not think about money.
But making the "not wanting to think about money" much less strict will also work.
"you have to have enough of it for your expenses to be paid on autopilot" Having a job helps here. If it makes enough money, you don't need to think about it.
"enough to retire on" Solutions:
- having kids
- gamble that pension is enough
- delegate your future problems alltogether to your future-self
- never stop working
If you truly don't want to think about money, "enough to retire on" wouldn't be a concept for you anyway...
Well, that's very nice of him. I'm confused, though: how do I send him my application for the money he's promised me? Is an email enough?
That is the point of this statement.
--
I understood the point of his statement. It was a stupid statement because in fact it's not enough to "truly" want something -- it's helpful but not enough.
It was an insulting statement because it sets him up to tell anyone who fails that they didn't truly want it. There's little more offensive than someone telling someone else that he knows their mind better than they do.
But the thing that I was really objecting to wasn't the insult or the stupidity, it was the rhetorical flourish of "promising." As obviously he has nothing on the line here, and if anyone was dumb enough to believe him, and they failed, he'd be out exactly nothing.
But apparently it is inevitable that you will make a ton of money. Unless, apparently, you don't want to.
Then you get customers.
Customers don't care if you're burnt out.
Customers don't care if you're transparent and fair to your colleagues.
You get grace periods when you're first starting out, or first signed a couple contracts, or after delivering a few key efforts.
But at the end of the day, customers are where the pressure comes from, because they are the sustaining force of your business.
Lifestyle businesses?
There's not a lot I know about them -- basically a business with high enough margins that 6 hour days and trips are the norm. It sounds nice, but probably requires a good amount of already developed skills/connections to get that margin high enough to afford the lifestyle.
I suppose working with a minimalist/off-the-grid community also counts as lifestyle employment.
Employees are employees instead of entrepreneurs because they don't want the headaches of running a business. They want to do the work that they enjoy doing and have the energy at the end of the day to socialise, spend time with family and pursue other interests. Don't expect employees to be as interested and excited about [revolutionising|disrupting|dominating] industry X as you are, because they don't have the financial and social incentive an owner or executive has.
It's fake and soul-destroying that modern corporate culture forces employees to feign being over-enthusiastic about the company's success for fear of getting fired.
David Mitchell put it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LiDTKEF1ek
Oh and Sally & Chuck saw you leave early the other day, we can't have that. Even though you're putting in 50-60 hour work weeks. Oh Sally & Chuck are admin assistants as well, so their opinion matters in this company that runs like your high school social groups did, except less efficiently.
In my experience, it appeals to a certain segment of employees. That is, young single employees who get most of their social interaction at work. In that context, it seems to make some sense to work long-ish hours and also stay "at work" late attending company parties and such. They don't really have anything to go home to, so work becomes like a second home.
But for employees with more attachments, I agree. Then you just want to put in your time doing something you like and go home.
Such is the lot of the anxiety-ridden terminal malcontent trapped in late-era corporatism.
"You’ll also need to have something that motivates you more than financial security, which is an immense force."
Granted it is a bit ambiguous (what does 'which is' refer to? your motivation or financial security?) but assuming that it is saying that you need a purpose in life other than accumulating cash then I would agree. I have observed that people who have some goal other than cash, are much more likely to be happier with their life.
I attribute that happiness to the definitive quality of making progress regardless of your remuneration. Versus the challenge of score keeping by how much one is getting paid and observing that there are always people making more or opportunities that pay more. I think that sets up a feedback loop in some people where they are constantly disappointed.
For some it must be like driving down a crowded freeway and only seeing the spaces in the traffic up ahead that they could fit into, being angry at the drivers around them who are preventing them from moving forward into those spaces, and ignoring the progress they are making down the road.
One can have a regular job, work hard, and get to enjoy life with flexibility too. There are a ton of bad assumptions/statements in this article.
I quit my well paying corporate Job about 2 years ago to go work on my own software product. I spent about 6 months working on this part time while doing contracting then ended up focusing full time on my own consulting/contracting business.
Along the way I have made a number of mistakes and met with people in similar situations. Here are some random observations from my journey so far:
- It's very easy to spend a lot of time building a software product that nobody really wants (Duh).
- It's really easy to spend a lot of time building a software product that makes a small amount of money but not enough to justify your time.
- It takes a long time to build a SASS business, budget at least 24 months. If you are later on in your career, 24 months of little to no money is a big opportunity cost.
- Contracting/Consulting is at least 50% about selling & marketing yourself effectively.
- It's really hard to work on a product part time even if you can devote about 2-3 days a week to it. Context switching costs a lot.
- Finding a cofounder who complements your skillset, who you can trust and is actually willing to go all in for 12 months is hard.
I think a lot of HN people conflate starting a company with coming up with a brilliant new product or service and building it around that. If you are at all entrepreneurial but lacking ideas, it might be worth your while doing a little contracting to see what it's like. Doing so might even provide you with some inspiration.
I used to find those sort of comments naive. A big part of that was because of what I thought was a reasonable thought experiment. In particular if every person tomorrow was replaced with Elon Musk. What would happen? Well not a whole lot - you'd certainly have Elons flipping burgers and scrubbing toilets. After all it would be literally impossible for everybody to be the CEO and entrepreneur. And so if we can even Elon scrubbing toilets, how could it ever be reasonable to suggest that everybody could succeed if they just tried harder?
What changed my view has been life experience. Even if the number of individuals that can achieve great things is a sort of zero sum game, I don't think that the lack of possibility of success is the thing holding individuals back. What does seem to hold individuals back is them, for whatever reason, never seeming to understand what it takes to succeed. People will try to find a better job or whatever, but rarely will they try to independently monetize what skills they already have, or teach them skills with that goal in mind. That is not to say these people are lazy -- many will work themselves to the bone even when it's not really expected of them (the "overtime as a badge of honor" as the article phrases it), but it's like the idea of spending some of that energy to try to do their own thing is something that just doesn't seem to register with them.
And I think that's what this article is really hitting on, all be in an unintentionally less than tactful way. And I also think that's why there's about a million different derivatives of the quote from just as many successful individuals that 'doors don't open themselves.' And of course once you fail, which you will - try again. The advice is so ubiquitous that I think people no longer even think about the wisdom within. We can even go back to the one Shakespeare quote most every person knows: "To be, or not to be, that is the question."
In today's economy, many employees out-earn "owners". Employees even get stock at many places. And even if you start the place, you're going to have to give up a lot along the way if you want outside capital or good talent.
Stop wasting time thinking about being "an owner" and start thinking about, how can I deliver the most value to the greatest number of other people, as THEY define "value", in the shortest amount of time? That's a better approach.
