I don't understand the extremist views of blog posts like this. Do you really need to think in such simplistic "truisms" and catch phrases?
> Quitting your job to pursue your passion is bullshit.
Not at all true. I know plenty of working class people who have saved money at their day jobs, researched a small business opportunity, and chosen to pursue it. A decent portion of them are succeeding beyond their wildest expectations. All are glad to have had the experience and put their money where their mouth (dream) is. You only live once after all. Not starting a business you wanted to is not a stone you want to leave unturned, for a lot of people.
But there's some key points here. They saved money. They planned. They came up with contingencies.
> This messaging is only beneficial for privileged people and very dangerous for working class people.
Right, throw away that ambition and continue to be my employee until the end of time. This is the kind of thing I would write as a modern day "Lord of the Manor".
Once again, be intelligent. Have an idea of your worth. Use the internet to do research, learn about small businesses, and financial planning.
Of course there's a big difference between a working class person and the kid who grew up in the valley with parents working at GoogleSoftBook who gets shuttled into Stanford and isn't in a rush to pay loans or move out after graduation, preferring instead to make mobile apps with his frat. That doesn't seem to be what's being discussed though. It's just some vague attack at those who go out on their own. I'm surprised this sort of post is getting upvoted on HN. Are we a forum of spectators envious at those who chose to try that which we did not?
As a final thought, people complaining about other people's privilege would be doing themselves a much bigger favor if they got off their ass and worked to maximize their own potential. Don't try to bring me down, work on bringing yourself up. I'd be happy to help.
I'm one of those. I understand the intent of this article. It's however unfortunate that the author has not come across enough success stories. Here is mine, which is arguably very small, but came out of exactly the same situation of an employee branching out:
* I saved, I was clear about not only what I like to do, but also what I'm good at.
* I couldn't get to it in my 20s, but I did get to it in my 30s.
* Yes, there was privilege, but not any more than so many of my friends and acquaintances have. I didn't come from money either.
* Yes, there was luck, but not any more than what I'd have needed to survive as an employee.
* Yes, there was agony of survival, still is, will continue to be, and only increase. But I expected that going in, and I carefully created a support system for it, which comes in handy in those tough times.
* Yes, there were unexpected events, including existential threats, but not any more than what I'd have had while working as an employee.
* It has only been a year and a half, and I'm in no position to sermonize, lecture and draw conclusions. But I know that I'm having a blast. I am answerable to nobody but reason, I have flexibility with my time like I never had, and I have immense satisfaction of being the first one to introduce a new useful thing to this planet and make an impact in lives of several of my customers.
But most importantly, it has afforded me life lessons which I'd have never had otherwise and I can accelerate my kids into. Yes, I'm making more than I'd have made in my job, but who is even looking at that?
Congratulations on your success thus far, I think you've started a great business that serves a real need. Hope it's people like you writing more blog posts in the future.
Off-topic: a while back I toyed with the idea of making an interview coding practice smartphone app, so people could practice anywhere or on the go. You guys look into any mobile products? Feel free to run wild with the idea if you like it =)
There already are a few mobile apps for this e.g. coderust, Job Bytes etc. In fact, there are many excellent resources out there viz. books and websites. Existence and availability of material is not a problem and will never be in this connected world.
Problem is, that people don't get a chance to go thru that material properly. It needs a lot of dedication and a strong support system, which many people don't have. And hence, they squander a chance to work for best companies of their times, or even reach their true potential. That is what the course provides.
Folks, I have no idea why this post was downvoted. I have some karma to lose, but it'd be very helpful if the downvoters showed the courtesy to explain their action. I'd love to improve the post.
Passion without genuine skill and knowledge is useless. You can be passionate about many things, for example cars, but unless you put in the hours, your passion doesn't mean you will be a great car engineer, or automotive company executive.
[EDIT] Also want to add that people grossly underestimate the responsibility of being their own boss. There are a lot of tasks you have to handle outside of your usual work like finances, scheduling, client outreach, etc...
The OP seemed to understand this, but a lot of people will create a start-up for the sake of being on the creating end of something without really knowing how practical their venture really is.
> A messaging service that only allows 140characters sounds ridiculous. But here we are.
A world in which such a service is a billion-dolar business is a world which's aggregate business method is to throw random shit at the wall and see what sticks. In other words, success in startups is a lottery.
It made sense at the time, and most people probably weren't around when you could tweet by SMS, but almost 10 years later we're still working with this imposed limit. And doing it well.
And in the vast majority of cases you were right. A parallel comment pointed out that it's a lottery. I don't even think that's true, as with the lottery I know exactly what the odds are. Odds on some random startup "...only for dogs, on the Internet"? Fuck if I know.
I think of this every time I come across one of those motivation videos on youtube. It'll have like twenty million views, how many of those people actually took it to heart?
Couldn't agree more. Just selling the "Wow" factor. In reality, most talks are baseless, same with startups. Some do manage to make millions just by selling the "Wowness". A whale buys the product and dumps it.
Nodding your head to such video is easy. Actually doing it takes way more effort.
Although, I think those millions of views come from people who were lured into watching those by smart marketing message that basically laid out their problem(s) and promised it can be solved "with one simple trick".
Number of views only shows that many people share the same problem.
"We are predatorily luring working class people into an entrepreneur lifestyle as the answer to living a meaningful life and loads of money. It’s the new American Dream."
Yes.
Being an entrepreneur is about selling. Few people are good at selling. If you're good at selling, you can make good money doing it for someone else.
Expecting most people to be good at selling is a cruel fantasy.
Good grades->good college -> good job -> marry -> buy house -> have kids. All on a middle class salary. In the bay area that's probably about 100k/yr for a household. Impossible these days.
I think the American Dream was a little less specific than that. AFAIK the American Dream was that if you applied yourself, you could be anything that you wanted to be. You see it with the movie trope of the kid who wants to prove everyone wrong and be the next president of the United States.
I've always interpreted it as earnest hard work and merit would pay off in the end, with the first three examples you listed as making it easier. I saw the American Dream as being inclusive to those without good grades or a college education as well.
Was looking for something insightful, but I guess I haven't heard (and bought into) the same stories as the author. I quit my job half a year ago to do the "entrepreneurial lifestyle", but I'm not going around telling everyone to quit their job and be as ostensibly great and care-free as I am.
Of course I'm thankful for my situation, and realize I'm luckier than many Americans, and lucky to live in a prosperous country. But is it really "privilege" to live frugally enough to save up for years, and then quit my job to pursue my passion? Am I not supposed to do that at all? Am I supposed to feel my privilege for having a job? Or computer skills? Or a computer in the first place? Electricity? I don't know where, to the author, the privilege train is supposed to end.
As someone who did the same, most people do not have the privilege of having an income where they can just quit working and live off of savings before retirement. If they have a college education or home, they most likely have loans that need to be paid and that ties them to a job.
> Am I not supposed to do that at all?
No one is suggesting that. We're just particularly lucky to be in this position in the first place is all.
The privilege argument seems to come out when people like us lose that perspective and expect others to do the same or are shocked when others won't. I don't see this applying to you at all because
> I'm not going around telling everyone to quit their job and be as ostensibly great and care-free as I am.
I definitely know most people don't make enough to do that, but people like you or me work and plan for doing something like that. Even the author did -- but she's not really proposing any solutions for the un-"privileged" or even proving her "... is bullshit" thesis well. I guess that's the issue.
I'm curious what you're working on for the "entrepreneurial lifestyle". I"m actually thinking of going a similar route to saving up a good few years worth of expenses, and then going solo. I'm trying to decide on contracting/consulting vs build my own product (I've done the latter fairly successfully before). Would you care to share your experiences or perhaps email for a couple questions?
I'll shoot you an email too, but I'm building a product. I started it 6 months before quitting, and by the time I put in my resignation I had a good amount of users and steady growth that's only continued since.
At first I did some consulting to help with expenses, but eventually I dropped that work so I could focus better on the product. But I also reveled a bit too much in the initial freedom after quitting, and took way longer to get the product to the next stage (which I'm now at) where I've got good features my users will pay for. So now I actually just accepted a salaried job again, as I only saved up enough for <1 year's expenses (definitely save up more :) ).
Overall I've learned more in these past months about business, product development, software development, managing people and finances than I would've in a lifetime working for someone else -- and that was my real goal. So overall it's been a success, and next time I do this I imagine I'll be much more effective.
That sounds awesome! It's good you mentioned saving for more than 1 years expenses. I'm close to that number but wanted to keep pushing to save for perhaps, 2 years or more. Yeah, send me a message sometime, would love to hear more :)
Life is full of trade-offs, and sometimes the choices you make don't work out. The author sounds pissed off because they took a risk that didn't work out, so he's telling everyone that it's objectively "bullshit" to make himself feel better about his lack of success like it's someone else's fault. The fact is that both the haves and the have-nots take these kind of risks all the time, and few succeed. But some do and many still consider the chances worth the risk, despite their failure. It really doesn't have that much to do with privilege, so much as creating a mental fixture from a statement like "follow your passion" and ignoring the fact that all statements are subject to exceptions. Basically, the post reeks of bitter naive white guy problems, and I want my 3 minutes back.
The fact that I am even here is evidence that I quit my previous career to pursue a passion. I also don't assume that the same decision would work for everyone. But I'd hardly call it "bullshit".
I don't think you understood the point of the OP's article. This article is calling out the motivation and entrepreneurship gurus who push the idea of entrepreneurship like its some kind of way to unbind yourself and become truly free to people who don't fully understand what it means.
"I don’t want anyone who works a 9-to-5 to feel like a fool for staying at a stable job, or feel wrong if they actually enjoy it."
The whole romanticized narrative of quitting your job to pursue your passion is certainly something I've encountered, and I appreciate her point of view on that narrative.
The power law of failure exists, though. For every 1 success there are 9 failures for every facebook there are millions of failures. If your not prepared for that you'll be the guy calling bullshit.
I didn't pay attention to the gender of the author when I read the article and made the mistake of trusting the commenter (who I was already accusing of not reading the article at all) to correctly gender the author
Buzzwords only have currency with people who want others to stop thinking deeply about what they're reading or hearing.
When I see buzzwords, especially the politicized variety, I'm pushed away from an article, because I sense an attempt to manipulate and pander to a preferred audience, and that feels dishonest to me.
My favorite new ridiculous word is "silent technical privilege"[1] , according to which we now must apologize for having interests in technical subjects since childhood, rather than socializing and getting drunk like rest of the "unfortunate" kids.
It isn't, and never has been, about apologising. It is about recognising that you had a step-up based on being part of a particular demographic, and then either acknowledging that other people won't necessarily have had those step-ups, helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up, or both.
This is a new low. Apparently putting in the work to learn things is now a "privilege."
We made the choice to spend our formative years immersed in technology. We suffered as a result.
Maybe the bullies should start by apologizing and inviting us to their parties instead of demanding that we give them jobs.
To be clear, I do agree that being middle class and having free time as a teenager is a privilege. What I disagree with is that my choice to spend that time programming instead of partying is a privilege.
The premise you're assuming only holds if socioeconomics is constant. Imagine being the child of two software engineers living in a house in the suburbs with your own room and computer. Now imagine being the child of a single mother who works two minimum wage jobs and lives in a cramped apartment in the projects.
If the latter child doesn't end up spending as much time programming as the former child, how much of it do you think was choice?
Maybe you missed the last paragraph of my comment?
I absolutely agree with the notion of socioeconomic privilege. For what it's worth, I ended up making more than my (single) mother in my very first CS internship.
> Maybe the bullies should start by apologizing and inviting us to their parties instead of demanding that we give them jobs.
They have some nerve. They've already taken over the industry - your average programmer now is someone who picked software as a career path as an adult (starting university), and was not "into tech" as a kid. And now the already marginalized geeks are being called privileged?
>"helping to level the playing field by giving extra help to those who don't have that step-up, or both."
On a more overall point, I'd say that doing such a thing, even if noble and "well-meaning", actually demeans the work of the people that actually created the difference in "step-ups" as you refer to them in the first place.
Some things are given to you by coincidence of birth and location. But other things, the really important ones, are given to you by your upbringing (notably, effort from your parents and family). I will not go beyond telling others what a difference that effort makes. If you never got it yourself, you have a chance to give it to someone else, and not repeat previous mistakes.
When you try to help others understand technology better it does not demean your work. Quite the opposite, people see the work and understand the dedication that the people who write the tools they use put in.
I mean if you understand art that you recognize that it's a lot of work even if you aren't an artist. Those that don't know just assume it's as simple as flicking paint on a canvas and charging a fortune.
The same people will assume you can build a website for $100 because they have no knowledge on what the work requires.
How does it demean the work of those people? They worked for something (Better conditions for their children), and they got it. Whether or not it conveys an advantage over other people is irrelevant to the value of the work, and the results that work produced.
Moreso, I think that we have a responsibility to provide that (better conditions) not only to our children, but also to whomever else we can.
I tried to recognize and acknowledge that I have a step up having earned an engineering degree and even gave some pointers on how to complete one with all the time constraings involved (sleeping on benches in university overnight in order to save time was one). Do you think anyone was interested?
From my system of morality, people have a responsibility to provide aid to those who are less well off, and alsoalso have a responsibility to provide knowledge to those who do not have it. I think this follows from the idea that we all have a right to life, dignity, and knowledge.
However after some thought, and the rather unpleasant experience of having attempted to discuss and argue this point before, I do not think I can answer in a way that would convince you to change your current viewpoint, rather we would end up arguing opinions.
Why do you follow that system of morality and not another one?
For example, people adopt and use Gauss's law, because they think it's objectively true. Is that the case with your moral system? Is that moral system objectively true or is it a matter of your opinion?
...idea that we all have a right to life, dignity, and knowledge.
The question is whether this is actually true or not. Theory of evolution is an idea, but we ask whether it's true. We don't call it an idea and expect people to take it seriously. You have to provide some arguments that humans actually have right to life and that others have the obligation to help those in need.
...rather we would end up arguing opinions.
Wait, so morality for you is a difference of opinions? Kinda like: 'I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla ice cream'.
Is that moral system objectively true or is it a matter of your opinion?
...
Theory of evolution is an idea ...
Given relative morality (That everyone's moral views of the world differ in ways subtle to extreme), I don't think that morality is objectively debatable, since your view of the world is coloured by your system of morality. We can debate whether the theory of evolution is true because we have something other that we can compare against: 'Does this model accurately represent what is happening in the world', etc. Doing that with morality is impossible, it is a concept that is relevant only to humans.
A half-baked example would be: If you kill a billion wildflowers, then that has a measurable effect on the surrounding environment, sure. But at the end of the day there is nothing to say whether the effect that had on the environment is good or bad. It is just an event, it happens, there isn't anything deeper here from an objective point of view. Right and wrong only come into it when you have a preference for a particular outcome. So you view this act as good if you have a preference towards the outcome of a city being built, or you view this as bad if you have a preference towards plant life being left intact. Since we all have different preferences for different outcomes, everybody's systems of morality are inherently different -- even if that difference is not pronounced in most cases.
Wait, so morality for you is a difference of opinions?
Kinda like: 'I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla ice cream'.
That is one way you could state it, sure.
Why do you follow that system of morality and not another one?
I follow my system of morality because I have a preference against harming life. What I mean by this (ignoring the recursion, of course), is that I have been exposed to an overwhelming amount of stimuli, situations, and recollections where this opinion is presented as the preferable decision (Say, Star Trek, etc.), compared to the alternatives I have been exposed to.
Great and a very thoughtful answer. You gave a good explanation about morality and its relevance. Plus at the end you've admitted that this and probably many other of your attitudes & preferences are heavily influenced not by critical examination of all alternatives, but by what you've been most exposed to - kinda like religious affiliation.
i don't think its hard to imagine that a lot of people didn't have access to computers during their childhood. also there are lots of people that didn't have the right environment or parenting to name a few. since you mentioned "interests in technical subjects since childhood". i know the guy in the article mentions that he learned to computer from 18 on wards, also he went to MIT which i think says a lot about his childhood. maybe you think the word is ridiculous but i think there is room for more empathy.
I've been to a demoscene party and I agree wholeheartedly. Sceners really defy Ballmer Peak[0]. They can crank out coding awesomeness while being totally shitfaced.
Indeed, the political class is frighteningly relentless at churning out new versions their doublespeak vocabularies designed to balkanize the voting population.
As you rightly stated, these "power words" change with the political climate, but they all serve the same purpose: to divide and conquer. Balkanize the voter base in any way possible, and you have a fractured and easily controlled populace.
I also find these buzzwords annoying - but they're different. 'Privilege' is the only term from that list in the article...
'Trigger' I find annoying in almost every context; with the exception of facilities for the clinically traumatised I abhor the idea.
'Victim Blaming' is a useful term but I'm sure overused.
'Social Justice' seems more often these days sarcastically used as in 'Social Justice Warrior'
'Perpetuating false narratives' does seem just a pompous way of saying lies/propaganda.
... but returning to 'Privilege' I think that's a term that is overused - and annoyingly as in 'check your privilege' can be used to shut down a conversation or deny a viewpoint because of who someone is. A pernicious form of ad hominem.
And yet reading the article I think the argument is well made and the term 'privilege' is not used glibly. So perhaps it's unfair to write off the point just because that one word is used?
Are these words politicized buzzwords? Why or why not? They all seem to be shorthand words that deeply embed a particular worldview that not everyone agrees with. Do they also seem to you to be manipulative and pandering and dishonest?
No, but some of them are meaningless or harmful :). Like "disruption", which means everything and nothing nowadays, and is used to justify and glorify illegal behaviour (e.g. Uber). Or "responsive design", which while a good ideal in theory, in practice involves making the website useless for both desktop _and_ mobile at the same time. :).
Could you explain why you think "privilege" is a buzzword? If it had been peppered into the article haphazardly that would be another matter, but I felt that the author used it to help emphasize how different circumstances are between, say, a jaded Google engineer who graduated with a BS debt-free, and a Bangladeshi mother of five who's worked in a sweatshop since she was 15.
Not really, the title of the BLOG uses 'bullshit', but the post as it appears on backser-news reads 'privilege' (at least via this link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11802664, it appeared on my front-page as bullshit so I'm wondering if this has been edited by a HN admin)
If you CTRL+F the blog post for "privilege" you will see that the rant eventually turns to the topic to underscore somethingorother.
So the comment you're replying to lamenting the use of "privilege" in a somewhat asinine and ranty way seems on target.
"Pissed off developer rants" are pretty tired though. I'm not sure I'm really a fan of this guy's line of thinking or his outrage over it.
Like it or not, stepping outside of the 9 to 5 / collect-a-regular paycheck is a risk. It is brave in some ways. He's right in others that it does require a safety net & confidence which people raised in low-income environments might not enjoy... but the blog-post doesn't help anything.
I realise it's a bit buzzwordy, but social justice is a useful catch-all term when describing what political activists fight for. Is there a term you prefer in its place?
It would be a real shame if the next Larry Page or Bill Gates decided to live in a barrel instead of founding a company because of this sentiment. A happy home and middle-class parents aren't a bad thing. In fact, they're so good that everyone should have them. You should apply your advantages strategically in order to affect change[0] in the world, and while doing so may not be courageous, squandering the effort spent on raising you is a waste of time and resources that helps nobody.
I live with a gardener who makes just above minimum wage[1] who is planning to start his own business. For him not to do so would be a gigantic waste of his skills, as he's far and away the most competent employee of his current boss. He's courageous because he's going to take a carefully managed risk in order to fully use his skills, even though his life is reasonably comfortable as is, and by doing so will fractionally lower the cost of living for all the residents of the apartment blocks he plans to service[2].
When people say "pursue your passion", what they really mean is "you are too good for your current job, and staying there is a waste of your good fortune". It's a goad to prod the elite into working and climbing long after they've passed the point where they can live for the rest of their lives on savings and investments, and to push the comfy middle class to go through the extremely uncomfortable process of starting a business.
Having the audacity and wealth to single-handedly eradicate polio is also a privilege, but Gates is currently trying to do it, because society taught him that he'd be a good person if he did good things. Turning around and denouncing entrepreneurs as privileged will make for fewer entrepreneurs, even if it's true, in the same way as calling Gates a privileged do-gooder sufficiently loudly might stop his charitable work in Africa.
[0] hopefully positive change, and hopefully change that uplifts others
[1] minimum wage here is quite a bit higher than in the US
[2] by raising supply; I'm not an economist, correct me if I'm wrong here
Despite the headline, I don't think the article is deriding quitting your job for your passion. It is primarily about pointing out that it is from a place of privilege usually that one takes the "leaps of faith" that are culturally revered and respected, and is trying to recognize that.
I (and I would imagine the author) am all for people quitting their jobs for passion, and being able to do so thanks to their privilege. But I do think it's very important for them to recognize those privileges, not wax too poetic about the bravery and challenges involved (be strong and hustle non-stop) as if people in other jobs don't have to do that, and not tout the act as something anyone and everyone can/should do to lead a "fulfilling life."
This article comes off very bitter to me, its like she failed so she is angry.
"But what bothers me most is how we prop up the entrepreneurial class to be inherently brave and courageous."
I think she projects how she felt about entrepreneurs onto everyone else. I never thought of them as inherently brave, there are many kinds.
One small other thought is if it wasnt for entrepreneurs everyone else would have no one to work for. I am an entrepreneur not because of any particular bravery, I just like knowing there is no one to blame but me if I fail.
tl;dr OP quit their job because they were depressed, got bombarded with quips about how courageous they were, got seduced by conflating their depression with a courageous career choice, then talks about what caused other people to be so excited for them when entrepreneurial endeavors is a privilege reserved for the upper class, instead of a practical social contract of the American Dream
No he is saying it is disingenuous & dangerous to pretend everyone can just as easily quit everything and become your own boss, with the same risks. For someone who is "less privileged" (or however you are supposed to describe it), the consequences can be more severe if failure happens. While the rich, ivy league grad whose endeavor flops can go home to pops and rebuild his resume, hit up his network, and get a great job no problem. I agree that over-stressing this current reality (as opposed to looking forward and being optimistic) can make things worse. It is a tricky line to walk.
I agree with your summary, that's what the author is stating, though I don't think the conclusion is true.
The best way to start becoming an entrepreneur is to start small. The mantra 'fail early, fail often' is useful, but only if you have the resources to apply it more than once, which means that assuming you're not rich you should start small. Start a side project, do consulting work in your spare time, etc... It's not rocket science.
That being said, I understand the desire to quit a job you don't enjoy. I know that desire can override doing things rationally. I have that desire often.
Couldn't agree more. I had a few rough years in business, that I only got through due to various forms of good luck (my business partner, my domestic partner, no debts, etc.)
Two other points I think are relevant.
First, people treat passions are something one is born to. The things I'm interested in now I learned of mostly due to accident. For example, I got into programming languages because I read Philip Greenspun's writing back in the day, which took me to SICP, and from there onto other programming language theory. I studies AI thinking I was interested in genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic, but an inspiring lecturer got me interested in statistical machine learning. These are just lucky accidents. There are many other areas that would be just as deep that I could have landed in. A few chance encounters at the right time and I might have ended up in graphics, or distributed systems, or some other field away from computing.
Second, business as a sole trader is hard. It gets much easier when you can share the load and specialise a bit.
We've attempted to reword the baity title to express the spirit of the article. If someone suggests a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
It is not bullshit. I quit my job, and it worked fairly well, 6 figures in remote job, I even got on stage with Google vice-president.
The problem is that you need to give it 100%. Otherwise you are just replacing one job with another. It is not good idea to 'travel the world' while building next startup. Best thing is to lock yourself in cheap basement, work 12 hours day, take regular walks, eat and sleep.
What killed my passion was toxic marriage. I filled time I would spend at work, with another task. And my passion was still on side track.
And author himself admits, he quit for other problems, following his passion was sidetrack.
Anyway just one warning: it takes lot of dedication and self-control. If you are struggling with procrastination etc, dont even think about it!
Living at home with your parents seems to me like an example of a way to scale back a lifestyle to save money and work on your dream project even without a large financial safety net, i.e., the privilege the author cites. You could replace that example with: sharing an apartment with several friends, cooking cheap meals at home, foregoing a TV, using an old bike instead of a car, etc. I would be surprised if at least one of those options isn't available to the laptop-owning, English-speaking, tech-minded individuals who frequent this site. It doesn't seem very relevant to this discussion to nitpick the example given by the parent.
Yes, some people are more privileged than others. But if you're going to hang out on an internet forum full of professional programmers only to lament how privileged everyone is youre going to have a bad time.
In the context of this forum and this discussion, nothing about what the parent said screams privilege.
Living with your parents after college is privilege now? Where the hell does this circus end?
If you look down the chain far enough, we are all privileged and none of us should be allowed a modicum of joy or happiness because we should all be steeped in guilt.
Yes, living with your parents is (somewhat) privilege. Yes, most of us reading HN are privileged, often in more than one way. No, the alternatives are not forgetting our privilege or giving up joy and happiness, the alternatives are being self absorbed and unaware or trying not to.
geeze you're touchy. rush limbaugh got you too worked up today? All he is saying is that not everyone can go home and live with their parents when they fail. Not sure where guilt plays into this other than in your own mind/narrative.
But why point it out? It's one of the least "privilegy" privilege I could imagine. Living with parents is the default, something "privileged" people try to escape. It's more economically sensible, so in this way poor people are more "privileged" by being more likely to live with their parents. Yes, you could point out various groups like people who've lost their parents, or people with abusive parents, etc. but at this point one has to realize that for every possible attribute X you could carve out a social subgroup that doesn't have X, and call X-havers privileged. It's meaningless.
Think about it this way, many people graduate college with 50k+ in debt, they can't just graduate and live with their parents to "try out ideas". They need to get jobs and pay off loans. They may have kids or wives to support and they can't just take time off for their career growth. Furthermore, a lot of their parents can't afford to house them. Only a select few white suburban kids can safely go live with daddy and have food and everything provided for them while they code up their node.js app for a year. And if that doesn't work out their daddy can get them a job through his connections.
Now obviously living with parents while holding a full time job is sensible.
edit: Another way is to think about this. Who can take the risk to take a few years off to pursue something? The rich white person with connections, no debt, and food/shelter provided for them? Or the poor person with massive debt, poor parents, and a small shared apartment?
That's a fair point, though it is pretty US-specific. In the rest of the world, people don't end college with massive debt. IT industry seems to be a big equalizer there - you don't need massive capital to start something, and with the current job situation, the little effort it takes to learn to code (compared to alternatives) can let you jump up the social ladder pretty quickly.
By Jove he's got it! No wait, those last two words suggest it's not quite sunk in.
I enjoyed the journey of this post, where we went from not even being able to imagine something worse than living with your parents, to realising, what if I didn't have parents? What if they kicked me out? What if... a hundred different scenarios that real people have to deal with in their lives.
It was like watching personal growth happen right in front of my eyes. But looks like it didn't
quite stick
> It was like watching personal growth happen right in front of my eyes. But looks like it didn't quite stick
Hey, at least I got a close brush with it. :).
Seriously though, my point is that you can make arbitrary thing into a "privilege" by selecting a subgroup of society that doesn't have that thing. You could also turn the table around and say that the not-havers are "privileged" by growing up not having to depend on having that thing. So what's the point of even bringing it up in this context? It's not like not being able to move in with your parents makes you ill-equipped to start a business. Let's reserve talking about "privilege" for big things that block off some desired ways of life on a large scale.
So, I'm not an expert in "privilege", but I generally approach it like usability. You know how the person who built a tool simply doesn't get why it's hard for other users, who have no context or history with it, to use the tool. It's a basic flaw in human psychology.
Teaching is similar, the person who knows everything about X struggles to explain X to people who know nothing about X, even though in theory they should be the best person possible. The shared context is just not present.
Your first line, where even after being prompted, you simply couldn't imagine something worse than living with your parents is a great example of this. Put yourself, just for a moment, in the shoes of the orphan, or the kid whose parents disowned them for being gay/trans/athiest/addicted, or the kid whose loving parents simply don't have space for them in their small apartment or would be breaking social housing rules by allowing them to stay.
From their perspective, you're being a bit of an asshole, but you weren't even trying to be an asshole. You just couldn't imagine that people like them existed, probably because you, your friends, your family, your neighbours don't fit that description.
The concept of privilege exists, not to make you feel guilty about this, but to make you aware of your unconcious biases. And to stop you accidentally being a asshole by e.g. deciding that everyone should use their real names online, which solves your spam problem, and causes issues for people with abusive exes, or secret lives they need to hide from their family or community. It's about acknowledging that people have different experiences in life for all sorts of reasons and you can't assume what is "normal" for you is all there is.
Getting back to usability, apparently there is video somewhere of a programmer watching people use his application through a two-way mirror. So enraged is he, by them "using it wrong" that he ends up throwing a chair at the mirror. I'm not sure why people get so upset by having their worldview disrupted in this way, but it seems to be a thing.
Thanks for elaborating. I generally agree with the point of view you wrote in this comment, with few caveats:
> From their perspective, you're being a bit of an asshole, but you weren't even trying to be an asshole. You just couldn't imagine that people like them existed, probably because you, your friends, your family, your neighbours don't fit that description.
While I probably can't consciously put the right amount of weight to them and their situation - due to e.g. availability heuristic, like you described - I am at least theoretically aware of their existence and can emphasize in a limited way. My comments in this subthread weren't about denying their existence or their problems; they were against countering an idea with an example of people who can't apply it. I assume it's implicitly understood that tmpanon1234act's comment won't be applicable to everyone - but it will be for many, including most of the audience here.
> The concept of privilege exists, not to make you feel guilty about this, but to make you aware of your unconcious biases.
That's what it says on the box. It's not how it is used in on-line discussion. "Privilege" is most often brought up as a way to make people feel guilty and derail the discussion. I admit that I've become allergic to this word and can overreact even to legitimate usage of it, but that's due to the guilt-tripping it's most often used to induce.
> And to stop you accidentally being a asshole by e.g. deciding that everyone should use their real names online, which solves your spam problem, and causes issues for people with abusive exes, or secret lives they need to hide from their family or community. It's about acknowledging that people have different experiences in life for all sorts of reasons and you can't assume what is "normal" for you is all there is.
I agree this is a worthy goal (and something I try to be mindful of all the time - I actually thank HN for exposing me to so many various point of views that I can tell I've become much more conscious person because of it). But again, pointing out "privilege" is probably not the best way to achieve it now - that particular word has been overused for a different purpose.
To the points about usability:
> You know how the person who built a tool simply doesn't get why it's hard for other users, who have no context or history with it, to use the tool. It's a basic flaw in human psychology.
> Teaching is similar, the person who knows everything about X struggles to explain X to people who know nothing about X, even though in theory they should be the best person possible. The shared context is just not present.
Yeah, I learned to know it as the concept of "degrees of separation" and I think recognizing this is a crucial skill for teachers and tool builders. It's very much learnable - you recursively go down the ladder of abstraction until you reach your audience, and then build up from there. A lot of people don't do (or don't even care about) this, but those that do become again the best person for X - experts in X become the best teachers of X, and programmers become the best people to build digital tools for users.
> I'm not sure why people get so upset by having their worldview disrupted in this way, but it seems to be a thing.
I agree. Known psychological phenomenon that one has to be wary of all the time :). I know I sometimes get angry when I'm proven wrong, but I think I've learned to deal with it - the reward of being closer to the truth and understanding is worth it.
> "Privilege" is most often brought up as a way to make people feel guilty and derail the discussion. I admit that I've become allergic to this word and can overreact even to legitimate usage of it, but that's due to the guilt-tripping it's most often used to induce.
I've seen this claim a lot. What I find strange is that I'm a fairly "right-on" kind of guy, and hang out on some fairly "right-on" bits of the internet, yet I don't really see the word mentioned in any context that much. Yet apparently, lots of (mostly) young men with somewhat less progressive outlooks seem to be getting much higher exposure to this phrase than I am, and in a very particular kind of usage.
A few times I've tried to get to the bottom of this strange anomaly, and it seems there's popular online communities where people search the internet to locate examples of "political correctness gone mad" (or to save time they simply manufacture them) which they then submit to enrage their fellow community members with how the world is going downhill. Everyone's got to have a hobby, and many of them seem strange to outsiders, but the people who indulge in this seem to have lost perspective due to this self-selected overexposure.
Maybe there's other explanations, I'm older, maybe all the young kids hang out together online and berate each other for having privilege over snapchat or something and I just miss out on it, but the number of times the above explanation comes up is odd enough to me, without inventing even more odd explanations.
there are subreddits where people scour the depths of tumblr and feminist blogs to find crazy posts guilting people about privilege. They then pretend this is the mainstream or common view.
Seems like this article messes up definitions of employment, freelance and entrepreneurship. Being entrepreneur is not about getting money from the sky, it's tough. It's about getting higher risks for greater benefits. But you need to pay for it: plan your budget, time and efforts, be accountable and disciplined, try to balance your risks and invest your time/money wisely.
This article is more about "employment is better than freelance". Seems like the author had no passion neither as a full-time employee, nor as a freelancer. It seems like the author don't know what passion really means or simply has no priority for it in her life.
That's ok unless you say that entrepreneurship is "bullshit" for working class. Sounds like a very biased statement. Everyone has their own way. There is nothing wrong with people who have passion to something different than full-time employment.
> We praise people that are “courageous” enough to quit their 9-to-5 and dive into the deep end of the exciting unknown. We idealize and romanticize the idea of being our own boss and being in charge of our own schedule. To take a risk and reap the bountiful benefits. Yet no one talks about the real sustainability or self-sufficiency of this formula when the playing field is never even.
There are risks and then there are calculated risks. In other words, you should always know what you're getting yourself into ahead of time. A simple understanding of evidential probability will yield you the proper decision making tools in that regard.
I agree with the sentiment that privileged people have a softer landing if they fail, but there are many examples of working class or even penniless entrepreneurs becoming successful. Jan Koum comes to mind.
"The concept is ideal for all, but not realistic for many"
Working on your own on something you are passionate about is, in fact, not the ideal for all. Many many people see work as a paycheck. They derive their meaning from activities from outside of work.
One could argue they could enjoy work more if they incorporated a passion into it, but then what if they lose that stark line of separation? Some people may actually enjoy a clear line between work (make the money) and fun/meaningful stuff (spend the money on)
What if that passion loses its luster once its your work? What if you get most meaning from close relationships, how do you incorporate that into a job?
I'm wary of most things that say this is the ideal for everyone. There are universal needs but there are not universal ways to meet those needs.
In order to win the lottery you have to buy a ticket. Not everybody wins, but that man can make a difference (or not ) in this world. We all have a shot at the BIG prize.
The author acknowledges this and isn't arguing about whether the lottery exists, but what the stakes are. For the working class, they stake their livelihood. It means that failing to win the lottery might mean starting a career from scratch, that is, if they enough to still have roof and food.
It's true that some people are going to have an easier time quitting a full time job to pursue a passion than others. The correct response is for those of us who have that privilege to do our best to recognize that not everyone can do that, and then enable those people for whom that's harder.
Discussions of privilege derail when they turn in to "...and so you should feel bad for being happy." No, you should recognize that if it's within your power to help other people be as happy as you are, you have a responsibility to do that.
I dont think thats author was saying. Its just that when we paint the pretty vision, we should be explicit about who is applies for / include disclaimers. Otherwise some people who have obstacles in their reality that you did not have may feel inspired, take a leap and...crash into those obstacles.
You cant be responsible for other peoples actions, but to the degree you can be self aware about whom your advice applies to, you should.
> Quitting your job to pursue your passion is bullshit.
Not at all true. I know plenty of working class people who have saved money at their day jobs, researched a small business opportunity, and chosen to pursue it. A decent portion of them are succeeding beyond their wildest expectations. All are glad to have had the experience and put their money where their mouth (dream) is. You only live once after all. Not starting a business you wanted to is not a stone you want to leave unturned, for a lot of people.
But there's some key points here. They saved money. They planned. They came up with contingencies.
> This messaging is only beneficial for privileged people and very dangerous for working class people.
Right, throw away that ambition and continue to be my employee until the end of time. This is the kind of thing I would write as a modern day "Lord of the Manor".
Once again, be intelligent. Have an idea of your worth. Use the internet to do research, learn about small businesses, and financial planning.
Of course there's a big difference between a working class person and the kid who grew up in the valley with parents working at GoogleSoftBook who gets shuttled into Stanford and isn't in a rush to pay loans or move out after graduation, preferring instead to make mobile apps with his frat. That doesn't seem to be what's being discussed though. It's just some vague attack at those who go out on their own. I'm surprised this sort of post is getting upvoted on HN. Are we a forum of spectators envious at those who chose to try that which we did not?
As a final thought, people complaining about other people's privilege would be doing themselves a much bigger favor if they got off their ass and worked to maximize their own potential. Don't try to bring me down, work on bringing yourself up. I'd be happy to help.