Because I'm not nearly as good at any hobbies as much as I'm good at my job and being good at something is what gives me day-to-day satisfaction. Having a high wage but not enough stored wealth to feel invincible against an increasingly uncertain future, I'm spending more time feeling good about work than finding and investing in a hobby that'll make me truly happy.
> Having a high wage but not enough stored wealth to feel invincible against an increasingly uncertain future
Hate to be the one to tell you this, but there is no guarantee on what the future may bring, money can't fix everything, and true security is a lie. Live your life in the here and now, before you regret wasting it.
True security is a lie, but "relatively comfortably secure for the foreseeable future" is not.
These days, it takes a lot of assets to be confident you won't be homeless in old age assuming no major surprises or threats from society and the environment changing.
I would say most younger people don't earn enough or have enough assets to reach that level of basic confidence. After all, if you've rented all your life so far due to inability to buy a place to live, you probably know, in the back of your mind, that when you retire, you can't see any way to pay the rent unless something changes between now and then.
No need for any catastrophic surprises. That's foreseeable.
"These days, it takes a lot of assets to be confident you won't be homeless in old age assuming no major surprises or threats from society and the environment changing."
Uh, that is quite a pessimistic take from someone debating on HN, which is a forum of IT-related professionals. Maybe your level of required confidence is too high.
Vast majority of old people in the developed world do not end up homeless and IT professionals are even better off than an average Western employee. So "assuming no major surprises or threats..." and assuming you are not at risk of becoming alcoholic or drug dependent, you do not really need to fear homelessness.
Here on HN, you might be surprised at the range of backgrounds people come from. There are people from all over the world. It's a startup forum, so it attracts "indie hacker" types, entrepreneurs and bootstrappers of all kinds vaguely tech related, and people whose IT interest is primarily open source, not just well-paid salarymen.
By "a lot of assets" I mostly mean "a house", but a decent size pension would count instead. Both are out of reach for many people now.
I agree that most old people in the developed world don't end up homeless.
On the other hand, there's a growing economic housing crisis affecting a lot of people in almost every developed country. Mostly affecting (current) younger people, and most (current) older people are almost oblivious to it. It's working its way up the age range. This is new.
You cannot assume what worked will always work, when there are factors that appear to be changing across generations.
Many people are paying >50% of their income in rent, and rents are still rising in most places faster than incomes. Most renters cannot find a way to get on the house buying ladder. If things carry on as they are, many people currently young will retire while renting. If you're paying 50% income on rent now, what are you going to do at pension time, as pensions are typically 1/3 or less of the income prior to retirement. You'll have to carry on working, but that gets harder with age, faster for some people than others.
I agree with you most will probably not end up homeless, but the point is, for that to work out, something will have to change.
I personally know an IT person who reached retirement age and is dependent on state benefits to pay their ongoing rent, and found those state benefits enough for almost zero properties in the area they lived for decades prior, making it hard to find a place from which to continue looking after their own older parents. They struggle, and have to work on the side.
And another, skilled and knowledgable software engineer, currently paid well, who for a period last year was unable to pay for rent or food due to running out of money and access to credit. They needed help from local volunteers just to eat. How can that happen, you may think? This is HN, where not everyone is working for a company. Like many HN readers who are entrepreneurial (it's notionally a startup forum), they were a business bootstrapper, and it's easy for that to become financially precarious when things don't go so well. Add a badly timed pandemic into the mix, government support for everyone except small business owners, and a time where jobs were not proving easy to get, and you have a recipe where homelessness really was realistic for a skilled IT person and, unfortunately, their family. I'm sure they're not the only one around here who's had to seriously face it last year.
My own pension is projected to be less than my current rent, which is already low for the area, so I think it's rational to be thinking about that.
If you do not own the place where you live, your rent-to-income ratio will likely go up when retiring and you will have to move somewhere cheaper. That is not outright homelessness, though. Many people, including people in developed welfare states such as Germany, cannot sustain their previous lifestyle when they retire.
Thats looking it through the last generations lens where stability = a geographical location to live with a house on it.
Ironically, as climate change effects become more and more prominent, going with a RV route is looking more like the best possible option for the future, cause you can just pick up and leave when bad weather comes.
> going with a RV route is looking more like the best possible option for the future, cause you can just pick up and leave when bad weather comes.
That's fine when young and healthy, but when you're older, have several recurring doctor appointments and some mild impairments, a home is a lot better.
Not saying it can't be done, after all there are nomad populations with elderly people who live on the road. But they usually have a support system that travels along, too.
Indeed a recent family experience revealed that if you're in a town where you don't have a primary care doctor and you get sick, you're SOL. We ended up having to fly my relative back to his home town so he could be treated.
The country is already at the point where a single natural disaster can cause regional short-term fuel shortages and price spikes because refineries are located in geographies susceptible to natural disasters.
It is not unreasonable to work under the assumption that temporary petrol shortages become a annual or semi-annual event in a future where the gulf coast is hammered with ever more frequent and powerful hurricanes.
Harvey was parked over Houston for several days, and I don't really remember fuel prices being affected that much. The bigger thing to worry about is something like the pipeline hack (which will assuredly happen again).
Prices didn't move all that much, but you literally couldn't get gas in Austin for a week or so, and gas stations would frequently run out for another few weeks after that.
This is an area where small, distributed solar panel arrays and batteries (like on your house) can be much more robust. It's a lot harder to destroy thousands of small solar power systems than it is to take out a pipeline feeding an entire city.
Near nonexistent. Battery size requirements and battery charging rates make EV RVS either really expensive and really impractical for distance travel. You would need to put a huge battery (say, 300 KwH, which would cost $60,000 just for the battery), to get a reasonable range of 200-300 miles between charges, depending upon the efficiency of your RV. And then, even at a level 3 DCFC Charging station (providing 50 KW) you're looking at 6 hrs of charging to fully charge the battery.
You know how much new RVs cost right? 200-400k is not unusual for a 'big' RV.
Also, with a bigger battery comes higher limits on how fast you can charge. If you have a 300kWh battery you should be able to charge it at 300kW all day long.
That said, it doesn't really exist since there is no market for it at the moment. RV sales aren't exactly high, so the niche for EV RVs is even smaller. Plus there's no real infrastructure out for it now.
I suspect once EV Semis become more mainstream we'll see that trickle down to RV users. They can charge at the same place a semi would charge at.
The thing about RVs is that generally, you won't have to drive them often. Average solar panel produces about 15 watts per square foot, so over a course of a month with about 7 hours of sun a day, that is 3 kwh/square foot. So 50 square feet of panels, which is the total area of a large bed, will get you half the range over a month.
Also, there will undoubtably be hybrid options where you can have a multi fuel generator charging your batteries.
In this post-apocalyptic scenario I think the range would be secondary to using the battery for day-to-day living. The RV could have solar and keep the battery topped off all the time.
Then you basically are in the same situation functionally as having a house, no different from other people. Maybe even better considering that you spent less money.
But realistically, hybrid powertrains, or even simple multi-fuel generator charging will make this a non issue.
> Then you basically are in the same situation functionally as having a house...
Provided you're lucky enough to run out of gas in a location that your RV won't be a nuisance. And if you're in hurricane territory, an RV is not functionally equivalent to a house.
If you have freedom of movement over a large area, if you don't have breakdown of law and order, if people don't start lynching others when they come into their area.
Historically the U.S. military provides aid to refugees rather than shoot them at the gate so I'm banking on that when I roll up to camp pendelton in 2050
I appreciate the angle but I think it's oversimplified.
I work almost just as much as I used to before but my life gets easier and better the more money I make. It's incredible to me the difference money makes. Compound interest is real and determining when it's enough is about determining the rate of growth in absolute terms relative to the cost of living you'd be happy with.
I used to be rather poor so the difference is more pronounced. I've enjoyed a high salary for some time now but I'm still reeling from the change.
Being Canadian, I have access to public health, but if I get sick with even minor things, it'll take up my whole day. Now, if I get sick, I'll just pay the ~$200 fee to see a private doctor for 15 minutes, get what I need and get out.
Dental is not covered by public health, so there were at times I delayed treatment because I couldn't afford it.
I used to live in Vancouver where people will tell you they have good public transport but it's a lie. It's really only if you live along the skytrain corridors because the busses are always late and it's always raining. So if you don't have a car, you're wet, cold, late, and miserable. Now I just pay for Uber. Better yet, I just live downtown and I can walk wherever.
Going to the grocery store when I was poor was also difficult. Thinking about what I can afford means spending time comparing prices or even stores, and compromising on the meals I wanted to make. Now I just throw everything I want into the cart and I don't even look at the price tag.
Being poor sucks and there are countless more examples.
I also used to live in Vancouver and took transit all the time. I never needed to own a car while I lived there. Could the bus system have been better? Almost certainly, but it's still far better than other places I've lived since. How many similarly sized cities in North America can you name with better public transit?
You have reached a solid threshold where your basic needs are met and you have various luxuries that make life comfortable.
From here on out you’ll have diminishing returns on the money/life improvement axis.
I read the comment to be working hard is what brings satisfaction. Some people really enjoy hard work and aren't doing it just as a means to afford leisure.
I read the comment to say that a hobby might make him “truly happy” but because of the uncertainty of the future he’s working hard and getting some level of satisfaction from that. He’s maximizing for security not for happiness.
I don’t understand the relevance of that link with your point, although I mostly agree with your point I’m hoping you can provide more information on how your evidence is relevant.
The link is mostly about what happens when there is too little currency. Someone deciding to work 40 hours a week instead of 70 would, if anything, reduce the amount of currency in circulation because more wealthy people tend to have larger savings and a person working 70 hours a week is probably making more money than if they were working 40.
There are a massive amount of things between "society collapsing" and "nothing bad ever happens" where the number in your bank account matters greatly.
You have unexpected huge medical expenses. You are no longer able to work. You're fired and can't find a job. Tech salaries collapse. Your town in burned down/destroyed in a hurricane/etc.
If I look at various social collapses that people around me have seen in the last century and a half (and there have been many!), then it's clear that while the number in your bank account was not always useful, it did often provide options to protect you from the worst of society falling apart. Other things being equal (of course, often they were not equal) having resources during collapse did matter - sure, it might turn out that some class of your resources became worthless overnight, but generally it wasn't all resources at once; in collapses where land was confiscated by a invading nation, having some gold watches to trade for a way out on a ship were life-saving; in economic collapses where money and stock became near-worthless, having a spare farmhouse was a great benefit, etc.
You do need to diversify to something more than a number at a single institution, but in general, I'd say that it's the other way around - when everything is fine in society, then life is okay even if you're a bit lacking, but when things become hard and not everyone is going to make it, then the have-nots will suffer even more due to lack of options caused by lack of resources. For a crude example, think about the difference between 1930s European Jews who could or could not afford to travel overseas (which was a much more serious expense than now) when things started to become threatening.
That is highly unlikely - thankfully there is a much more reasonable way to read how important it is to live for today. Nobody intends to be hit by a bus but some people are - make sure you're getting what you want out of life before you get hit by a bus.
Unlikely but not highly unlikely. If you expect to live for another 50 years, there is a nontrivial chance that you will face a crisis that happens once every 500 or 1000 years on the average. Dying prematurely is one kind of risk, outliving your society is another.
Me, I go for functionality. The catch there is, if I've acquired plenty of functionality for something I consider desirable but then I don't DO that thing, does it still exist?
Thing is, you can say that is the lie. That, over sufficient time, any form of money will collapse to worthlessness. Then it's just a question of when you bought in and when you cashed out. It's rather arbitrary. That it increases in value, is the lie. Nothing says it does… but repeating the lie.
This sounds like an unhealthy dependence on work to me. I enjoy my work but have far more fulfilling and enjoyable activities outside work. But hey, to each their own I suppose.
it's been my experience that there's no such thing as a job that doesn't suck the fun and joy out of any aligned interest and hobby.
the bureaucratic bullshit, the HR bullshit, the "team building" exercises - i don't care if it's bowling or drinking alcohol, asshole managers, toxic co-workers, at-work politics in all it's wonderful forms.
i say this for large companies that pay well but treat you more like a number, for the small places that expect everything from you but treat you like family (at times), the startups, the regional companies, the tech companies, the non-tech companies, the customer facing roles, the backend roles.
it's all life sucking and life draining and there's no such thing, on a long enough time line (this is variable to people) that keeps it fulfilling. even changing it up all the time once oyu approach burn out.. .has it's breaking point where even that doesn't do shit for you.
work is a thing you do so you can live when you're done.
work sucks.
best job i ever had was working a kitchen of a BBQ restaurant. 2nd best was building walls and door frames for new houses as a teen. everything else i've ever done, blows and I'm 40.
Not really. Work is just a way to enrich your employer. I don't really find that all that fulfilling unless I was in an exceptional position, such as upper management in an R&D company developing revolutionary technology. But no, I'm a guy who develops insurance software for a wage. It's not bad, but it's not hard to find far more fulfilling things on my own time.
That's an awful way to look at life. Work already occupies your most productive working hours, why wouldn't you try to make it the most interesting and fulfilling activity in your life?
I'm not saying what I'm doing is futile or pointless, I'm simply acknowledging the reality of how jobs work. I enrich the employer with the value I add in exchange for a wage. None of this should be romanticized or made into something it's not. It's just a job. What I do outside my job is far more rewarding and fulfilling because it's no longer primarily about making a wage to pay bills.
> Work already occupies your most productive working hours
Unfortunately
> why wouldn't you try to make it the most interesting and fulfilling activity in your life?
I can’t. I’d do it if I could, but everything the appears fulfilling seems to end up being a scam or not obtainable or not worth obtaining for the pittance it would pay.
Just to be pendantic, I used the word fulfilling as opposed to meaningful as I believe they are different.
To the question though, with “can’t” being used loosely:
- Anything that I lack the correct aptitude/intelligence to work on. There are a number of options in this category. Things that while I could probably do in theory, I’d be unable to keep up with the competition in a professional market.
- Anything with limited options for employment. Sure I’d love to be a ~~Haskell~~ ~~Adga~~ Idris developer or researcher in some crazy field with absolutely zero immediate monetization strategy, but there just aren’t many jobs to apply to. Even if I did anything right I’d still be likely to fail.
the most interesting job gets grinded down by process, by toxic co-workers, bully bosses, unrealistic expecatations and pressures, dealing with shitty "customers" (be them internal employees or external to the company).
my wife, my kid, hiking, camping, hitting the beach, listening to music, going to a concert, watching a movie, reading a book, gardening, yard/house projects, having my cat sit on my lap ..are all infinitely more rewarding than any piece of shit job could ever be.
I can't believe you are being downvoted on this website of all places. Meaningless jobs are crap, and shouldn't be celebrated at all. I'm sorry but deciding that all work is pointless, just because that's what your work is like, is plain and simple coping.
I used to think that. Several decades of having my good work dumped straight into the trash bin followed by years of incredibly trivial jobs kind of beat it out of me.
Of course it’s debatable. What’s not debatable is that the grandparent perceives it as a satisfying, fulfilling life right now.
What constitutes a satisfying life is an incredibly gray area, and for me, as I get older, I keep having to re-calibrate myself and realize life is short, even more so if you don’t know how to use it.
Are you of the opinion that, just because the thing you enjoy doing also benefits your employer, that you can't enjoy it? That seems... very limiting. If I won the lottery, I'd be doing the same thing I do now, except without someone telling me to do it.
Unsuccessful people can live a satisfying life because that's what they can get. It doesnt mean they are living the way they want but the way the think they can
Well clearly in this case the person is not living their life because "that's all they can get”. Working 70 hours is a very voluntary choice in this case.
Having a mentality like this seems like it will crush you when you do finally retire. No one is good at a hobby from the get go, the point is to be bad and develop a talent over time.
Do you not have any genuine desires beyond how good you are at things? Most of the stuff I do, I do because it's enjoyable, social, adventurous, relaxing, for enganging a curiosity, or also competitive, but competetion is kind of hollow imo and is only present in a minority of things I also find fun. Granted, I also have no job or money, but I'm happy.
Because I know what it means to work a 40hour shitty job. And I mean shitty. As in fill paint cans and inhale paint fumes all week shitty. I mean crawl into a conveyor belt that's stuck, use a torch to heat it up and a sledgehammer to straighten it shitty.
That I'm now able to what I do and earn what I earn, to me, is like a miracle and I enjoy every minute of it.
I empathize with your sentiment.. I checked out of IT-related work in my 20's, and the moment I checked back in was sitting on the floor of a production welding shop, impact drilling holes through plate steel. I had this moment of clarity when I realized that however "unhappy" IT made me, it wasn't nearly as miserable as the alternative I had stumbled into.
Or as my dad put it: better to work with your head than your hands, isn't it son?
This all still skirts the main issue. Why does the janitor get paid so much less for a shitty job almost no one wants to do? Why do we have damn near minimum wage construction jobs? Many jobs are important, all should be paid accordingly. Failing that, shouldn't the most labor intensive jobs therefore pay the best? The incentives are so skewed in society now. And I say that as someone who has done all kinds of crazy jobs from cushy to hell.
What % of software engineers could competently perform a janitorial job, preferences aside? What % of janitors could competently perform a software engineering job?
just to reiterate here- I'd bet you most janitors could code if given the same classes. Or maybe they can't code maybe they'd be better as a manager or HR or PM, or fuck even CEO.
I'm tired of this bullshit rhetoric that SEs are somehow smarter than everyone else. I know some absolutely fucktarded people working for some pretty big companies in some pretty big roles. One is a doctor I wouldn't trust with my cat.
Your job does not speak to your intelligence.
Janitors can be smart too. Maybe this is all because movies like Good Will Hunting aren't made anymore.
Nobody said anything about intelligence. The person you originally replied to said skills. Just because I could spend a year learning something if I so choose, doesn't mean that I currently have those skills. They're called low skill jobs, not low intelligence jobs.
His point was he has the skills. I made the point about bootcamps, skills are easily obtained. Implying the janitor could not gain the skills is insane. Thinking a SE could begin a janitorial job tomorrow and do it as well as the janitor is laughable. SE skills are just a bit harder to come by, they aren't special. If your skills can be learned in a 6 week course you are not an astrophysicist nor a brain surgeon.
SEs are paid well and so have an overinflated self-value. Again, now that this is crashing with WFH. We have code chop shops in India, yet we still try and pretend coding is some modern-day magic language.
ninja edit- hit reply b4 finished
2nd edit- reminded me of this [1] infamous That Mitchell and Webb Look sketch =)
I used to believe that a good bootcamp can make a developer out of anyone. I changed my mind after trying to teach programming to a couple of people. In all failed cases people was not trained to thing algorithmically, that is being able to pick a piece apart and build a thing out of small parts, all in mind. Like looking at what a single iteration of a loop does and imagining what will be the end result. A person either has this skill and then she can learn on her own even without a teacher. Or she does not have it and then no matter how hard you try to explain Java/Python/JS/etc she does not get it at a very basic level.
I do agree that learning how to code is not that hard given that you have certain skills already. But said skills are rare. This might explain why programmers think it is easy to learn programming but we don’t see an influx of skilled developers despite boot camps and online courses available for free.
Maybe changing something at an elementary school level would fix the problem. I have no idea how to do it but I know for sure that we need to teach people a certain way of thinking and this is a prerequisite to being a successful programmer. As soon as you have that way of thinking learning Python or Java is a piece of cake. And I absolutely sure that anyone can learn it, we are simply super bad at teaching the right skills to people.
I agree about boot camps. I didn't say it would make them good coders, just able to code. I've worked with code monkeys who did nothing but C/P from SO, who had no idea how their code worked. I've worked with 'hardware repair specialists' who didn't know the how/why of hardware, they could only parrot what they saw on YouTube.
Some (read- rich) schools are teaching programming early, but I agree 100% if we had all public schools teach it early it would remove much of the mysticism.
Anyways sorry if I come across as heated on this issue, just some of the best people I've ever met made the least and had the most menial of jobs.
edit to add- my mother (a horrible, evil person), was head of Sandia Labs IT(weapons defense contractors for the govt), she had a masters in accounting and knew nothing about computers and servers. This woman- who was on call 24/7 and still had beepers in 2010 as they are more reliable than cellphones, couldn't use a desktop computer and had Win98 as her OS when the rest of the world was on Win 7. I don't understand this world.
Rate of pay is empirically determined by the intersection of supply and demand for that job, not by how important a particular person or group thinks a job ought to be considered a priori.
Where supply is much larger than demand -- that is, where many people can easily replace the person doing the job and perform similar work -- wages are low. When not many people can do a demanded job, wages are high.
Note that I am not making any moral claims about this fact being good or bad; just pointing out that it is indeed an objective fact.
This dynamic notably holds true even in non-capitalist economic systems, such as in Communist countries where the rate of pay is legally fixed at the same level for all jobs: people simply barter out of band with non-monetary forms of value transfer (блат) instead, to compensate for the inability to use money to find the supply/demand intersection.
Supply vs demand works until WFH begins to even the payscale. SEs everywhere started screaming about pay reductions. There is no lack of SWEs, that is now more than apparent.
It's simply the flavor of the decade, just like last bubble it was website/graphics design. Bubble is bursting IMO.
I think the bubble is shearing perhaps. The top wages for SWEs in many markets seem to be going up and substantially so, while the wages for the broad middle of the market in globally high-cost locations aren’t going up and, as you observe, are at risk of falling as/if WFH-driven globalization accelerates.
I had intended to keep programming as a hobby, but I had a moment of clarity one day when I realized that was my one skill that I already had that could make lots of money.
For the most part, I haven't regretted it, though I was correct that I wouldn't do as much programming in my free time if I did it as a job.
It hasn't really mattered, though. The programming I do during my day job is always towards a purpose and usually has a clear goal. I generally find the programming itself quite rewarding, even if I'm often frustrated with the things around it.
Now that I'm older, I realize I could also have picked a lot of other jobs and learned them relatively quickly, but I still think I made the right decision. Those other things are now my hobbies.
If my house and kids’ college were paid off, I’d happily program for half of the prevailing wages for SWEs in the US. I do it for fun on the side anyway; if you want me to work on your puzzles, you have to pay me, but we’ll both end up happy when you do.
Wages for professionals, such as law, medicine, tech, finance, consulting, etc., have really ballooned over the past decade, since 2008 especially, even after accounting for student loan debt and inflation. This makes working long hours more attractive, as the financial payoff is so great both in terms of wages but also by investing one's income in rapidly appreciating assets such as stocks and real estate (the post-2009 bull market is the biggest and longest ever). Consequently, there are many people on Reddit and Hacker News on popular subs such as /r/personalfinance , r/investing, /r/financialindependence, /r/wallstreetbets (a lot of gambling, yes, but also many rich people who have 6-figures to play with) and /r/fatfire who have amassed considerable wealth by late 20 or 30s. Putting in long hours in your 20s and 30s to have a massive nest egg that will last you the rest of your life by your 40s seems like a good trade-off.
> Putting in long hours in your 20s and 30s to have a massive nest egg that will last you the rest of your life by your 40s seems like a good trade-off.
Even amassing 7 figures by your late 20s/30s (very difficult to do reliably, also implies no debt, no adverse life events, etc.), is not remotely enough to make a "comfortable" living for the next ~5 decades of your life.
It is if you own a house mortgage-free. Dividend income on let’s say $1.5 million would be around $60,000/year. That’s pretty comfortable if your expenses don’t include shelter.
That’s why my advice to young people is always to do what you have to in order to establish working credentials, then move somewhere cheap, buy a house and work remotely as much as you can. You’ll get it paid off in no time and that level of freedom cannot be overstated. Then you can start really saving.
On the downside, you’ll probably be living somewhere small and uncool and that may not be enough incentive to leave the bright lights of the city.
> On the downside, you’ll probably be living somewhere small and uncool and that may not be enough incentive to leave the bright lights of the city.
This seems like social life suicide. I'm in my 30s, single, and omitted dating much in my 20s (because -- surprise surprise -- I was working way too much). I can't really move to the middle of nowhere where the dating pool is non-existent.
Realistically though, 1.5MM brings in much more than $60k a year most of the time (an aggressive portfolio could return that much in a month, on occasion). So one could buy a place in a cool area with a cheap 30 year loan immediately before quitting. Live there for as long as you want, then sell it if you get the urge for a cheaper, less exciting lifestyle.
Even if one overspends a little extra in those initial years paying a mortgage on a nicer place, much of that will be recouped upon sale, since places in cool areas tend to appreciate quit quickly and mortgages are highly leveraged.
I saw some of your personal details before removed. You have.. $xM available, and still working to death?
"Where to get private health insurance?" Google it? I think pretty much every state has a BlueCross insurance company you can call up to ask. You'll probably spend between $500 and $1000/month, per person in your family, depending on state and age.
I despise employer-provided insurance - we have an entire culture of people who feel extra-dependent on 'employers' and who don't seem to know how to find out basic information.
You have a more than comfortable nest egg. Go pursue your passion before it's too late.
A handful of Vanguard funds (VIGAX, VITAX, VFIAX, VWNDX) and the like.
The GP was talking solely about dividends, but most funds will re-balance and distribute long-term capital gains to you if you wish. If, in 2020, you held $1.5MM in a mix of those funds and instead of reinvesting dividends, long-term, & short-term capital gains, and instead redirected them to your bank account. You'd have something like $80k distributed and your market value would have increased to like 1.7-1.8MM.
Not that 2020 was a typical year or anything. But the past 8 or so years have told a similar story.
If you have $6M, you can live the next 60 years on $100k/yr by simply storing it under your mattress. You should talk to a financial advisor, you almost certainly can retire now if you want to, even if you're 18 years old.
Online dating has changed this and you now can find decent sized dating pools anywhere you go. Unless you're very picky of course. You can also increase your matches to say 100 miles. Chances are your match will move in with you because you're already on top of your finances
Or you can date where you are, and then move somewhere cheap together
> Online dating has changed this and you now can find decent sized dating pools anywhere you go
This is a dubious claim, but I don't want to get into it, because I've debated this on HN ad nauseum.
> Or you can date where you are, and then move somewhere cheap together
What attractive, educated, socially-active woman in her 20s will want to move to the middle of nowhere once you get together or marry? I want to be around friends, family, alumni, and I'd wager so would she.
If by "affordable" you mean $200 - $300k for a decent house, there are A LOT of places in the USA that are NOT small and uncool where you can buy an affordable house.
sure but if you keep spending moderate, it may grow to $2.5M-$3M, as it would probably already be around $2M in those 10 years. Instead of $8M at 60, perhaps you've spent along the way and only end up with $3M at 60?
For me, that’s targeting the same spendable money as the 95th percentile household who is earning a wage (paying high taxes on that), paying for a house, feeding two late model mid-luxury cars, and saving aggressively for retirement and college.
So, significantly less than what would be needed to hit $250K of pre-tax money ($6M or so), but rather a paid-off house (taxes and insurance only), no further college or retirement savings, tax-optimized withdrawals, and buying health insurance as the major effects. I’m guessing that it’s less than half of $6M (in today’s money) and probably under $2M to hit a 90th percentile spendable money figure.
It depends on what other choices you make in terms of costs.
If you are STUPID, you insist on living in hell-holes like California (LA or SF areas) and you lock yourself into foolish costs you can easily avoid. FOMO is an excellent and primary way to make you last statement a 100% certainty.
As an impoverished 30 year old I wish I was more focused in building and cultivating a career path. What I did instead was "a 9-5 on something I'm good at" (not coding as I'm career switching).
Guess what followed after that: Odd jobs. Yes, they pay the bills but they don't build career progression. You cannot sell yourself to someone to hire you for your 1 year experience in 8 different things. This is why considering the money alone isn't enough. And yes, you also need to be educated on personal finance because if you were born in a poor family chances are you'll be spending the money as soon as you touch them.
> You cannot sell yourself to someone to hire you for your 1 year experience in 8 different things.
It heavily depends on what those things are. If you have one year of legitimate experience in cyber security right now, you've got a job almost anytime you want it. The same goes for many in-demand programming languages at present. That level of experience will not initially net you a very high paying tech job, however compared to the median it'll be a good paying job and you can work your way up from there.
Why do you suppose that people don't enjoy working 70 hours a week?
My dad regularly worked 70 hour weeks - had multiple careers doctor/businessman/public figure.
But he had a ton of help - manager, personal assistant, chauffeur. Everything on the home front was outsourced.
He loved it. But he had a lot of control.
Most people, I observe who burn out, do because of other reasons - work politics, poor health and ultimately not feeling in control of their lives.
Not everyone is built to work like that, but some are. And they can sustain it for long periods of time.
If you want to enjoy working 70 hours a week, you have to enjoy doing what you consider "work".
If "working" to an executive means attending parties, trade shows, and numerous business events, that 70 hours could be a lot of fun, and totally worth it. I can think of a few roles I'd like in the future that would have me working that much and I'd be all-in for it. There are hard parts, certainly, but as you described, you have control over it.
However, if you are sitting at a desk laboring in front of a screen for 70 hours every week because your boss (who works as described in the previous paragraph) thinks that's what defines work ethic, then you're going to get burned out and alienated from your friends and family because all of your emotional energy is being sapped out of you by your employer. You don't have control. Your job isn't exciting and dynamic. There is a limited amount of it that you can tolerate before it starts to harm you.
If the ultra-high-earning executive types enjoy their life-encompassing careers, let them have it. If I have the opportunity at a career like that I might take it myself.
But if you're laboring to meet an end (and yes, most software engineers should be thought of as laborers), you need work/life balance otherwise you're just being exploited by people who don't care if they bring you misery in the process of delivering a product.
A lot of the "so successful" have a TON of help. At the home front things are covered - stay at home wife, cleaners etc. You come home, home cooked meal, wife happy to hang out go on a walk do whatever, kids taken care of.
You go to work, you have the parking spot, the assistant with a schedule. Strong managers.
Again, these are the "so successful" folks.
The 70 hours of work is mostly meetings, strategy, bouncing ideas off people you got to hire to work with. It's not terrible
> You come home, home cooked meal, wife happy to hang out go on a walk do whatever
That also feels outdated. I don't know many people who are happy to sit at home, prepare meals for their absent spouse, and then smile and be happy to do whatever that spouse wants to do when they get home. That feels like an image from the 50s, not 2021.
Yeah my wife hates that she doesn't get to experience endless office politics and instead has to spend her time with our wonderful children and make meals for her loving husband who makes money for her.
If y'all are both happy about it, great. That set up is less common in the younger generations, especially those who were children when divorce rates were dominating headlines.
At least anecdotally most of the millennial couples with a traditional stay at home set up I know transitioned to that after their first kid without expecting to
Yeah because post-modernism has lied to a whole generation about what gender equality is about. Women are told that focusing on their career is a moral good but most people’s careers only amount to being a capitalist cog. Plus, it turns out that raising children is absolutely fulfilling for many women.
The reason your friends transition to a traditional dynamic once they have a kid is because they lived the lie as long as they could so they could fit in with modern societal norms, and then once they were faced with the reality of raising a child, they quickly realized the error of group think. The worst part is that people feel pressured to shift to a traditional dynamic quietly because there’s so much shame around the decision, as if deciding to devote yourself to your family is less noble than working for a soulless corporation.
Why do you presume to know why they made that decision?
Also why do you think that it's entirely about gender equality when the younger generations have grown up in an era where wages have stagnated and few families can get by on a single income?
I have a lot more sympathy for the view that traditional gender roles have wisdom as I've had kids of my own, but it really seems like you are over-indexing on it which is especially offensive coming from a man who has historically benefited from the set up.
Maybe OP should have said doordash instead of wife for it to be a 2021 example. It's kinda funny when you see homes of very wealthy people and see what they eat. Usually its their assistant bringing them a premade salad from sweetgreen for lunch and everything in the kitchen is used by a professional cook who makes meals and even packages leftovers rather than the homeowner.
It sounds outdated but that's because "modern ideas" have tried to replace them. The fact is, you will be more successful if you can manage to have a more traditional relationship and home life - 50 millennia of human history will always trump 50 years of post-modernist clap-trap ideas and ideologies. Biology is real and trumps politics. Just ask most women over 30-40 who aren't married or drugged into a happy coma!
I'd totally be a houseman if given the option. Cook nice meals, clean up, do laundry, hit the gym/grocery/errands during off hours, go for afternoon walks in the park, do fun projects with the kids.
Granted it's not for everyone. But I can see why it would be appealing.
I've worked extremely long hours and there's a very big difference to me between working on a saturday on green-field development where what you're doing takes time but isn't particularly full of surprises - and trying to grind out a hard to find bug instead of enjoying the outdoors. I don't hate hunting down bugs myself - but dealing with fatigue from overwork while trying to find a needle in a haystack is much different from being able to cruise through some reqs like a badass using half your brain.
It's quite likely that the billionaires putting in long hours are doing so in tasks that are diverse and decisive enough to not be soul crushing - while outsourcing those soul crushing tasks to their subordinates... in fact if that isn't the case then they're executiving wrong.
Finally, being a found who benefits directly from every penny your company earns differs significantly from working plebs that might just be randomly fired tomorrow and will never see any benefit from the company doing slightly better. The motivation is there for Musk in a way it isn't for those who surround him.
Right. It's about the autonomy. I do see a categorical difference between being the guy that gets asked to do something vs the guy whose job is to do the asking. Where does the former turn to? One has flexibility, the other has no where to turn.
You mean working for your employer 70 hours a week, right?
As for me, I make it a point to give my employers what they’re paying for, but nothing extra. I spend a lot of extra time each week performing “work” for myself. Whether it be home improvement or side projects.
Sure. If we want to expand the definition of work then I work every hour of the day. Some of that work is for my employer, some of that work is for my family, some of that work is for me.
Most people don't enjoy spending 70 hours a week working for their employer.
You assume that workload is binary you either work or you are just present. The intensity fluctuates even if you study for 1 hour. This isn't something exclusive to those who work more.
For many jobs being available to do work has value, but a doctor on call that’s sleeping in the hospital isn’t actually working. As such it’s a perfectly reasonable to separate working from bing available to do work.
It's just not true for ALL. And yes, that minority are those who:
* have higher IQ or higher motivation/grit/work ethic or both
* have a marketable set of skills - both hard and soft
* do not fall into simplistic life memes that induce FOMO - they make their own success rather than rely on others to define what success must be and how it must be done
You're not most people. I'll work 40 or 50 hours a week then spend another 30 on side projects happily! That's 80 hours just working on "stuff". No TikTok. So it really depends. Elon Musk famously claimed he worked 100 hours a week.
I’m waiting for confirmation but I don’t think the comment thread is suggesting that all “work” is suspended after 40 hours. I think they’re saying that your obligation to your employer should float close to 40.
I’m a big proponent of not regularly giving employers extra time, but I urge everyone to make the most of the remaining 168-40 hours a week - that means minimizing idle leisure too.
It's true that some have an enormous capacity for work. I felt my capacity grew year on year for ten years straight -- simply by working with enormously ambitious people. But it can also happen by other means. While at a megacorp, for example, I was collaborating and competing with colleagues medicated with Adderal, who had astounding focus and output. The bar is always being raised, and sometimes in ways that are barely visible. My takeaway was that it's important to identify personal limits and boundaries, and be careful how hard you compete.
I think it's a fair premise that the majority will never / can never enjoy working 70 hours per week. It's essentially impossible to match so many people ideally up to financially rewarding tasks they'd enjoy doing for that amount of time each week on a persistent basis. I'm skeptical there is much of anything people enjoy doing 70 hours per week; I've only known a few people that even liked to get that much sleep. In the past I've known a few gaming addicts that played ten hours per day, but, that's an addict, they have a serious problem.
If you have a family, 70 hours per week becomes threatening to the well-being of that family unit. Are there exceptions? I'm sure. That's all they are though, rare exceptions. A bunch of that time should rationally be spent exploring life with the kids and spouse, partaking in new shared experiences together, which is what bonds people together for the long-term.
I don't mind working eight hours per day, seven days per week. Up to ten hours if I really need to get something done. I won't do that for anybody else other than myself though, for my own projects/businesses; I won't do it under any circumstances for some middle management moron clown boss or company I don't own. My bills are around a thousand dollars per month right now, I can meet that working part-time for $15 / hr at a convenience store if I feel like it, or doing low volume contract tech work on the side. I've been working six or seven days per week for 20+ years straight at this point and I have rarely suffered burnout, because I've spent that time working on what I wanted to, doing what I wanted to, when I wanted to, with no boss. If I want to sleep all day, I sleep all day; if I want to work all day, I work all day; if I want to sleep during the day and work all night, I do that. That's not normal, and it can't be replicated by the majority of people. I also don't have a family; if I did, I'd have a different schedule because my priorities would be different, working 7*10 would be a serious disservice to that family, it would be unfair.
It's abstract busyness if those workers don't have a significant stake in the businesses they're keeping afloat, as they aren't among the owners who are made wealthy from their abstracted labor.
It was great, he is a very loving dad. He taught me a lot along the way. We spend a lot more time talking now that he's retired and we live on opposite sides of the globe.
He does regret it that he did not spend enough time with me.
But, he made a lot of other people's lives better and I made peace with that.
Right. The family is your moral priority, not your career. But people are selfish. They will sacrifice their families for their careers when the two are in conflict. Divorces ensue, estranged children that are poorly adjusted. Actually, all this mostly started with the industrial revolution. Before then, work usually took place in and around the home for most people. Both men and women worked. But with the industrial revolution, fathers were torn from the home and forced to go off and labor in the factories. I hope that COVID finally destroys this stupid modern tradition for occupations where it is possible to do so.
Besides, if all you know and do is your career, then you're a pretty boring fellow. Human beings don't just eat and shit. They do other things as well. Culture needs leisure[0]. The world of "total work" is not a good one. And generally, it is a sign of latent nihilism. If you cannot put work to the side and take care of the other important stuff you're neglecting, then you are probably using work as something to avoid uncomfortable realizations. Work becomes an opiate. You're no longer thinking in terms of what is objectively good, but what you find subjectively pleasing. The two need not be at odds, but they can be when you subordinate the truth to your desires instead of subordinating your desires to the truth.
First it's based on a much older book that is essentially talking about "master-slave/master-serf" luxury and leisure of elites - 100% bullshit elitism.
Second, the reality is that civilization can not operate without a fair if not majority of jobs being shit jobs. As long as they are well-paying enough and voluntary, there's nothing wrong with that. And that cost could be being away from your family. As long as family is being provided for, I see no problems with that.
And the main reason being that simply having parents being "present" does NOT assure happy or good childhoods to your children or good relations with your spouse. There are plenty of counter examples.
It's as if work is just toiling, but in reality it is not. Some people may just love meeting people and calling the shot. Some people may just love reading papers and tweaking and building systems. Some people may just love deriving equations and writing papers and giving talks. They call such activities work, but they enjoy doing them.
What matters is not hours but choice: can one choose to use her time at her own will? If she can, then I don't see any issue at all.
This is completely tangential to your point, but why did you choose to use “she” as the pronoun in your last sentence? I see this more and more frequently, and I assume it has something to do with being more inclusive (so as not to imply only a man could be the subject), but I don’t want to assume. Why not use “they” instead?
I doubt you would have noticed -- at least not enough to stop and make a comment -- if "he" was chosen instead. Why not throw in some extra flavor (and sure, inclusivity too) to your writing and make a woman the subject from time to time?
No particular reason. I thought "she" was the polite pronoun to use to refer to a single person. In fact, not knowing how to use a gender-neutral pronoun puzzles me to no end. Otherwise, I'm all ears for the correct usage.
It's been 30 years since I've studied formal writing in earnest, but "they," is, or at least was, grammatically incorrect in that sentence, unless you are referring to more than one person. English doesn't have a proper gender neutral singular pronoun. People have bastardized "they" to fit that role though because they don't know the gender, or because changing social and cultural pressures.
They as a singular gender-neutral pronoun is far, far older than 30 years[0], so while I believe that you were taught that, you were taught incorrectly. So was I!
It is neither a bastardization, nor grammatically incorrect, to use they as a singular gender-neutral pronoun.
Interesting history. According to that article, using "they," as a singular pronoun was improper from 1745 until 2015. It depends on who you ask of course but had I used singular "they," in a paper, I would have lost a letter grade for each occurrence. My Literature teachers didn't mess around.
PS: I enjoyed the use of the old style footnote. We were just getting out of that notation into inline references when I was taught.
My understanding is that while there are certainly changing social and cultural pressures which influence how often people use they in the singular, or at the least, increasing how likely some are to use it (possibly decreasing how likely others are to?),
that using “they” as singular was not at all unheard of. It is quite plausible that the sources I am remembering were somewhat over-representing how common it was (they certainly would have motivation to do so, in relation to the changing social pressures that you mentioned), but my impression is still that for a long while, it was not especially unusual for people to use it without meaning to make (and without being perceived to be making) any kind of statement about gender/sex, though it may have been (idk) the clear consensus that it was “technically incorrect usage”.
Furthermore, my impression (I could be wrong) is that while using a singular “they” to refer to a person whose sex/gender was unknown, was not that strange, it would have been fairly odd for someone to use singular “they” in the case where the speaker does know the sex/gender of the person in question, and that this is something which has changed substantially more of late due to changing social pressures etc. (compared to the use when the gender/sex is unknown).
I should note that I have not looked into this closely, and any parts which I have I could have forgotten, and therefore these are only the impressions I have, which could be wrong, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
> It's been 30 years since I've studied formal writing in earnest, but "they," is, or at least was, grammatically incorrect in that sentence, unless you are referring to more than one person.
It is incorrect, as is “her” both times used in the preceding sentence, but not because of number of the referent (a sibling comment addresses “they” and its long-established singular use, but that's not actually relevant here.) Rather, “her” is incorrect because the possessive pronoun that corresponds to the “one” used in the earlier clause of the same sentence and with which “her” shares a referent is “one’s”, not “her”. And “she” is incorrect because it has, again, the same referent as the subject pronoun “one” in the preceding sentence, and therefore should use the same subject pronoun.
> English doesn't have a proper gender neutral singular pronoun.
Leaving aside whether it does for a known, specific referent, it absolutely does for an generic referent, and it was even properly used in one of four places the same generic referent was referred to using a pronoun in the last two sentences of the post: “one (subject)/one (object)/one’s (possessive)”.
If you're talking about a class of people, it's not really a forced application.
e.g. "If people can, then I don't see any issue at all" as opposed to "If a person can, than I don't see any issue at all." There's nothing wrong with either.
Based on people I know, either (1) they enjoy it and don't have anything else they'd rather do. This is common among business owners. Or (2) they also spend a lot of money and no other job is going to pay them remotely close to what they need to earn to continue spending the way they do. This is more common in industries like law and finance.
The headline itself is an example of a question that answers itself.
Another example would be "if you've saved up a lot of money, why don't you spend more?" Well because I saved it by not spending too much.
And in this case, "success" is working long hours, because of what these workers believe. Success is the appearance of working hard, and having put the effort in.
The article doesn't really address income/spending, though. Are they making excellent money because of working so hard? What do they do with it? If they spend most of it, they have to keep earning to sustain their lifestyle.
Of course, some people spend little, work hard, earn a lot, and perhaps never reach "enough", where they can work less, spend a bit more, and actually enjoy the fruit of their labor.
No, I don't think people work 70 hours because they're successful. I think they work 70 hours out of necessity and others think that makes them successful.
If I were successful then I definitely wouldn't be _working_. Yet here I am working many hours and others claim I am successful.
Get a different job. If you don't love what you're doing, why do it? I you love doing something, why not get paid for it? People can be working 70 hours a week and enjoying it. Because you associate work with being miserable doesn't mean others do.
Working 70hrs a week is terrible, crushing it 70hrs a week is never enough. (shlinkedin has ruined me), but sincerely, work is inversely proportional to leverage, which implies someone working that hard doesn't have a lot of leverage. If you don't have leverage, you aren't managing well, and if you aren't managing well, that's a problem worth solving.
This seems abstract and businessy, but understanding what people mean when they use the term "leverage," in its myriad forms is a very useful concept to master.
"Work exceptionally long hours when you need to or want to, but do so consciously, for specified time periods, and to achieve specific goals. Don’t let it become a habit because you have forgotten how to work or live any other way." -- Having constraints on your time should help you better prioritize and utilize your energy levels during the day to boost your productivity.
Isn't that "high" a flimsy thing though? It's like you're lowkey advocating for a trance like state. I'm not sure that's what I want to end up doing all my life -- be high with similar addicts.
"J'fais dla poudre, pour travailler plus, pour faire plus d'argent, pour faire plus de poudre, pour travailler plus, pour faire plus d'argent..."
Classic Punk song from Vulgaires Machins (Québec band), translates to: "I do coke, to work more, to make more money, to do more coke, to work more, to make more money..."
I have, since the beginning of my career, refuses to work for anyone that expects more than 40 hours per week of me. I ask it as part of my interview. I'm not against the occasional crunch, or traveling for work on occasion. Those are fine. But if an employer expects more than 40 hours per week consistently, I will simply not work for that company.
And so far, I have remained upwardly mobile, and more importantly, happy with the work that I do and satisfied with the amount of time I am afforded for friends, family, and hobbies.
Everyone searching for a job should be asking their employers hard questions. Job offers aren't worth it if you're being exploited.
What do you mean, incorrectly? For the vast majority of folks, work isn't fun - not when compared to not working, anyway. I mean, do you really think that most retail or foodservice workers think their job is fun?
And even when folks like their jobs, there are practical limits. Some jobs are stressful and lower work hours minimize mistakes. Would you rather have emergency room employees in their 35th or 65th hour on the clock that week?
Maybe work isn't the point, especially considering the unpaid work most of us do (and someone working 70 hours a week is surely expecting others to do, paid or not).
It sounds like you're both saying the same thing "Don't incorrectly assume most people share your purpose or values". They never prescribed everyone must have these values rather they pointed out the article does not consider some may.
I don't. I've hit the peak of promotion that I think I want in my career at a FAANG. I work from home and in practice I work 30ish hours a week. I do put a decent amount of effort into making sure the time that I do work is highly productive. Depression and chronic illness practically limited my working hours so I learned how to "work with" what I have. If you let go of the ladder-climbing and the impostor syndrome, you don't have to work like you ego depends on it.
> If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?
Because I like it.
But, then, you probably wouldn't think of me as "successful." I'm not on anyone's payroll, and I won't be zipping around in any private jets, in the foreseeable future.
I would not agree with that assessment (I feel very successful), but it's not worth arguing about.
What will happen to you when you retire? Will you ever retire or will you work until you're dead? Are you someone for whom retirement, or not working, quite literally means death?
In Germany, the state will punish you if you work more than 32 hours per week by very high taxes. Germany has the highest average tax level for single persons (don't confuse with highest possible tax):
I enjoy the sense of accomplishment that comes from making beautiful things (mostly code) more than I enjoy things like vacations, social situations, etc. That's just me, but I think I'm not necessarily in the minority on "Hacker" News.
When you are succesful your work has been very rewarding, you will keep chasing that feeling.
I don't work that much. I do not hate my work at all. I went for something I really enjoy, and I don't really need many holidays to "recover" like I hear other people say.
I work doing what I want to do so I don't count hours. Yes you need breaks and cannot always sprint 70 hour weeks but I absolutely would continue to do whenever I can because I am building my future with it. If you are in a dead end job working 790 hours, sucks to be you.
I could be wrong, they could be from anywhere in the world, but it seems more likely that they’re American than European if their life is dedicated to work
The only true answer is that out there are 8 billion people waking up every day.
And all they do is seeking social relevance, and by doing so they are inadvertedly diluting your own social relevance.
There is not a mechanism which allows you to stop working and freeze your social relevance in place as some sort of videogame checkpoint type manner.
You stop working and your relevance is eroded away...hell you could keep the amount of work constant or even increase it and your relevance would be eroded away if you are in a sector or a country which is not performing well.
The biggest lie that those at the top of the social pyramid have ever managed to pass onto the rest of us is that "it ain't a zero sum game"
> Most of this earth is seeking food and clean water and substance.
You are underestimating the intelligence of people in 3rd world countries.
They might be fighting violently to procure themselves those things, but in their mind there is always the thought of reaching a point when their social status is so high that they won't have to fight violently, but other people in the village would bring food and water to them as a sign of respect.
That's basically the sole reason for becoming a shaman or a sorcer
I think this is sort of a false dichotomy, and potentially a defeatist take. There is an increasing body of evidence that any work done above 40hrs/wk for thought work is only beneficial for a few weeks at a time. After which overtime is necessary just to maintain what would have otherwise taken only 40hrs. What this tells me is that it's essential to learn how to strategically work longer hours, knowing that the recovery time will reduce your hours by at least as much (personal experience is that 2x is actually more realistic to getting back to normal measurable output). I see it as no different than athletes who learn when to expend that extra energy in competition such that it doesn't leave them flagging the rest of the match.
I also think you may be overestimating the amount of effort it takes to sort of tread water if necessary. I suspect it's more of a logarithmic decay function in terms of social relevance. I've come to think that the hardest part of staying socially relevant isn't the amount of effort it takes to stay on top, but to actually recognize when it's important to spend effort on some new trend, and when it's important to ignore other trends. I think for this it's even more important to take a step back and take time out to reflect rather than actively trying to work insane hours.
Is going golfing and having dinner with clients considered “work”? How about attending fundraisers, concert events, etc. where you have the opportunity to dramatically alter the course of your business with the right connection?
True, but this article is about "insecure overachievers" who work at "elite professional organizations". I think there's a decent argument that these people are largely driven by prestige AKA social relevance.
no most of those 8 billion are just trying to put food on the table by whatever means - relevance is probably the last thing on their mind - you can't blame people for trying to survive
yes everything in this capitalism dominated world is owned by somebody so even for food to survive, you have to engage in economic activity
yes if you work on problems that nobody needs solved, nobody's gonna solve any of your problems
there is no biggest lie,
those at "the top" are simply enjoying the benefits of nature's bountifulness, inheritance, corruption, inability of common people to organise and negotiate for a better life, etc
it's a zero sum game only by design - that common people play partly out of ignorance and partly out of necessity
> no most of those 8 billion are just trying to put food on the table by whatever means - relevance is probably the last thing on their mind - you can't blame people for trying to survive
You are underestimating the intelligence of people in 3rd world countries.
They might be fighting violently to procure themselves those things, but in their mind there is always the thought of reaching a point when their social status is so high that they won't have to fight violently, but other people in the village would bring food and water to them as a sign of respect.
That's basically the sole reason for becoming a shaman or a sorcer
It's possible that the most self-made successful people see wealth / money as a means to pick what they want to spend 70 hours doing rather than whether to spend 70 hours doing anything. If they want to spend 70 hours a week playing tennis so be it. Or if they want to work on a new idea they had, equally fair. It is likely that success ultimately only buys the freedom to choose where to spend your time.
I know I've worked jobs and internships which required only couple of hours a day - and I was miserable. Working >70 hours a week on my own startup has felt more rewarding than any previous job :)
Sadly solution to this is to become a dick, be rude to people and just filter your interactions a great lot - otherwise lots of "nice" people will softly offload their job on you for free.
