While that is a solid theory, what happened was that I grew to hate it so much that I never spent enough hours to save up retirement-type amounts of money. I also became largely desensitized to money (when you can win or lose $10k in a day with ease, it's not too hard to convince yourself to buy a $500 camera) and spent way too much.

Eventually I realized that for those reasons, I was never going to get there, no matter how good I had gotten or how profitable the game was, so I left to do a startup. The pay is pretty low now, but I'm happier, because I enjoy the process rather than the results, and there is some realistic chance of a windfall at the end.

I think the optimal strategy is to pick something you enjoy but that can pay the bills. Most people could probably enjoy multiple professions. Choose the one you would enjoy that pays the best.

I think this is pretty good advice, but with a caveat. Enjoyment is not just a boolean function, but varies from unbelievably painful to completely enjoyable. I think is more of a two-dimensional optimization problem than a simple matter of picking the maximal paying element from the column named 'fun and interesting'. Doing java development at a large company and doing python development at a small company would both rank 'fun and interesting' relative to the rest of the total set of available professions, but I would still seriously consider the python position, even though the java position is bound to pay a lot better on average. But maybe you meant that, and I am just misreading.

If you do what you're passionate about, you're sure to develop a strong set of skills for that particular subject. A strong set of skills for a subject with a market makes you good competition, at a reasonable price.

As for myself, I remember writing a keylogger in Visual Basic when I was 11 because I wanted to steal my sister's AIM password. I loved everything about software development, and still do. Years later, I'm making 6 figures with Rails.

>.>

Do what you hate for money and the love will follow.

Still bad advice...

1.It implies the money part flows effortlessly from the "do what you love" part.

From what I've seen, people do something they love and then try and find a way to make money with it. Sometimes they are successful, and sometimes not, but in any case it involves effort to go from doing what you love to doing what you love for money.

2.It implies people have one passion or one reason to be on this earth. That is crap. You can have several passions or you may have none. I have many interests but I can't say for sure that I have a passion about any one thing - yet I've been able to make money following my interests and make money not following my interests.

3.It's often taken as meaning that making money doing something other than when you are doing what you love is somehow a lesser choice. Maybe so, maybe not. Should I fault the programmer whose real passion is ski-boarding because they'd rather make more money or make money doing something they know they can make money at and then use it to enjoy their passion in their spare time rather than making less money as a ski-bum or taking a risk in what may be a dead end venture? I don't think I can.

4.It implies people can't or shouldn't love the pursuit of money. This might be true insofar as money itself is just a store of value or a means to an end. The problem I have is that anyone with a desire for just starting businesses regardless of the product seems to be included, which I think is a wrong categorization. Businesses create wealth, money is just the representation of the wealth created by business. I see nothing wrong with pursuing business for business sake because to be successful in business, for most people, means you are creating value.

So my conclusion is that this saying is more useful for selling books than as real advice.

She's turned to writing scripts though, there seems to be more traction there.

It's tough to say something meaningful in a medium that's existed for centuries. You know? So much has already been done that now the medium is shrinking. The people who do remain are less likely to be as talented, because the really talented people have moved on to other things.

Television, for instance. The last 10 years has seen better TV shows than ever existed in the past. The best-written thing I've come across in the last two years was The Wire. I'd compare the quality of writing in that to anything up-to-and-including Shakespeare. And it did stuff that you couldn't have done in a novel. Or in a movie, for that matter.

Mind you, my all-time-favorite novel was published in 2006. And Mark Z Danielewski is still innovating within the form: his House of Leaves is a classic, and it was written just 8 years ago. But those writers are rarer. There's less to be done within the form of pure prose than there was even 40 years ago.

The Road? (I'm extrapolating from what you say about The Wire.)

No, my favorite book is a novel called Adverbs, and it's by Daniel Handler, who wrote the kid's Series of Unfortunate Events. I've read it far too many times and I still love it, though now I spend a few months between reading it. And it's just incredibly beautiful. It's a collection of 17 short stories that are all interrelated, and it's playful with language to a fault. It's tough reading the first few times, but it's so worth grasping, because it does stuff I've never seen in other books.

So I don't think it's the best book ever written, but it's enjoyable and it's in love with words, and far too few people have heard it.

I think the key is directing your passion in a broad enough way that you can satisfy an unaddressed market demand. If you love building challenging software, there are many ways you can pragmatically apply that passion if you cast your net wide enough.

On the other hand, if you love building socially directed news-ranking sites with clickable arrows, your options will be somewhat limited.

Why does the thought that many people may consider Ghandi's life to be more meaningful than your own upset you so much? Boy, you have an ego...

For the record, Ghandi's accomplishment is not "putting his name in the history books", but rather "being spiritual and political leader of hundreds of millions of people and having a great impact on their lives".

If that is the case I would strongly suggest you reconsider your priorities.

And if you wish to emulate Ghandi so much, what are you doing about it? I see from your profile you're a freelance web developer and currency trader. Is that the best route to helping the downtrodden?

I'd be willing to be you've chosen a lifestyle for yourself that's a lot more like mine than Ghandi's, and both are available.

I have no desire to emulate Ghandi and I never stated that I did. I recognize when to respect the accomplishments of others.

OP was asking about how to prioritize things in his life, and it's clear that Ghandi is probably not a good model for him.

And then you mentioned all he got is his name being written in the history books. And then did an ad hominem attack on oakmac.

I didn't start any ad hominems, I was simply pointing out that the original idea (that you shouldn't worry about money because Ghandi didn't) was ludicrous.

He's not objecting to the low social status Ghandi had, but the hardships that were necessary for him to endure to obtain what he wanted.

Does money matter?

The response I hear from most people is that, "It will matter when you need to put food on the table". This is undeniable but after we are able to accomplish this task whats next? From that point on money is not and should not be the primary driving force.

I say primary because there are things in life that people enjoy doing that needs some amount of money. So I would say,

a) Find what you love (x) b) If the process of completing x needs money, then seek the money needed for it.

Our ability to do this process well depends on how focused we are. since, it is easy to get distracted in a world filled with things we "want".

Society has tricked many into thinking the desire for wealth is base or shallow, just like it has with many natural human urges. It's an idea that's happily perpetuated by those who have it. Just as men have, throughout history, preached monogamy while cheating every chance they got because if every other man is not actively mating and you are, your genes will survive better, the wealthy have perpetuated the idea that wealth is evil to decrease competition. But hey, don't worry, your suffering in this life will be rewarded in the next.

It's easy to see this every time the Pope proclaims that it's easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle from his golden castle in his golden city.

My perspective has always been this; after you have achieved your needs for the money you need to stay alive, what do you do next?

As I was saying before we should first find what we like and then look at the money required to carry it out. If we were to take the other approach where we first look for the money and then find something to do in our life that makes us happy with the money, we would invariably hurt ourselves in the process. As somebody mentioned before in the comments, the pursuit of money distracts from the task at hand. This leads to an unhappy process and a poorly completed task.

But again it takes focus to carry this out. Focus not only on what you do but also on what makes you happy.

Happiness is but a collection of moments strung together which when reflected upon gives us the relative feeling of joy.

I think this is complete crap. The most unhappy person I can think of right now doesn't buy into the money is evil philosophy; quite the opposite in fact. The problem he has is that he doesn't know what he wants, so he is defaulting to money as an indication of wealth. And I can think of a number of people I know who are happy, but aren't particularly high on the social ladder, nor do they really want to be. What they consider wealth right now -- their children, and time to work on their hobbies -- is something they can't trade for on the open market. Please keep this in mind: wealth is not the same thing as money. Wealth is what you want, money is simply one means, but not the only one, of getting what you want. For those who don't know what they want, it seems that they default to treating money as an end, rather than as a means.

To be clear, I'm not arguing the opposite of your claim, I am arguing that the desire money is not good or evil; it is neutral. The real question of motives becomes where that money will be spent, or if not to be spent, why it is being hoarded. If hoarded only as a metaphorical yard stick of worthiness to the people supposedly oppressing the rest of us, it seems like a waste of time. If it gets you the things you need to make you happier, then it isn't a waste of time.

But I think we are confusing the idea between those who have no money at all, and those who have no disposable income after the necessities of survival. Both might sound similarly oppressive, but there is a huge difference between them. The former has one obvious form of wealth that they are coveting, and would be the same for everyone in that position; and for the latter there is much more latitude regarding what they consider wealth. They are no longer focused on mere survival, but instead on fulfillment. When people say to me they have no money, they are usually referring to the latter situation. It is probably why it seems like we are arguing past one another.

I think the way I would phrase what you said is "Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money." This I would agree with. The way you phrased it, though, it seemed as though you were arguing for the earning of money as a means to fight against the wealthy class's desire to hold you down. As soon as obtaining it becomes a tool to flaunt those who say that obtaining it is crass and shallow, then I see the whole thing become somewhat pointless.

I hope this makes some sense.

Well said. It depends on what somebody's basic necessities are. For me, necessities includes books and music and the occasional trip to the city and a good meal. I could live on less, but I'd be miserable if I didn't get to enjoy those things frequently. If I had to use a worse computer than the one I have, I'd be less happy. So for me, making money is a means to more effortlessly obtaining the things that I want. I think that's healthy so long as the things that I want have value.

Money is a placeholder.

"I know why most people never get rich. They put the money ahead of the job. If you just think of the job, the money will automatically follow. This never fails."

So, do what you love. Excel at what you do. One day you might get rich... or NOT. Either way, you will have led a productive and interesting life. Cheers.

You are always 100% in control of your emotions: the choice to be happy is up to you regardless of what you're doing or what's happening to you. Money (or value) will come from following fundamental principles of success: diligence, hard work, honesty, etc. You often find the two together, but neither is required for the other.

For more information read Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness" and Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning."

Generally speaking, I think you're more likely to be happy if you are honest about your emotions and then follow them in deciding what to do. Then it won't really matter if you make money or not, because you'll be happy to do what you're doing (unless you decide that making money is a goal in and of itself, in which case you'd need to make money in order to feel that you've accomplished what you set out to do).

Now, there are 2 big assumptions here. One is that the world will be able to figure out how great you are and how lame are most of the others. If they cannot, or doesn't care, you are in a lemon market. The scam artists grow rich and the good practicioners get exploited. Not a nice place to be, unless what you love is take advantage of other people.

The other big assumption is that there is enough demand for what you love to do. By example, if you love classic music and want to be a piano concertist, good luck with that. There is not enough demand for that skill to support but a handfull of performers. Unless your talent is that of a genius or have all the right connections, you will not survive long enough to actually learn to play well. Again, not a nice place to be.

What you want to do if not to do what you like the most. You want to ask yourself what are those things that you like. Get a list of a dozen items. Cut half of those that seem like lemon markets, the cut again by half those whose market is to small.

You will end up with a couple of solid options of what you can realistically pursue.

The problem with that is if you take a long time to make enough money to do that, you've just wasted all that time doing something you don't love.

And what if loving your job results in you neglecting other important parts of your life?

  skill + love - market = hobby
  skill - love + market = job
  skill + love + market = career

So, I've really hated my day job for years (ER nurse). It just paid too darn well. And, I've tried a whole bunch of things as possibilities to change careers: theology, philosophy, world religions, painting, sculpting, computer graphics, animation, furniture design, interior architecture, visual effects, video editing... And by trying, I mean, researching the hell out of it, taking formal training or actively studying on my own for more than a year.

Why did I do these things? Because I believed the "Do what you love, and money will follow" mantra. Problem: I wasn't making money doing what I loved, and therefore I had to keep doing what I hated for money, which was being a nurse. I was not willing to do the starving artist/philosopher thing for too long.

Solution: I found something that I like reasonably well, allows me to be creative and think widely and that has a potential to make a decent amount of cash, with potentially a huge financial upside: programming and starting my own business.

The chief problem with the "Do what you love and the money will follow" mantra, is that it essentially paints the career problem and money problem as a binary issue. Either do what you love, or do what you hate. There are many choices in between those things that have varying degrees of financial outcomes.

Another thought: If you do what you love, and feel continually pressured for cash, there is a lot of pressure to compromise yourself and your loves for money. Some handle that better than others. For example, there are a lot of people who start out wanting to be musicians, painters, artists or writers who try to do it for money. The problem comes when the rent is continuously due, and you're broke. You're then stuck with being a writer/painter/musician and needing to make cash. Do you write/paint/compose for purely commercial projects (like an ad agency), or do you only write/paint/compose what you love?

Finally: Speaking from experience, spend some time in LA, and you'll come to the conclusion that there are more people who are trying to chase their dreams and be actors/directors/filmmakers than the market will bear. This leads to a huge culture of abusing the people trying to get their break in those industries. After years of work and studing 3D modeling, animation and image compositing, I finally got offered an entry level job at Sony Pictures Imageworks (Big film VFX house in LA). Salary: $20 an hour, minimum of 60 hours per week if not 80 to 100, and you get laid off after the current movie finishes production in 4 months. You're then unemployed until the next round of FX films start post-production. Why did workers tolerate this? Because there were many more people vying for those jobs than there were positions available.