[HN Gopher] How to Work Hard
___________________________________________________________________
How to Work Hard
Author : razin
Score : 754 points
Date : 2021-06-29 13:39 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (paulgraham.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (paulgraham.com)
| whatdidinust wrote:
| This article has more than quadrupled my existing opinion that
| the concept of hard work is largely a fabrication designed to
| show off to other people.
|
| If anyone's seriously read this article end to end and didn't
| conclude: "Wow, Paul is really struggling to back this up." You
| might be in junior high.
|
| The reality is that inflation and monetary policy combined with
| degradation of schools means you have to play a completely
| different life game to succeed now. And "working hard" while
| being a waiter or bartender isn't going to get you there.
|
| Paul is really trying to avoid the fact that unless you are
| gaining extremely highly valued skills in the exact right
| industry at the exact right schools at the exact right time,
| working hard is a complete waste of time. And everyone can feel
| it at a gut level.
|
| People know when their work isn't going to be rewarded. And in
| this era, you won't be rewarded 90% of the time for Most skills
| or most efforts.
| prettycolors23 wrote:
| I think "natural talent" is sort of a false concept. After time,
| hard work and practice often turn into talent. When you train
| hard at something and improve your skills enough, an outside
| observer will label you as talented. The better your skills, the
| more talented. You are the only one that knows you didn't start
| with those skills.
|
| I wrestled competitively for 20 years. By the end of my career,
| people would talk about how naturally talented I was. But I knew
| that everything they were talking about came about through two
| decades of practice. People talked about how fast I was. But I
| spent years doing plyometrics. I was slow before that. People
| talked about how strong I was; I was doing pushups and pull ups
| every day with my dad starting at 8 years old. People just saw
| the results of 20 years of practice, and didn't see where I
| started out, so they called it talent.
|
| I think to be extremely successful at something, you don't need
| talent. You can build talent in yourself. There is something to
| be said about people who are naturally very bad at something.
| Those people might never appear talented at something they are
| naturally very bad at. But then again, given enough practice over
| time, they might.
|
| If you look at anyone who is a true master of a skill, their
| mastery lies not in their natural talent, but through their years
| of practice, their drive and their passion for what they are
| doing. Talent plays a small role over time. It mostly plays a
| role in the beginning.
|
| For something like sprinting or weight lifting, I will give that
| natural ability is important. There are only so many people that
| can be as fast as Usain Bolt. But for sports that are more skills
| based, like martial arts, or other activities that are skills
| based, like coding, talent only takes you so far. After a certain
| point, talent becomes insignificant compared to all of your hard
| work.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| > I think "natural talent" is sort of a false concept.
|
| You've never heard of child prodigies
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_prodigy)? They clearly
| possess natural talent.
| rakhodorkovsky wrote:
| I admire pg; I don't admire his essays, even though in broad
| strokes I agree with them. I feel his choice of style works
| against him; that's where I disagree.
|
| Write like you talk, but if you talk like pg writes you lose your
| audience. His essays check out line by line, paragraph by
| paragraph, but they fail to drive at some deeper, more subtle
| point that can capture the imagination of an audience. I'm sure
| pg is nothing if not imaginative, but his essays aren't.
|
| Another comment criticizes this essay as just another pg stream
| of consciousness; I feel it's the opposite: short on many of the
| details, digressions and emotions that can make an essay come
| alive, that can give you sense of the author and his world. Often
| when I read an essay that's what I'm interested in most and I
| don't think I'm alone in this.
|
| I think I understand why pg has chosen his style; the principles
| and aesthetic sensibilities that went into his choice and I agree
| with them. Nevertheless I think it's a poor choice. I hope pg
| reads this and reconsiders. Innovate!
| personlurking wrote:
| In the past I read a lot of his essays but I can no longer
| stomach his obsession with (high) school. He overanalyzes it
| and relates almost every essay to how things are in school and
| I'm certain someone has made it into a drinking game by now.
| Sadly, my tolerance for that kind of game is quite low these
| days.
|
| Due to having enjoyed his essays 5+ years ago, I still open the
| new ones and start reading them but I can't help but preface
| that desire by skimming them for school references now.
| Additionally, if they're congratulatory of people similar to
| himself - which they often are - then I also have to say 'no,
| thanks'.
| mabub24 wrote:
| In the last 20-30 years, American parents and adults have put
| an enormous amount of focus and pressure on students for
| educational achievements as indicators for future successes.
| It's likely because of inequalities in the quality of
| education between schools, and inequalities of opportunities
| from schools. Get to a good school -> get good job because
| went to good school-> get good life. Otherwise, you're a
| failure. Education is seen as the lynchpin in social
| mobility.
|
| The lack of social safety net, and a desire for their
| children to become successful, creates an all or nothing
| focus on educational achievement.
| canada_dry wrote:
| > natural ability, practice, and effort
|
| I'd argue that perseverance (vs practice) is a better partner in
| that combination.
|
| Practice suggests doing the same thing over-and-over.
|
| Perseverance is never giving up when there are road blocks.
| etherio wrote:
| The attitude of feeling guilty when you're not working can be
| useful to motivate yourself, but I think it s also something to
| be careful of.
|
| Indeed, sometimes this time of pressure can grow so pervasive it
| becomes impossible for you to relax, and humans aren't endlessly
| working robots: we need to also have time where we calm down,
| which PG explained.
|
| However, he didn't warn of developing too much of a work ethic to
| the point relaxation itself is something you don't enjoy.
| mapgrep wrote:
| > I had to learn what real work was before I could wholeheartedly
| desire to do it. That took a while, because even in college a lot
| of the work is pointless; there are entire departments that are
| pointless.
|
| In other words, "the work I want to do is real but the work you
| want to do is trivial and pointless."
|
| I really genuinely have enjoyed Paul Graham's writing over the
| years but moments like this seem arrogant and tend to spoil some
| of the enjoyment. I'd be genuinely curious to know what
| departments he finds pointless, and why, in the grand scheme of
| things, they have no "point" in comparison to computer science or
| whatever.
|
| While it's true that computer science can be used to enable, for
| example, much cheaper air travel, or important forms of cancer
| diagnosis, it's also true that a great many computer scientists
| work on less crucial problems like optimizing ad targeting or
| enabling scams.
|
| Similarly, while many English lit majors may end up contributing
| little most of us find valuable in that field, there are some who
| will become authors who genuinely help other humans find more
| meaning in life and feel less alone, and others who will shed new
| light on history and thiis contribute to the understanding of our
| present.
|
| I'm not saying fields can't be compared. Maybe the average
| engineer's college studies help society "more" (for some
| definition) than the average humanities major's studies do. Fine.
| What I'm saying is - it takes a lot of arrogance to cast aside
| entire college departments as worthless.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I think your reading is not just uncharitable, but wrong.
|
| > In other words, "the work I want to do is real but the work
| you want to do is trivial and pointless."
|
| No, "the work you want _me_ to do is trivial and pointless ".
| And the context is college, and even more so high school. It's
| not a news flash that the work they want you to do in school
| isn't "real". It's exercises designed to teach you, not actual
| work that needs done.
|
| > Similarly, while many English lit majors may end up
| contributing little most of us find valuable in that field,
| there are some who will become authors who genuinely help other
| humans find more meaning in life and feel less alone, and
| others who will shed new light on history and thiis contribute
| to the understanding of our present.
|
| Given that Wodehouse was one of PG's positive examples, this
| also seems to me to be missing the point of the essay.
| mapgrep wrote:
| >No, "the work you want _me_ to do is trivial and pointless
| ". And the context is college, and even more so high school.
|
| You choose your college and you choose your major, and you
| choose to go to college in the first place, so I'm not clear
| what you are referring to here. What entire college
| department exists to somehow force people to study its
| subjects? If someone's university is assigning work they
| don't work to do, they can transfer elsewhere. (They tend not
| to, because the educational institutions for adults that are
| strictly focused on a single topic lack prestige. Even a
| relatively technical "good" school like MIT will try to round
| out the academic experience of its students.)
| rakhodorkovsky wrote:
| Perhaps arrogance should be added to what it takes to be
| successful.
|
| I'm only half joking; I do think a certain kind of arrogance is
| conducive to success. Not the kind that screams insecurity and
| turns off your teammates, rather the kind that goes: "Perhaps I
| really am the first person who can do this." and then does it.
| helen___keller wrote:
| When I was an undergrad at CMU, I learned how to work hard.
| Really hard. After having coasted through too-easy high school, I
| spent all day every day at CMU either programming, doing
| mathematics, or thinking about one of those things (to great
| effect: often the trick to prove a theorem would pop into my head
| while showering or while taking a walk). I would fall asleep
| while programming in the middle of the night, dream about
| programming, then wake up and continue programming just where I
| left off.
|
| One thing from this essay really stuck out to me:
|
| > The most basic level of which is simply to feel you should be
| working without anyone telling you to. Now, when I'm not working
| hard, alarm bells go off.
|
| One thing that always happened at the end of a semester is we'd
| have a few days after exams but before flights back home. On
| these days I'd typically try playing a video game (my hobby
| before college) and every time I would stop playing after just an
| hour with deep feeling of unease at the pit of my stomach. "Alarm
| bells" is exactly how I would describe it - a feeling at the core
| of my psyche that I have been wasting time and there must be
| _something_ productive I should be doing or thinking about.
|
| Years later, having tackled anxiety problems that had plagued me
| most of my life, I came to recognize that my relationship with
| hard work during my college years was not healthy and that this
| deep seated desire to do more work is not a positive thing, at
| least not for me.
|
| I've since reformed my ambitions, instead of looking to start a
| company or get a PhD in mathematics, I've decided that hard work
| is not the love of my life and instead I should focus on my
| hobbies while looking for a career path that can be
| simultaneously fulfilling but laid back.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| Every personality has its problematic characteristics. I think
| that one of the more problematic, even toxic, ones shared by
| many Type A personalities is a need to try and make other
| people feel bad for not themselves being sufficiently neurotic.
|
| (I realize the Type A/Type B personality theory is largely
| crap. I'm just using it here as a useful shorthand that many
| people will recognize.)
|
| That paragraph the quote came from makes me feel kind of sad.
| It prompted me to mentally re-frame PG's life, not as one that
| is defined by material success, but one that is defined by near
| constant anxiety. The material success is apparently just a by-
| product of that anxiety.
|
| On the other hand, at least he gets to have some excess
| material comfort to take the edge off a bit? I imagine things
| would be much harder for him if he had fallen into the
| presumable silent majority of people sharing the same kinds of
| productivity-oriented anxieties who haven't been so lucky in
| their business dealings.
|
| On the other hand, maybe it doesn't work that way. Maybe it
| just raises the bar, so that your future accomplishments have
| to be even more spectacular before you're able to see them as
| genuine accomplishments. Which sounds to me like a bleak
| existence. A bit like that of an addict who's forever chasing
| the dragon.
| xupybd wrote:
| It is possible that he is fueled by an anxious drive. Even
| probable, but there are a small group of people that find
| meaning in what they do. When the work towards that they get
| a buzz that is insatiable.
| [deleted]
| agumonkey wrote:
| I had a similar realization. My inner desire had weird bits of
| fear and narcissism at its core. When that side of me cracked
| the desire to perform vanished. I did do some math after that
| (mostly to asses brain damage after health issues): i could do
| some new stuff, and did enjoy it.. but something changed, there
| need to be solid reasons: either aesthetical (a sudden epiphany
| that I need to study topology) or social for me to go into
| workhorse mode.
|
| Another thing is that I also realized that crushing is not
| progressing.. so very often I understood things without any
| effort, what it took is for my brain to accept an idea more
| than anything else.. so I stopped forcing things, I simply walk
| around ideas and let things come and go.
|
| All in all.. I also believe that is simply biology talking..
| when young all you care is being the best, with age your focus
| spreads over other people (SO, kids, family)
| Tycho wrote:
| Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here but there seems to be
| something obvious that you and others in this thread are
| overlooking: not all leisure activities are created equal. Some
| nourish the soul or the body, some are spiritual deserts.
|
| Video games are in the latter category. Of course you're going
| to feel bad about spending your time on them. But you could
| instead read a classic novel, play a sport, play some music,
| converse with friends, keep in touch with family, etc., any of
| which will help you develop as an individual in dimensions that
| will simply not happen otherwise. They connect you with the
| rich tapestry of life and human society.
| Nursie wrote:
| This is an outdated view, computer games are a cultural
| vehicle like others. They can even connect you with a rich
| tapestry of human life.
| tobltobs wrote:
| Computer games are build to make you addicted and waste
| your time and money.
|
| "They can even connect you with a rich tapestry of human
| life."
|
| Tapestry of human life? Seriously?
| Nursie wrote:
| I could say the same about novels and be just as correct.
|
| You've never made friends through a shared interest in
| games, or even through the games themselves? You've never
| been enthralled with the story of a game, and been left
| richer afterwards? You've missed out, and you've missed
| out through snobbery.
| tobltobs wrote:
| A novel can make you addicted? Like you have to read it
| every day?
|
| I played a lot with friends, but I never made friends
| through playing.
|
| I was enthralled by games, but when I was finished I
| wasn't "richer" in any way, just shorter of time.
|
| It is ok to waste your time if it is fun, but trying to
| glorify wasting your time is just trying to find an
| excuse.
| Nursie wrote:
| Like I said, I would be just as correct. There are
| addictive games and gamers, just as there are trashy
| novels and people who devour them one after another. I
| would consider neither more valid than the other.
|
| I have met people I value through games and gaming, just
| as I have through Internet forums. I have experienced
| emotional highs and lows through the characters I've
| encountered in games, through the twists and turns of
| stories.
|
| Like I said, perhaps you've missed out.
|
| I've also blown off a lot of steam and enjoyed it as
| frivolous entertainment. I'm not trying to say it's
| always worthy, social or a growth experience, that would
| be as absurd a claim as that it can never be so.
| Tycho wrote:
| True, gaming is a great way to make friends and
| connect... with a bunch of other losers!
| Nursie wrote:
| I don't consider myself a loser, as a successful software
| consultant with a house, a partner, a lot of travel under
| my belt and enough cash to basically do what I want. I'm
| moving to a new continent in a little over a month, to
| spend more time fishing and exploring the wilds, not
| lurking in a basement somewhere.
|
| So... :shrug:
| Karsteski wrote:
| Not gonna lie, this is incredibly ignorant.
|
| Just because you cannot appreciate the story telling of
| games, or the skill/teamwork needed to play competitive
| games, does not make them a waste of time.
|
| The value of time spent is in the eye of the beholder.
| There are people who burn every evening/weekend playing
| games, and they are less happy and enriched from it.
| Equally there are people who spend a lot of time gaming
| and are much happier doing so. I can't spend a lot of
| time gaming atm because of personal projects, but the
| time I spend playing Stardew Valley with my girlfriend or
| competitive FPS games with my friends is invaluable.
|
| Try opening your mind a bit please.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| That's a _ridiculously_ reductive view of what games are.
| Like any form of media they range wildly from simplistic
| and addictive to rich and artistic and everything in
| between. Suggesting that all games are built to addict
| and waste time/money belies an utter lack of
| understanding of the landscape of games.
| Tycho wrote:
| If anything, old video games were more innocuous, as they
| didn't try to be anything other than simple distractions
| that you would naturally tire of before long. Today's games
| are precision engineered to be dopamine treadmills in the
| guise of immersive cinematic experiences, yet due to the
| primacy of gameplay mechanics, remain hobbled as works of
| art or storytelling.
| Nursie wrote:
| Some are, others are not. Some build communities, others
| do not. Some games are played with friends and family,
| and some are not.
|
| Some fiction has artistic merit, other fiction does not.
|
| Your views are about as up to date as "games are for
| kids"
| Tycho wrote:
| Sure, some gaming could be a healthy bit of fun in a
| social context, but it tends not to be, doesn't it? It
| tends to become a massive time sink, the accumulation of
| which over many years, usually of your youth (notice that
| older people just lose interest in games, like they
| suddenly don't see value in them anymore), will not leave
| you well-read or physically fit or able to entertain
| others or even good memories - just precious time
| committed to the void.
| Nursie wrote:
| Again, your attitudes are merely snobbish.
|
| None of this is anything more than lazy, outdated
| stereotyping, indicative of nothing so much as ignorance.
| YinglingLight wrote:
| There's a time and place for everything. When I was an
| undergrad at RPI, I worked my ass off. Harder than I ever
| needed to in my working career.
|
| Now in my 30s my focus is more on family and housework, but I
| will always benefit from having been 'in the grinder' back
| then. I know my limits for hard work is great, should I ever
| need it again.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| >I spent all day every day at CMU either programming, doing
| mathematics, or thinking about one of those things (to great
| effect: often the trick to prove a theorem would pop into my
| head while showering or while taking a walk). I would fall
| asleep while programming in the middle of the night, dream
| about programming, then wake up and continue programming just
| where I left off.
|
| This is such a great experience. I wish I could study at CMU
| on-site and experience all this. I'm an old horse still kicking
| :P
|
| >I've since reformed my ambitions, instead of looking to start
| a company or get a PhD in mathematics, I've decided that hard
| work is not the love of my life and instead I should focus on
| my hobbies while looking for a career path that can be
| simultaneously fulfilling but laid back.
|
| Glad that you figure it out. Guess the study burned you out :(
| NalNezumi wrote:
| For me the similar thing was when I started to read HN, 3 years
| ago.
|
| It wasn't until 3 month before graduation, when a guy at the
| lab that I admired suggested HN and all the hustle culture and
| the background stories of successes was available first hand,
| that I started to get truly anxious about the time I felt like
| I wasted/ was wasting during college. Playing games are really
| hard now, so is watching movies. My list of movies or clips
| that I'm supposed to see on downtime is filled with daunting
| "productive" materials.
|
| Also created the bad habit of quitting (job) when I feel like
| I'm stuck or "not growing/improving" due stress. The mentality
| of having to "constantly be productive" also caused strain in
| my personal relationships.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| Frankly, all of this sounds pretty miserable.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| As someone who also did their undergrad at CMU, I can confirm
| that it was the hardest I've ever worked (even considering my
| 10+ years of professional experience). It was burnout level
| with how many units you had to carry and how difficult some of
| the advanced math and CS classes became.
|
| We used to sit in the Tepper Faculty Lounge (always unlocked =
| free coffee) many nights from 10 PM - 4 AM to merely crank out
| a 6-question problem set...as a group.
|
| I find that I can still get into the mode of "hard work" that
| CMU instilled but I also find myself generally disinterested in
| getting into a world where that becomes my life again...it was
| fun, but tiring, and I don't need to be tired/worn out to have
| fun anymore!
| granshaw wrote:
| Yeah I went to a not-at-that-level-but-still-rigorous state
| school, and one of my first impressions of my internships and
| out-of-college jobs was... "WOW I get to get paid to code,
| and no homework? I can spend my evenings+weekends however I
| want!?"
|
| Was a really lovely feeling :)
| [deleted]
| lovecg wrote:
| If you read his footnote, he's talking about how these alarm
| bells go off on the order of days, not hours, and how taking
| vacations is good.
| helen___keller wrote:
| Thanks for pointing this out.
|
| While I fundamentally believe I experienced the phenomenon PG
| writes about, there's something to be said about the scale of
| it. Taking a sufficiently generous interpretation of his
| essay, an admirable goal for self-growth is not to work hard
| all the time but to develop the self-discipline to work hard
| when you intend to be working (with the restraint to not be
| working when you intend to not be working, and the internal
| clock to help you schedule the two at whatever the correct
| balance is for your life).
|
| Perhaps as a life goal as I enter my 30s, I should endeavor
| to revisit my love for mathematics and computer science (as
| opposed my work-life-balanced but frankly boring current
| career path), using both the restraint and discipline I've
| learned, so to not make the mistakes I made in my early 20s.
|
| After leaving the work-always atmosphere of CMU, I moved in
| with my then-girlfriend (now-wife) and committed to working
| exactly 8 hours every day to keep work from taking over
| again. Trying to cram all the ambition and passion for work I
| once had into 8 hours of junior dev work basically turned me
| into a soup of anxiety, inferiority, and resentment[0] for
| some time. I thought I was wasting my career, after trying so
| hard in college. It took years to reorient my priorities (and
| also to reach a position that was a bit less meaningless than
| tech support for Matlab).
|
| I think nowadays I could do better. Maybe next time a hip
| startup emails me with a job opportunity, I'll give them a
| call ;) thanks
|
| [0] Anxious to try and find ways to work harder and achieve
| more in a bland corporate environment where the build system
| was more of an obstacle than the actual project, inferiority
| compared to the success that some of my still-overworked
| friends were experiencing in silicon valley (with
| opportunities I didn't have in Boston), and even occasional
| resentment towards my girlfriend, for whom I had chosen to
| restrain myself to 8 hours of work a day, because I felt I
| could do such great things without that limitation.
| atty wrote:
| I had the exact same issue in my undergrad. I was suffering
| from pretty severe anxiety/depression during highs school, to
| the point where I dropped out in my junior year. I started
| "thriving" in my undergrad, if by thriving you mean busy and
| getting good grades, and my anxiety was much reduced. But the
| reason it was reduced was because I was going to school full
| time and working 40+ hours a week and I simply didn't have time
| to stop and think. Whenever I had a vacation, or significant
| time off, I had extreme anxiety, to the point of panic attacks,
| about not getting anything "important" done.
|
| Ultimately the overwork gave me a chronic neck injury that
| forced me to have quite a bit of time off work, and over the
| years I have become very happy with myself, to the point where
| I can sit and do nothing, be alone with my own thoughts, for
| days without the anxiety and self-loathing entering my mind at
| all. I'm not sure when exactly the switch flipped, but it made
| me a much better person. And I am much happier with myself, my
| life situation, and my work.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| I feel the same. I can hardly sit through an entire two-hour
| movie or play a video game without feeling like I should be
| doing something else. I _cannot_ feel good about myself if I
| cannot sense that I 'm making progress learning a skill, and am
| stuck for hours looking down at a blank page as a result.
|
| But what's dangerous for me is that this alarm system does not
| trigger consistently. I might spend too much time on HN, for
| example, because my impression is that HN is a place to have
| intellectual discoveries. I might spend too much time on
| YouTube because I can't think of anything else to do.
| Ironically there is a wealth of knowledge contained in some
| games that would be more worthwhile than a bunch of highlights
| on YouTube, but YouTube is just too easy to go back to.
|
| When I work on some of my programming projects, I come out with
| the feeling that I'm just using the act of constantly working
| on them as an excuse to not have to worry about the fact that
| my life outside of them is one-dimensional and currently
| stagnating. I work way too hard on such non-work projects and
| burn out only to stop and instead spend weeks anxious that
| because I'm not doing anything, I am not growing as a person. I
| still believe this is true; I don't think I am much different
| from the me of two years ago, except that I've made some
| progress on programming projects.
|
| But it's weird because I enjoy programming. I think it is
| because I enjoy programming so much that I become blinded to
| things that I should have seen as more important. I think I am
| already good enough at programming to not need much more to
| learn, and am only applying the skills that I happen to have
| built up for years.
|
| But when I turn back to the other hobbies I always told myself
| I wanted to spend my life doing, all I find is a void of
| interest, and I ultimately accomplish little.
|
| I also believe this was a result of how I was raised and the
| coping mechanisms my upbringing/college ingrained in me.
| yonaguska wrote:
| I try to have hobbies outside of programming that still feel
| productive, either due to a social, health, or simply
| intellectual aspect.
|
| BJJ hits all three for me.
| rustyboy wrote:
| Your description here, and others, eerily match my own angst
| with 'being productive'. As someone who has spent covid
| traveling the States in an RV i've come to realize that I
| don't know what I really like doing that's not work (for
| example I enjoy, but have no deep passion for, outdoors
| recreation). Instead I spend hours aggressively reading and
| writing reviews on books because that feeling, 'being
| productive' is the only somewhat satisfying feeling in my
| life.
|
| Have you had any luck adjusting your thinking or finding
| other joys in life?
| nonbirithm wrote:
| Like you, I was very recently considering doing some kind
| of traveling. I don't know if it would be in an RV or other
| vehicle. I'm still on the fence however; it would be the
| most radical thing I will have ever done with my life.
|
| I understand that just traveling isn't really a solution to
| my problems, but I feel like my life at present is too
| sterile and I don't have much to say. Some writers say that
| first-hand experience is valuable in creating new ideas.
| Maybe I just need more experience.
|
| It's like when I read the passage in Kerouac's _On The
| Road_ where the protagonist wakes up in a motel and
| realizes he 's farther away from home than he's ever been.
| I feel like, if I choose to write for fun, I don't think I
| can write properly without experiencing that kind of thing
| myself (though opinions may vary between people). That's at
| least true for everything fictional I've written so far,
| despite how little I've actually written.
|
| If that doesn't work then I could find something else like
| working abroad, provided I have enough contacts to help me,
| but I struggle with that sort of thing. I also wanted to
| find some people I feel comfortable keeping in touch with,
| though I haven't quite put in enough effort to reach that
| point.
|
| Because about all my therapist does is sympathize with the
| things I talk about (such as the issues in my parent
| comment) I don't think much real change is going to come
| out of that relationship; it would only keep me sane. That
| carries its own value, but I feel that there's something
| more I'm missing. This is the kind of thing that I have to
| get my hands dirty in order to have any hope of fixing it.
| sjg007 wrote:
| Have you tried volunteering?
| andruby wrote:
| I didn't have "hobbies" for a while after graduating.
| Having kids and making time for them as they grow up was
| one of the catalysts that helped me (re)discover things
| that I enjoy.
|
| My grandfather passed away a while ago and when we had to
| empty his house, I took some of the larger telescopes he
| had. He was a die-hard astronomer and astrophotographer.
| I've always loved looking up at the night sky and now I've
| picked up astrophotography too. It's a great mix between
| gear, science, patience, skill and technology. There's
| something very rewarding and humbling about capturing the
| light of a galaxy 21 million light years away.
|
| Electronics is another one of his hobbies that I was always
| fascinated by that I've now picked up. Building some toy
| gadgets, getting the soldering iron out to fix one of my
| children's toys. It feels fun & productive.
|
| I used to play sports as a kid and teenager and kind of
| forgot about that for more than a decade while working
| hard. I've now picked up skateboarding with my son. I love
| it. I think our human body benefits from intense movement,
| especially when you're used to sitting stationary all day.
| Skateboarding is rewarding because you can learn something
| new every session. The place that organizes my kid's
| skateboard lessons also does sessions for parents. It's
| double fun since you also get to meet other people.
|
| Anyway. I was in the same "work hard" position 2 years ago.
| My mind spent most of its "cycles" thinking and worrying
| about work. Now it gets diversions and downtime. I think it
| helps.
|
| Hobbies are this thing between work and entertainment. It's
| rewarding like work without being forced or mandatory.
| WalterSear wrote:
| This is me. Though I didn't just learn this in my upbringing
| - I feel like my entire working life has been one of false
| promises and dehumanization, that has left me unable to enjoy
| anything.
|
| I'm 47 now, have worked at 6 failed startups in a row, and
| can't face work, or looking for a job. I used to blame social
| media and hacker news, but I now recognize that too much
| delayed gratification and overwork have had a much greater
| effect.
|
| At this point, I can't work, and can't not work. I do a lot
| of sitting quietly, with my mind almost empty of thought. All
| the processes and systems I have used in the past to overcome
| this are failing me. I feel exploited, betrayed and
| overwhelmed by alienation; genuinely broken.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| You're just burned out. I hope you have some financial
| cushion and can take some time to just do nothing. Or try
| gardening, or woodworking, or something really different
| that can be personally rewarding with no pressure to meet
| anyone else's expectations. With time you should heal.
| WalterSear wrote:
| Unfortunately, I've been burnt out too many times now,
| for too long. Every job now ends in burn out and takes 6+
| months to recover from before I can start looking for
| another job. This time, however, feels different - it
| never felt insurmountable like this before. I can't work
| on my own stuff, can't level up my skills, not sure how
| to get back to that.
|
| I suspect that my situation is likely common among aging
| coders and might contribute to a lot of what is otherwise
| attributed to ageism. I can no longer pretend that the
| kind of work open to me is going lead to anything but
| more suffering, and I feel like this results in
| increasing interview anxiety.
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| So stop coding, or put yourself out to pasture at a low
| intensity coding gig.
|
| I came from a family of engineers and I watched my dad
| work himself to death at the expense of virtually
| everything else in life. One day he up and died, and that
| was the end of it. Most of his projects are no longer
| applicable or noteworthy. Life is the process of taking a
| daily step towards death every day. In 100 years, no one
| is going to remember us. Even the man rich enough to
| prolong their life can only make their path longer, but
| we all get there in the end.
|
| Just find things you can enjoy and do them. Everything
| else is wasted time.
| amatecha wrote:
| Thank you for the reminder. It's hard to see the reality
| with such clarity, sometimes. <3
| quacked wrote:
| Why not work a service job for a while? There's no
| delayed gratification in bartending or waiting tables.
| Show up, clock in, serve drinks, go home. It's not easy,
| but the success conditions are clear, and when you're
| done you can completely forget about it until it's time
| to go in again.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| I imagine that in comparison to the income from software
| engineering that would just feel like a waste of time.
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| The main issues from the person comments don't seem to
| revolve around money. And doing nothing won't make any
| money.
|
| This is not something you have to do for the rest of your
| life.
|
| But the point is to do _something, anything_ to avoid
| sinking into the swamp. Visible goals that you can
| mentally pick up and put down with some human interaction
| thrown in, might help. Only one way to find out.
| klyrs wrote:
| This is something I've considered, as I'm in a similar
| situation to OC. With a PhD, I feel certain expectations
| about my career haven't been met. Publications dropped
| off, I'm not even sure I could pass an undergrad exam in
| my field of expertise anymore... so I look overqualified
| but feel underqualified. I'm nervous about unexplained
| gaps in my career because I regularly see that as a
| reason not to interview a candidate. But a _service job_?
| All I can hear is my judgy coworkers laughing at a resume
| with recent non-technical work.
| acscott wrote:
| I do not know your situation, but my observation is high-
| performance requires high-maintenance.
|
| Also, see this article:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32056943/
|
| Anything else I might suggest might sound like an
| advertisement, but apply your skills in software to
| what's required for your high-maintenance needs.
| pdimitar wrote:
| At 41 y/o I am going mostly through the same. Without my
| wife I would have become a completely numb robot. But even
| if you don't have a good partner -- or friends, or your
| older family -- to turn to, I'd recommend the following:
|
| Engage in interviews but be upfront: you're not looking to
| prove yourself, you are not interested in stocks / futures
| / options / whatever, you're not scared of tough work but
| you're also looking for a good work-life balance, and
| you're willing to take a small pay cut for not taking on
| all the responsibilities that senior programmers are
| expected to have.
|
| Say something like this: "I have all the chops to not only
| be a senior programmer but also a team leader; I have all
| the necessary qualities but I don't want to practice them
| for a while. I'd like to use those skills simply to be the
| best colleague you have."
|
| I don't know you so the following might be severely
| misplaced and please forgive me if so: but I'd advise you
| to take A LOT of walks in nature. Even if you don't have
| some nearby, find a routine every now and then: take a taxi
| to a nearby big park (or bike/drive to it), and force
| yourself to just not think about anything.
|
| Additionally, re-read a favourite book -- even if it dates
| back to your teenage yours.
|
| You likely have a lot of negative inertia in your brain and
| you need to engage in semi-passive lifestyle to help it
| remove the negativity by itself which usually happens by
| eating well and sleeping as much as you need.
|
| Finally, consider cannabidiol (CBD / cannabis) pills. They
| are absolutely harmless, they cause no hallucations at all,
| you can't overdose on them (I am getting those with 15%
| concentration), and their general effect is to slightly
| alter your brain chemistry in the direction of reducing
| anxiety. It will help you look at things from a new angle
| and I found it extremely therapeutic because this in turn
| helped me deal with my problems in sustainable and lasting
| ways. (Unlike before when my knee-jerk reactions only made
| things worse with time.)
|
| Meditation, if you can master doing it for 30-40 minutes,
| works wonders too. Mind you, some people need weeks of
| practice every day until they feel this tranquil state of
| mind. Eventually everybody succeeds though.
|
| I wish I could actually help you because I think I know
| what you're going through. There is a way out but sadly it
| never happens exactly as we want it, e.g. we can't just not
| work until we feel better. But there are middle grounds
| that help achieve the same result, albeit slower and with a
| bit more deliberate effort.
|
| I hope you manage to pull through.
|
| (EDIT: Forgot to mention something important: cardio
| exercises! Forget strength training. Absolutely learn basic
| yoga for stretching -- especially the exercises that deal
| with your core area because they will heal your guts and
| bowels! -- and do loads of cardio: run, bike, plank,
| nevermind which one. Find your cardio thing. Again, forget
| about strength training. We the sedentary people need to
| get our metabolism going again. Make your heart pump
| faster, consistently and regularly. That's the exercise
| that's going to make the biggest difference for your mental
| health.)
| romesmoke wrote:
| This is the best piece of information I have come across
| this year.
|
| From the depths of my heart, thank you.
| pdimitar wrote:
| I can only feel happy if my blabbering helped you. Reach
| out if you have any questions or need advice (although
| advice is a dangerous thing in general). I've been
| around, I learned to be kind and I love helping people
| when I can.
| ABCLAW wrote:
| Your compassion is distilled to crystal purity through
| these words. Thank you for sharing.
| Andy_G11 wrote:
| Work is a drug and I seriously think it triggers some sort
| of endorphin response in the same way that exercise does.
|
| Unfortunately, many white collar types of work are insular
| and while you are sitting on front of a screen getting a
| buzz about solving little problems, or even quite big ones
| for specific issues, the world is moving on.
|
| It is possible that you may even be compromising your
| career by being good at the technical issues of a job to
| the extent that some bosses who cannot stay on top of what
| you are doing may feel they would be more comfortable with
| a safe, matey colleague than a bit of a strange wizzkid who
| gets to be known as the oracle of all things.
|
| Fortunately, 47 is still pretty young no matter what the
| newer generation of employed go getters thinks, and there
| is life yet to be pursued.
|
| I would say try taking up a sport - gym, cycling, rowing,
| jogging, or even something physical and competitive. Get
| the buzz of routine and physical wellbeing and socialising
| going again.
|
| Then take a deep breath and think about everything that you
| have learned over the years that can be actualised into
| real value. The great thing about coding is that it teaches
| its practitioners that progress only happens from meeting
| certain logical imperatives - build on that and problem
| solve your way to another commercial enterprise.
|
| You have got this. The main thing holding you back is your
| own thoughts.
| scandox wrote:
| > I do a lot of sitting quietly, with my mind almost empty
| of thought.
|
| This is a totally natural state. There's nothing wrong with
| it and if you want a change of mind then I suggest you let
| it happen.
|
| And probably get off social media too.
| WalterSear wrote:
| It's not. It's anhedonia. It feeds on itself. It makes
| things worse over time.
|
| Mindfulness is overprescribed. Having practiced
| meditation for quite a few years in the past, I'm
| convinced that it's not good for people that are prone to
| anhedonic depression.
| treme wrote:
| I highly recommend some low cost of living place like
| thailand to help heal your scars- thai massage is very
| therapeutic.
|
| wish you strength and recovery.
| sizzle wrote:
| Why not join a slow enterprise F500 and recharge, focus on
| hobbies and coast through the 9-5? Start ups in contrast
| over work you and leads to burn out.
| v3np wrote:
| I don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion
| beyond another data point: I also relate to the feeling of
| wanting to be 'productive' most of the time and not really
| enjoying pure leisure time. I recently spent 2 weeks working
| remotely from a nice location in Italy and definitely
| would've enjoyed the time less if I couldn't have also worked
| from there. I also enjoy hobbies/free-time less when I
| believe it ultimately doesn't lead myself to becoming the
| person I want to be.
|
| On the one hand, I think this is only natural if you are an
| ambitious person (this desire is imho exactly one of the
| things that allow a person to achieve ambitious feats); on
| the other hand, I am definitely struggling with finding
| enjoyable, non-work activities that recharge me.
| brudgers wrote:
| _I might spend too much time on HN_
|
| Maybe it is evidence of an interest in writing. I am pretty
| sure that is the case with me. There is no place more likely
| to produce quick direct and possibly thoughtful feedback.
|
| Writing for pleasure is a thing that is hard to accept as
| worthwhile. It costs our lives. Hours we will never get back
| for imaginary internet points.
|
| But...oops I did it again as they sing.
| tekkk wrote:
| Really well written, thanks. It's interesting to read how
| others have faced and are facing the same problems. I've
| found it's a question of comfort and social environment that
| pushes you regularly to do things you'd not normally do and
| forcing you to set aside the whatever programming or other
| "self-improvement" you were planning to do.
|
| It's not necessarily a bad thing if you can diversify your
| targets of learning to multiple areas that are not as
| solitaire as programming. Music, anything with performing and
| socializing is great. Gym or a physical sport - very
| important. It doesn't have to be just programming. And I at
| least am more happy after having practiced music than having
| just played video games.
|
| But I grant that even with multiple hobbies one still sits
| well inside their own bubble and it isn't really a life-
| altering experience to practice music instead of coding some
| npm library. What one needs is social connection to satisfy
| the basic primal desire for one's own tribe. It's weird how
| we are hard-wired like that, but if one stays alone inside
| programming something "useful" it does not really tick the
| boxes our biology craves.
|
| In any way, my point is - do I have a point? Well, the
| problem is basically how to rewire our brains to react to
| certain input in a way we find the most pleasing. We all
| can't be rich, beautiful and famous so one should do with
| what they got. If chatting with friends makes you more happy
| than programming inside maybe you should focus on nurturing
| that. Not being content is a good start for development. I
| think some people really try to fool themselves to believe
| their current reality is 'ok' while in fact they are not
| happy. I guess taking responsibility for changing things is
| too much and they rather just forget they even had a chance.
| catwind7 wrote:
| I can relate to a lot of this. One thing I learned about
| myself recently is that I tend to default to programming
| because it practically guarantees that I'll feel good
| (dopamine from making things work, fixing bugs). Since I
| don't have many other hobbies that guarantee similar reward,
| there's not much of an incentive for me to do anything
| different whenever I'm feeling antsy about sitting around and
| not feeling productive.
|
| one thing I've been doing with the help of some therapy
| recently that's somewhat helping is scheduling time (1 hour)
| to NOT program. No expectation of actually doing anything and
| accepting any uneasy feelings that arise. Just making sure
| that I make the time to tune in to feelings / thoughts
| without the option of picking up my computer as a sort of
| pacifier.
|
| first time I did this, I just sat nervously for 30 minutes
| until I got bored and then looked for problems around my
| house to fix (which took 2 hours and was pretty satisfying).
| After a few rounds of this I noticed myself acting on small,
| non-programming interests outside my scheduled times.
|
| just figured I shared in case others are feeling same and
| want something to try :)
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Me too. I've been actively working to do the opposite. To
| build my outside of work life, give it priority and give
| myself the permission to have it be the main focus of life
| and stop running from the bear all the time.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| I have started using a pomodoro timer, not as a way to keep
| myself working and improve my productivity, but as a way to
| remind myself to stop and smell the roses.
|
| So far it's been good.
| tylerscott wrote:
| Same. I love the phrase "give myself the permission."
| That's probably the best way I've ever read to express that
| feeling.
| devchix wrote:
| > I can hardly sit through an entire two-hour movie or play a
| video game without feeling like I should be doing something
| else.
|
| One summer we rented a beach house, I had delusions of lazing
| on the beach under a big umbrella, drinks, books, dogs,
| netflix, music, a endless orgy of entertainment and sunny
| weather. I went stir-crazy in about half a day, there's only
| so much lazing about I can do, after 2 movies I thought meh,
| I'm wasting this day. I envy the people who say they're going
| on vacation and do nothing for a week, two weeks even. I
| can't seem to do that, and I don't know whether that's
| something intrinsic to who I am, or that's a toxic thought
| pattern I need to get rid of. When I'm back at home and at
| work I am so busy I have a tendency say "I wish I had some
| more time to unwind" a lot.
|
| At the present, I'm trying to have _focused and purposeful_
| idle time. With intent, sit through a movie, read something,
| play a game, whatever, for a chunk of time, or deliberately
| do nothing at all. The last one is very hard for me, I don 't
| think I've managed 15 minutes of it.
| wfme wrote:
| I had a very similar experience a few years ago after
| travelling to Rarotonga for a holiday. There was little
| reception for mobile data without a new sim - this turned
| out to be an absolute blessing. The first day or so was
| easy, but the next few were restless. We had explored the
| island, snorkelled, swam in the pool, and tried lots of the
| local food. We had run out of things to do.
|
| The funny thing is, it took there being nothing to do, no
| phone to idly turn to, to truly start to unwind and relax.
| I didn't initially realise it at the time, but my body and
| mind had been in this constant state of stress. After
| pushing through that initial restlessness and that constant
| need to be actively doing or reading about something
| productive, my whole body began to feel noticeably more
| relaxed. The invisible state of constant stress was finally
| parting. Waking up later than usual, grabbing some tropical
| fruits and enjoying them around the pool with a light
| fictional book at the ready started to feel more natural
| and enjoyable. It started to feel like I could truly enjoy
| doing "nothing" and just bathe in the relaxation.
|
| After returning home, there were many noticeable
| improvements to my creative thinking, productivity, and my
| general feeling of wellbeing.
|
| My take away from this experience is that it is so
| incredible difficult to fully disconnect from day-to-day
| life when your phone can provide constant access to
| information. It's oh so easy to go on holiday but still
| turn to your phone and hn or reddit when idle. I highly
| highly recommend taking a holiday either without your
| phone, or without any easy access to the internet.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| Why sitting through a movie is a bad thing? Have you tried
| watching some "harder" movies? Maybe you're just bored with
| the specific movies you are watching. I for example know
| that I have a very specific love for sci-fi genre; but
| unfortunately a lot of sci-fi is basically trash with good
| CGI and I can't help myself but think that I am wasting my
| time when I watch stuff in that comfort zone.
|
| However there's a lot to film that is quite hard to watch.
| Maybe of the recents Almodovar comes to my mind. It's
| engaging and very unique.
| devchix wrote:
| A reasonable question. But, it's very hard to watch a
| "serious" movie or read a "serious" book while at the
| beach. There's a reason why there exists a genre called
| "beach reads". I am not going to watch Almodovar or
| Bunuel or Bergman or Aronofsky or Inarritu on the beach.
|
| I can't watch trashy movies either, but my tolerance for
| them is more flexible at the beach.
| WalterSear wrote:
| It's a moving target. At first I wouldn't sit through
| genuinely asinine popular media, like 'Friends'. This is
| not unhealthy: most of it is shit. But over time, I've
| found that I can't sit through anything that isn't
| utterly engaging. My SO used to joke that I 'hated
| everything' until that started to make me feel bad.
|
| Paying attention to anything that isn't doesn't at least
| appear to be addressing existential dread has lost all
| flavour. I'm not sure what the solution is.
|
| Before anyone suggests it, it's clear that I'm dealing
| with clinical depression, but medical help has been of
| limited benefit. Therapists don't seem to be familiar
| with the situation that is being described by posters
| here, don't have tools to suggest. I suspect that it's
| not so widespread a phenomenon outside of knowledge work.
| treme wrote:
| if you've already exhausted traditional routes, perhaps
| give psychedelics a chance.
| WalterSear wrote:
| Psilocybin results in profound sadness for me, that lasts
| for days. Microdoses, macrodoses - it just varies the
| intensity/duration of the dysphoria.
|
| NMDA antagonists were an amazing find. A ketamine
| prescription allowed me to function at all for the last
| few years, until I started to develop bladder pain and
| had to discontinue it. I've recently experimented with
| nitrous oxide, but hasn't turned out to be feasible.
|
| LSD, I can't source. Given my experiences with
| Psilocybin, I haven't tried very hard.
|
| The further out stuff, such as salvia divinorum, is so
| under examined as to be utterly speculative. Can't say it
| had much of an effect, either.
|
| I've also used induced hyperthermia, which has a minor
| effect on my mood. The effect is also of very short
| duration.
| pdimitar wrote:
| Severely off-topic to the OP but have you tried watching
| "Battlestar Galactica" in full? (The remake from the
| 2004+, not the original -- tried the original and didn't
| like it at all.)
|
| I mean, you don't get much CGI there but the premise is
| extremely realistic and the actors are absolutely
| brilliant.
|
| Plus, you'll get to cry, a lot, during the long series
| finale.
| goatlover wrote:
| Or The Expanse, if you want realistic space battles and
| what our potential future might look like if we do
| colonize the solar system.
| uxcolumbo wrote:
| Star Trek Deep Space Nine. One of the best.
|
| Avoid the newer ones like Discovery and Picard... utter
| trash and not Star Trek at all, thanks to Alan Kurtzman.
| tomrod wrote:
| Or Downton Abbey, or ST:TNG, or...
|
| Lots of great shows out there to just enjoy.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I have the same feeling, out of the fact that I have not
| achieved anything I want in my life so far and I can't
| adjust my targets according to my shortcomings.
|
| Everytime I take a vacation I feel bored from the 2nd or
| 3rd day and want to _do something_. Maybe I can indulge
| myself in one night of games/movies but the second night
| I'd definitely feel very uneasy.
|
| And frankly the older I am, the stronger the feeling is. I
| want to tell myself that OK this guy can achieve _nothing_
| I want in his life and he is almost 40 so maybe relax, but
| I don't listen to myself.
| d0m3 wrote:
| Going on vacation doesn't mean doing nothing. Like you I
| don't understand how/why people do this. I think it's about
| doing something different. Travel, visit, explore, camp,
| hike, do sport, meet new people, share that with
| family/friends or not.
| folkrav wrote:
| > Like you I don't understand how/why people do this. I
| think it's about doing something different.
|
| You raised the question and answered it in two sentences.
| This is exactly why some people are able to take a
| complete break and "do nothing" - their daily life is
| already filled to the brim with work, family, kids, etc,
| that when they get on vacation, what actually feels
| different is doing "nothing".
| d0m3 wrote:
| Fair point. I believe I manage to save enough time of
| "doing nothing" in my daily life (although it might feel
| uncomfortable sometimes as others pointed out in the
| thread) that I don't need that during vacation. I see it
| as an opportunity to do things I don't have time/energy
| to do otherwise.
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| What works for me is, in advance, saying that I will be
| doing X thing for 10 minutes, an hour, or whatever.
|
| Even when I'm waiting for something, I'll say: "I will
| leave in 5 minutes" and set an alarm, knowing and trusting
| that I will leave and I can relax until then.
|
| I know it sounds paradoxical, but it helps for me to
| schedule both creativity and relaxing time since I know for
| those times that I'll be able to do be purposeful about my
| relaxing or making.
| rakejake wrote:
| This was exactly my experience except Masters instead of
| Bachelors. I had this feeling that I mostly coasted during my
| bachelors, only putting any effort the week before Finals or
| Unit Tests. I did my Masters in EE from a university renowned
| for being a tough program. I was up for the challenge, doing
| exactly what you did: thinking math all the time, feeling like
| I was wasting time any moment I was not in front of my books.
|
| I have the exact same problems you mentioned: not being able to
| just be, always anxious to be doing something productive, can't
| bring myself to watch a movie unless the movie was an all-time
| classic and "worth wasting time on".
|
| The pandemic, weirdly enough, brought me back down to Earth. I
| faced some real mental lows but now I am able to relax more.
| Time management and deep work a few hours a day goes a lot
| further than just fretting about being productive all the time.
| I still have a lot of work to do, and I still don't think I've
| fulfilled my potential but posts like yours have definitely
| helped me re-calibrate my expectations.
|
| Thank you very much.
| ska wrote:
| Fwiw CMU undergrad CS has a similar reputation.
|
| There are university programs where you can coast through a
| degree, and others where doing that will at best leave you at
| the back of the pack.
|
| It can be fun to be in a program where everyone is pushing
| hard but it can also be very stressful and not healthy for
| everyone who tries it. It is possible to live the rest of
| your life like that, but the vast majority of people I know
| who have tried it, aren't happy. The exceptions are outliers
| in several ways.
| np32 wrote:
| "My heart is in the work" - Andrew Carnegie
|
| Probably a very stress-inducing sentence to a lot of CMU CS
| grads
| jwuphysics wrote:
| I had exactly the same reaction, and I also went to CMU for
| undergrad (not SCS though). However I found that it didn't
| translate to long-term productivity during my PhD program, when
| I needed to think about my career goals 5 years in the future.
| There I needed to focus on sustainable work ethic and working
| "smarter" rather than "harder" -- for example, okay I got an A
| in my quantum field theory class, but who cares? Other students
| who took easier courses but were able to start writing papers
| probably got ahead in the long run.
| didip wrote:
| Yup, I reached the same conclusion. We even had that same "sick
| on the stomach" feel after playing video games.
|
| I used to carry "working 80-90 hours/week" like a badge of
| honor. I was such a fool.
|
| There are smart ways in making money that doesn't
| simultaneously reduce my lifespan.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| This idea that work is required(!) and that rewards of it
| should not be wasted can be traced to some religious roots, for
| example. This view on work ethics has been given rise to
| interesting theory more than 100 years ago in the birth of
| economic sociology:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_S...
| bradlys wrote:
| I've heard this same mentality from many people who went to
| rigorous colleges or had a rigorous college experience. (It
| isn't just prestigious schools that are like this - choose the
| wrong major at particular public schools and your life can be
| just as difficult)
|
| I'm of the same opinion. I still don't know how to enjoy just
| existing - even small pleasures can be hard to do unless I
| think there is some kind of "work" aspect to it. Video games
| need progression or bragging rights, hobbies need skills that
| will make me better at something, and simple pleasures must be
| only to get me back onto the progression track. Recharging must
| be to get me back in the game and working hard again. Etc... I
| was overtuned in college to always be working on something
| because if I didn't, I was going to flunk out. (Yay for bad
| professors and academia that cherishes weeding people out than
| growing what they have)
|
| I despise the way college trains people. Feels like capitalism
| training 101.
| Deeznutz93 wrote:
| I also went to CMU and had a similar experience. I got into
| programming because of my love for video games and ended up
| thinking they were a waste of time. A few years after
| graduation, my friends tricked me into going to a PC cafe
| (telling me it was a hip bar) and I rediscovered my love for
| gaming.
| xputer wrote:
| Very similar experience for me. I have a hard time spending
| time on hobbies at the moment, because it feels like I should
| put that time towards my PhD instead of "wasting my time and
| energy". Yet, I somehow have no problem spending hours every
| day on reddit, YouTube, hacker news etc. because I think I
| tricked my mind into believing that those things don't cost
| energy so it's ok. Unfortunately they don't really bring joy
| and fulfilment the same way hobbies do.
|
| I think the real problem for me is that the work of my PhD is
| never fully done until I've defended and submitted my thesis.
| It means that even though I definitely don't get even close to
| doing 40 hours of actual work per week, it feels like I am
| working all the time, which is exhausting. It's bad feeling
| like you are not supposed to take a break and wind down. It's
| probably why people burn out all the time...
| beambot wrote:
| The most impactful activities I pursued during my PhD had
| absolutely no bearing on my research itself.
|
| Here's one example: I created a robotics blog where I wrote
| about some of the new, interesting developments in the field
| that piqued my interest. It ballooned into one of the top 3
| robotics websites on the web. I felt guilty about it for a
| long time... until I realized that the blog had a bigger
| impact & reach than any of my research -- I was known in the
| community; articles were cited on Wikipedia and in
| Congressional testimonies; and it established my credibility.
|
| There are at least a half-dozen similar examples -- including
| just pursuing random intellectual curiosities. What really
| helped me come to terms with this is "Structured
| Procrastination":
|
| http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/
|
| As long as you're doing & not just consuming, you will
| probably find value.
| sjg007 wrote:
| I would just block those websites from your devices. They are
| a trap. The illusion of progress or social connection for
| karma.
| abhinavsharma wrote:
| Having been through CMU and YC, I think while this piece makes
| sense for the average person, for someone who's been to CMU
| it's very easy to read this with a re-traumatizing reaction of
| stop-glorifying-working-to-the-bone.
|
| CMU and YC were maybe the 2 hardest working environments I've
| been in, but CMU SCS was just plain more hours of staying
| awake, more implicit peer pressure, less mature peer support
| systems (mostly from being younger) in the median case of a
| class/batch.
|
| You can get by (with a huge cost, as evidenced by the semi-
| regularity of suicide when I was there) with that intensity
| solving finite problems in semesters that come to an end but
| not tempering that attitude and knowing when to take strategic
| breaks in the infinite game that business is can really do
| harm.
|
| CMU is a weird place, the kids that get in are very smart but
| often have their inferiority complex relative to say MIT or
| Stanford, which coupled with the uncompromising academics makes
| them work insanely, often unsustainably hard. I loved it there,
| but I'm very glad I had a training in balance going in.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I didn't go to CMU. But to me, as I read this essay, that was
| balanced by the "quit when you're too tired to do your best
| work". That's _not_ working-to-the-bone. That 's working
| hard, _and then stopping_.
|
| Now, someone who went to CMU may be too traumatized to hear
| that, but PG did say that...
| abhinavsharma wrote:
| That's sensible, but it's an extremely difficult thing to
| build concrete awareness for when you're so deeply in a
| problem space that often your best ideas just pop up from
| your subconscious.
|
| There's also ways some kind of work you can be doing for
| any given energy level that adds up to your end goal.
|
| Do you have good advanced strategies for knowing how to
| identify when you're too tired to do work in complex
| scenarios. Always happy to absorb more of those :)
|
| I should also clarify that I think this essay is written
| with the best intentions. I also think there's a specific
| audience that can very easily misinterpret it. You're not
| in it, which is great!
| abhinavsharma wrote:
| I also bet that anyone who went to CMU will read this essay
| and go "duh, why did he spent this much time writing this
| obvious stuff"
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > I've since reformed my ambitions, instead of looking to start
| a company or get a PhD in mathematics, I've decided that hard
| work is not the love of my life
|
| I 100% agree. Having just finished my masters (a bit later in
| life, I'm in my 40s now), I have concluded that I have exactly
| zero interest in pursuing any further formal education. I just
| don't have enough f*cks left to give for that.
|
| But I do dream of starting my own company. But maybe it will
| stay a dream. And even if I realize it, I'm talking about a
| lifestyle business and not an attempted unicorn.
| Kharvok wrote:
| I currently experience this. Every moment of downtime the last
| 4 years is plagued with these alarm bells that I'm not properly
| using my time. That I should be working on something
| productive. This even extends to avoiding home improvement
| projects because a more efficient usage of my time would be to
| continue to work on work/side software projects.
| user22 wrote:
| Thanks for writing this. What you wrote describes me perfectly
| with the exception of the redemption at the end.
| tomrod wrote:
| I feel you.
|
| I think I was lucky in a way. I had my first experience with
| vertigo while working 80+ hour weeks for several years. In my
| dizziness I couldn't see my computer or cell phone screen to
| email or text my boss to let him know.
|
| I was down for several days, literally only able to lie in bed
| and breathe. It was then that it dawned on me that if I died
| right then, I sure would miss a few things I'd been neglecting
| or putting off in life.
|
| Vertigo has not returned yet (may it never!). It was a catalyst
| to a lot of meaningful change in my life.
|
| Hobbies can be a very useful endeavor. So can volunteer work.
| I've been intrigued to learn more about the Civilian Air Patrol
| (US based, CAP) and how they help during disasters. Also fun to
| go up in planes and take pictures, either for training or in
| consequence of supporting disasters. They have more they do as
| well, but these things are fascinating to me. There are
| thousands of organizations with these kinds of opportunities.
|
| You're not alone. Good luck in your hunt for meaning beyond
| output!
| caymanjim wrote:
| I'm closer to retirement age than the beginning of my career.
| Some of my age peer friends are already retired, and many of
| them could be if they wanted to. It's not even on the radar for
| me. I'm a bit envious, as I'd love the freedom to be done for
| life, and to be able to take or leave work as I please.
|
| The flipside is that I've taken a lot of time off along the
| way. I've taken whole years off between many jobs, I've
| traveled a lot, and I've spent a lot of time just doing
| nothing. I have some minor regrets about not making better use
| of my time between jobs, but I don't have regrets about taking
| the time off. I would have gone insane if I had worked nonstop
| for 20-30 years, only taking a couple weeks of vacation a year.
|
| If I were really passionate about the work--especially if I'd
| launched my own business--I might not have felt burnt out or
| wanted time off. But I never wanted to bust my ass just for the
| sake of working hard, or for some nebulous future goal
| (although that future is now my present). If health or
| something else prevents me from enjoying life as much in the
| future, at least I've got memories of the past.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| You remind me of a coworker I had four a couple of years. He
| and his wife were both extremely competent and well-
| compensated programmers. Their lifestyle was basically "work
| for two years or so, save up a bunch of money, then quit and
| wander the world doing whatever they liked until the money
| ran out, repeat." I've thought about them several times. Some
| part of me is really, really uncomfortable intentionally
| living off of my savings for a prolonged period, but I also
| sometimes wonder if they haven't figured out something
| important that I haven't.
| manmal wrote:
| 15y ago I met a guy who was specialized in repairing
| escalators. So what he did was repair some escalators in
| the city, and then he spent some weeks or even months
| motorbiking with his buddies. When money ran out, there was
| always a broken escalator to return to. Obviously he was so
| certain he would find work that he didn't feel the need to
| save up any money.
| ska wrote:
| > intentionally living off of my savings for a prolonged
| period
|
| For most people, this is what retirement means, no? So one
| way to think about it is they are trading off time, and
| doing some things while they were young and sure to enjoy
| them.
|
| The flip side is I have known people who never took a 'real
| break' and worked doggedly until 65 or whatever, then found
| a few years later health issues constraining what they
| could do.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| That was my parents. Both worked into their late 60s.
| Both dead before 75. The amount of retirement they even
| had a chance at enjoying amounted to about three years.
| d0m3 wrote:
| That's awesome and you don't have to take it to that
| extreme. Right before covid I took a 3 months break after
| my last contract as independent consultant. Traveled in
| South America with a backpack and it was awesome. These 3
| months feel (fill) in my memory so much longer than the
| year and a half of covid. Can't wait to do that again once
| travelling is easy again. Only issue is that when I came
| back I needed a more meaningful work meaning that I'm not
| independent anymore. But I'll trade that off again and
| repeat happily
| tylerscott wrote:
| > Years later, having tackled anxiety problems that had plagued
| me most of my life, I came to recognize that my relationship
| with hard work during my college years was not healthy and that
| this deep seated desire to do more work is not a positive
| thing, at least not for me.
|
| This resonates with me.
|
| I would often try to outwork depression, anxiety,
| grief...basically any difficult emotion. Work was my coping
| mechanism and all external signals were positive about that--
| i.e., "he's a real go-getter." The pathology of all this became
| apparent after, well, becoming a parent.
|
| Fast forward to now, I still sometimes struggle with those
| "alarm bells" but for the most part I can solidly state that I
| am not defined solely by my productivity. Contentment is an
| active practice, I suppose.
| an_opabinia wrote:
| > On these days I'd typically try playing a video game (my
| hobby before college)... wasting time... hard work was not
| healthy
|
| It sounds like playing video games was your medicine, and
| denying it from yourself traded "wasting time" for something
| worse, like bad anxiety, which you don't have to get into.
|
| It's obnoxious that the Paul Graham culture targets video
| games. The alternative medicine is always worse.
|
| Of course, what he's omitting isn't some nuanced take on what
| is and is not wasting time. He's omitting that he doesn't give
| a fuck about hard work that isn't about making money.
| dharmaturtle wrote:
| Do you think he writes essays to make money?
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| A lot of bright kids don't really get their intellectual needs
| met in high school. You may have been "feasting" in college
| after years of "famine."
|
| I'm glad you found some kind of balance. I'm not sure it has
| all that much to do with what this essay is about.
|
| People often think they are talking about the same thing and
| aren't, really. Paul Graham seems to be talking about something
| like _trying to accomplish something hard_ and chose the phrase
| _work hard_ to convey that and I 'm not convinced that really
| says what he's going for.
|
| When you do something "cutting edge" (for lack of a better
| term) it's often really challenging to find the right words to
| communicate effectively. Trying to find something accurate that
| also serves as a good hook for a title can be nigh impossible.
| breadzeppelin__ wrote:
| is it anxiety? I don't have a single hobby at this point that
| doesn't involve learning new stuff or having to work as part of
| it. I've totally stopped watching movies for enjoyment or
| playing video games because it feels so "unproductive"
| ambicapter wrote:
| "My heart is in the work" indeed.
| amelius wrote:
| For most people, the challenge is not how to work hard. The
| challenge is how to work hard and get compensated for it
| properly.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| I wonder if how to work hard is best answered by the inverse.
|
| How to not work hard?
|
| 1. Work on things of little importance to yourself
|
| 2. Pretend that you dont need to work hard and that's for
| suckers.
|
| 3. Work on things that don't require your talents
|
| ... more?
| [deleted]
| uniqueuid wrote:
| Feels like solid advice overall.
|
| One thing I find important relates to other people. Some say that
| success comes from hard work, or that the right focus is
| essential to success. But that's a false dichotomy.
|
| In truth, there are many people out there who work incredibly
| hard, and some of them are even good, and some of those have the
| right focus.
|
| Hard work is the _precondition_. Even if your focus is right and
| you 're clever, you are always competing with people who also
| have that but put in many hours on top.
|
| It's a tower, and if you want to rise, you need to tackle all the
| layers.
| edderly wrote:
| I find the mentions of Messi, Newton, Mozart and Wodehouse
| bizarre. The essay is similar to Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour
| theory, whether you agree or not, at worst Gladwell is writing a
| journalistic think piece.
|
| Here though, is Graham credibly putting himself in the same
| category as Mozart? Dropping a reference to Patrick Collison, who
| no one outside of tech would have a clue who that is in the same
| breath as you namedrop Newton?
| renewiltord wrote:
| The better interpretation is:
|
| "I'm a successful businessman. This is how I acted. So did
| these other successful business people. And as a matter of
| fact, some of the greats of history in other fields also acted
| like this. Put together, I think that this behavior is
| conducive to success (in the way I define it)."
|
| Personally, I find it much more useful to go into each of these
| reads to find some piece of something I can incorporate into my
| life.
|
| I don't think it's particularly useful to disparage the author.
| In this case, I don't think he has a megalomaniacal belief in
| his legacy as a luminary, but even if he did, I trust my
| ability to extract information from what he writes.
|
| There's also a meta-discussion here. In human speech a common
| technique is to use X_j (j=1..n) diverse objects that each have
| k (k=1..m) characteristics Y={Y_jk} where for each j, there
| exists some k such that you can form a subset Z of Y which has
| the property that for any y_1, y_2 in Z, |m(y_1)-m(y_2)|<d, for
| some interesting measure of the characteristic m, and some
| small number d to illustrate an idea.
|
| Usually, the idea is that the diversity in X_j resulting in
| this form of Z points to some commonality among the elements of
| Z. The idea is usually not that all Y_jk are in an equivalence
| class but that the subset Z is in a single equivalence class.
|
| To put it more plainly through illustration: Messi, the fifty
| year old drunk Sunday leaguer, and I all choose to warm up
| before games to avoid injuries. This indicates that perhaps the
| warming up is a good idea. What it does not indicate is whether
| Messi, dad, and I are equivalent across all our
| characteristics. In fact, the interesting part is that we
| aren't but that we share this.
| edderly wrote:
| Unfortunately Graham provides no data or references to back
| up his claims that the iconic figures I mentioned worked hard
| or whether that was a factor.
|
| My criticism is that there is a risk about putting yourself
| or your buddies (I assume Collison is one) in the same frame
| as people who are exceptionally notable. Hence I will give
| Gladwell a break as a journalist just bombastically making
| claims to entertain people because he is talking about other
| people.
| pcbro141 wrote:
| > There's also a meta-discussion here. In human speech a
| common technique is to use X_j (j=1..n) diverse objects that
| each have k (k=1..m) characteristics Y={Y_jk} where for each
| j, there exists some k such that you can form a subset Z of Y
| which has the property that for any y_1, y_2 in Z,
| |m(y_1)-m(y_2)|<d, for some interesting measure of the
| characteristic m, and some small number d to illustrate an
| idea.
|
| > Usually, the idea is that the diversity in X_j resulting in
| this form of Z points to some commonality among the elements
| of Z. The idea is usually not that all Y_jk are in an
| equivalence class but that the subset Z is in a single
| equivalence class.
|
| Never change, HN. Lol.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| There's nothing wrong with drawing comparisons at different
| scales. If you're talking about how to accomplish something
| it's fine to talk about famous works as well as mundane works
| and everything in between. If you're seeing it as a measuring
| contest you're missing the point.
| edderly wrote:
| Sure, but I would expect enough self reflection to indicate a
| logarithmic scale is being used.
| fleddr wrote:
| The article isn't wrong or incorrect in itself, but since the
| definition of "doing great things" once again centers on extreme
| Bill-Gates-level success, I take issue with two points:
|
| In these extreme examples (Gates, Bezos, Musk, etc) the
| environment is the true differentiator to go from success to
| extreme success. Not talent, not working hard. Doing the right
| thing at the right time in the right environment creates the
| snowball effect. It still requires hard work, but hard work is
| not rare or unique. Bezos is about a 100.000 times richer than a
| "plain" successful millionaire, so surely hard work is not the
| game changer here.
|
| Success requires hard work, extreme success requires luck or
| foresight. In the case of Gates clearly luck, as he pretty much
| missed every single tech trend in the decades to come. He has
| zero foresight, but I'm sure he worked hard in his most energetic
| years, like pretty much everybody.
|
| I protest against leaving out the luck factor as these people and
| their admirers truly believe they are some god-like character, a
| 1000 times smarter than everybody else.
|
| There has been an entire industry trying to replicate the success
| of Jobs, for example. As if you can replicate that. You can't
| replicate any of these outcomes as they are time-bound. You can
| do exactly what Jobs did and the outcome would be shit, no matter
| your talent or how hard you work.
|
| The second part of my protest is completely leaving out the
| enablers of your success: workers. 99.9999% of your wealth in the
| case of extreme success is delivered by them, not you. Not even
| mentioning that is classic hero admiration. And this doesn't even
| go into how often the relation is highly exploitative. We know
| the issue with Amazon workers, as well as the true reason of
| Microsoft's success: the merciless elimination of competitors in
| criminal ways.
| guhsnamih wrote:
| Am I the only one who is having to work hard to understand the
| article?
| theptip wrote:
| I think the Hamming piece that circulates here infrequently is
| very insightful:
|
| https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
|
| > Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great
| scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with
| John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about
| three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey
| was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly
| was not. Well I went storming into Bode's office and said, ``How
| can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?'' He leaned
| back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned
| slightly, and said, ``You would be surprised Hamming, how much
| you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.''
| I simply slunk out of the office!
|
| > What Bode was saying was this: ``Knowledge and productivity are
| like compound interest.'' Given two people of approximately the
| same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the
| other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The
| more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more
| you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is
| very much like compound interest. I don't want to give you a
| rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly
| the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out
| to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more
| productive over a lifetime. I took Bode's remark to heart; I
| spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a
| bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I
| don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of
| neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect
| things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no
| question about this.
|
| On the other hand, I would also recommend caution here -- I
| strongly believe that some people simply have a much higher
| capacity/tolerance for work. John Carmack appears to have been
| able to sustain 80-hour weeks without burning out. I can't. I
| don't feel bad about this gap. This observation is pretty
| mundane; it's exactly the same way that the average person's
| psyche or physique simply can't tolerate the training workload of
| an olympic athlete.
|
| "Work harder" might be the right advice for someone who has
| excess capacity that they are not using. It might be terrible
| advice for someone who is already trending towards burnout
| working 50-hour weeks when their capacity is 40-hour weeks.
| There's an element of self-knowledge required to honestly
| evaluate yourself and determine exactly how capable you are. (Of
| course -- push yourself sometimes. You might surprise yourself. I
| personally think it's a good experience to have pushed up against
| burnout on a project I care about, to know what my limits are.
| But I don't aspire to ride that line in perpetuity.)
| david927 wrote:
| This falls into the Malcolm Gladwell genre of arguments made on
| top of specious anecdotal data. Paul's not wrong, per se, but
| it's not a well-formed argument.
|
| Bill Gates made his fortune by being in the right place at the
| right time with connections from his wealthy family, and software
| that he first sold and then went out and bought. If hard work
| helped him grow his empire, great, but I wouldn't use him as a
| great example of what hard work can bring you.
|
| PG Wodehouse is considered by most to be a great "fun commercial
| fiction" writer. Comparing him to, say, Joyce, says more about
| Paul than about either of these writers.
|
| For me, I prefer this quote by Calvin Coolidge: "Nothing in the
| world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing
| is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will
| not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not;
| the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
| determination alone are omnipotent."
| lanstin wrote:
| And I think a strong argument can be made that if Bill Gates
| had taken a little time to look at the big picture in his early
| days, Microsoft might have had a more positive effect on the
| world, rather than become a company that valued crushing
| opponents over technical quality or real innovation. Imagine
| the quality of Linux with 10% of the money of Microsoft.
| username90 wrote:
| Or the fair play might have meant Microsoft would never have
| surpassed Intel so we would have no big corporation making
| hardware decoupled OS.
| shmageggy wrote:
| > _This falls into the Malcolm Gladwell genre of arguments made
| on top of specious anecdotal data. Paul 's not wrong, per se,
| but it's not a well-formed argument._
|
| That pretty much describes anything that he writes on his blog.
| david927 wrote:
| Carrots are good for you. I had a friend who ate a carrots as
| a kid. He's a doctor now.
|
| I wouldn't have even written my comment but this was just a
| big talking point after Gladwell's 10,000 hours book a few
| years ago (which also speciously and strangely used Bill
| Gates as an example of effort).
|
| That Coolidge quote is 100 years old. I like us talking about
| things but let's endeavor to make it new things.
| arkitaip wrote:
| What I'm hearing is that you should startup a biz to sell
| those doctor-making carrots.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Is anyone else surprised there isn't more discussion of focus? I
| know many people (myself included) who work hard but on too many
| things simultaneously and the results aren't as good as folks who
| seem to just keep plodding along on _one_ thing. Two of my
| friends who are extremely successful seem less interested in the
| field they are in, and while intelligent not outrageously so, and
| don 't work _super_ hard. But they just keep at one thing without
| distraction. Over 10-15 years it 's added up. And it's not an
| easy thing to do. Sticking at one thing 50 hours a week for 10
| years is intolerably boring for many people.
| varispeed wrote:
| Sometimes I have an ability to hyper-focus on some task and
| make it in one or two days rather than weeks, but after that I
| feel so exhausted mentally, that I cannot do anything sensible
| for a week or two. What I am getting at, is that often it
| doesn't matter.
| fchu wrote:
| There is something fascinating about this article, and it's not
| the tips about how to properly work hard, which aren't new or
| particularly insightful (otherwise reasonable and well
| summarized).
|
| It's the fact that throughout the article, hard work is an
| implied imperative in life, the main thing to do (otherwise it
| brings a "feeling of disgust"), without questioning if that's
| healthy, right, or so absolute. Maybe instead of the how, I was
| expecting something about the why, a reflection on the bad
| aspects of working hard too, and its associated costs on other
| parts of one's life, whether it's Paul, Patrick or Bill.
| pornel wrote:
| pg runs a business that depends on young people wanting to work
| their asses off for startups.
|
| IMHO the real "why" of this article is attracting the right
| people for Y Combinator.
| dang wrote:
| pg hasn't been running Y Combinator for over 7 years!
|
| You've got your causality reversed. It's not that this essay
| exists because of YC, it's that YC exists because PG is
| obsessed with the idea of doing great work. (There are other
| reasons too, of course, but that was one vector.) He was that
| way long before YC.
| eloff wrote:
| This is clearly true looking from the outside, but people
| seem so eager to attribute motivations to greed or self
| interest, and success to luck, inherited wealth, and
| connections for any famous and successful person.
|
| Is it just jealously and pettiness? Do people downplay the
| achievements of others to make themselves feel better about
| achieving nothing remarkable?
|
| There is a rarely used English word I learned for the first
| time the other day - compersion - which is the opposite of
| jealousy. When you take joy in other people's success.
| Let's do more of that as a community and as human beings.
| luffapi wrote:
| It's not clearly true at all. Please tell me what was
| "great" about Viaweb (how pg got where he is today). It
| was literally about being at the right place at the right
| time. I think you'd also be hard pressed to find someone
| who would call Arc great.
|
| > _Is it just jealously and pettiness?_
|
| It's neither, it's people seeing who gets rewarded, how
| and why.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| It was great _compared to what else was available at the
| time_. Yes, it was about being in the right place at the
| right time - a place and time where three guys could
| build something that was better than anything out there,
| that people actually used.
| luffapi wrote:
| > a place and time where three guys could build something
| that was better than anything out there, that people
| actually used
|
| This is being in the right place at the right time. In
| other words, luck.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| You asked what was great about it. I told you.
|
| Yes, there's an element of "the right place at the right
| time". _And_ there 's working very hard to make the most
| of it.
|
| Or look at it this way: That opportunity was there for
| multiple millions of people who could code at the time.
| It was Viaweb that took advantage of it, though.
| luffapi wrote:
| There were not millions of developers back then.
| According to Wikipedia there were 680k developers in the
| US in 2000.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demogr
| aph...
|
| Regardless, the point is that we should not be listening
| to a guy who got lucky with mediocre software sold to a
| mediocre (at best) company in the middle of a bubble
| about how to duplicate his success.
| balfirevic wrote:
| > It's the fact that throughout the article, hard work is an
| implied imperative in life
|
| That would be strange, as PG doesn't seem to believe that:
| https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1404321931491430403
| tyrex2017 wrote:
| The question you address is much more difficult to answer, if
| not impossible.
|
| I read the article with the preface: Lets suppose workimg hard
| is desirable. How to do this?
|
| This is the correct reading for me
| SeanFerree wrote:
| Great article!!
| leokennis wrote:
| > There are three ingredients in great work: natural ability,
| practice, and effort. You can do pretty well with just two, but
| to do the best work you need all three: you need great natural
| ability and to have practiced a lot and to be trying very hard.
|
| I'd like to add that it is more than fine to not do great work.
| If you like to spend a lot of time with your kids and tend to
| your vegetable patch, by all means only try hard enough to keep
| the job that pays for that lifestyle.
|
| So, no dig on the author, but there is more than maximizing for
| great work. Try for a while to instead maximize for life
| happiness and experience how that feels for you.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| Agreed, but I also found that 3-ingredient formula to be one of
| the more insightful things he says in this essay. It's a good
| way to understand what it takes to be successful at anything.
|
| Including, by the way, being a parent. Many of us aren't born
| with (or have a sufficiently healthy childhood) to have
| naturally great parenting abilities. But hard work and practice
| sure do go a long way.
| lanstin wrote:
| Anecdotally, from years at the playground, the attitude of
| trying to maximize the quality of your parenting is however a
| killer impediment to being a good parent. Parenting is
| challenging and a lot of time, but works a lot better when
| you are doing it in the moment rather than to achieve some
| agenda.
|
| Of course one of the great things about parenting is that
| mostly you get to have the same situations over and over
| again, and get to change your approaches (including
| consistency) to see what happens with different approaches.
| So you get practiced at each thing. And the talent needed for
| parenting is more intimate that for writing software - it's
| the talent to make your toddlers laugh, to make your 4 year
| old confident enough to try something they want to try. It's
| a set of skills for doing stuff between a particular
| parent/child system. My tricks might not work for you; my
| tricks for my first born did not work for my second born.
| ant6n wrote:
| That was also my first question:
|
| Yes, but how do I work hardly?
| gotsa wrote:
| Playing as Devil's advocate here. I think that "good work" is
| much wider that you are considering.
|
| Having quality time off with your partner is "good work"
| Raising your children is "good work"
|
| In a more philosophical way. "Work" could be defined as trying
| to make a change in your reality. So yeah, that life
| discovering the arts, eating tasteful and healthy food, and
| spending time with your beloved ones is "good work" and
| requires ability, practice, and time to do it well.
| hkrgl wrote:
| This, exactly. It takes a lot of hard work to raise children
| and have a good relationship with your partner. I consider
| taking vacations to lay on the beach with my partner or
| children a part of that hard work. The definitions in the
| essay seem a bit short-sighted to me.
| leokennis wrote:
| See my other reply:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27676771
|
| I very much agree with you. But I have the feeling that in
| the context of the linked essay, work is narrowly interpreted
| as "working at your job".
|
| I might be wrong though.
| gxs wrote:
| This is exactly how I think one should think about it.
|
| It's along the lines of how people say whatever you do, do it
| well.
| borski wrote:
| I agree with everything you said, and a lot of what Paul said.
| You're just talking to different people.
| fulafel wrote:
| There's a lot of spectrum between "only try hard enough to keep
| the job" and PG described "great work" in many tech jobs, and
| indeed most tech people are somewhere in the middle.
| temp8964 wrote:
| PG never said you should maximize for great work. The essay is
| about "how to work hard", not "work hard is the only purpose of
| your life". You are missing the point here.
|
| In addition, you mistakenly exclude great work / achievement
| from happiness. Spending time with your kids is great, tending
| your vegetable patch is great, doing great work is also great.
| Life is not a single purpose process. Happiness is not a single
| threat process either.
|
| Currently all the critics on the essay are terrible, but you
| are better at least know to keep it civil.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I don't think the person you're responding to is missing the
| point. Rather, they are making another, adjacent point. Our
| culture glorifies hard work and financial success (and
| excess) to what some believe is an unhealthy degree. It's
| worth noting almost anywhere hard work is brought up that it
| should be within the context of the values you hold for the
| other aspects of your life.
|
| I will say that it is better to do great work than good work
| all other things being equal. But other things aren't
| necessarily equal. I would not want to have the discomfort
| with idleness that the author of this blog post lauds, for
| example. Although, if you do have that and are pleased to,
| then good for you!
| leokennis wrote:
| My reply was based on the interpretation that the author
| defined work as "doing your job". That interpretation was
| mainly based on him mentioning Bill Gates not taking a day
| off from Microsoft (his company and job) in his twenties, and
| the writer Wodehouse spending so much effort on his
| livelihood, writing. So I think my interpretation is correct.
|
| The article strongly correlates this interpretation of
| "working" with "being happy". Two quotes:
|
| > When I asked Patrick Collison when he started to find
| idleness distasteful, he said
|
| >> I think around age 13 or 14. I have a clear memory from
| around then of sitting in the sitting room, staring outside,
| and wondering why I was wasting my summer holiday.
|
| And
|
| > Now, when I'm not working hard, alarm bells go off. I can't
| be sure I'm getting anywhere when I'm working hard, but I can
| be sure I'm getting nowhere when I'm not, and it feels awful.
|
| My point to the above is: if you feel awful when you don't
| work hard on a job, by all means work hard on a job.
|
| But if you feel fine only working moderately hard, and that
| is enough to fund your true passions, pleasures and
| happiness, do not feel bad for not wanting to work hard on a
| job.
|
| And the reason I felt the need to say that, is that "hustle
| culture" [1], which this essay is not far away from in my
| opinion, might make people believe (incorrectly) that only
| people who work hard at a job are valuable and worthy human
| beings.
|
| [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hustle+culture
| bumby wrote:
| I wonder how much of the criticism is skewed by the Western
| notion of "work". I.e., we tend to view a vocation as the
| most legitimate definition of work.
|
| If we take a different perspective, I think the author is
| much less likely to be the target of ire.
|
| > _working hard means aiming toward the center -- toward the
| most ambitious problems._
|
| To those in a society hyper-focused on productivity, this can
| certainly rub people the wrong way because so few are able to
| dedicate themselves to super ambitious vocations. As the
| saying goes, the world needs ditch diggers too.
|
| But if your ambition is to cultivate a meaningful, verdant
| life I don't see why the author's statement is incompatible
| with the GP comment. Maybe we just need to broaden our
| definition about what is worthwhile "work". It's certainly
| possible to do great work cultivating relationships if that
| is your goal rather than, say, creating a new field of
| mathematics.
| leokennis wrote:
| See my other reply:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27676771
|
| I agree with your point. But I have the feeling that in the
| context of the linked essay, work is narrowly interpreted
| as "working at your job".
|
| I might be wrong though.
| bumby wrote:
| I don't think you're wrong, that's the same impression I
| got as well. But I suppose that is to be expected in a
| society that tends to consider one's vocation as the
| height of personal ambition.
|
| I would also suspect the author scores highly in the
| conscientious personality trait. So it would follow they
| have high levels of discipline, derive pleasure from
| achievement etc. Maybe the title should be changed to
| "How to Work Hard (and why that matters to people like
| me)"
| TameAntelope wrote:
| This feels like the kind of essay describing a thing that, if you
| have to be told about it, you don't have it.
|
| I'm on HN during my work day. People who "work hard" probably
| aren't. They probably only know about pg through direct
| connections, not through idly scrolling the Internet bored one
| day.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| The thing about finding motivation is that you don't actually
| find it.
|
| There are certain things you want out of life as a human being,
| and if believe your work is aligned with that, you'll pour your
| soul into it.
|
| On the other hand, if you see work as a distraction from the
| rest of your life, working will be an uphill battle. I guess
| it's important to find work you care about, or find a deeper,
| more meaningful reason to do work.
| tempson wrote:
| Really happy to read that most readers are critical about this
| article. This article is extremely shortsighted! Kids don't fall
| for this trap. Life is about people and relationships.
|
| p.s. Steve Jobs is already forgotten. Bill Gates will be joining
| that list too. Now that we know his dirty secrets, fastet than
| expected.
| rgifford wrote:
| I worked my way through college as a mover (and came out the
| other side with high 5-figure debt). Many of the older guys I
| worked with had drug habits. I worked 16-hour days with those
| guys. They'd get on me for not running up stairs, for packing
| with too little paper around glass, for setting things down more
| than once. None wrote articles entitled "How to Work Hard." None
| knew Warren Buffet as a child (see Gates). None attended the most
| expensive schools, if they had they certainly wouldn't have
| chosen to drop out because they got bored or were unfulfilled
| (see Graham and Zuck). Take a look at the top 10 highest valued
| YC startups. All their founders came from schools with less than
| 10% acceptance rates.
|
| Privilege is what I'm getting at. Having an income 300:1 your
| lowest paid employee is disturbing. Making millions or billions
| off speculative, debt-fueled VC is disturbing. Proselyting your
| brand of success is disturbing. Recommendation: every time a
| founder, investor or businessperson starts to wax poetic on
| virtue, look for an angle. Why do founders want to appear
| virtuous and hardworking? Why do we need that from them? How else
| can they justify making sometimes up to 50% of their companies
| entire payroll? How emotionally satisfying must it be for Graham
| and his ilk to tell you why they got what they have?
|
| What if most of serious wealth and success is decided at birth?
| varispeed wrote:
| > Having an income 300:1 your lowest paid employee is
| disturbing
|
| I can imagine how and why communist revolutions were so
| "successful". This ratio simply shows theft from the workers.
| Probably, if we don't get a regulation in that area, so that
| let's say the maximum ratio could be no more than 10:1 and
| heavily tax capital gains, dividends and other means that
| privilege class use to extract value without having to work for
| it, this history will repeat itself. In some western countries,
| extreme left parties gain huge support, because people are
| simply fed up of reading that e.g. Amazon got another record
| year while they themselves have to sleep in a tent because they
| cannot afford paying rent.
| ipnon wrote:
| The Russian communist revolution succeeded because Tsarist
| Russia was brutal and despotic, and the brutal and despotic
| Bolsheviks were merely the lesser of two evils and better
| fighters. The Chinese communist revolution succeeded because
| the Chinese Communist Party waged a guerilla war while the
| Nationalist army fought the Japanese invasion by themselves.
| Once the invasion was defeated the Chinese Communist Party
| fought a brutal conventional war marked by long sieges where
| 100,000s of city dwellers starved to death.
|
| I think political and military factors are underrated as
| explanations for the success of communist revolutions
| compared to social and economic factors.
| KerrickStaley wrote:
| > Take a look at the top 10 highest valued YC startups. All
| their founders came from schools with less than 10% acceptance
| rates.
|
| This is not true. AirBnB is the top valued company that went
| through YC [1]. AirBnB was founded by Brian Chesky among
| others. Brian Chesky went to the Rhode Island School of Design
| [2]. The RISD had an acceptance rate of 20% in 2020.
|
| [1] https://www.ycombinator.com/topcompanies/ [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Chesky [3]
| https://www.risd.edu/about
| CheezeIt wrote:
| It isn't, obviously, because look at the example of Bill Gates:
| starting a business as a 20-year-old college dropout puts you
| at a big disadvantage compared to people with more life
| experience.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| The Bill Gates Mythology in this essay is a bit odd though.
| No doubt a hard worker, but the claim
|
| >"Bill Gates, for example, was among the smartest people in
| business in his era, but he was also among the hardest
| working. "I never took a day off in my twenties," he said.
| "Not one."
|
| doesn't align with the facts that have recently emerged about
| him. Maybe PG should examine selection bias and self-
| reporting bias a bit more before making the claim he does
| here.
|
| [1]https://nypost.com/2021/05/10/bill-gates-womanizer-held-
| nude...
| rgifford wrote:
| Take a look at the faces on the Forbes list and get back to
| me. Just how white, male and western are they exactly?
|
| It's not that Gates wasn't smart or hardworking. It's just
| that it's easy to be hardworking and ambitious when you had
| books growing up, proper nutrition, when your parents stayed
| together, when you're in good health, when you got tutors and
| went to great schools, when you were engaged in
| extracurriculars, when you lived in an affluent society, when
| your parents were well connected, and on and on and on.
|
| Are his contributions to humanity worth 60B+? Scientific
| discovery springs up in a bunch of places simultaneously and
| organically. I have to assume his contribution to society
| would've too, maybe with a smaller amount of value extracted
| to his personal fortune?
|
| He's a philanthropist now thought, so that's good. I would be
| too the way social and political tides are turning. Funny how
| philanthropic the wealthy become. Even Epstein.
| j-krieger wrote:
| The difference being that gates was never in any real danger.
| His credits didn't disappear. He lived in a paid for
| apartment. He did not have to worry about money, and if he
| chose, he could've gone back to college at any time. It only
| puts you at a 'disadvantage' in business circles, because
| there's a slight chance that people with more experience will
| not take you as seriously
| ipnon wrote:
| Not all hardworking and talented people become successful, but
| all successful people are talented and hardworking. Some people
| are born with better chances than others, but we should strive
| to make a society where at least most people are born with a
| good chance.
| 908087 wrote:
| > all successful people are talented and hardworking
|
| This doesn't even remotely align with the reality I've
| witnessed in my lifetime, at least as far as financial
| success goes.
| rgifford wrote:
| > ...all successful people are talented and hardworking.
|
| I doubt it. Most measures of economic mobility show this is
| becoming less and less true -- if it ever was. I think
| believing it is important though.
| ipnon wrote:
| Suppose someone is average and lazy. They're practically
| guaranteed to live a life of coasting by from job to job,
| living paycheck to paycheck, and struggling to get by in
| America these days. That is not success by my measure.
| rgifford wrote:
| What if that someone is average and lazy in their work to
| devote the rest of their time to their family? What if
| they raise a bunch of kids that love their parents, care
| about each other and the world and want to make it
| better? Would that be success?
|
| What if they were molested and use drugs to cope, but
| live their entire life without molesting anyone else?
| Would that be success?
|
| What if they have serious depression and they check out
| by playing video games, but they don't kill themselves?
| Would that be success?
|
| Holding up a few spectacular achievements as the paragon
| of human experience is fucking stupid.
|
| I genuinely think really rich (and smart) people do it to
| try to salve their guilt and signal for others.
| ipnon wrote:
| Yes, in general, but in the context of the original
| article success would be defined as higher education,
| well-paying job, able and healthy body, etc.
| pyrale wrote:
| In the context of the original article, success would be
| defined as what people can do to contribute making the
| original author more successful.
| j-krieger wrote:
| > What if most of serious wealth and success is decided at
| birth?
|
| There is no 'what if'. It's just a fact. You can pretty
| accurately predict what a child will be able to attain in life
| by looking at their zip code.
| jp42 wrote:
| While going through the comments on this thread, I remembered a
| chapter in language textbook while I was in school, the name of
| the chapter was 'Charchasatrat hawaraleli mhatari'. It was about
| people discussing a well known parable. This chapter portrayed
| how people discussed everything except the message of the
| parable.
|
| Similarly, I feel majority of the comments in this thread talking
| everything except message PG trying to convey.
| tester756 wrote:
| Consistency is a key
|
| That's what games taught me, weird.
| asimjalis wrote:
| I have noticed that "what I work on" is more significant than
| "how many hours I spend working". You have to be pointing the
| right way, not just going fast.
| cwhittle wrote:
| Someone needs to write a compelling article on "Why to work
| hard". Just because you _should_ isn 't a good enough.
| zdbrandon wrote:
| That answer is different for everyone. Maybe the article should
| be "How to determine _whether_ you should work harder", but at
| the end of the day I'm not sure anyone can be convinced by an
| article.
|
| If you don't have any anxieties based in the lack of having
| attained something specific, then you probably won't (and maybe
| shouldn't) work hard at all.
| matakozapanya wrote:
| find it hard to take life advice from some dude who got lucky in
| the dotcom, has done nothing of note since and actively supports
| sexist, racist people as "he's not a bad guy".
|
| Find it even harder to take seriously a treatise on "work hard"
| when the underlying message is "make ME wealth, bitch ".
|
| Paul can go fuck himself.
| defnmacro wrote:
| My personal take is working hard is a precondition towards being
| successful but not necessarily a guarantee.
|
| Lots of normal people work very hard, many normal people I know
| outside of tech are working night shifts and a day job to just
| sustain their lives. Many of these people rarely have a full day
| off, rather they might scale back the night job in order to get
| rest, or rest whenever their scheduling allows for it. There
| probably working just as hard as a Bill Gates, but these people
| aren't exactly walking towards a path of riches. They're just
| sustaining and it's a very unfortunate reality of America today.
|
| Really success comes from the prerequisite of hard work, the
| aptitude of the individual in regards to the task, and the
| ability of the resulting work to pay off in convexity, similar to
| a call option in finance. Generally non-convex pay outs are also
| associated with risk, perhaps alot of it. So really success comes
| from working very hard, being smart about it and taking on risk.
| ttiurani wrote:
| > [E]ven in college a lot of the work is pointless; there are
| entire departments that are pointless.
|
| I find it interesting PG thinks that dismissing entire branches
| of science without specifying which ones nor justifying why, is
| a) a good take or b) makes his essay better.
| SMAAART wrote:
| I second this. Each and every time I met someone who lives by the
| motto "I work smart not hard" or a version of that, they ended up
| being lazy, or stupid, or - most often - both.
|
| We live in a world where the "average" is actually very high, so
| working hard, really gets us right around average; in order to
| break that barrier, in order to be >1 standard deviation from
| mean, we need to work hard and smart; and the road to >2 standard
| deviation is brutally hard.
| kungito wrote:
| I really don't lije these "work hard in all your 20s" advice
| because I'm at nearing the end of my 20s with great results but I
| feel like I want to save what's left of my 20s instead of chasing
| more cash. I haven't personally met people who worked hard until
| 40s and felt like it was worth it for them. Being a successful
| person personally has always been way more than just having a
| successful career and money.
| jjice wrote:
| > ...because even in college a lot of the work is pointless;
| there are entire departments that are pointless.
|
| I loved all of my CS courses in college. They were my bread and
| butter. I also liked a lot of my math courses and even an English
| class or two. I just wish I didn't take 5 history courses (three
| as part of an elective set that had to be liberal arts), three
| unrelated sciences (bio 1+2, and astronomy - imaging science was
| great and applicable), and two women and gender studies courses
| (nothing against the major, just unrelated to my degree).
|
| I've been told countless times that these courses help round out
| a student. Most of them don't. I end up bullshitting them as much
| as possible and getting a B so I can focus on the courses I care
| about. A streamlined college education where we remove some (not
| all) non-major course work and save two or three semesters of
| time would be amazing, but of course that's two or three
| semesters of lost cash for a university...
| eutropia wrote:
| What you want exists: it's called a vocational school -- and
| no, as of now, many don't teach higher level academic subjects
| to the exclusion of all others, but they do provide a focused
| training for a specific line of work and nothing else. A Code
| bootcamp, for example.
|
| Universities have their historical origins in educating the
| children of elites in the ways of the world: which by
| definition is a varied education consisting of many different
| subjects. I can only guess at the reasons why one can't
| commonly attend a Computer Science University in the U.S; but
| there are a handful of institutions in the world that are more
| focused (The Max Planck Institutes in Germany come to mind)
| s5300 wrote:
| You chose to go to this University/College though. For whatever
| reason, you chose to attend studies there, knowing this was how
| the institution operated.
|
| If you went not knowing how the institution operated, well,
| that's completely your issue.
|
| You could have chose to seek your studies at any institution
| that caters to the ideals you've stated in your post. Yet you
| didn't, and you have the audacity to complain, about how the
| place you chose to attend operates, while they fully and
| publicly disclose _how they operate_
|
| I'm simply baffled by this thought process.
| shadofx wrote:
| He was told prior to entry that the history courses round out
| his education. At the time, he accepted that explanation (or
| did not really care). After experiencing it firsthand, he no
| longer accepts that explanation.
| logshipper wrote:
| > Most of them don't. I end up bullshitting them as much as
| possible and getting a B so I can focus on the courses I care
| about
|
| I hear where you're coming from on this (and have been in
| similar shoes), but I suppose there is more nuance to it,
| mostly because professors and departments play such an
| important role in the experience.
|
| The argument of liberal arts electives lending themselves to a
| richer education experience is a well-intentioned one, and does
| reap benefits if executed well by the professor, the
| department, TA's and so on. If not, well, it is just like you
| mentioned, one is inclined to BS their way out of a class to
| focus on things more important to them.
|
| Speaking from my anecdotal experience, I have had to take three
| electives as part of my undergrad: microeconomics,
| macroeconomics, and a philosophy class on the philosophy of the
| mind. I have thoroughly enjoyed macro-econ and philosophy
| simply because the professors put in an incredible amount of
| work to inspire me to work hard and care about the subject.
| Micro-econ, on the other hand, was one giant mess and I did not
| show up to more than 3 lectures over the course of the
| semester.
|
| I believe in the earnest that students stand to gain so much if
| some university departments and professors gave a crap about
| the experience that they are offering.
| justinator wrote:
| It's very shocking to read this and not even mention how
| supportive the privilege of _starting out wealthy_ is. Hard work
| looks different if there 's no where to go up or out.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| _> Hard work looks different if there 's no where to go_
|
| The essay assumes a lot about who the reader is and the type of
| work they're doing. This perspective on work is obviously
| utterly alien to a single parent who's a dental assistant,
| part-time wait staff, has two young kids, and is barely making
| ends meet. But that person works a hell of a lot harder than
| any startup founder I've ever met. For them, the answer to "how
| to do hard work" is simpler: remember your kids starve and go
| homeless if you don't. Then, get up, go to work, and do what
| you're told. Continue until you have enough to pay the rent,
| buy food, and pay the baby sitters. Remember how lucky you are
| to have a roof and food. Repeat.
|
| On one hand, I understand exactly what PG is saying -- the sort
| of work that requires high productivity without anyone telling
| you to work feels way harder than straight forward wage labor.
| There's a reason people drop out of phd programs and
| intentionally seek out specifically boring & predictable
| engineering/sales jobs (see: the post from the cmu undergrad).
|
| On the other hand, I completely understand how the idea that
| _autonomy_ and _ownership_ over your own labor makes work
| _harder_ -- and bragging about working 7 days a week for two
| whole years -- must seem incredibly tone-deaf to someone who
| has no choice but to do long days for 7 days a week under
| abusive management for 18+ years, only to get a reprieve of
| merely working 8-10 hour days for the 25-30 years after the
| kids are grown up and move away.
|
| But PG isn't writing to that audience. The primary audience for
| many of his essays are people like him: guys who grew up geeky
| in upper middle class suburbs. There's nothing wrong with
| writing for the audience, but he does a kind-of bad job at
| signposting the fact that his advice is utterly irrelevant to
| the 50+% of the population that never have the opportunity to
| invest in themselves.
| justinator wrote:
| _But PG isn 't writing to that audience. The primary audience
| for many of his essays are people like him: guys who grew up
| geeky in upper middle class suburbs. There's nothing wrong
| with writing for the audience, but he does a kind-of bad job
| at signposting the fact that this is the target for his
| advice. _
|
| If that's his audience, perhaps a better essay would be,
| "Look you've got it pretty easy in life already, don't blow
| it (and even if you do, you'll probably have a
| second/third/fourth chance)", not: "listen to me about how to
| work hard because I _know_ ", because I haven't been
| convinced that he knows.
|
| No need for navel grazing.
| yewenjie wrote:
| Off-topic but Firefox gave me a potential security risk warning
| for the site!!??
| acuozzo wrote:
| I think the cert is expired.
| headalgorithm wrote:
| See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27196917
| ottoflux wrote:
| or, you know, work hard when it's work time and take a life
| balance. your company isn't going to come to raise your children
| (if you have them) when you die, nor are they going to live a
| happy life for you.
|
| we have to stop thinking exploiting ourselves for someone else's
| gain makes us a better person.
|
| i'm not saying the author says the opposite, but i think in any
| discussion of hard work we need to bring up balance. a good part
| of Bill Gates success was the money infusion from his friends and
| a wildly asymmetrical deal with IBM and the writer of DOS on the
| other side.
|
| if we don't take a more nuanced approach we are (intentionally or
| not) perpetuating the myth of sacrificing your life for your
| company. i did that with my 20s and a chunk of my 30s. would not
| recommend. live your life, you only get one trip through and
| sometimes the body doesn't hold up well enough to keep enjoying
| all the things you love.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > It was similar with Lionel Messi. He had great natural ability,
| but when his youth coaches talk about him, what they remember is
| not his talent but his dedication and his desire to win.
|
| I can assure you, there are many kids that practice harder than
| Messi did when he was young. He is not a great player because of
| hard work, he is a great player because of luck. I know the VC
| thing about the importance of hard work. They love to promote
| hard work because that's how they make money. It's just plain
| silly to attribute Messi's greatness to anything other than luck
| - both his physical abilities and the environment that taught him
| how to fine tune his abilities.
|
| Hard work is useless without that special precise knowledge of
| which work you should be doing. Few young soccer players know how
| to practice in a way to become Messi, even if they have the right
| body to do it. It's useless without being in the right
| environment too.
|
| > Now, when I'm not working hard, alarm bells go off. I can't be
| sure I'm getting anywhere when I'm working hard, but I can be
| sure I'm getting nowhere when I'm not, and it feels awful.
|
| That, my friends, is what a VC would love for you to believe.
| There's nothing sincere when someone in his position writes
| something like this. Because hey, if you're the 0.1% of the time
| that it works out, he gets rich. And if you're the 99.9% that
| wastes their time (like all the kids that never play soccer at
| the highest levels) he loses nothing.
|
| I used to enjoy PG's writings. He's crossed a line where he
| believes that the only thing good in the world is what is best
| for VCs.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| You are arguing a completely different point thang PG.
|
| PG is talking about the ingredients for "doing great things"
| and "great work".
|
| You are talking about getting rich. Sometimes these are
| aligned, and sometimes they aren't.
|
| It seems like you are looking for a predictive model of who
| succeeds in society and who doesn't, while PG is offering life
| advice on the value of hard work (something within an
| individual's control) - a different topic.
| juanre wrote:
| He is talking about doing great work, not about becoming rich
| or successful. You do need luck for your great work to take you
| places, but your own agency counts for much of your ability to
| do great work. Plenty of great work will not reap great
| rewards; it is done because someone feels that it has to be
| done.
| ultrasounder wrote:
| howdy. as someone who has followed his career trajectory for
| the last 15 yars, I can assure You that "Luck" or serendipity
| or however You want to normalize his abilities has nothing to
| do with his abilities. Its Sheer Hard-work and Will to win.
| Being lucky is scoring 50 goals one season and 10 the second.
| This guys averages 50+ every season. So You might want to read
| up on it before You hypothesize. Like Spock famously said,
| "there is no such thing called miracles".
| karpierz wrote:
| GP isn't saying that he is lucky each game, he's saying he
| was lucky to be born with the body he has and he was lucky to
| get the coaching opportunities that came with that.
| vl wrote:
| But it's not exactly true. His body statistically is not
| the best for football. In fact he had a growth problem he
| had to take hormonal treatment for. Initial coaching
| opportunities are thanks to the parents, but then he had to
| work hard to qualify for Barcelona youth program. Then he
| had to move to Spain as young teenager to be able to
| continue training at the required level. Amount of hard
| work and sacrifice he invested is way beyond that most
| other footballers do, and incomparable to normal population
| at all.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| Shorter people have a lower center of gravity which is an
| advantage for players maneuvering the ball through the
| midfield. There is certainly a trade off with strength
| and vision but Messi's body type is hardly unusual in top
| flight football. Xavi and Iniesta, who played with Messi
| on Barcelona, were superstars and all three are 5'7".
| vl wrote:
| Messi is 169, average height at the World Cup is 182.4,
| this is quiet a difference. In fact he is in the lowest
| percentiles. Ronaldo is 187, Neymar is 175.
| kmnc wrote:
| So he was lucky to go through a system that had him
| competing against higher level talent while at a physical
| disadvantage. By far the best way to train at a young
| age. His statistically good body for football
| counterparts meanwhile competed at amongst themselves and
| with lower talent. He was lucky enough to be good enough
| to push past the barrier of being able to be in a
| situation of advantageous training. It is a very rare
| position that often leads to exceptional players.
| vl wrote:
| He also was lucky enough to be born. If you take to
| absurd, you can attribute anything to luck. A lot of kids
| where in position like him, and none made it to number
| one.
| luffapi wrote:
| In what way did PG work hard? His job seems incredibly cushy
| to me. He even had the leisure to write his own lisp! VCs
| don't work hard. They sit there and watch people grovel.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| Is this a joke I'm not getting? Do you think he hopped off
| his skateboard at 19 and became a VC?
| luffapi wrote:
| That's a great way to describe it. He sold Viaweb in the
| dot com bubble to a hyper ignorant Yahoo!
|
| Literally a stoke of luck and being in the right place at
| the right time.
| dempsey wrote:
| You have to put yourself in a position to get lucky. Doesn't
| mean that you will.
| going_ham wrote:
| In fact there is a good video from Verassium [1]. One can't
| discount luck. There is no such thing as hard work. It's just
| the feeling of being in flow and whatever one does to make you
| re-live that flow, it's totally worth it.
|
| Instead of working on hard problems, it's best to prioritize on
| optimum problem and get the best out of your situation. With
| optimum problem, I mean the problems that allow you to maximize
| your living, instead of believing on moonshot dream.
|
| It's okay to dream, but putting expectations on dream is losing
| touch with reality. Sure in an ideal world, essays like this
| would be perfect motivation, but you are living in a world
| ruled by billionaires and plutocrats. So, as long as you get
| enough share of the pie, I don't think one should pursue the
| moonshot dream.
|
| Rather invest this time on working on job (whole-hardheartedly)
| only during office hours, and actually try living a life
| outside of it. You don't have to be a superstar to live a life
| because humans have already lived for so long.
|
| Stop believing these bullshit VC ideas. The real essence of
| this essay is understanding the flow and noticing the events
| that triggers flow. [2]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LopI4YeC4I&t=12s
|
| [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/66354. Flow
| luffapi wrote:
| I've been feeling great dread lately with the direction our
| industry is going (has always been going tbh). This
| conversation gives me some sort of renewed hope though.
| Hundreds of people admitted hard work burned them out; seeing
| VCs ask to sacrifice your life for their bottom line.
| Realizing the role luck plays in success.
|
| Maybe covid pushed a significant number of people past their
| breaking point and now their eyes are wide open. I cannot
| say, but I'm glad to see so many people are speaking the
| truth.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Your comment about VCs makes no sense. If a VC wants you to
| work hard because that's how a VC gets rich, that means that
| working hard leads to building a successful company. If it were
| purely luck, why would the VC care if you worked hard or not?
| luffapi wrote:
| If VCs knew what made companies great, they wouldn't fail 9
| out of 10 times. More than any profession I can think of, VC
| is almost pure luck + how much wealth you already have, which
| attracts deal flow, which increases your odds to get lucky.
| PG blogs because he thinks it increases his deal flow (or he
| wants attention). Just because he's saying it, it doesn't
| make it true, even _if_ he believes his own story.
| swman wrote:
| Okay, but nobody is going to become anywhere close to Messi
| without working hard. That's the point. Do you think someone
| could become Messi by putting in barely any practice or effort?
| You might get into a team, but you won't be a Messi lol. Be
| honest with yourself.
|
| Obviously luck plays a role, but most people (>90% I'll bet)
| who are successful in the end get there due to hard work.
|
| I could sit on my butt and do nothing all day, and suddenly my
| doge coin are worth a million bucks. I basically don't know
| anyone IRL who got mega rich off these things. I know a lot
| more people IRL who are mega rich because they work hard to
| this day.
| luffapi wrote:
| It's important to recognize physical activity is very
| different from mental, creative or social activities. If you
| can convince people of things, you can be wildly successful.
| They may listen to you because you speak well, they may
| listen to you because you're telling them what they want to
| hear or they may listen to you because you're rich. None of
| which require the rigorous practice of a professional
| athlete.
|
| Same goes for creative endeavors. I can be _much_ more
| creative (and successful) if I'm well rested vs. grinding.
|
| Contrary to you, the most successful people I know didn't
| work hard at all. They either inherited cash and a network or
| they invented something that got huge and they sold it.
| kentosi wrote:
| The parent's comment wan't implying that luck was everything,
| but to point out that luck is also an important factor.
|
| > There are three ingredients in great work: natural ability,
| practice, and effort.
|
| And luck, Paul. Don't forget luck.
|
| Hard work is only sustainable when you occasionally get that
| carrot at the end of the stick, before moving onto the next
| bit of hard work.
| varispeed wrote:
| And money
|
| If you have money, then even if you do mediocre work (e.g.
| in music), you can ironically appear as doing great work.
| TiberiusC wrote:
| I think luck falls into the natural ability category.
| j-krieger wrote:
| I think it falls into a different category. Lucky in this
| regard is being in the right situations at the right
| time.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| Sure, hard work is often a requisite (unless you luck out in
| the extreme). But for the most part, it's not enough, it's
| not a guarantee, and it's not the hardest worker who
| necessarily becomes the most successful. The point is that
| you shouldn't look at the rich and the famous and think "wow,
| the reason they're there and the rest of us aren't is because
| they're so much more virtous and hardworking".
|
| Obviously it's all a matter of degree, I'm assuming we're
| talking really well off here. A lot of people are in the
| position where hard work is likely to yield moderate success
| and a decent life at least.
| eloff wrote:
| PG says:
|
| > There are three ingredients in great work: natural ability,
| practice, and effort. You can do pretty well with just two, but
| to do the best work you need all three: you need great natural
| ability and to have practiced a lot and to be trying very hard.
|
| I think that's the fundamental secret to success at anything.
| If you want to compete at the top level you have to have all
| three. It's not sufficient to just work hard, or just have
| natural ability. You need to fully apply yourself aligned with
| your natural talents.
|
| Hard work is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.
| bachmeier wrote:
| Without luck, you will not get to the level of Messi. Without
| knowledge, you will not get to the level of Messi. Without
| living in the right environment, you will not get to the
| level of Messi.
|
| The "natural ability" thing is just a spin on the same idea.
| Work hard to recognize your natural ability. Be realistic
| about it. In that view, natural ability is not a matter of
| luck. It is still a story about doing the right things so
| that you deserve all the credit if you are successful, and
| more importantly, so that you can blame those that didn't.
| eloff wrote:
| > Without luck, you will not get to the level of Messi.
|
| I would add that as a fourth requirement to compete at the
| very top level along with the other three. A degree of luck
| is also necessary.
|
| > Without living in the right environment, you will not get
| to the level of Messi.
|
| A fifth requirement.
|
| None of that means hard work is NOT a requirement too - and
| one of the most important.
|
| Without hard work Messi gets nowhere. But if he has the
| other things going for him, eventually he will get lucky by
| just being persistent.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| Without hard work, even lucky Messi would be a nobody.
|
| The ability to do hard work is a worthy personal goal. Not
| for the sake of a job per say, but for the sake of one's
| own well-being. You seem to be seeing this exclusively
| through the lens of predatory capitalism, which might blind
| you to any valuable insights here.
| edanm wrote:
| Putting aside the fact that the article explicitly agrees with
| you that just hard work isn't enough, here's the part of your
| comment I don't understand:
|
| > I know the VC thing about the importance of hard work. They
| love to promote hard work because that's how they make money.
|
| Why would they promote hard work if hard work didn't matter?
| And if it does matter, then what exactly is your problem with
| what pg is saying?
| bachmeier wrote:
| > the article explicitly agrees with you that just hard work
| isn't enough
|
| It does not in any way agree with me. I am saying luck is
| important. If that's anywhere in there, I missed it.
|
| > Why would they promote hard work if hard work didn't
| matter?
|
| Hard work is not the distinguishing characteristic. Luck is.
| Why promote hard work? Because someone else is working hard
| for your benefit.
| jakemal wrote:
| Hard work is necessary but not sufficient. I agree that the
| essay glosses over the element of luck that is involved,
| but I don't think that makes the rest of what Paul is
| saying wrong. Even if hard work alone doesn't always lead
| to success, not working hard guarantees that you won't be
| exceptional.
| lubesGordi wrote:
| So just to be clear, you're saying that in order to be
| successful, you have to be lucky, primarily?
| [deleted]
| sidlls wrote:
| I'd agree with that. Luck is absolutely a requirement and
| it is definitely more important than any other factor.
| goatlover wrote:
| What about intelligence and being able to notice emerging
| trends? Do you think Jobs and Gates were simply lucky in
| the early 80s? Or did they see what was going on at Xerox
| PARC and the coming PC revolution? Their less lucky
| colleagues stayed in college and went on to have normal
| careers.
| bosswipe wrote:
| I think part of what you're calling luck is what pg calls
| natural ability and part of it is the idea of "luck favors
| the prepared". I don't see how you can attribute luck to
| Lionel Messi's success, with his natural ability+hard work
| there's no way he wouldn't have been discovered and
| achieved success.
| imtringued wrote:
| Hard work matters exactly as much as the dozen other factors
| but when you are busy working hard you don't think about
| those. It goes both ways. If those factors are in your favor
| you don't talk about them, when they are not, you pretend
| that they don't matter because hard work is above everything
| else.
| pm90 wrote:
| > Why would they promote hard work if hard work didn't
| matter? And if it does matter, then what exactly is your
| problem with what pg is saying?
|
| Hard work doesn't matter (at least to the extent pg posits)
| and they promote it because (surprise!) they're not all
| knowing entities but humans with flaws (yes even successful
| people can hold views that are not correct).
| obstacle1 wrote:
| > Why would they promote hard work if hard work didn't
| matter?
|
| Hard work matters. But it isn't enough. Luck is needed to
| transform hard work into wealth. Line cooks work very hard.
|
| Incidentally, YC's business model positions it extremely well
| vs. other VCs to take advantage of this calculus. Fund 1000s
| of startups full of maniacally hard working kids, and you can
| expect a few to also get lucky just by sheer volume. Whereas
| if you're only funding a few startups they may work equally
| as hard and never run into the luck required to succeed.
| vl wrote:
| Of course hard work matters, but when VC tells you to work
| hard, take it with the grain of salt, because this is how VC
| is going to make money off your work. What is missing from
| this advice is what is sacrificed. If and when 10-20 year
| later you cash out, what else are you going to have beside
| money? Family, friends, health? If you can make this trade-
| off consciously - good for you, but most people just go with
| the flow and don't think about it until it's too late.
|
| Double irony of this advice is that many VCs are one of the
| most laid-back people you can meet. Usually they are already
| rich, so they don't exactly have to hussle anymore, and can
| choose when to do so.
| nicholast wrote:
| I know this is somewhat of a false dichotomy, but at some point I
| think PG's essays started to shift from being directed at startup
| founders to giving advice to his children that they can read when
| they grow older.
| dalbasal wrote:
| There probably _is_ some tethering to whatever his perspective
| is at the time. At some point, YC was a relatively new idea
| coming to life and he was probably constantly thinking a
| certain way. Now, it 's something that he's been up to for
| decades.
|
| That said, I think there's more of a zeitgeist change than
| actual change in pg's content. Things sound different 10-15
| years apart. A lot of things age poorly, often: idealism, stand
| up comedy... most anything avante garde-ish.
|
| Clever people spoke highly of agile,for example, when it was
| manifestos and such circa 2005.
| nicholast wrote:
| Ok I just looked up the phrase false dichotomy, apparently
| doesn't mean what I thought it meant, probably would have been
| better said as "the two are not mutually exclusive", still
| point holds.
| WillDaSilva wrote:
| "False dichotomy" implies more than just the fact that "the
| two are not mutually exclusive". It further implies that the
| speaker in question has implied that the two are mutually
| exclusive, when they are in fact not.
| chaosite wrote:
| And it further implies that the speaker has suggested that
| the two options are the only possible ones, when in fact
| there are other possibilities.
|
| But the person you're correcting seems to have already
| noticed that, and has corrected themselves.
| SlapperKoala wrote:
| I feel like a lot of it is the same stuff that you get in
| generic self help books, but explained in contemporary techie
| language and cultural references.
|
| Not that that is necessarily bad per se, there can be a lot lot
| of value to reminding people of things that may seem obvious.
| But it's annoying when people treat him like a genius for
| saying fairly standard platitudes in a clever way
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Paul Graham has really good stuff to say about things he knows
| about.
|
| (And really bad stuff to say about things he doesn't.)
| HellDunkel wrote:
| This is some next level clickbait and we all fell for it. With
| ,,hard work" he is touching on somthing we all can relate to. So
| we read the thing. What he is trying to get across is: a) i know
| hard work, that is why i ,,made" it. b) it takes hard work to
| make great things c) this proves i made great things. This is not
| a philisophical reflection. It is marketing BS. I am not a hater.
| Just trying to give name to the elephant in the room.
| abxytg wrote:
| The older I get and the more I read this stuff... I just think
| man PG... your priorities suck!
| grouphugs wrote:
| socialize or die you fucking nazis
| aliceryhl wrote:
| Typo:
|
| > There may be some people do who, but I think my experience is
| fairly typical
| jasperry wrote:
| Maybe the world also needs people who are not so achievement-
| driven, who act as a kind of lubricant in the machine of society
| by making the environment around themselves lighter and more
| pleasant. And people who are that way should learn to value
| themselves and not feel guilty for not being as driven as some.
|
| A world where everyone is a nose-to-the-grindstone overachiever
| seems like a pretty dreary one to live in.
| lanstin wrote:
| And really is Viaweb that big of a deal? He got rich by selling
| .com in the .com bubble to another .com company. That wasn't so
| hard at the time. He wrote a good book on Lisp, and used his
| riches to invest and get richer. None of this seems
| particularly extraordinary. Does he somehow imagine Dropbox or
| Viaweb have transformed human experience? He writes a good
| essay, but he seems overly impressed by his own success.
| borski wrote:
| It does, and you're right. Not everyone has to work hard, and
| those people are important too.
|
| But: those people aren't the folks for whom this essay is
| written.
| _Nat_ wrote:
| It'd be nice if articles about some common term, e.g. " _work
| hard_ ", would start out with a clear definition.
| sidlls wrote:
| That would mean putting effort ("working hard") at
| understanding something outside one's own thought bubble.
|
| PG's essays are exercises in narcissism and confirmation bias:
| they're the last place to go to for the kind of wisdom you
| suggest.
| _Nat_ wrote:
| Admittedly I'm a puzzled by the quality-level of these posts.
|
| A lot of stuff, like the lack of formatting and HTTPS, give
| off an antique feel, almost like a signal that they're not
| meant to be taken seriously. Ditto for the over-the-top
| arrogant tone and relatively sparse content.
|
| I might be off-base on this, but I sometimes wonder if these
| articles aren't like a honey-pot for non-serious YCombinator
| applicants. Like maybe people who resonate with these
| articles are flagged as non-serious applicants, to better
| focus the pool? Maybe we're all looking a little silly for
| commenting here at all, rather than moving on with our days
| and being more productive?
| burntoutfire wrote:
| > A lot of stuff, like the lack of formatting and HTTPS
|
| What's the point of HTTPS for a static website which
| doesn't convey any secrets? (that's a genuine question, I'm
| not a web expert).
| _Nat_ wrote:
| The reason I'd advocate in more public settings is that
| things ought to be secure-by-default, and that adopting
| security only upon realizing its necessity is a hazard-
| prone policy that constantly backfires.
|
| But for a specific example of something that could go
| wrong: someone could inject malicious content into a non-
| secure page. The original content might be plain-text,
| but a man-in-the-middle can still inject whatever they
| like regardless.
|
| As a common example of a simple attack: an attacker could
| man-in-the-middle people who connect to a nearby wireless
| network. Notes:
|
| 1. There're a bunch of ways that an attacker could get
| people to connect to their network. Examples: spoofing a
| legitimate network; setting up a password-less network;
| putting up a poster falsely advertising the SSID/pass to
| a network that falsely purports itself to be official;
| they're an actual employee of the establishment and just
| compromise the legitimate network; they're a remote-
| hacker who's exploited a vulnerability in the router.
|
| 2. The attacker could do lots of random stuff. Examples:
| they could inject malicious code; they could inject
| misinformation to facilitate scamming someone; they could
| insert ads; steal CPU-time/electricity for crypto-mining;
| they could just put gross porno on everyone's phone in a
| restaurant as a troll. Or something else. Or multiple
| things.
|
| 3. The original site being just plain-text doesn't really
| matter; the attacker can replace the entire thing without
| even contacting the real website. Or they can get the
| real website, then add other stuff to it.
|
| The simple rule-of-thumb for website-operators is to just
| keep everything secure(-ish, if we're being realistic).
|
| ---
|
| Further reading:
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BNIkw4Ao9w
|
| 2. https://www.troyhunt.com/heres-why-your-static-
| website-needs...
| sidlls wrote:
| All the things you noted aren't substantive arguments
| against the essay, in my view.
|
| The casual assertions, the unsupported and contentious
| theme, and the complete omission of anything approaching a
| consideration of alternatives are common themes in PG's
| essays. And those are what make them almost uniformly
| worthless, in my opinion.
| _Nat_ wrote:
| Did you find anything about the current post, " _How to
| Work Hard_ ", contentious?
|
| Honestly that'd probably be the one criticism I don't
| have.. most of the content I've seen is pretty mild-
| mannered and mundane.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| There's different things to consider I think than just finding
| something that you can work as hard as possible on. I think Tom
| Blomfield's story is worth hearing about, it sounds like he found
| being CEO really anxiety inducing even if clearly he was very
| successful at it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP2_QOCrVO4&ab_channel=TheDi...
| cryptica wrote:
| These days, it's not difficult to create products that are far
| better than your main competitors' products in every respect. The
| hard part is merely getting the attention of customers so that
| they know that your product exists...
|
| It's extremely difficult to create this scenario whereby a
| prospective customer will actually compare your product against a
| competitor's product. If people were more open to experiment, it
| would be easy but network effects are just too strong. Likely
| propped reinforced by endless money printing.
|
| Infinite money printing just allows the economy to maintain its
| structure forever. The winners always get bailed out so they
| always stay winners and the losers always have their competitors
| bailed out so they always stay losers.
| philmcp wrote:
| I prefer to focus on efficiency, rather than hours worked (i.e.
| effort). It results in a better work / life balance imo
|
| I actually just posted this article on HN today:
|
| https://4dayweek.io/blog/how-to-code-faster
| janj wrote:
| I took extra classes and worked hard in college to get a CS
| degree because I loved it. I was so excited to start a career
| because the internships were fun and exciting. I graduated in
| 2001 right after everything dried up. The only place hiring was
| Raytheon, there was no way I'd step foot back in that place to
| work on weapons. I asked a friend what to do, "Why don't you move
| to MT and snowboard", so I did. Seven years of my 20's in MT, the
| first five snowboarding and climbing, the last two figuring out
| how to get back into tech while snowboarding and climbing. I'm
| now in my 40's married to someone I met in MT with two beautiful
| kids and good career in tech. I don't spend much time thinking
| about what I might've been able to achieve had I spent those
| years in my 20's working hard in tech. I'm just very grateful
| things ended up the way they did. We need people who want to
| achieve great things, especially now with the urgent problems
| we've created for ourselves. But it's just fine to not be one of
| those people.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Reminds me of my intern at Google. PhD CS, had been an intern
| at Google 9 summers in a row. Spent remainder of year skiing.
| Smart and contributed a lot, also seemed happy.
| wanderer2323 wrote:
| Stories like your intern skiing for 9 years or the GP '5
| years snowboarding' usually omit describing rich parents in
| the background picking all sort of tabs.
| janj wrote:
| I won't fault you for the not unreasonable assumption but
| not the case for me. I have fond memories of sleeping
| behind a friends couch while securing a job at the ski
| resort. Initially working at the resort from 4 to midnight
| so I could ride every day. Sleeping in dorm style housing
| slightly worse than freshman year of college. Working my
| way up to running the ticket office. Somehow not blowing
| all my money on new gear, saving just enough to buy a $59k
| condo at the base of the resort which I still have. No
| financial safety net, no savings, but also no dependents
| and nothing to lose living in one of the greatest areas of
| the country.
| leafmeal wrote:
| Thanks, this is inspiring to read. Booking my ticket now... ;)
| JGM_io wrote:
| I'm a bit wary of this essay even though I'm a fan of PG.
|
| With neoliberal rhetoric like this: "Like most
| little kids, I enjoyed the feeling of achievement when I learned
| or did something new. As I grew older, this morphed into a
| feeling of disgust when I wasn't achieving anything."
|
| I wonder if we're not forgetting to just chill. Can he just
| chill?
|
| I dunno, something that's been on my mind
| kaladin_1 wrote:
| Nice one!
|
| While you might not always agree with Paul but his writing
| usually reflects something that has been deeply thought out. I
| can almost see a man walking and thinking...
| skapadia wrote:
| Maybe PG should include some draft reviewers who are hard working
| but not rich. Seems like an echo chamber to include the reviewers
| he does. Unbelievable.
| ipnon wrote:
| pg's writing is still improving. That's impressive for someone
| who has been writing as long as him.
| triceratops wrote:
| > P. G. Wodehouse would probably get my vote for best English
| writer of the 20th century, if I had to choose.
|
| The guy who wrote about a hapless nobleman and his butler is a
| better writer than Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Arthur C.
| Clarke, George MacDonald Fraser, or John Le Carre?
| Veen wrote:
| It's the writing not the subjects. Wodehouse is hugely admired
| by other writers. I bet if you'd have asked each writer you
| name whether they thought they were better prose writers than
| Wodehouse, they'd say no. George Orwell was friends with
| Wodehouse and a great admirer. John Le Carre often named
| Wodehouse as one of his most important influences.
| dorkmind wrote:
| Someone needs to murder paul graham.
| unklefolk wrote:
| Regarding the "work hard in your 20s" advice.
|
| I took the approach that in your 20s you are still forming, still
| growing, still malleable. The experiences you have in your 20s
| will have a disproportionate effect on the kind of person you end
| up being. Therefore, you have to think about what environment,
| what experiences you want to foster that growth in. I would
| suggest optimizing for variety and new experiences is a better
| idea that working 80 hours weeks throughout your 20s. In your
| 20s, don't just work hard, work hard at becoming the person you
| want to be.
| Forge36 wrote:
| Work hard at learning?
| unklefolk wrote:
| Yes. And "learning" shouldn't just be measured in PhDs or
| being an expert at one thing. I think the "work hard" advice
| can be interpreted as "focussed, tunnel vision, excelling in
| one area to the exclusion of everything else" when there is
| great benefit of aiming for a wider range of experiences in
| your 20s.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Good advice.
|
| The issue, of course, is that we seldom have the luxury of
| this, unless we are willing to make sacrifices, or do a heck of
| a lot of extracurricular work.
|
| In my own development, I never had the advantage of a fancy
| sheepskin, so I wasn't really paid that much, compared to a lot
| of folks, and my employers didn't have much of an issue, when
| it came to throwing me at experimental stuff. It wasn't much of
| a risk, for them.
|
| Meant that I learned _a lot_. I was also given a
| disproportionate amount of architectural responsibility. I
| learned how to design systems, and _complete_ stuff, early in
| my career.
|
| But it also meant that I have spent my entire career, looking
| up a lot of noses. I've usually been a "n00b," in most of my
| endeavors, and geeks tend to treat neophytes pretty badly
| (maybe because of all the atomic wedgies we got in grade
| school?). It drove me to do a much higher-quality job than what
| might have been considered acceptable. I developed a "screw
| you, I'll show you" attitude, and I've habitually produced
| highly-polished work, from the very beginning[0].
|
| Didn't always win me friends. No one likes it when the chav kid
| shows up the toffs (but the bosses liked it, and really, they
| were the ones that mattered).
|
| I'd say that the humility taught by that treatment was as
| valuable as the book-larnin'. It forced me to solve my own
| problems, find information, develop a thick skin, and not rely
| on "magic answers from the sky." I was never able to throw the
| problem over the fence, so someone else could address it. I
| always had to clean up my own messes.
|
| I also practiced a very good team ethic, with a great deal of
| kindness towards teammates that were struggling or being
| marginalized. I figured out how to support and mentor people
| without making it seem as if that was what I was doing (the
| trick is to lead by example). I used the cruelty that I
| experienced from other geeks, and from awful managers, as an
| antipattern, in my own dealings with others. I think it helped
| me to be a fairly good manager.
|
| It's always a very good idea to help out folks that are not
| that high in the food chain. They are likely to return the
| favor, sooner or later, and they often have their fingers on
| the real pulse of things. They can be quite helpful.
|
| It hasn't been that much fun, and I haven't lived high on the
| hog.
|
| But I am pretty good at what I do, and, in this phase of my
| life, it's paid off in spades.
|
| When I saw the title, and who wrote it, I said to myself "This
| should be fun."
|
| [0]
| https://littlegreenviper.com/TF30194/TF30194-Manual-1987.pdf
| (Downloads a PDF of my first-ever engineering project)
| sjm wrote:
| I love this advice. I started working remotely in my 20s and
| negotiated to work 4 days a week, while traveling the world and
| deciding where I wanted to call home. I'd never trade that time
| spent growing up and finding myself, learning about other
| cultures and places, for any level of start-up monetary
| success.
|
| Everyone is different and obviously has different priorities,
| ambitions, ideas of success, but that time spent not working my
| ass off has made me a more well-rounded person and I believe
| has contributed to a different kind of success and confidence
| now in my 30s.
| disruptthelaw wrote:
| It's always a trade off and there's no right answer for
| everyone. I spent my twenties roughly as you advise, and i
| definitely grew and learned from it. But some of my
| counterparts focused on career and have achieved more on that
| front and have been able to have more freedom in their thirties
| as a result. It's not obvious that either path is better. There
| is no optimal
| bloqs wrote:
| No PG you are presenting speculative opinion as fact.
| Conscientiousness is a measured and well documented personality
| trait, it is also formed around age six. It also happens to be
| social in its construction.
|
| Software engineers typically report lower than average
| Conscientiousness, because the more complex the task, the less it
| has an impact. It's also negatively correlated with IQ.
|
| Suggesting it is a choice is demonstrably wrong. It is
| environmentally learned by the age of roughly 6.
| bobobob420 wrote:
| Why do I have such low conscientiousness?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _It 's also negatively correlated with IQ._
|
| That's surprising, I wonder why.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Among other things, bright kids are often not challenged in
| school. Many of them learn to coast and not be too
| troublesome and do what little they have to do to hit the
| check marks the adults around them require while secretly
| pursuing some means to quietly also meet their own needs.
|
| They can end up feeling like school work is pointless and
| like "a monkey could do this."
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| That fits my experience. My first real college class was a
| shock.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Even if true, do you think that you are trapped by that?
| Personally, I think that you can choose to cultivate more
| conscientiousness, whether or not you have that as a
| personality trait. (This is true of other traits, too. You can
| also choose to cultivate, say, honesty. Or kindness.)
| throwaway123qq wrote:
| What ability is required at a factory, you know, these useless
| workers producing means of subsistence, like food, homes,
| equipment? I think these workers make awesome things, well,
| because I need food, etc for living. It is only thanks to them
| you able to do what you want - what you call work, while they
| work 12 hours a day for very little. There is huge difference
| between their work and what you do. With all respect, but I will
| recommend you changing the subject to something else, but not
| "hard work". May be "making profit hardcore XXX.".
| theshadowknows wrote:
| There's that line from COD that I'm sure is from somewhere else -
| amateurs practice until they can get it right, professionals
| practice until they can't get it wrong. That's sort of how I look
| at it. It's served me well so far.
| arduinomancer wrote:
| I feel like a big part missing from this essay is "Why should you
| work hard?"
|
| It seems to assume that working hard is a good thing.
|
| Are these essays implicitly aimed at startup founders?
|
| Because for the average engineer working hard doesn't have much
| of a benefit.
|
| Optimizing for interviews is much more important than hard work.
| lovecg wrote:
| I'm guessing you're new to PG's writing? His whole thing is
| drop out, do a startup, work for yourself, work hard.
| chevill wrote:
| PG takes a lot of peoples' claims for granted when they are
| probably exaggerations.
|
| Gates: >I didn't take a single day off in my 20s.
|
| Most likely this is only technically true because its almost
| certain he took multiple days off in his 20s. We'd have to look
| at what Bill means here by working every single day. If he counts
| spending at least a couple minutes on something work related
| every day its far more believable than him spending approximately
| 3650 consecutive days working 8-12 hours or more.
|
| Wodehouse: >with each new book of mine I have, as I say, the
| feeling that this time I have picked a lemon in the garden of
| literature. A good thing, really, I suppose. Keeps one up on
| one's toes and makes one rewrite every sentence ten times. Or in
| many cases twenty times.
|
| This claim is even more unbelievable. I'd bet the average
| sentence he wrote wasn't rewritten at all, let alone 10-20 times.
| I think what he actually means is that sometimes he would have to
| re-write a sentence 10-20 times.
| krustyburger wrote:
| >>There wasn't a single point when I learned this. Like most
| little kids, I enjoyed the feeling of achievement when I learned
| or did something new. As I grew older, this morphed into a
| feeling of disgust when I wasn't achieving anything. The one
| precisely dateable landmark I have is when I stopped watching TV,
| at age 13.
|
| I wouldn't dare question Paul Graham's accomplishments, but I've
| always found it odd that some people are so proud of their
| abstention from television. There are time-wasting things on tv,
| but there are also time-wasting books, albums etc. I think not
| watching television and advertising that one didn't was once an
| easy intellectual badge of honor. When there were only a few
| networks and the programming didn't vary much, perhaps this made
| sense.
|
| Every so often I still hear someone proudly say that they don't
| watch television today. I usually wonder exactly what they mean,
| now that we are all able to choose the exact film or program we
| want and play it on demand. Surely it's not a mark of excellence
| not to stream, say, the Criterion Channel?
| goodlifeodyssey wrote:
| I've wondered about the "no TV" stance too. I used to push back
| against it, but I believe there's something to it. Here's my
| current reasoning:
|
| First of all, TV and movies have their strengths. Videos can
| communicate phenomena that are difficult to portray with the
| written text. They're also very accessible. However, all but
| the most low-budget shows and movies need to make money.
| Therefore, they need to appeal to a reasonably large audience.
| The economic motive limits the depth of the content.
|
| Books can be written by individuals. Great books, and
| especially classics, are usually written for non-economic
| reasons. Often the author has a passion or a world view they
| want to share.
|
| Books, as a medium, are older. Old books are filtered by time.
| They also let us learn about peoples who have different
| assumptions than we do. You can do this by reading about other
| cultures that exist today.
|
| Books, as a medium, let one pause and think. You can write in
| the margins. It's possible, but more difficult, to do this when
| watching a show, listening to an audio book, or listening to a
| podcast. I like that I can listen to podcasts when I run or
| clean the dishes, but I grasp much less then when I read.
|
| I agree that it's not enough to not watch TV. You need to
| discriminate regardless of the medium you're consuming, but I
| believe books are a better way to learn than most other
| mediums. Therefore, skipping television is probably a good idea
| if your goal is to develop a deep understanding of the world.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Typical TV has low information density. It's not a good way to
| learn. This is ameliorated in the non-fiction world in the
| YouTube era as there are so many detailed video essays now. PG
| grew up before then.
|
| As far as fiction, books have told richer stories, though,
| again, things are somewhat different in the "prestige TV" era.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| TV is passive consumption of someone else's story.
|
| NOthing wrong with that, but you're not exactly achieving
| anything by doing it.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| I stopped watching broadcast TV out of sheer spite towards the
| TV licensing system and the slack-jawed oafs that enforce it,
| but that's a uniquely British reason!
| Zababa wrote:
| > There are time-wasting things on tv, but there are also time-
| wasting books
|
| Books require constant attention to progress, TV doesn't, for
| me that's the big difference. If you start to drift out and
| don't remember the last few paragraphs, you know you can pause,
| read them again and continue. With a TV, you usually can't go
| back. You may be conscious that you were not engaged, but you
| can't take the steps to fix this.
| benjohnson wrote:
| For me, I stopped watching TV twenty years ago - but then
| transfered my neurotic novelty seeking behavior to the
| internet. But because I quit once, it made it easier to reign
| in my mindless internet consumption. And then stop any mindless
| book consumption. Then mindless video-games.
|
| So for my - "No TV" is a easy way to express "I'm trying to
| maintain a ballance between living a vigorous life and
| consuming meaningful media"
| prionassembly wrote:
| It's an empirical regularity, dude.
|
| It's probably due to hidden third causes (the kind of
| personality + circumstance + challenges that cause people to
| abstain from TV are the same that cause this and that positive
| outcome), but it's there, at least according to lots of
| anecdata in this very same thread.
| innagadadavida wrote:
| I'm not qualified to give advice to someone like PG. But
| millionaires and billionaires need to get some perspective and
| get out of their bubble before spouting nonsense advice to common
| people. For most normal people, it is about surviving and finding
| a profession that can pay the bills. At least acknowledging your
| role and place in society before focussing on some rarefied
| advice will be more useful (not to mention may also generate more
| clicks).
|
| So as a challenge to PG: if you believe in yourself so strongly,
| prove it. Just freeze your billions and mansions for 6 months.
| Downgrade your life to live like a normal person. Get some
| perspective and write again. You'll probably become even more
| successful in the process (not that you care for it).
| endisneigh wrote:
| I hate the whole "hard work," but not "long hours" sort of
| discussion. Basically, if you work hard, but not long and
| succeed, then your hard work was "valid", if you work "long
| hours", which by some definition is "hard work" but don't succeed
| then it was just "long hours" and not "hard work."
|
| In other words, as long as you succeed whatever work you did is
| considered "hard work" or "working smart", etc. etc.
| WillDaSilva wrote:
| Strange that Firefox's reader view cannot be enabled for this
| post. Probably because instead of using `<p>` tags or similar,
| the content of the post is contained within a `<font>` block
| inside a table, with `<br>` tags separating the paragraphs.
|
| Not having the content inside of `<p>` blocks is a departure from
| Paul Graham's older content, and a confusing one at that.
|
| EDIT: It looks like the posts with the "Want to start a startup?
| Get funded by Y Combinator." banner are contained within a `<p>`
| block, and can be read with Firefox reader view, but those
| without the banner are not within a `<p>` block, and cannot be
| read with Firefox reader view.
| pm90 wrote:
| > Some of the best work is done by people who find an easy way to
| do something hard.
|
| This is a pretty good insight. Every time I've been somewhat
| successful it's been because I discovered a different approach
| which made the problem approachable.
|
| When I tried to understand math by rote memorization it was
| boring. When I understood it as a tool to make predictions about
| systems, it seemed much more useful. Learning the equations
| became a side effect of another thing I was trying to do.
| dash2 wrote:
| Good place to say what a profound genius P G Wodehouse was.
| Here's one of my favourite exchanges from a Jeeves book:
|
| "If you will recollect, we are now in Autumn - season of mists
| and mellow fruitfulness."
|
| "Season of what?"
|
| "Mists, sir, and mellow fruitfulness."
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| What is that about?
| FoldMorePaper wrote:
| A reference to a Keats poem, apparently?
| <https://poets.org/poem/autumn>
| dash2 wrote:
| The joke is Jeeves' very solemn quotation of a famous
| Romantic poem.
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| This is the trait that I have found in successful people around
| me:
|
| > The most basic level of which is simply to feel you should be
| working without anyone telling you to.
|
| > Now, when I'm not working hard, alarm bells go off. I can't be
| sure I'm getting anywhere when I'm working hard, but I can be
| sure I'm getting nowhere when I'm not, and it feels awful.
|
| How does one cultivate this feeling?
| manacit wrote:
| Have an anxiety disorder and a fear of failure - you'll always
| be worried that by not working, you are going to fall behind or
| something bad is going to happen.
|
| I say this partly tongue-in-cheek, but I don't think it's
| altogether incorrect. Having a compulsion to work to the level
| of 'alarm bells' going off doesn't sound like fun to me.
| [deleted]
| jthornquest wrote:
| There are a lot of very good notes in these comments about our
| relationship with "work" and excellence. I currently operate from
| the perspective of creating something I'm proud of for myself,
| and I'm relearning the joy of leisure. My own life isn't defined
| by my greatness, my productivity, or my output. I've learned to
| realize that the "alarm-bells" that clattered in my head were
| more of an anxious, awful self-perception that my value was tied
| to my output.
|
| A few weeks ago, I found a bit of recent scientific learning that
| gave me a renewed context around passion and pursuit. _It turns
| out that research is showing that bodies and brains don 't
| typically begin to degrade in their capacity for training muscle-
| memory skills until our sixties._ For someone like me, who is
| anxiously accounting for how to try a lot of different pursuits
| (music, illustration, and especially relevant here, a constantly
| tenuous relationship with computers) this is a comfort. I was so
| motivated by a rush to get my foundations down by the time I was
| thirty, because the capitalist culture I'm steeped in says that's
| my deadline.
|
| I had it ingrained that my teenage or twenty-something years were
| the time to plant the seeds, and it's all downhill after that.
| Besides the wisdom shared on the contrary (both in these comments
| and elsewhere), dipping this wisdom in research I didn't know
| about before empowered me further.
|
| I appreciate that Paul adds a bit about how our focus doesn't
| often become clear until we're older, that our childhoods tend to
| distill topics in ways that can initially bland them to our
| taste. Nevertheless, I want to stress that you've got a lot more
| time to do something to your best ability. Even as you age beyond
| sixty or seventy, I've seen so many folks brush off the bit of
| extra physical or mental challenge that they face, and do great
| things anyway.
|
| Your twenties won't make or break you. You have so much more
| time.
| s5300 wrote:
| Oh PG. You're so damn loathsome
| imafish wrote:
| This post was too long compared to its substance.
|
| tldr: To do great things, you need to be both hard-working and
| smart.
| didibus wrote:
| What I'd like to see first is:
|
| "Why work hard"
|
| To me, it seems that if we've put ourselves in a society that
| requires hard work, we've failed somewhere along the way, when do
| you run a business and value making things harder for customers?
| So if we've made societal success hard, we've kind of failed as a
| society in my opinion.
| zdbrandon wrote:
| "Societal success" in this sense is relative to others'
| performance, and as such will always be "hard", because the
| person aiming for this success is by definition aiming to be a
| statistical outlier.
| didibus wrote:
| > "Societal success" in this sense is relative to others'
| performance
|
| That's only true because we failed to offer something better.
| Societal success should mean: "economic security and
| independence, and the pursuit of happiness", where happiness
| is defined as one's wellbeing. And that shouldn't require
| hard work.
|
| If it was the case, than people could choose to work as hard
| or as easy as they want to achieve anything grandiose and
| ambitious, but they wouldn't have too, they'd be free to
| choose too or not.
|
| At least it is my opinion that a society should try to
| eliminate the need for physical and mental exertion from its
| citizens, while providing them with their needs met, and thus
| setting them free to do as they please. What they please to
| do could be to work on extra hard problems, or to put hard
| work 24/7 on some goal, even if it's a stupid one, like a
| world record at cherry pit spitting.
|
| The way it is now, "societal success" comes from being an
| outlier in being able to have this freedom to choose to
| continue to work hard or not. People basically aspire to
| achieve societal success by performing better then others
| financially and getting themselves into a position of
| inequality where they hold the big end of the stick. And the
| messaging is that to achieve this privileged position, you
| need to put in "hard work". And I feel this is the wrong
| outcome of society.
| aerosmile wrote:
| A common tension we experience with PG's recent essays is that
| they make you wonder if you fit into his world (the way that
| Patrick Collison, Kyle Vogt, Sam Altman and other well-known
| founders do). Those stories usually contain elements of above-
| natural raw talent combined with insane amounts of hard work and
| the foresight to channel all that talent and effort into
| development of highly valuable skills. There are a good amount of
| people like that out there, and his writing deeply resonates with
| them. At the same time, there are many more people out there who
| quickly discover that their lives have very few overlaps with
| PG's narrative.
|
| For example, perhaps they started a startup and got burned
| (contrary to PG's narrative). Or they never cared for any skills
| that one traditionally needs to build a digital product
| (primarily programming, design, and the intercept between the two
| in form of a well-rounded PM). Or worse yet, their career took
| them into the analog world, with all the pros and cons of that
| universe. Last but not least, perhaps they just simply value the
| benefits of starting a family and providing for them with a low-
| to-moderate but predictable and stable income.
|
| If you belong to that latter group, no way that PG will resonate
| with you, similar to how Karl Marx won't be a favorite author for
| a monarchist or Rush Limbaugh for a Democrat. Or those people
| right or wrong? It depends on who you ask. It's the same with PG
| - we just have to come to understand that the startup world is a
| polarizing ideology that works for some and not for others. I bet
| you that any founder out there that made money with a startup is
| quite likely to like PG's writing. Conversely, if you tried and
| didn't succeed (or never even wanted to give it a shot), it would
| be more difficult for you to align your thinking with PG's.
| aroundtown wrote:
| It is too common to see the well off capitalists extol the
| virtues of hard work, usually as a means unto itself, ignoring
| the reward.
|
| They often say, you peasants could be like me if only you
| understood how to work hard, while completely ignoring the fact
| that not everybody is fairly compensated for their hard work.
|
| I wish I was in such a good position that I could spend 5 hours a
| day writing about whatever self-indulgent topics I'm feeling
| while being able to pat myself on the back and call it a hard
| days work.
| Aerroon wrote:
| Is the ability to work hard also a "talent"?
|
| ADHD seems like it impairs most of the (useful) hard work
| somebody could dedicate themselves to. Could there also be a
| scale of this that's unrelated to ADHD?
| tempson wrote:
| Created this account to reply to this thread.
|
| In my opinion, this article could be much better if it accounted
| for few additional perspectives.
|
| 1. There are people in this world who do better with consistency
| over volume. Dedicate 1 hour every day on your subject of
| interest. You are bound to get really good at it in few years.
| The challenging part is "1 hour every day."
|
| 2. Work-centric life shouldn't be celebrated to this extent. It
| just doesn't do good at the end.
| zz865 wrote:
| Does PG ever spend time with his children? I always feel I should
| be working harder which makes spending time with family
| difficult.
| dang wrote:
| He is an extremely dedicated father. Much of his Twitter feed
| is about things he does with his children.
| tptacek wrote:
| He should let much more of that into his writing, because he
| could have written this post in 2007 and it would mostly read
| the same, and he's not the same person he was back then.
| Also, in sort of the same way that pg-writing-about-lisp is
| one of the harder pg's to dislike, dad-mode pg is probably
| his most likable and persuasive mode.
| nkotov wrote:
| I started to work full time during the summers at 15 in IT -
| doing easy tasks like imaging laptops and setting up desktops for
| teachers my local school district. My friends would spend their
| time with video games, hanging out, etc. At the end of the
| summer, I asked if I could work part time after school for the
| district so that I don't have gaps on my resume. When I got out
| of high school, I technically already had several years of
| experience and I just started to apply for jobs instead of going
| to college. I hit over a decade of "professional" experience by
| the time I was 25.
|
| Do I regret working hard during those early years? Definitely
| not. It shaped me to be what I am today. I believe you should
| live your life that way you want to live it. You can't achieve
| great things by doing mediocre amount of work. Figure out where
| you are content with life and live it without regret of "what
| could have been".
| SerLava wrote:
| Billionaires absolutely love talking about zero work life
| balance. Makes it seem like having rich parents, stealing
| hundreds of thousands of dollars of computing time, committing
| federal crimes, abusing patent law, and blatantly violating
| antitrust weren't the important parts.
|
| Because they only want you to do the overwork part.
| kstenerud wrote:
| The true ah-ha moment comes when you finally realize how much
| bullshit this is.
|
| "Hard work" is the mantra that keeps you a slave. "Success
| stories" are the tasty carrots that keep you toiling away your
| best years enriching others in pursuit of the things you're
| supposed to seek in life: Power, success, status. "Life hacks"
| are little dopamine hits to keep your eye on the carrot.
|
| And the kicker is that those few who actually do attain these
| things mistakenly attribute it to their own prowess, when it's
| mostly luck and circumstance with a smattering of ambition and
| striking deals in the right networks. They then take it upon
| themselves to perpetuate the system that now feeds them at your
| expense.
|
| So you go on toiling away, pushing that wheel around and around
| for years as your masters feed you stories of their success and a
| promise of your own one-day-someday, until eventually you
| hopefully realize the futility of enriching these parasites, and
| get off their treadmill.
|
| The proletariat are only useful to the rich if they're toiling
| for them.
|
| Edit: In case you're wondering why this tanked to the bottom of
| the comments despite being at 38 points after 30 minutes, it's
| because the admins can artificially drop a comment's priority if
| they don't like it, and prevent further upvotes (downvotes still
| work though).
| naavis wrote:
| I didn't really interpret the essay that way. I think the essay
| applies as much to working hard on personal things, like
| becoming better at playing some instrument or painting better.
| Both of those take a lot of hard work, but it has nothing to do
| with "toiling away your best years enriching others".
| eafkuor wrote:
| Yeah this is absolute shit, and it appeals to a very specific
| kind of "driven" people. Nothing against them but they need to
| realise that most others just want to enjoy their short time on
| this planet. I'm happy with my really mellow stable job that
| leaves me plenty of free time to do the things I actually want.
| Life is too short.
| giantg2 wrote:
| And then there are many people like me who work a job they
| hate, still don't get much time to enjoy life, all just to
| pay the bills. Less time on the planet might actually
| something many of us look forward to as life is full of pain
| and misery.
| warent wrote:
| I hope this doesn't come across as insensitive but this is
| something I've never understood. If life feels like this,
| that seems like an indicator that it's time for some
| massive change. Usually people give some vague abstract
| response about why massive change is just unrealistic,
| indicating some fragile house of cards, while in a
| simultaneous act of cognitive dissonance dreaming of the
| day it topples.
|
| Perhaps we could: sell everything and move into a van to
| live on the road; or get a cheap house boat; or declare
| bankruptcy and move into a Buddhist monastery; quit jobs to
| transition into a more mindless one that allows more free
| time; find a nonprofit organization in a different country
| to throw oneself into; teach English in a foreign country;
| etc...
|
| It's like, when we're brooding so much that we're done with
| life, it just seems like that's the best time to give life
| a chance, because at that point there's nothing left to
| lose.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I think the biggest thing is that life can suck in any of
| the alternatives. Human suffering is universal. People
| are reluctant to switch if there isn't a well defined
| value proposition. Life is about trade offs, so there
| isn't a perfect solution. Even living very minimally is
| expensive due to things we have little to no choice in
| like taxes, medical stuff, etc.
|
| Sure, I could go live in a cabin in the woods. That will
| mean my wife divorces me, I'd still need a job to pay for
| taxes and medical bills, I would likely end up
| incarcerated for not being able to pay child support, and
| loose the cabin/land anyways.
| bumby wrote:
| To drill down on your response here, is it that you're
| frustrated by not having those options?
|
| I get being frustrated if your dream is to live in a
| cabin in the woods. But it's hard to fathom being
| frustrated if you value the relationship with your wife
| more than living in said cabin. What are the underlying
| expectations from your life that you feel shut out from?
| Based on your earlier post, the only expectation seems to
| be "not to work in a job I hate" which seems completely
| attainable.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Having a job I like that pays the bills would be the main
| goal. I honestly don't see that as being achievable.
| bumby wrote:
| If I'm prying too much, just feel free to ignore me.
|
| How would you define "a job you like" and how much would
| you have to make to pay your bills? Are there main
| drivers for those bills like high cost of living, medical
| issues, student debt?
| the_only_law wrote:
| > How would you define "a job you like"
|
| Obligatory not GP, but fee very similar. To me, "job I
| like" is a very difficult category for me to explain.
| Normally, when browsing jobs, I see something I think
| would be cool to work on. Most things disinterest me, so
| I maybe will see one of these once every few months,
| always woefully unqualified. There's not really a
| specific domains, industry, etc. tying them together,
| just me thinking it sounds cool to work on.
| [deleted]
| piaste wrote:
| > Perhaps we could: sell everything and move into a van
| to live on the road; or get a cheap house boat; or
| declare bankruptcy and move into a Buddhist monastery;
| quit jobs to transition into a more mindless one that
| allows more free time; find a nonprofit organization in a
| different country to throw oneself into; teach English in
| a foreign country; etc...
|
| You are making the extremely generous assumption that the
| person is unbound and able to effectively disappear with
| no responsibilities to anyone other than themselves.
|
| Among the truly miserable people I have encountered, the
| most common reason was bearing the burden of one or more
| dependents. A little sister with severe mental health
| problems, a sick parent unable to work, a drug-addicted
| and orphaned nephew. Can't exactly sell the house and
| move to Japan when your sister needs her SSRI and therapy
| to not hurt herself.
|
| And the second most common reason was having little or no
| income at all, for whatever reason, in which case getting
| a job that they hated would _already_ have been a step
| up.
| warent wrote:
| Good point, thank you for the perspective
| CPLX wrote:
| > Perhaps we could: sell everything and move into a van
| to live on the road; or get a cheap house boat; or
| declare bankruptcy and move into a Buddhist monastery;
| quit jobs to transition into a more mindless one that
| allows more free time; find a nonprofit organization in a
| different country to throw oneself into; teach English in
| a foreign country; etc...
|
| Name one of those things you can do when you have family
| members depending on you.
|
| To ignore that element just telegraphs a complete lack of
| understanding of the basic premise that underpins human
| existence.
| warent wrote:
| To ignore that element just telegraphs a complete lack of
| understanding of the basic premise that underpins human
| existence.
|
| It's true family is extremely important and clearly I
| personally do not have much in the way of familial ties
| (though not by choice). If I'm speaking from one extreme,
| it seems like you are speaking from the other extreme.
| The premise of one person's existence isn't the same as
| the basic premise of all human existence in general. We
| all have different experiences.
| bumby wrote:
| Curious if you would elaborate on your own personal philosophy
| that's an antidote to this?
|
| Is it to strive for something other than power or status? To
| "not work hard"? To focus on endeavors that disproportionately
| enrich yourself?
|
| I do think this type of mindset is perpetuated by those with
| highly industrious personalities (who would probably 'work
| hard' anyways).
| 6DM wrote:
| This was my high school experience, but it was an early
| lesson I took to heart.
|
| I used to work at K-Mart, one day a windy storm blew in. I
| was really hustling to get all the shopping carts in before
| they blew around the lot and damaged vehicles. I was still
| trying to get my other responsibilities done and noticed the
| patio furniture was starting to blow around too. I mean at
| this point I'm literally running to get to everything.
|
| New guy, chatting up the manager. I can't remember the exact
| reason, but at some point on the same day the manager got
| upset that my stuff wasn't done. (my stuff being organizing
| and fronting shelves)
|
| This guy didn't do anything. Like literally just hung out and
| made the manager laugh.
|
| That's when I knew. Hard working people don't get ahead on
| their hard work alone. Sure, it gets recognized when you've
| got good leadership in charge. Honestly though, after that
| experience, I've seen it over and over.
|
| Do solid work, know what you're doing and help others around
| you. Just don't kill yourself trying to impress your boss.
| The old saying goes, "If you want something done, give it to
| the busiest person."
|
| You're just asking for someone to dump their load on you in
| some way. If you have the capacity and enjoy your work, get
| it done. If you don't, and there's no deadlines, why stay
| late?
| kstenerud wrote:
| Ultimately? Focus on:
|
| - Relationships: The single biggest deathbed regret is
| neglecting relationships (either not forming them, or
| squandering them).
|
| - Finding time to live: The second greatest deathbed regret
| is missing out on life: Travel, arts, discovery, etc. As you
| get older many parts of this become a LOT harder.
|
| - Stress free living: Stress is one of the top causes of a
| short lifespan.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| This is bullshit. This is what people who've failed tell
| themselves to rationalize that failure.
|
| People who've succeeded at achieving ambitious goals are able
| to look at success from both vantage points: from having yet to
| succeed and succeeding. You'll hardly ever, if ever, hear them
| say it's solely the consequence of having the right networks
| and being lucky.
|
| Sure some luck is involved, but most of it is attitude, and
| this is NOT the attitude.
|
| I say thank God for people with this faulty perspective. It
| makes it easier to succeed when the playing field is full of
| people who've told themselves it's futile to even try.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > People who've succeeded at achieving ambitious goals are
| able to look at success from both vantage points: from having
| yet to succeed and succeeding. You'll hardly ever, if ever,
| hear them say it's solely the consequence of having the right
| networks and being lucky.
|
| Yes, people tend to adopt a personal narrative that maximizes
| their own moral status, so successful people artificially
| minimizes the effect of circumstance on average and
| unsuccessful people artificially minimize the effect of
| choice.
|
| But we don't have to rely on competing personal narratives
| weighted by who has the resources to reach a larger audience;
| these are concrete fact questions, and there is plenty of
| evidence that (1) circumstance beyond personal traits has a
| very large role, (2) personal traits contribute in ways
| different than the popular narrative of the successful, and
| (3) the personal traits that contribute are themselves
| largely products of (mostly inherited and early childhood)
| circumstance, not active choice.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| > Yes, people tend to adopt a personal narrative that
| maximizes their own moral status
|
| Exactly, that's what I'm saying about rationalizing. The
| only thing those who've yet to succeed lack is the vantage
| point of the successful. So I'd argue the successful are
| operating with an information advantage.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The only thing those who've yet to succeed lack is the
| vantage point of the successful.
|
| No, that's a pre-Enlightment (or maybe postmodernist, it
| can be hard to tell the difference at times) attitude.
|
| What _both_ most who have succeeded and most who have not
| succeeded lack who don't actively seek it out is the
| perspective of structured, broad information gathering,
| analysis, and hypothesis testing beyond self-justifying
| rationalization of personal experience.
|
| But no one _needs_ to lack that, because plenty of that
| has been done, so there is no need to rely on duelling
| self-justifying constructed narratives to understand the
| world.
| johnwheeler wrote:
| touche
| greedo wrote:
| The amount of luck involved in "success" is almost always
| underestimated. Whether it's being born into a family with
| money, or having a great teacher who helps you understand
| Calculus. To avoiding health issues and accidents. To
| choosing a spouse that doesn't self-destruct. The list is
| long.
|
| Luck is the trump card of life. You can be smart,
| hardworking, all the business traits that are espoused by
| "successful" people, and still fail. As Lefty Gomez said "I'd
| rather be lucky than good."
|
| Look at Michael Jordan. He had talent and an incredible work
| ethic. Yet until the Bulls drafted Scottie Pippen, he didn't
| have the team required to win a championship. Imagine if the
| Bulls missed out on drafting Pippen and had drafted Dennis
| Hopson instead? Would Jordan have still become the GOAT?
| arvinsim wrote:
| > People who've succeeded at achieving ambitious goals are
| able to look at success from both vantage points: from having
| yet to succeed and succeeding.
|
| You fell for the classic survivorship bias fallacy.
| fredley wrote:
| The thing he doesn't mention is all the people burned out by
| 35, with the best years of their life behind them, coping with
| deep and lasting psychological damage that will affect them for
| the rest of their lives, and nothing to show for it (except, if
| you're lucky, a bit more money).
| bbreier wrote:
| well clearly they just didn't work hard enough!
| fredley wrote:
| The fetishisation of work does seem to largely come from
| people with enough money that they and at least several
| generations of their progeny will never need to do it.
| dagw wrote:
| _The thing he doesn 't mention is all the people burned out
| by 35_
|
| The business model of his company is built on the backs of
| those people. The more of those people he can attract, the
| richer he becomes (to a first approximation)
| dasudasu wrote:
| This essay is basically yet another pamphlet for puritan work
| ethics. Funny that it comes at a time where "faith" in hard
| work as a main determinant of success is at a low point:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27514188
| melomal wrote:
| Everyone around me that has wealth built it up from simply
| talking and connecting with people. Going out for golf and
| drinks where people tend to let their guard down and just enjoy
| themselves allows people to build trust.
|
| This would, in my opinion, truly define their success as luck.
| I will outwork them, out hustle them, learn things and do
| things yet I am a whole Everest beneath them with wealth.
|
| But they will strike up a conversation in a hot tub in Mexico
| and end up partnering up on a major project/deal over mojito's
| and bubbling water. Whilst I build my landing page stuffed with
| SEO keywords because I have 'data' to guide me.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Imagine knowing someone in 2009 who could get you in early on
| uber or airbnb. or in 2006 get you in on Facebook. you need
| to know the right people, combined with luck (choosing to
| invest in uber isntead of quora) and some risk taking.
| melomal wrote:
| Exactly, you would be sitting pretty right now.
|
| All of my 'successes' (granted they are very small but hey
| you gotta take some wins from time to time) have come from
| opportunities which arose from conversation.
| paulpauper wrote:
| If hard work were correlated with success, we would probably
| all know a lot more successful people . Most people who bust
| their ass have little to nothing to show for it compared to
| people who are truly successful, like people with tens or
| hundreds of millions of dollars or critical acclaim. Look how
| many people aspire to be successful writers, athletes, marathon
| runners, singers, actors..are those who fail not working as
| hard?
| imafish wrote:
| This. So much this.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| I wholeheartedly agree with this.
| nobody0 wrote:
| It seems nowadays, or maybe not only in modern age. Being not
| doing anything is more painful than to be occupied and leaning
| toward burning out.
|
| It kinds of reminds me of a published story on hn [0]
|
| > "That is why we like noise and activity so much. That is why
| imprisonment is such a horrific punishment. That is why the
| pleasure of being alone is incomprehensible. That is, in fact,
| the main joy of the condition of kingship, because people are
| constantly trying to amuse kings and provide them with all
| sorts of distraction.--The king is surrounded by people whose
| only thought is to entertain him and prevent him from thinking
| about himself. King though he may be, he is unhappy if he
| thinks about it"
|
| It seems that being in the passive mode or `flow` is a therapy
| itself, we can't seems to even stand non-productive ourselves
| to a certain extent. And modern convenient distractions only
| steer ourselves down this path even further.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25482927
| dahart wrote:
| This only barely glances the number one way I've found to work
| hard: to work for yourself. Working on things other people want
| is, for me, more difficult than working on things I want. Working
| at someone else's company is more difficult than working at my
| company. With my own company, when things were going relatively
| well, it was easy to spend every waking minute working. At other
| companies, putting in overtime is more draining, especially if
| the reasons for it are because things are late or something
| broke. I've put in a _lot_ of overtime in my life, I tend to work
| hard, but there's really no comparison between hard work with a
| boss and hard work as the boss.
| SlapperKoala wrote:
| In my experience "working for yourself" means in practice
| "working for your clients." You still need an external party
| willing to give you money for your work. And they will have
| requirements about how it is done and when it is delivered that
| you won't necessarily like
| dahart wrote:
| Very true, being the boss is no panacea in terms of having to
| do work, it's usually more work. But the intrinsic
| motivations really are very different when you are the one on
| the hook, when you decide which clients to take on, when you
| are building the company or deciding the dev or research
| directions, when you decide what happens with the revenue. I
| mean, for me anyway, but I know it's true for at least some
| others too since many books have been written about this.
| It's one of the reasons that a mentality of ownership is
| advocated even when you're not the boss.
| username90 wrote:
| The difference is that you have multiple clients but only one
| boss. So saying no to a client doesn't mean you lose all your
| business, but not wanting to do what your boss tells you to
| means you need to change to a new job.
| borski wrote:
| I echo this completely. One is invigorating, even when it's
| tiring, and the other feels like slow death.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| It's the old joke isn't it. A boss is out with one of his
| employees when they see a Ferrari drive past. The boss turns to
| his employee and says if you put in the hours and work really
| hard then one day I'll be able to afford one of those.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| Very few people regret on their deathbed that they simply did not
| work hard enough. What they typically regret is not trying things
| and not spending time with family. Yes, trying things could mean
| work very hard, like starting a startup but it also often means
| not backpacking in Europe, not sailing around the world, not
| opening their own bakery, etc.
| sjg007 wrote:
| The other thing that I found interesting was this:
|
| "What can one do in the face of such uncertainty? One solution is
| to hedge your bets, which in this case means to follow the
| obviously promising paths instead of your own private obsessions.
| But as with any hedge, you're decreasing reward when you decrease
| risk. If you forgo working on what you like in order to follow
| some more conventionally ambitious path, you might miss something
| wonderful that you'd otherwise have discovered. That too must
| happen all the time, perhaps even more often than the genius
| whose bets all fail."
|
| I'm not sure the things we view as safe, such as,
| medical/law/grad school/mba are really hedges.
|
| You could go to medical school as a safe path but be interested
| in tech. I thought about this but the medical gate keepers didn't
| value the tech when I was applying ... Today we see ambitious
| medicine/tech convergences which arguably present a path there.
|
| I think there is a bigger issue is that we don't know what the
| jobs of the future will be. But we do know they will be organized
| around disciplines but not exactly what they are. They will most
| likely have a technology component because tech is what enables
| growth.
| Sr_developer wrote:
| > It was similar with Lionel Messi. He had great natural ability,
| but when his youth coaches talk about him, what they remember is
| not his talent but his dedication and his desire to win.
|
| This is not true, everyone who knows even just a little bit about
| football (I suppose not many people here) would know Messi was
| the preternatural talent (not like he has not worked hard, but
| his talent is by far his biggest asset), it is C Ronaldo in any
| case who is a totally dedicated person to training.
|
| You dont do this at 8-10 because you are a "hard-worker", you do
| it because you won the genetic lottery:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j9POXpurPU
|
| As always, the Gell-Mann amnesia effect in full effect.
| ultrasounder wrote:
| @senordeveloper Have You seen the training viedoes of Messi
| training with Barca and ARG? This guys trains like a maniac.
| CR7 IS a good counter-point to Messi's natural talent, but that
| doesnt take away the fact that the guys trains by practicing
| free-kics with a Robot Goalkeeper. Now enjoy Your time sink of
| the day;
| https://www.google.com/search?q=messi+robot+goalkeeper&rlz=1...
| cm2012 wrote:
| Eh, I don't know. I came from a lower middle class background,
| but am now top 1% for my age and income + I probably have more
| wealth at this stage of my life than PG did.
|
| I _love_ idleness and leisure. I only work to get more of it in
| the future. I do have a drive to do a job well, but not for the
| sake of achievement itself _shudder_.
|
| The idea of saying at age 13 "I hate leisure activities, its not
| productive" is really unsettling to me.
| lovecg wrote:
| It's just not written for you. There's a small percentage of
| people with whom this attitude resonates. This essay is advice
| on how to harness these personal tendencies in an effective
| manner, so it's natural that it seems foreign to you if you
| don't have this deep seated need to not be idle.
| void_mint wrote:
| I came here to rip apart this post and PG for propping up hustle
| culture bullshit, but am actually pleasantly surprised at his
| takes. I would reword most of his post to be more about "being
| engaged" instead of "working hard", because "work" has so many
| flavors and misconceptions.
|
| > My limit for the harder types of writing or programming is
| about five hours a day. Whereas when I was running a startup, I
| could work all the time. At least for the three years I did it;
| if I'd kept going much longer, I'd probably have needed to take
| occasional vacations. [5]
|
| Most programmers don't have the ability or scope to be engaged in
| the way that he's talking about wrt his startup, so most
| programmers should stop working as soon as they're at their
| "productivity threshold" throughout the day and have fulfilled
| their remaining busywork duties. I really wish tech "influencers"
| like PG would post more about that - when to put the mouse down
| and go for a walk or watch a movie.
|
| I actually think the "best" take would be "Every individual
| should work exactly as hard as they believe they should". I think
| it's a reality, in that most people are unwilling to work any
| harder than they want to, but also I think context is probably
| the most important factor in terms of "work", "output" and
| "success". If you don't feel like you should work hard, or don't
| need to, you're either working on something that isn't worth your
| time, or you don't feel engaged at all. Both are fine, but both
| also signal you should move on.
|
| This post turned into kind of a ramble. Apologies.
| pm90 wrote:
| This is a beautifully written post and definitely not a ramble,
| thanks for sharing this.
|
| I would take this a bit further that being happy or feeling
| fulfilled is really the best way to have an open mind to do
| things differently. If you're stressed out from working all the
| time, you have little chance of appreciating "problems" as more
| than things that must be dealt with rather than as
| opportunities for learning.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Just quoting Gates as model is swallowing gallons of the
| "Koolaid" in my opinion. Other have gone into that in more
| detail here.
|
| When asked the secret of his success, An insider who leveraged
| a monopoly position to get more of a monopoly position, said
| "hard work, relentless hard work, nothing but hard work!"
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Yes and the other problem is using Gates as an example is the
| problem of extrapolation from an outlier.
|
| Taking a survey of 100 YC participants would be more
| interesting.
| burlesona wrote:
| > Knowing what you want to work on doesn't mean you'll be able
| to. Most people have to spend a lot of their time working on
| things they don't want to, especially early on. But if you know
| what you want to do, you at least know what direction to nudge
| your life in.
|
| This is the hardest part for me. The stuff I dream about, my
| deepest "deep interest," I don't think I could make a meaningful
| dent in without substantial capital. And I didn't come from a
| background with any kind of money. In my early twenties I spent
| years, largely wasted, chasing these dreams with the idea that I
| could find a less capital-intensive path or somehow get someone
| to invest in me. Eventually I realized it just wasn't going to
| happen, and I needed to find an alternate interest that could
| feed me and my family.
|
| At this point I see it as, if my alternate career pays off then
| perhaps I can circle back to my dreams in (hopefully early)
| "retirement," when I have enough resources that I could live for
| a long time without income - or, better, enough capital to invest
| directly, but that seems unlikely.
|
| Until then, I just do my best to enjoy the challenges of my
| alternate career path.
| a0-prw wrote:
| This is absolutely insane XD I had so much fun and got into so
| much trouble in my late teens and twenties. I would be weeping
| into my scrooge money if I had worked like this essay advocates.
| I've also always had _enough_ money and I 've always had a little
| more than enough fun.
| nvarsj wrote:
| Has hard work burned anyone else out? I spent my 20s working my
| ass off as an employee, and while it helped my career a lot, I am
| completely burned out now. All that creative work and effort
| which didn't end up amounting to much personally. Maybe the
| caveat to working hard is you should work hard for yourself and
| not others.
| somethingAlex wrote:
| I see a very common arch of "I want to achieve" -> "Okay, life
| is about more than that, I'm going to practice balance" in
| these comments. I have also gone through it.
|
| Around 19-24 years old I was working like a dog and making some
| great career progress. That helped me today, like you said, but
| I'm now the happiest I've ever been by enjoying this fine
| summer and working when I feel like working.
|
| I look back on those years and truly wish I saw the other
| things life has to offer at the time.
| dougb5 wrote:
| Today's Ezra Klein podcast has an excellent interview with James
| Suzman who gives a historical perspective on _why_ we work hard:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
| [deleted]
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > And since you can't really change how much natural talent you
| have, in practice doing great work, insofar as you can, reduces
| to working very hard.
|
| Only a few people will have the right body type to be great at
| any given sport, but a lot will have the right body type to be
| great at at least one sport. E.g. if you don't have the right
| body type for basketball, you might have the perfect body type
| for ski jumping or whatever.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| in Italy you would say: "ma va in miniera!"
| adv0r wrote:
| This is the first essay by PG which I find somehow misleading. It
| took me a couple of years after quitting my frenetic goal-driven
| life to be able to sit back and enjoy. I was the kind of person
| that have a task on Trello to shave and shower. If you feel that
| doing nothing is wasting time, I feel there is a good chance you
| need to look deeper within yourself and see what your REAL drive
| is. Why you do what you do? Why you can't sit in peace? Why do
| you have FOMO? Why looking at the TED talk by 10-year-old-genious
| millionare makes you feel miserable? You try to compensate by
| keep moving, never stopping, and sedate your anxiety and fear
| with a ... job. Something you can be very good at, something that
| can be meaningful, yet you are in autopilot.
|
| If you can't turn it off because you feel discomfort, well, maybe
| you are missing out on your inner voice. You can go by probably
| for decades ignoring it, and actually use ""FOCUS"" as mean to
| procrastinate/getting distracted from thinking about your human
| condition.
|
| But I'm just me and he is PG.
|
| So maybe listen to him
| jedberg wrote:
| > The one precisely dateable landmark I have is when I stopped
| watching TV, at age 13.
|
| It frustrates me when people brag about this like it's a
| universally good thing. Imagine 100 years ago someone bragging
| that they stopped wasting time reading books.
|
| It's especially frustrating to see PG do it given that he's an
| artist (or at least used to be), basically putting down another
| art form.
|
| TV has good and bad things. TV can convey information. TV can be
| an art form, consumed passively like a painting. And TV can just
| be a mental escape, like reading a novel.
|
| TV is not good or bad, it's how you spend your time watching it
| that matters.
| igammarays wrote:
| It frustrates me when people bring out the "it depends" card
| and because then you can't condemn anything. I condemn TV, as
| it is a waste of time for most people. More importantly, it is
| a waste of headspace and mental energy. Obviously this doesn't
| apply if your work is to be a filmmaker. But PG addresses this
| point well: if that is not your _deep interest_ , then it's a
| waste of time. Most people don't watch TV out of deep interest
| and high motivation, except perhaps people like Christopher
| Nolan.
| ryanSrich wrote:
| This is because the word "TV" is essentially useless. It means
| different things to so many different people, and often "TV" is
| the word people use when they want to be critical of
| entertainment.
|
| I can't remember the last time I watched a TV show through a
| cable provider. But I can tell you the last time I watched a
| YouTube series.
|
| I'm betting PG only sees one of those as "TV".
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| TV sucks, I don't think anybody should watch it when a better
| alternative is available. Radio too.
|
| There might be good things shown on it occasionally, but there
| are better ways to get at them nowadays. Ways that don't
| require you to synchronize your watching with availability.
|
| Main appeal I see in TV/radio is the constant live-ish stream
| of content, and more access to hard-to-license content than
| competing livestreams.
| criddell wrote:
| These days I think watching TV means includes streaming and
| other types of on-demand services. I watch TV whenever I can
| and it's never synchronized with a broadcaster's schedule,
| except for sports.
| fierro wrote:
| Reading this makes me think of the quite "If you're so smart,
| then why are you unhappy?"
| nathan_compton wrote:
| Huge surprise that the quintessential capitalist _just so
| happens_ to write an essay suggesting that you should never stop
| working at any moment of your entire life.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| > I had to learn what real work was before I could wholeheartedly
| desire to do it. That took a while, because even in college a lot
| of the work is pointless; there are entire departments that are
| pointless.
|
| The arrogance! This is one of my pet peeves at work: When someone
| looks at another person's work and judges its value or
| difficulty. "That's easy." "That's pointless."
|
| Ugh.
|
| Everyone else's job looks easy and/or pointless until you're the
| one doing it. Then it's important and challenging (hopefully).
|
| Most people who feel their own work is pointless simply don't
| understand how their role fits into the bigger picture. I assure
| you, the profit motive is very good at weeding out truly
| unnecessary costs. It may lag, sometimes. But if there's a dollar
| being spent that doesn't need to be spent, someone is going to
| eventually find out and eliminate the expense.
|
| I think this mentality comes from a deep need to feel superior to
| others. So when we can't understand or appreciate someone's job,
| it feels powerful to declare their work easy or pointless.
|
| But that's just ignorance, arrogance, and, frankly, bullying by
| other means: I'll make myself feel bigger by making you feel
| small, and I'll do it in front of all of my friends so they can
| affirm how big and tough and awesome I am.
| bumby wrote:
| I agree with the main parts of your post but how does the quote
| below fit into non-profit-seeking organizations? (E.g., govt,
| schools, charities etc.)
|
| > _the profit motive is very good at weeding out truly
| unnecessary costs._
| musingsole wrote:
| In my experience, nonprofits do accrue a bit of needless fat
| that is often justified by their compassionate mission. BUT,
| even then, only by so much. They still need to accrue enough
| funds to pursue their mission.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| Every organization has to be cost-aware. It catches up to you
| eventually.
|
| For context, in my home town of Sudbury, Ontario, our leading
| university (Laurentian U) kept growing and investing in new
| things. There's lots of debate around the merits of what they
| were spending on. But it caught up to them in the form of
| bankruptcy.
|
| One of the few things I like about capitalism (there aren't
| many, but that's just me) is that it gives a laser-clear
| focus. Just because an organization is a non-profit doesn't
| change that. At some point, you either bring in more revenue
| than you spend, or you fail.
|
| Governments that continuously overspend eventually have their
| debts catch up to them, too. (See: Every empire in history.)
| Zababa wrote:
| That would actually explains non-profit-seeking organizations
| that degenerate and focus just on surviving and getting
| bigger and bigger. The unnecessary costs are the original
| intent, the necessary costs are feeding the bureaucratic
| machine.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| The author is right. Gender studies, for example, is a
| pointless degree. You certainly have a point about not being
| quick to judge, or overly dismissive, but there are certain
| things in life that are genuinely pointless, even in education.
| s5300 wrote:
| This is such an idiotic take.
|
| It would be much more truthful to say that _everything_ in
| life is genuinely pointless than what you 've said - and I'm
| saying this as a lifelong multidisciplined engineer.
|
| Perhaps you meant to say useless instead of pointless? Yes, I
| would agree, that the _overwhelming_ vast majority, if not
| all of gender studies degrees are useless in the world
| /societies we live in. But _pointless_? No.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| It depends on how you're measuring value I suppose. Research
| for research's sake is rarely pointless, contributing to the
| sum of human knowledge is a worthy endeavour if you're okay
| with being in academia forever which many people are.
| Society's relationship with gender is a field worthy of study
| in my opinion, regardless of the political radicalism that
| apparently originates in that field.
|
| I'd argue that the social sciences need _more_ people
| involved in them, not less. For example, the way behavioural
| psychology has been weaponised during the pandemic by
| political actors (particularly the British government) has
| been very unethical in my opinion but as the social sciences
| are often seen by the general public as a bit woolly there 's
| not been an awful lot of publicised expert criticism in the
| same way, say, a government denying genetics in favour of
| LaMarckism would put angry biologists directly into every
| newspaper.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| The level of disrespect towards the social sciences in HN is
| just baffling to me.
|
| Sometimes people study stuff for intellectual fulfillment. I
| haven't studied gender studies, but according to HN, if I
| were to study sociology I'd be an ass with a pointless
| degree.
| borski wrote:
| I think people are conflating intrinsic value with
| extrinsic value.
|
| PG's point is that those degrees have no _extrinsic_ value,
| even if they provide lots of time to think, learn, and gain
| enjoyment. That can certainly be valuable, but it isn't
| necessary or helpful in achieving success.
|
| Nothing wrong with that, and his choice of wording wasn't
| ideal, but that was my takeaway.
| jerrre wrote:
| Isn't that always subjective? Pointless with regard to what
| goals/standards?
|
| Is lying in the grass pointless?
| jschulenklopper wrote:
| Only if someone is about to cut the grass... then it starts
| to get pointless.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| I don't agree with the premise that gender studies is
| pointless (and if I had to guess, you selected that one for
| the sake of controversy?).
|
| That aside, let's say that a degree is "pointless" if it
| doesn't lead to good job prospects. By that definition,
| there's an awful lot of fields of study that are "pointless".
|
| For example, I love philosophy. It was my favourite topic in
| school. But the only job that a philosophy degree seems to
| make available is that of teaching philosophy.
|
| I think what we're seeing now is the market at work. There
| was, for a long time, a push to simply get a post-secondary
| education. It didn't matter which field. Just get a degree!
| Now we have a couple generations of heavily indebted students
| in fields that did not improve their job prospects, and
| they're telling the next generation: don't do it.
|
| So I think we're going to keep seeing financial pressure on
| these fields until they shrivel up and go away. Capitalism at
| work, for better or worse.
|
| But that's not the same as thinking these fields were
| pointless. I see tremendous social value in them. Having
| entire generations raised with a healthier and more accurate
| understanding of race, gender, class struggle, etc., is good
| for society. It's just not good at creating jobs.
|
| So I guess my point (no pun intended) is that "pointless" is
| in the eye of the beholder. No one sets about wasting money
| pointlessly, and the things that you see no value in may be
| of great value to many others. You're not the arbitrator of
| what has value. Nor am I. But the market does a pretty damn
| good job.
|
| Just because you think something is pointless doesn't make it
| so.
| hikingsimulator wrote:
| Anthropologic, literature, and historical research endeavors,
| even -- and in all likelihood especially -- when they
| intersect, can have a lot of value in many fields of the
| humanities, and beyond. They can inform our societal,
| political and economic prospects, and shine a light on what
| we usually don't even acknowledge.
|
| It's not because it doesn't impact your field/industry, isn't
| marketable and profitable, or because your politics don't
| comingle with them, that such studies are pointless or
| useless.
|
| Handwaving humanities on the premise that they are humanities
| is just another very stereotypical show of STEM arrogance.
| Zababa wrote:
| I don't think that's fair at all. We are on Hacker News,
| the whole point of this website is intellectual curiosity.
| People here understand the value of what doesn't impact
| their field/industry, isn't marketable and profitable. Look
| at how much open source code is produced just for the sake
| of it, because people believe it's the right thing. Look at
| how much cool projects with detailed instructions on how to
| do them yourself are shared. Dismissing everyone here as
| "STEM arrogance" means that you missed all of that.
|
| You talk about "STEM arrogance", but maybe you should take
| some time to analyze where you feelings comes from, and if
| you're not suffering from a huge bias against these fields
| yourself. If the defenders of social sciences aren't even
| able to apply their teachings to themselves, people have
| the right to be skeptic about the value of their fields.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| I'm not sure you're being fair.
|
| I don't like the "STEM arrogance" bit (I wouldn't go so
| far as to say there is anything inherently arrogant about
| those in STEM), but I also don't think you can ever
| fairly judge the value of someone else's field.
|
| You don't know why they went into the field -- I promise
| it's because they saw more value in it for themselves
| than other fields.
|
| You don't why the school offers such programs, but I
| promise they wouldn't offer it if they didn't think there
| was some demand for it. (Programs that don't get students
| to enrol stop existing pretty quickly.)
|
| So while I don't believe in "STEM arrogance" or "HN
| arrogance" (I'm here because I believe this is one of the
| least arrogant and most open-minded online communities
| I've ever encountered), I do believe it's arrogant to
| proclaim yourself the authority on whether someone else's
| field has value. Just because you don't see the value
| doesn't mean it's not there. It might even be more
| valuable than your own.
|
| By the way, not sure if this was intentional on your
| part, but "maybe you should take some time to analyze
| where your feelings come from" is very much an idea that
| came from the humanities. So there's a certain amount of
| irony in your comments.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Gender studies, for example, is a pointless degree.
|
| I would say that, like most interdisciplinary and many other
| degrees, its not particularly useful as a vocational
| credential outside academia.
|
| OTOH, gender studies as a component of or elective within
| other degree programs that are more vocationally useful
| outside of academia is useful, and you don't have that
| without gender studies professors who you don't have without
| people focussing on gender studies.
| stnmtn wrote:
| Shouldn't there be people researching and understanding if
| there are any differences between men and woman in our
| society?
|
| You can say that the degree "leads to no jobs", but saying
| it's pointless seems like you are angry at it when it is just
| a subset of social science
| Ntrails wrote:
| You're going to get downvoted into oblivion I suspect, which
| may have been your intent?
|
| Is History a _useful_ degree? Is Economics? Is Politics?
| Psychology or Sociology?
|
| I actually don't want to make those determinations. I don't
| think I'm qualified. I have a rough view that highly specific
| degrees are worse overall than general ones. Eg Actuarial
| Mathematics vs Mathematics. Marine Biology vs Biology.
|
| But those are personal dinner table views, and I'm not
| certain I'm right! I certainly don't want to define policy on
| it, and I'm not sure I know of anyone I think is qualified.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| > Is History a _useful_ degree? Is Economics? Is Politics?
| Psychology or Sociology?
|
| History: often useful
|
| Economics: can be useful, has a lot of fiction mixed in
|
| Politics: irritatingly useful
|
| Psychology: mostly garbage
|
| Sociology: almost entirely garbage
| jschulenklopper wrote:
| According to which criteria are some studies apparently
| "pointless"?
|
| Who's to determine these criteria? And aren't they just
| opinions instead of real facts?
| s5300 wrote:
| >According to which criteria are some studies apparently
| "pointless"?
|
| Likely the criteria made up in the heads of those who feel
| they've somehow been "wronged" in life by somebody who
| participates in said studies.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| Curious to hear your opinion on why gender studies is a
| pointless degree? Other than you thinking it's "pointless",
| what is it about a gender studies degree that is pointless?
| tpush wrote:
| Why would a Gender Studies degree be pointless? Given the
| current landscape around gender and such, having more
| educated people in that area seems like a very good thing.
| Zababa wrote:
| Or maybe the people that want to justify their places are
| the ones creating that landscape in the first place? I work
| in tech, and really like tech and think it's important, but
| I know that I'm really biased because that's what feeds me.
| tgtweak wrote:
| This rhetoric furthered by Elon, Jack Ma and several others where
| working 7 days a week for 18 hours is "ideal" and that rest and
| relaxation are had at the expense of productivity/success is a
| real dangerous position.
|
| You know what happens to the majority of people when they get to
| a state of anxiety when relaxing and not working? Stress and
| burnout.
|
| Let's acknowledge that it may have been the path to success for
| SOME of the 0.1% who can work 18 hours a day nonstop for a decade
| with extreme natural ability and a fair amount of chance
| (confirmation bias aside) and not the end-all of being successful
| that everyone should strive for. Yes, there is certainly a
| correlation between working hard and being successful -
| regardless of your natural ability. Don't do it at the expense of
| living.
|
| Take it to the extreme: what happens when EVERYONE works that
| hard? You're back at your normal level of relative productivity.
| SlapperKoala wrote:
| > SOME of the 0.1% who can work 18 hours a day nonstop for a
| decade with extreme natural ability
|
| I'm sceptical of whether they actually exist as described tbh.
| There's an obvious incentive for rich business people to
| emphasize the amount of work they put in, and I've not seen any
| independent verification of their supposedly high output
| cherrycherry98 wrote:
| Some people do enjoy their work and can be said to live for it.
| Marissa Mayer had an interesting take that burnout wasn't
| necessarily about working too much but resentment that they'd
| rather be spending more time on something else (like family).
| To paraphrase a similar view someone once told me: there's no
| such thing as work/life balance, it's all just life.
|
| That being said I think it's easier to live to work if you feel
| that your efforts are going to yield greater results. Putting
| time into study to get good grades and learn new skills,
| anticipating that this will yield better job opportunities?
| Sure! Working long hours on my startup that is taking off and
| could make me rich? Great! Having to work long hours and skip
| vacations to finish a project in a salaried corporate job?
| That'll burn you out because you're not directly benefitting
| from the sacrifice, which probably leads to some resentment
| towards your employer.
| wtetzner wrote:
| Yeah, that's the thing. It can be good to work _hard_ , but not
| necessarily long hours, or long stretches without breaks. I
| never feel more productive than when I just got back from a
| vacation.
| dgb23 wrote:
| This is discussed in the article closer to the end, when it
| explains the balancing act of continuously recognizing the
| difference of productive, _interesting_ work and tired, harmful
| work for the sake of work and showing off.
|
| PG also uses himself as an example of how the type of work can
| impact actual productive hours: about 5 for
| programming/engineering and almost a full day for coordination
| and communication.
| umvi wrote:
| It's one thing to learn how to work hard on tasks you love to do.
|
| It's quite another to learn how to work hard on tasks you hate to
| do (but still need to be done). I suspect a lot of people that
| "work hard" programming would not be able to work hard doing
| manual labor (i.e. digging sprinkler trenches or painting a fence
| in the hot sun) and would quickly rationalize hiring someone else
| to do it for them.
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| Interestingly, also published today: Why Do We Work So Damn Much
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
|
| "...hunter-gatherer societies like the Ju/'hoansi spent only
| about 15 hours a week meeting their material needs..."
| designium wrote:
| Summary:
|
| - Working hard starts at school, but there is a lot of
| "distortion"
|
| - It's complicated to since it depends on multitude of person's
| factors and likes
|
| - You have to be honest with yourself
|
| - You have to find something you want or/and talented to do
|
| - More competitive areas or ambitious goals will required more
| effort
|
| - What was said before may not work given the circumstances of
| each individual
| [deleted]
| bobobob420 wrote:
| This article is hot garbage and so is much else Paul writes. The
| comments were 10x better than the crap written in this article
| like seriously? You should write a motivation book too.
| jeffwass wrote:
| " There's a faint xor between talent and hard work."
|
| I love this techie yet insightful quote.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Long, Hard, Smart - pick 2 out of 3.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _One thing I know is that if you want to do great things, you
| 'll have to work very hard._
|
| Says the guy who made it big in his 32th year by selling a
| company he had just founded 2 years before.
|
| An aspiring message to single mothers working two jobs and barely
| making rent and all other kind of working stiff working their
| arse off to keep the lights on, the buildings clean, the power
| running, the cables installed, the food served, the minerals for
| the PCs mined, and so on, in the backbone of the "digital"
| economy...
|
| > _Bill Gates, for example, was among the smartest people in
| business in his era, but he was also among the hardest working.
| "I never took a day off in my twenties," he said. "Not one._
|
| Well, that's because he never "worked" the way 99.9999% of the
| people he is lecturing do: he did what he wanted to do, running
| his own company, bossing other people below him, and making
| billions whole at it.
|
| If Bill Gates tried working as an employee on someone else's
| business, with BS bosses and middle managers running you around,
| and not making anything to write home about, we'd see how fast he
| would have wanted a day off...
|
| (Not that there's any reliable way to cross-check whether he
| really "never had a day off" in his 20s, or what his work day
| actually amounted to)...
| mdoms wrote:
| Every person I've ever met who claims to be one of these hard
| workers who puts in 70 hours a week and never takes time off
| always seem to be taking mid-week holidays to Bali, golfing on
| sunny Tuesday afternoons etc. It's all a big show.
| rexreed wrote:
| Doesn't it all depend what you want out of life? And is the hard
| work even guaranteed to provide you what you want out of life?
| Hard work, desired outcomes, and goals are not in alignment.
|
| What's the point of this essay, to convince people who don't want
| to work hard to work hard? Is this meant to chastise people?
| Motivate? Demoralize? Self-congratulate?
| borski wrote:
| To identify that for people who succeed, hard work is often
| required, and most people aren't born with the ability to do
| really hard work. That takes conscious effort and an uncanny
| ability to stay on task.
|
| ADHD makes this hard, fwiw, and PG is not saying this mode is
| right for everyone. But I would agree with that idea: working
| hard isn't natural, at least for some people, but it is a
| requirement for attaining success. If you're going to work
| hard, it makes sense to do it on something you love. And there
| are people who thrive on hard work.
|
| There are a bunch of prerequisites, some of which he explicitly
| states (find something you love, eg) and some implicit
| (sometimes you have to take the job you don't like, because
| circumstances dictate that; families, eg).
|
| But it certainly isn't for everyone.
| agomez314 wrote:
| The correlation between working hard and being successful is a
| necessary but not sufficient cause.
| brador wrote:
| June 2021 for anyone wondering if this is new. Would be nice if
| we could get that date stamp into the title. Sometimes PG essays
| are reposted. Dang?
| gxs wrote:
| To me this article describes how to get on target.
|
| Once on target, I do think you go balls to the wall as long as
| it's sustainable while getting good results.
|
| On a side note, I really dislike this style of writing where it
| tries to be psuedo technical and even uses psuedo technical
| terms. I realize this isn't necessarily Paul's shortcoming, but
| rather my own subjective preferences.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Being able to decide what to work on requires a certain amount of
| privilege, as opposed to needing to do whatever you can to pay
| for rent, bills, and groceries this month.
| dhimes wrote:
| I think you're on to something here. I'm struggling to
| articulate that somehow this essay addresses, albeit well, the
| _low-hanging fruit_ of working hard, at least in the move-the-
| world-forward sense than this is written (he 's not talking to
| bricklayers, he's talking to the architects). You have options;
| you have family/social support, and so on. These things allow
| the other things to become. [As you can seem I'm still
| struggling.]
| UglyToad wrote:
| This is sort of tangentially related, since TFA doesn't
| really talk about long hours as such but I definitely prefer
| the following angle: https://ericlippert.com/2019/12/30/work-
| and-success/
| lifekaizen wrote:
| That's a good post. Addresses the societal imbalances that
| are sometimes hard to see, adds a little more context:
|
| >If hard work and long hours could be consistently
| transformed into "success", then my friends and family who
| are teachers, nurses, social workers and factory workers
| would be far more successful than I am.
| steve76 wrote:
| The ability for hard work is a luxury. Work three jobs, save,
| build a better future for yourself is a very nice thing. Take
| it away, such as spending your life caring for a disabled or
| addicted family member, and you will realize how nice self-
| determination is.
| yetihehe wrote:
| So what? Being able to comment on HN requires a certain amount
| of privilege too.
| pjerem wrote:
| Personally, I just had to click on the "login" button then to
| fill a username and a password.
| yetihehe wrote:
| Yeah, but you have access to a computer and you are
| speaking english. Some may consider that privilege, like
| "Being able to decide what to work on requires a certain
| amount of privilege". I can decide what to work on like all
| of my friends and family but I don't think me or they are
| privileged. In current climate, anything beyond subsistence
| is considered privilege and used to belittle and shame
| those who have means to have life not lacking in
| neccessities. I'm flamebaiting, because original comment is
| not in any way insightful, but essentially means 'Oh look,
| he can choose what to work on, he is "privileged"' without
| any further meaning.
| pjerem wrote:
| Maybe I misinterpreted oc, but I understood that <<
| choosing what to work on >> was about choosing precisely
| what project you want to work on and not just doing the
| job you wanted but on the project of your boss.
|
| Because that is really rare and close to impossible if
| you are not an entrepreneur : I have. personally never
| ever worked on a really interesting project, and tbh, the
| few times I switched jobs following my attraction to the
| product, it went terribly wrong.
|
| I'm not saying that you can't be happy and fulfilled in
| this situation : my current company is really nice and
| I'm happy to be paid correctly to do what I wanted to do,
| but our products are extremely boring and I would never
| choose to work on my current project if I had a true open
| choice. And I don't think I'm the exception on this one.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Doesn't this sound shit though? If Bill Gates is so smart why did
| he have to work so much? Did he like coding and management more
| than days off?
|
| If a life of hard work is needed to get you into heaven that's
| fine. Or if anything less would mean you and your dependants
| going hungry. But once your basic needs are met then it's
| irrational not to start spending time on all of the other things
| that life has to offer.
|
| I feel like drive and energy and work-ethic are great, and you're
| useless without them. All the same if you have nothing else then
| you just become enslaved by your need to output more or increase
| your wealth or whatever, without connecting that to any healthy
| goal like health or happiness or wellbeing. It's like a cognitive
| defect, a disability except you're unable to not-do.
| pcbro141 wrote:
| Because he was trying to build one of the biggest/most
| successful companies ever? Some things are just hard regardless
| of how smart you are, building a mega company is one of those.
| dionidium wrote:
| Further, the thing about Bill Gates is that he can't not be
| Bill Gates. Whatever drove Bill Gates to work as hard as he
| did, he probably had no real choice. If you have the drive of
| Bill Gates, then you'll work with the drive of Bill Gates.
| Simple!
| dataduck wrote:
| Chris Williamson's video on this is really touching:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbgkMhio3jY
| markus_zhang wrote:
| He probably didn't treat those as "work" as we laymen
| understand. We just work for bread and butter and most of the
| time workis kind of boring. But if you happen to work for
| yourself or enjoy your work for whatever the reason, you don't
| treat it as "work" and it's all about achieving the maximum
| happiness as you can.
|
| I expereinced this a few times in my life and I never regretted
| about working hard on it. Why would I regret about playing hard
| and achieving what I can? But sadly due to my shortcomings
| these events are short and far between.
| borski wrote:
| This is it. When you're working on things you love, it's
| hard, and can be lots of hours, but it doesn't _feel_ like
| work.
|
| Speaking from my own experience of founding a startup. There
| are also times it was absolutely miserable. But it's true: I
| wasn't beholden to my VCs or angels. I could have quit. I
| just enjoyed the work so much, so deeply, that I didn't want
| to quit.
|
| The challenge was not burning out: I needed to take more
| vacation, because it not _feeling_ like work didn't mean it
| wasn't, still, hard work which people need a respite from.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Yeah exactly. The trick is to not burn out early. I usually
| got burned out when I figured out the core (perhaps 20% of
| the work) and needed many days to grind out the final
| results, which I did not have the perserverance to
| complete. This is probably my worst shortcoming of life and
| I still can't get rid of it when I'm approaching 40.
|
| It seems that the only way for me to finish something is to
| have the task coming from _someone else_, from a friend or
| from work.
| borski wrote:
| I resonate with this completely. For me, it's largely a
| result of ADHD. My solution has always been to partner
| with "finishers."
|
| I'm a spectacular starter, prototyper, and builder. But I
| cannot complete the damn project for the life of me. My
| best friend and first employee though? Thrives on that.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Thanks! Yeah it makes sense to partner with finishers :D
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| I suspect it's more likely to just be fiction.
| capiki wrote:
| Rationality really only makes sense in relation to goals, as
| far as I can see. If your goal is to meet your basic needs,
| then it's irrational to work all day. If your goal is market
| domination, then I'd say working all day is a very rational
| thing to do
| newnamenewface wrote:
| I'd go a step further and it sounds woefully disconnected from
| the joys of culture and life. For those it works for, I imagine
| that this seems satisfying but for the rest who work hard and
| don't hit acclaim and fortune (or at least not wild acclaim and
| fortune), they're going to have midlife crises when they
| realized they itemized away their youth... I'd guess.
| borski wrote:
| The thing that most people seem to be missing is PG isn't
| advocating for working hard just to work hard. He's
| advocating for working hard at things that you love, because
| then it doesn't feel like work.
|
| He is also glorifying anxiety, which is unfortunate, and I
| think this essay stands stronger without those particular
| points.
| greedo wrote:
| But "working hard at things that you love" isn't much of a
| challenge. Your motivation is already there, and your
| simply overcoming a lack of skills or knowledge.
|
| What's difficult, and more common amongst mere mortals is
| twofold; trying to find motivation to overcome difficult
| things, and learning the skills and expertise to accomplish
| these things. Love for those things isn't really a factor.
|
| Graham really is trying to simplify things a bit too much,
| and recycling the tropes of natural ability, practice and
| effort.
| borski wrote:
| It no _feeling_ challenging doesn't make the work itself
| any less hard; it just makes it more doable. That's
| Paul's point.
|
| I agree with the rest of what you said, but it is
| orthogonal to the essay's main point.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > It's like a cognitive defect, a disability except you're
| unable to not-do.
|
| He specifically trained himself to have leisure anxiety and
| advises other people to do this as well:
|
| >> The most basic level of which is simply to feel you should
| be working without anyone telling you to. Now, when I'm not
| working hard, alarm bells go off.
|
| It's certainly _effective_ , but as you say, effective to what
| end?
| onemoresoop wrote:
| If Bill Gates was so smart why did he have to screw so many
| people over? Remember how many other smart people and other
| companies he eat for breakfast? If Bill Gates had the right
| work ethic would he still be so rich?
| bserge wrote:
| He worked other people hard, which is really the only way to
| become very rich. One person can only do so much no matter
| how hard they work.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| There's also a conflation of working hard and working really
| long hours. Plus some cherry picked examples. Basically if you
| only need to find five or six examples of success you could
| probably defend any lifestyle to get there. For example if I
| didn't have kids or need to coordinate with the west coast of
| the US this mode from Haruki Murakami sounds lovely.
|
| > When I'm in writing mode for a novel, I get up at four a.m.
| and work for five to six hours. In the afternoon, I run for ten
| kilometers or swim for fifteen hundred meters (or do both),
| then I read a bit and listen to some music. I go to bed at nine
| p.m.
|
| > I keep to this routine every day without variation. The
| repetition itself becomes the important thing; it's a form of
| mesmerism. I mesmerize myself to reach a deeper state of mind.
|
| > But to hold to such repetition for so long -- six months to a
| year -- requires a good amount of mental and physical strength.
| In that sense, writing a long novel is like survival training.
| Physical strength is as necessary as artistic sensitivity.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I read a book on authors work habits and this pattern seems
| very common. Work for a relatively short period in the
| morning (by modern work standards) then spend the rest of the
| day at leisure.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Yeah I think for the sort of creative work I find myself
| doing that I don't really have more than 5-6 hours a day of
| it in me. Having the afternoon to recuperate and spend time
| idly thinking about the thing I'm trying to make would be
| great.
| magicloop wrote:
| "I never took a day off in my twenties" (Bill Gates) quote is a
| misnomer because what Bill Gates considers a day-off is something
| where you are just lying around doing nothing, such as lying on
| the beach. A two week sojourn into a set of books that interested
| him were not considered "days off". He did such activities
| yearly.
|
| Bill Gates wasn't in the office working a 7 day schedule for his
| entire 20s. So that is not the impression we should get from the
| quote at all. His productive time away has merit, and I have
| followed that attitude to reading myself, and recommend it to
| others.
|
| It would have been better if he had said "I never wasted a day in
| my twenties" which I think would be more accurate.
| jmrm wrote:
| Every time we read or hear that quote, we have to remember that
| Gates also lose and win a lot of money playing poker in
| university, so there was also time for non-work related tasks
| :-)
| pauldickwin wrote:
| Poker can be considered work. If you actually truly learn to
| play it, it teaches you a lot about people, emotions,
| thinking ahead several steps, probability, and risk and
| reward.
| j-krieger wrote:
| Talk about moving goalposts..
| vl wrote:
| Back then poker was way less developed though. Modern
| constructive approach is relatively a recent phenomenon.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| In that case my weekend of climbing can be considered work
| too
| anthony_r wrote:
| He got a lot of speeding tickets, look up the famous old
| mugshots. That's not something easy to obtain from inside an
| office.
|
| The man knew how to party, even if not too much :)
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| AMAF, this is wildly a stupid idea. Tired devs write tired
| codes
| pauldickwin wrote:
| Except that Bill Gates and people of that type don't get
| tired from it. They get energized.
| dpbriggs wrote:
| They aren't super heroes - they need rest as well.
|
| Reading some books you're interested may count as not
| taking a day off, but it's still restful compared to office
| work.
| [deleted]
| pydry wrote:
| Bill Gates wants to be the hero of his own story.
|
| He's not going to claim that his success was the result of a
| few bets that paid off in spectacular fashion, strongarming
| OEMs and mommy being buddies with the CEO of IBM.
|
| It's going to be hard work, spectacular insight, old fashioned
| grit, persistence in the face of adversity, etc. - all the
| things Hollywood slavishly worships with either a cliched
| montage or a poignant scene. It's how our culture frames
| laudable and justified success - of _course_ it 's how he will
| tell his story.
|
| Bill Gates more than most billionaires _really_ wants to be
| seen as the hero, as a good guy. His charitable giving
| demonstrates just how much.
| moosey wrote:
| There is widespread statistical evidence that wealth is
| gained through luck. I imagine though that every billionaire
| thinks they are the one that got there through hard work.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Whereas Bezos goes the other way. He wants to claim that he
| was lucky at Amazon, not that he foresaw the chokehold he
| would be able to put suppliers in, built a company that
| encouraged people to burn out and ruthlessly pushed employees
| and partners.
|
| There's always a blend of work, intelligence and luck that
| goes into success, so it's nice to have anyone emphasizing
| luck. But it's definitely supposed to distract from how he
| kept long term deferring returns on investment to go all
| tentacley into every business line.
|
| (I should point out that however hard he pushed his
| employees, he seems to compensate them for it. If you worked
| in one of his warehouses from the jump his RSU-distributions
| would have netted you enough for a downpayment.)
| Joeri wrote:
| Well, who doesn't want to be seen as the hero in their own
| story?
|
| What I suspect is that it's a case of "all of the above".
| Yes, gates got lucky, but he was also talented, and he worked
| hard. To be an outlier you have to defy the odds, and luck,
| talent and grit are different ways of defying.
| void_mint wrote:
| Repeatedly you see "influencers" be overly generous with
| their own retelling of history. The problem with this style
| of retelling is there's generally not very much humbleness
| or self reflection involved - they want you to _believe_
| this is how it was, even if it wasn't. You can't really fix
| it, I don't think. Famous influencers are going to tell
| their narrative however they want, lots of people are going
| to say "Well, that's not really true...", and lots of other
| people are going to just aimlessly believe the influencer
| in question.
|
| There are plenty of examples, even in this thread. Nobody
| is saying PG and other various influencers didn't work hard
| - but the virtue signaling of scale is usually way off. "We
| worked 100 hours a week at hour desks to launch ___", when
| in reality they "worked" maybe a half of that, extremely
| hard, and spent the remaining half thinking about work
| and/or stressing and/or recovering. If everyone was able to
| count "Thinking or stressing about work" as "work", I don't
| think this would be a problem, but people usually omit
| those parts.
| borroka wrote:
| Hard agree on this.
|
| People lie all the time and in the direction that can
| make them virtuous and a bit contrarian. How come that
| they all love their wife and family is important thing
| they have (although work is important along with their
| sacred responsibility of producing jobs and wealth) and
| then we find out they either treat their partners as
| inferiors in the relationship, have affairs, have been
| living in separate houses for years if not decades? To me
| it is all fine since except in case of abuse, people can
| all choose how to live our life as they please. But isn't
| all of that taking advantage of credulous people, like
| entrepreneurial wannabes when the gospel is not "love
| your kids", but "work hard"?
|
| Looking back I worked quite hard, as I see it, or very
| hard, as others might see it, at various stages of my
| life, but I would not write a propagandistic essay about
| "working hard". And you know why? Because I see life as
| full of ambiguities, because I have nothing to sell and I
| have not a public persona that I am trying to build,
| defend or that I use to generate views.
|
| When I hear or read "work hard", "hard work", "work
| ethic", "never give up" and similar memorabilia, I
| immediately judge the speaker and writer negatively.
| Maybe it is just me, but I don't like to be sold
| personas.
| pm90 wrote:
| If you're in a position where you benefit financially
| from the extra labor of others, you would probably be
| incentivized to proselytize the value of "hard work".
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| I worked hard in my 20's with nothing to show for it. Not born
| into connections or money. I know almost nobody that has a
| degree. Spent years on my own startup with my ex-ceo being a code
| monkey for him whos richer and more connected than me. Poof, 4
| years of income and work gone. Now I can't even find a job. How
| exactly, am I supposed to "work hard"? It is a complete meme.
| Also funny he uses Gates as an example, a man born into wealth.
|
| I tried working hard and wasted 100% of every day of my 20's. No
| memories formed, no money made, just "working hard".
|
| Here's how you work hard: grow up in a stable life with money and
| connections and win the mental health lottery.
| sidcool wrote:
| John Carmack read a draft of this.
| ridruejo wrote:
| I noticed that too. I would love a podcast of them talking
| about any topic really
| wantsanagent wrote:
| "Natural ability" is a cop-out and PG should know better. It'd be
| fine if this came with a disclaimer, "we don't know what natural
| ability is and the more we learn the more complex and diverse
| this umbrella term becomes." But taking it at face value is fuzzy
| thinking. It feels like this was included to hedge his bets.
|
| The Polgar sisters(1) serve as evidence that while "natural
| ability" may be a thing it's even less important than you might
| imagine. Instead this and work like that of Ericsson(2) on the
| development of expertise point to repeatable environmental
| factors for success.
|
| I look forward to a day when we can eliminate this phrase and
| replace it with measurable phenomena and repeatable processes.
|
| (1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r
|
| (2) - https://smile.amazon.com/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-
| Han...
| mikewarot wrote:
| "Natural ability" is when your skills and interests happen to
| have a good impedance match with a problem to be solved.
| jahewson wrote:
| That's not what it means.
| newacct583 wrote:
| Is anyone else distressed by pg's sudden turn to these sorts of
| para-culture-war issues? He's gotten increasingly anti-woke
| over the past year or two and it's starting to leak into sloppy
| argumentation like this.
|
| In decades past, he'd discuss similar issues ("how to identify
| a good hacker", stuff like that), but the focus was on the
| talent and what it meant and how it worked. Now... suddenly
| this kind of genetic stratification is just a given? Not a good
| smell.
| s5300 wrote:
| Appears that he's having some sort of internal
| struggle/identity crisis the past few years that he can't
| come to terms with.
| newacct583 wrote:
| So... I actually have a theory. He had kids. His kids are
| precocious and bright. And if you watch him on twitter he
| loves to talk about how smart they are. Which is hardly
| weird. But read back through his early writing: PG's school
| experience seems kinda traumatic. He hated it, he has an
| essay likening schools to prisons. So he's projecting his
| anxieties onto his kids.
|
| And modern educational thought (be it "woke" or not), has
| very much moved away from a focus on the Best and Brightest
| students and onto a theory of education that prioritizes
| the needs of the disadvantaged. PG's kids just aren't what
| people are talking about. Educators tend to assume they'll
| do just fine given their existing advantages.
|
| But PG didn't do fine, in his mind. He thinks society is
| moving in the wrong direction.
|
| Which is ironic, because if anything modern educational
| environments (my kids are almost the same age) are much
| _MORE_ inclusive and benign and much less likely to produce
| the kind of anxiety he experienced. His kids will do better
| than he did _BECAUSE_ the school brings everyone else into
| the discussion and doesn 't drive a competetive prison. He
| just can't see it.
| didibus wrote:
| I hate this obsession with "hard work".
|
| "hard" is a weasel word, it means nothing concrete, it's not
| quantifiable, and even as a quality it's unclear, what is the
| emotional feeling attached to it?
|
| "work" has two meanings:
|
| 1. activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to
| achieve a purpose or result
|
| 2. a task or tasks to be undertaken; something a person or thing
| has to do
|
| So what are we even talking about when we say "hard work"?
|
| If you take the first definition, adding the "hard" qualifier
| makes no difference, because what makes an activity "hard" is
| that it requires mental and/or physical effort to accomplish. So
| in that sense, work is inherently effortful, and thus "hard".
| Maybe what people mean when they say "hard work" is sustained
| effort exertion?
|
| If you take the second it makes more sense, but then it would
| imply that "hard work" is about the choice of task you undertake.
| If you choose to do harder tasks, you'd be "hard working". The
| issue here though is that it's not clear what makes a task
| "hard". I think the risk of failure is possibly the best way to
| qualify it here. If you're likely to fail the task, it is thus
| "hard" to you. But is that really what people mean when they
| evangelize "hard work"? To always work on tasks you are likely to
| fail at?
|
| Since PG's example was how Bill Gates took no vacation in 10
| years, I'll conclude that he's trying to suggests that "hard
| work" means have a "high rate of work per week".
|
| So he seem to imply "hard work" is when most of your week is
| spent exerting mental or physical effort towards a result or
| purpose.
|
| And that's where I hate the framing of "hard work", it's just
| "work", adding "hard" is just a pretentious qualifier.
|
| P.S.: I really doubt Bill Gates success is attributable to not
| taking 15 days of time off per year for 10 years. That is not a
| lot of time, maybe if he worked 80 hours week, but as research
| shows, real physical and mental effort is unsustainable beyond
| some level, and rest is needed.
| nineplay wrote:
| One of my greatest regrets is how much time I wasted on 'work' in
| my 20s and 30s. I was an engineer, I made a comfortable salary,
| but I rarely took a vacation, I never traveled outside the UI, I
| took days off reluctantly with a vague feeling that I was letting
| someone down.
|
| "Later", I told myself. When I'm successful, when I'm stable,
| when I have the money to travel in style and not backpack around
| and stay at hostels. Then I can take a break and have the
| adventures I want.
|
| My in-laws confirmed this attitude for me - they retired in their
| 50s and traveled the world. What a great life goal!
|
| Guess what, life happened. Health issues. I'm never going to
| travel the world. All that time in my 20s in 30s - I was healthy,
| I was happy, I was carefree, and I didn't appreciate it and threw
| all that time away sitting at a desk looking at a screen. Today,
| now, that's about the only thing I'm fit to do.
|
| Don't listen to PG, kids. Live the life you want to have now, not
| the life you think you'll want to have several decades out.
| mjfl wrote:
| Traveling the world is a life goal for shallow people. It is a
| shallow experience.
| arbitrary_name wrote:
| Perhaps you'd like to elaborate? I find the experience
| enormously enriching: learning new languages, making friends,
| gaining a new perspective. It's very valuable to me and I'd
| be curious to understand your position more, because right
| now it just comes across as sour grapes.
| mjfl wrote:
| You don't read a book by reading the first 10 pages. You
| don't learn a culture by visiting a place for a week. You
| don't make real friends in a weekend. I've lived in Los
| Angeles for 4 years and I still feel like I don't quite
| understand the culture here, feel like I haven't quite
| experienced the city. I don't understand how anyone could
| visit here on a vacation and think they've really
| "experienced" LA. This is even more true for foreign
| countries. There's also something weird to me about going
| to a place with lots of poor people, "helping" them for a
| weekend, taking a picture, posting it on Instagram,
| leaving, and somehow getting a warm feeling from that. The
| common denominator is a shallowness- none of these
| experiences are as deep or meaningful as the people who do
| it claim to themselves and others.
| lanstin wrote:
| Some books you learn 80% of the new-to-you concepts in
| the first 2 chapters. For sure living some place for 10
| years you will know different things from someone that
| stayed for a few months, but travel is an incredibly
| efficient way to get new stuff you wouldn't have thought
| of in front of you to pay attention to. It's not to
| master all the variety in the world, it's to bring your
| experience outside of the little ruts that you can fall
| into. You have to travel with a certain attitude of
| openness, curiosity and respect. And the knowledge that
| your own ways aren't special, but just your own ways.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| haha - I've visited LA and also thought it was a shallow
| experience ;) Also, sounds like you haven't traveled
| much.
|
| And yes, I do read a books first 10 pages and stop
| reading it. Sometimes i read the first couple pages of
| each chapter and stop reading it. I never claim i read
| the whole book, or understand every nook and cranny of
| the rhetoric, but that book will still shape my
| subconscious going forward.
|
| I feel travel is the same. As you go around the world you
| learn that no one has the answers, each place is entirely
| based on your experience of that city and everyone has
| different philosophies in life. It provides a sense of
| empathy to ideas. Meeting people who worked at hostels or
| people who bought a sailing boat, some fishing poles and
| some rice and traveled vastly changed the way i look at
| the world. Life is really easy in actuality, we as a
| species seem to complicate it.
|
| Travel has brought me a vast amount of serenity and
| peacefulness in my normal life, because normal life can
| never be as hard as traveling.
| mjfl wrote:
| "no one has the answers"
|
| "Life is really easy in actuality"
|
| "Yes, I do read a books first 10 pages and stop reading
| it."
|
| Yeah we know you do buddy.
| kvark wrote:
| Unlike the books, traveling has a clear curve of
| diminishing returns. Sure, you don't understand the
| culture by spending a week in Japan, but get a glimpse of
| it. It's a good ROI.
| pwinnski wrote:
| You know that when people say they want to travel the
| world, that doesn't always mean they want to to pose
| briefly in instagram-hot tourist spots, right?
|
| One could make a case for breadth or depth when it comes
| to world travel, but so far you're not doing that, you're
| just sniffing dismissively at a stereotype.
|
| I'm a fan of spending weeks or months in a place, rather
| than days, but spending years in any one place
| necessarily means seeing far fewer places. Breadth vs
| depth.
| asauce wrote:
| I don't mean to come across as rude, but maybe the LA
| influencer culture has you jaded? I can guarantee that
| not everyone wants to travel the world just for some
| instagram photos.
|
| I do agree with some of your main points. You can't learn
| a culture in a week, and "helping" poor people for an
| instagram post is definitely problematic.
|
| However being exposed to the different types of cultures
| around the world can be extremely valuable and eye
| opening. The world is a beautiful place with lots of
| interesting places to explore.
| mjfl wrote:
| LA is not influencer culture. It's first and second gen
| Latino immigrants. It's Armenians. It's white Protestants
| from OC. It's a major industrial port. It's a real estate
| scam. And yes, the entertainment business is here.
| Thinking that LA is it's influencer culture is SO
| SHALLOW.
| asauce wrote:
| Yes, that's fair. My only exposure to LA culture is the
| entertainment industry and the large amount of
| influencers that are based in LA. So I'll be the first to
| admit my understanding is shallow. I was just curious why
| you are so jaded to travelling.
|
| My point still stands that travelling the world is not a
| completely shallow endeavour. However you seem obsessed
| with labelling people as shallow, which ironically comes
| across as pretty shallow in itself.
| nineplay wrote:
| I'll have to take your word for it because I'll never know.
| i_haz_rabies wrote:
| I dunno about that, although it's certainly a selfish first
| world life goal that the planet cannot support (if you fly).
| nszceta wrote:
| Traveling the world is a life goal for shallow people only if
| you never meet people, have fun together, and maintain your
| relationships. Staying longer term or returning to the same
| location regularly over weeks- months- years- is superior to
| moving on to new places every day.
| caeril wrote:
| I sometimes have the same thought, but it may be more
| charitable to phrase it this way instead (which is more
| accurate):
|
| "Traveling the world seems like a life goal for extroverts.
| It is an experience I don't understand the benefits of,
| personally."
| nimih wrote:
| Probably not as shallow as not taking vacations so your boss
| can get some marginal % richer.
| [deleted]
| mjfl wrote:
| The idea that there are only two options in life- world
| travel or being a corporate slave, is exactly the mindset
| of a shallow person.
| nimih wrote:
| You read a well-written, multi-paragraph comment with an
| astute, on-topic point, and decided the best thing you
| could bring to the conversation was a vacuous put-down.
| All things considered, you're not making a good case for
| yourself as an expert on what's "deep."
| imilk wrote:
| Very strange attitude. Certainly less shallow of producing
| 1,000s of lines of code to achieve some meaningless business
| outcome.
| hughrr wrote:
| Completely agree. I've seen a lot of people not make it to
| retirement or get utterly ruined before they get there and then
| live on scraps.
|
| I had a near miss on this front which turned me. I'm a lucky
| one.
|
| Also _never_ listen to an ideolog. I haven 't met one that
| isn't wrong yet.
| herodoturtle wrote:
| > I never traveled outside the UI
|
| Beautiful typo :-)
| guhsnamih wrote:
| And I outside the terminal!
| austenallred wrote:
| > Don't listen to PG, kids. Live the life you want to have now,
| not the life you think you'll want to have several decades out.
|
| It really depends on what you're working for. If your goal is
| retire in 50s that's pretty achievable without working terribly
| hard (for most engineers).
|
| If your goal is to be as good at soccer as Lionel Messi
| probably not so much.
|
| Define what your goals are really well, then you can figure out
| what level of work is required to get there, then decide if
| that's a sacrifice worth making to you or if you want to adjust
| your goals.
|
| Of course, there's some unknown in there, but if you don't want
| to be incredibly rich and change the world it doesn't take the
| same inputs.
| bhupy wrote:
| > Don't listen to PG, kids. Live the life you want to have now,
| not the life you think you'll want to have several decades out.
|
| Isn't there an in-between? My wife and I both delay a little
| bit of gratification with the expectation that we'll have a
| better life in our mid-30's or early 40's. In other words,
| we're choosing not to live the life we want to have _right now_
| , because we're trading that off for a potentially better life
| X years from now (where in our case, X = 5-10 years).
|
| X can be whatever you want, and it's up to individuals (or
| families) to decide that for themselves. But once you do,
| delayed gratification is an important social concept; as
| evidenced by the marshmallow test administered in children. For
| adults, "rejecting the marshmallow" can mean working a little
| harder in your '20s, so that you may get 2 marshmallows when
| you're in your '30s -- which for a lot of people is important
| as that's the age when they have children.
| tidydata wrote:
| Having children means sharing your marshmallows. It's also a
| lot easier to chase a kid in your 20s than your 30s. It's
| also maturing, enjoyable, and spending time with them is the
| best part of the day.
|
| Not something many people say about work! Maybe when the work
| is truly meaningful (I wouldn't know).
|
| The notion that people need to work through their 20s for
| this unknown future prize is silly and wasteful. Spending the
| prime years of your life slaving to a computer is something I
| think a lot of people will regret.
|
| So, no, I won't listen to PG. My most fulfilling work is
| being a dad.
| publicola1990 wrote:
| Framing it that way makes it seem that he's espousing a
| Stakhanovite approach.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| I worked very hard in my 20s and I'm extremely glad I did.
| The work was interesting, engaging, maturing, and super
| valuable for society. It also set me up with an extremely
| valuable skill set, of hard and soft skills, that are
| useful in both my professional and personal lives.
|
| This trend of saying you enjoyed your life and therefore
| yours was the only correct choice is extremely closed-
| minded, and tends to come from parents in particular a lot.
| What if instead you solicited the opinions of people whose
| life you clearly don't understand? Are you so scared of the
| idea that other choices made other people happy?
| tidydata wrote:
| I'm definitely not scared. Are you okay?
|
| I also totally understand being single, childless, and
| driven to a career. I'm happier now. Who is the one not
| listening to other's opinions? You sure you understand?
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| "Maybe when the work is truly meaningful (I wouldn't
| know)."
|
| But sure, have it your way.
| sharkweek wrote:
| I want to make it very clear that I do not expect everyone
| to want kids, and I'm never ever one to say "oh you'll love
| kids once you have your own!" to anyone, but...
|
| I cannot understate for me personally how much having my
| own kids over the past few years has shifted my priorities.
| The best parts of my weeks are when I'm with my family all
| doing something fun together. Work is now only a means to
| provide and is not a source of personal fulfillment anymore
| (again, YMMV!!!!)
|
| It's hard to stay "extra motivated" at work now, though. I
| went from being willing to put in the long hours and
| weekends to barely being able to get 30-40 hours a week.
|
| But you know what? There are plenty of perfectly great jobs
| that allow for that. The place I'm currently working told
| me in the interview loop they can't compete with FAANG
| salary ranges, but they promised me total autonomy on
| when/where I work as well as great work-life balance, which
| has proven to be true.
| bhupy wrote:
| > Not something many people say about work! Maybe when the
| work is truly meaningful (I wouldn't know).
|
| The vagueness of "work" in this article is (IMO) a feature,
| and not a bug. Raising your children can be great work, to
| your own point. You can't half-ass raising your kids, as
| you well know, and it sounds like you get the most purpose
| and fulfillment from doing that. What PG appears to be
| arguing is that, whether you're doing a "great" job of it
| depends on: 1) how hard you work on raising your kids, 2)
| your natural ability, and 3) effort -- and I trust that you
| satisfy all 3 of those preconditions, as a dad.
|
| > The notion that people need to work through their 20s for
| this unknown future prize is silly and wasteful
|
| First of all, to call it an "unknown future prize" is a bit
| of a mischaracterization. If someone were to argue that one
| ought to spill their lives into their career with no well-
| defined end goal, then I'd agree that it's silly and
| wasteful. But if you actually have a clear view of what a
| desired end goal looks like (it could be anything: a house
| with a yard in the Bay Area, enough money to retire early,
| etc etc), it can be entirely reasonable to defer
| gratification. Keep in mind that in the experiment, the
| child _knows_ that there 's a second marshmallow coming if
| they wait. Adults need to know what their second
| marshmallow is before delaying the first one.
|
| Second of all, I don't think it's fair to make such a
| sweeping generalization for how other people ought to live
| their lives. The neat thing about PG's post is that it's
| sufficiently abstract that it can apply to _anyone_ ,
| regardless of what they consider "great work".
| tidydata wrote:
| But is _is_ an unknown future prize, and countless
| stories prove that. Pension funds go belly up, whole
| industries made obsolete, an accident/injury disrupts
| everything, etc.
|
| I think your premise of "telling people how to live their
| life" falls more on the popular notion that investment
| early in career, rather than family or life experience,
| is more important. I believe this is wrong and it's
| repeated more frequently than my counterpoint!
| bhupy wrote:
| > But is _is_ an unknown future prize, and countless
| stories prove that. Pension funds go belly up, whole
| industries made obsolete, an accident/injury disrupts
| everything, etc.
|
| This is only an "unknown future prize" if the defined
| goal is _very specifically_ to have a successful pension
| fund, or to thrive in a specific industry.
|
| Using the example of what makes you, personally, feel the
| most fulfilled: children die prematurely (disrupts
| everything), or they have developmental challenges that
| make it difficult to do much else in life. None of that
| changes the fact that you're probably still better off
| devoting your life _right now_ to rearing children.
|
| You're absolutely correct that there's uncertainty in the
| future, but none of that refutes any of what I said in my
| comments, or PG wrote in his article. It's a "yes, and"
| addition, rather than a "no, but" refutation.
|
| YES, there's significant entropy in life, AND given that,
| the most reliable way to do "great work" is still <dot
| dot dot> (as laid out in PG's blog post).
|
| > I think your premise of "telling people how to live
| their life" falls more on the popular notion that
| investment early in career, rather than family or life
| experience, is more important. I believe this is wrong
| and it's repeated more frequently than my counterpoint!
|
| I argued no such thing. It clearly bears repeating that
| the more abstract notion is that investment in XYZ early
| in your life, rather than ABC is more important. XYZ and
| ABC can be the exact same thing, if your circumstances
| permit; there's no requirement that they be different
| things. If you find the most fulfillment and joy in life
| raising children resources notwithstanding, then you can
| certainly start doing that early in your life. If you
| think that raising children will only be more fulfilling
| if you have some baseline threshold of wealth, then you
| may have to defer that in favor of a career. Again, it
| all depends on how you, as an individual (or as a
| family), defines XYZ and ABC.
|
| I have no problem with how people define XYZ and ABC.
| What I have a problem with is in _telling people_ how
| they ought to define XYZ and ABC. Neither PG 's post nor
| my comment did the latter.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > But if you actually have a clear view of what a desired
| end goal looks like (it could be anything: a house with a
| yard in the Bay Area, enough money to retire early, etc
| etc), it can be entirely reasonable to defer
| gratification.
|
| The one thing I often don't find people discussing is
| that you may actually achieve your goals _and find them
| not at all worth the effort_.
|
| I'd put a lower bound of at least 50% likelihood that the
| goal you seek is not the goal you'll be happy with if you
| achieve it. Of course, you won't know until you get
| there.
|
| I have goals - I hope I attain them and I do work towards
| them. But keeping the above in mind, I will try to ensure
| that my present life is also on the positive. Even if I
| attain my goal and find it worthless, my time/life would
| not have been wasted.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| If you get used to looking 5-10 years ahead are you sure
| you'll stop and starting living that better life? Or will
| there just be more goals another 5-10 years ahead?
|
| I lost a whole bunch of friends in my 30s and nearly died
| myself a few weeks ago. Later on doesn't arrive for everyone.
|
| I don't think that means you should never delay gratification
| but just don't put all your eggs in the future basket.
| bhupy wrote:
| Yeah, we don't disagree. Like I said, there's an "in-
| between".
|
| Always "living in the moment" can be bad, depending on what
| you want out of life. Always "living in the future" can
| also be bad, depending on what you want out of life.
|
| Ultimately, they both depend on the same thing: what you
| want out of life. The key is for everyone to define that
| goal for themselves; an exercise which is possibly the
| single hardest part of the human condition.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| The weird thing at least for me in reading that is I very
| rarely worry or even think as abstractly as what I want
| from life.
|
| My own take is that question comes very much from the
| living in the future side of things.
| bhupy wrote:
| "No answer" can be a perfectly acceptable answer to "what
| do I want out of life?"
|
| It can be a great way to live a life, and once you've
| decided that that's your answer, you'd obviously spend
| more of your mental capacity in the "living in the
| moment" side of the spectrum.
|
| That being said, it's an answer that has the possibility
| (though not a guarantee) of having very real negative
| consequences to one's future well-being. Individuals that
| choose to go that route should be responsible for those
| consequences, if any.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Not thinking about it isn't the same as deciding that
| there isn't an answer. Nor does it preclude planning.
| It's just not something that bothers me or seems
| important. I have more interesting existential thoughts
| when I think about the enormity of the universe.
|
| I also don't see why you think there is risk in it. After
| all you can have a long term plan to do extremely
| dangerous things to self actualise. Both routes (a false
| dichotomy in itself) in fact have a possibility of having
| very real negative consequences even if your plans are
| dull.
| nineplay wrote:
| It's not about YOLO, it's about looking at your life though a
| lens besides "work,work,work,save,save,save"
|
| When I was 25 I had the time and the money to take a couple
| of weeks off and travel. I wouldn't have stayed in the nicest
| hotels or eaten in fancy restaurants, but I could have done
| it. It would have had no negative impact on my career and my
| current financial status.
|
| What kept me from doing it wasn't a careful look at my life
| goals and the cost/benefits ratio, but a mental model that
| stopped at "Work hard now and you'll be rewarded I promise"
|
| I didn't see any accounting for that in PG's essay. "Great
| Men Work Hard And Succeed" is the only message I got.
| bhupy wrote:
| I don't think we disagree here; my point is that there is a
| broad spectrum between "YOLO" and
| "work,work,work,save,save,save"; and that it's up to you to
| decide where on that spectrum you want to be.
|
| From PG's article, he acknowledges that the hard work is a
| necessary but not sufficient condition to do "great work"
| (in his words).
|
| "There are three ingredients in great work: natural
| ability, practice, and effort. You can do pretty well with
| just two, but to do the best work you need all three"
|
| The vagueness of "great work" means that it can apply to
| _any_ kind of work. Raising children can be "great work".
| Writing a book can be "great work". Learning something new
| can be "great work". Traveling can be "great work", etc.
|
| > When I was 25 I had the time and the money to take a
| couple of weeks off and travel. I wouldn't have stayed in
| the nicest hotels or eaten in fancy restaurants, but I
| could have done it. It would have had no negative impact on
| my career and my current financial status.
|
| Great! And for you, forgoing a marshmallow means something
| very different from someone else. The advice in this
| article is sufficiently abstract, that when applied to the
| circumstances of your life, should still track
| consistently.
| borroka wrote:
| If a middle school student was to come to me, a
| hypothetical English teacher, with an essay including the
| following: "There are three ingredients in great work:
| natural ability, practice, and effort. You can do pretty
| well with just two, but to do the best work you need all
| three",
|
| I would tell them, my friend, come back with some ideas
| of yours, please do not list simplistic views just to get
| the nod of approval of your audience of middle-school
| students/ bored teachers/programmers.
|
| PS. We all have seen plenty of people who did great work
| with top natural abilities, little effort and little
| practice. Such is life. I had a similar reaction of
| disbelief when at a work-sponsored leadership development
| program, the instructor told us that one of the special
| traits of Fortune 500 CEOs (they all like to talk about
| CEOs) is empathy. It sounds good, yes it does; the only
| problem is that it contradicts what one can see with
| their own eyes every single day.
| DantesKite wrote:
| I understand what you mean by health problems, because I too
| have health problems that limit my ability to work and play the
| way I dreamed of.
|
| But Paul Graham never recommends mindlessly working on things
| that don't interest you for the sake of some imagined tomorrow.
|
| He even recommends not to do it:
|
| "...if you think there's something admirable about working too
| hard, get that idea out of your head. You're not merely getting
| worse results, but getting them because you're showing off --
| if not to other people, then to yourself."
|
| That's a strawman version of what Paul is suggesting.
|
| " Are you really interested in x, or do you want to work on it
| because you'll make a lot of money, or because other people
| will be impressed with you, or because your parents want you
| to?"
|
| "The best test of whether it's worthwhile to work on something
| is whether you find it interesting"
|
| "Working hard is not just a dial you turn up to 11. It's a
| complicated, dynamic system that has to be tuned just right at
| each point. You have to understand the shape of real work, see
| clearly what kind you're best suited for, aim as close to the
| true core of it as you can, accurately judge at each moment
| both what you're capable of and how you're doing, and put in as
| many hours each day as you can without harming the quality of
| the result. This network is too complicated to trick. But if
| you're consistently honest and clear-sighted, it will
| automatically assume an optimal shape, and you'll be productive
| in a way few people are."
|
| "It's good to go on vacation occasionally, but when I go on
| vacation, I like to learn new things. I wouldn't like just
| sitting on a beach."
|
| Listen to PG kids. Not some misinterpretation of what he's
| saying.
|
| But I hope you can find the peace you're searching for. I
| really do.
|
| I understand the agony of not being able to get what you want.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| > "It's good to go on vacation occasionally, but when I go on
| vacation, I like to learn new things. I wouldn't like just
| sitting on a beach."
|
| There are few things I enjoy more than just sitting on a
| beach. When you go on vacation, actually go on vacation. Turn
| off your phone. Leave your laptop behind. Bring some fiction,
| or maybe select non-fiction (biographies are great). Put
| sunscreen on. Get a cold beverage. Fall asleep with the book
| on you.
|
| I recommend learning new things while you're on vacation! But
| learn about the place you're vacationing at. Learn about the
| culture, the people, the history, the geography. Expand your
| horizons and waste time.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| This exactly. Vacations are an amazing time, and the only
| real time I can dig deep into places. Going to places like
| Philippines, I didn't have much of a plan, only return
| ticket and vague concept from Lonely planet.
|
| Those books actually contain tons of useful information
| _apart_ from their main focus (accommodation &
| restaurants). History of a state and its various parts,
| culture, mindset, local quirks, food. And then you actually
| mingle with people, ask for directions, look for
| accommodation, trying to get last bus to some other place,
| start a chat with a stranger going same direction.
|
| This are one of the most rewarding experiences in my life.
| Constant discovery of how amazing our world actually is and
| people inhabiting it. I've met the utmost kindness from the
| poorest of this world like Dalits in India who have nothing
| and shared everything with a lost traveler.
|
| I come back from such trips richer and more experienced
| than ever. But yeah just sitting mindlessly on the beach,
| which I think not many people do actually might be a cure
| for near or complete burnout, otherwise just a waste of
| precious time off.
| nineplay wrote:
| FTA
|
| > One thing I know is that if you want to do great things,
| you'll have to work very hard
|
| This is such a narrow definition of "great things" that it is
| useless. Great things in PG's eyes maybe, but I hope no one's
| life goal is to impress him.
|
| > "I never took a day off in my twenties," he said. "Not
| one."
|
| That quote makes me sick to my stomach.
| bhouser wrote:
| I still think you're strawmanning the essay (and I'm sorry
| you didn't figure out sooner what you wanted to do with
| your life - that really sucks!).
|
| Bill Gates knew what he really wanted to do and what
| interested him so not taking a day off was probably a no-
| brainer.
|
| If you had been able to realize earlier that travelling the
| world was what you wanted to do, then you could have put
| all your efforts into making that happen.
|
| I think the essay is suggesting that merely working hard
| without enough of that effort spent on the directional
| problem won't yield the results you want, ultimately. So I
| think the suggestions here taken holistically are useful to
| a theoretical-younger version of you.
| void_mint wrote:
| > > "I never took a day off in my twenties," he said. "Not
| one."
|
| It's also almost a guaranteed misrepresentation of the
| truth.
| eloff wrote:
| I feel like you could be talking about me. I'm 37, and I worked
| very hard through my twenties and thirties. I kept telling
| myself there was time to live later, when it accomplished my
| goal of starting a software company. That still hasn't worked
| out, although I haven't given up.
|
| > When I'm successful, when I'm stable, when I have the money
| to travel in style and not backpack around and stay at hostels.
|
| That's the exact line I've been telling myself.
|
| My wife and I want to travel for a couple years before we have
| kids (and it's getting to the point where we have to stop
| delaying that.) We've set a year from now as the hard deadline
| to start. Because otherwise we'll just keep pushing it back
| until we're too old to enjoy it or something happens and the
| dream becomes impossible.
| forinti wrote:
| A nice compromise would be to get a job in Europe.
|
| I know I wish I had done that when I was young.
| asauce wrote:
| PG briefly touches on it here, but one of the biggest factors
| on being able to consistently work hard is reward.
|
| PG mostly talks about intrinsic reward in this article. We
| should work on stuff that is interesting to us, and brings us
| fulfillment. However, I believe that Paul is missing a huge
| component here, and that is extrinsic reward.
|
| Extrinsic reward complements intrinsic reward. Extrinsic reward
| allows us to push through the hard, difficult work that we
| might not be interested in, because we know the work will be
| rewarded. It is the light at the end of the tunnel for
| difficult work. PG, and Bill Gates were able to work so hard
| because they had internal belief that there was an extrinsic
| reward for all the work they were doing.
|
| In a perfect world, we would all be completely self motivated
| to work on every task, but this just isn't realistic.
| Especially in today's working work. People like PG, and Bill
| Gates are able to fully credit intrinsic reward, but fail to
| mention that the extrinsic reward ($$) validated the hard,
| gritty work they put in.
| steaknsteak wrote:
| This is something I struggle with, as someone who worked
| really hard in school but has become less productive as a
| professional. In school there are well-defined deadlines and
| discrete tasks with extrinsic rewards in the form of grades.
| Even though the rewards were "fake" in a sense, people cared
| about them so I was motivated to earn those rewards,
| partially due to competitive drive.
|
| In my professional life, that motivation has all but
| disappeared for me. I already have the comfortable salary I
| hoped for, and individual achievements aren't directly
| rewarded with more money in the short. So what else is left
| as an extrinsic reward that can provide that drive on a daily
| basis?
|
| I haven't found the answer to that yet myself. Sometimes I
| feel like I've been given too much too soon and that's
| removed my hunger to work. That plus existing in a
| collaborative environment instead of a competitive one.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Investing your time is just like any other kind of investment;
| you are taking a variety of risks which have a variety of
| rewards. Pick the ones which line up best with your preferred
| balance of risk tolerance and goals.
|
| Don't over index on high-consequence/low-likelyhood risks, but
| keep them in mind as part of your overall strategy.
| lanstin wrote:
| Time is what you are made of. Money is a number in a
| database. Your sentence makes no sense to me. You have no
| idea what will happen because you almost touched the
| butterfly in your garden, or struck up a conversation with a
| stranger at the cafe. Your life is just process, just pure
| flow. Each moment lives on its own.
| gentleman11 wrote:
| You can be unhireable in your 40s in tech. What do you do to
| face age discrimination later?
| caymanjim wrote:
| I've heard this trope for decades, but the only time I've
| seen it manifest is when the 40+ people haven't learned
| anything in 20 years. Are there people in their 40s who've
| kept their skills up and still aren't getting hired?
| jcims wrote:
| >Are there people in their 40s who've kept their skills up
| and still aren't getting hired?
|
| Those are my people and the answer, at least for my cohort,
| is an emphatic no. They are extremely mobile and move from
| job to job with relative ease.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| Ok but how common is this? Can the average old developer
| expect to have "kept their skills up" to some arbitrary
| standard even though we know humans tend to calcify in
| their thinking, have lower risk appetite and worse memory
| as they get older? If my cohort consisted of John Carmack
| and Jeff Dean type outliers, I could also claim that they
| have no trouble getting jobs in their older age but it
| wouldn't be a particularly helpful observation for most
| developers. IMO it's a very realistic & plausible
| scenario for many to not have kept their skills up and
| end up unhireable as they get older.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| Freelance
| gentleman11 wrote:
| Any tips for getting started with that? I found out about
| the up work etc sites but heard you should avoid them. Is
| that true?
| freelance-ta wrote:
| Up work sucks, don't waste your time. Start by
| moonlighting.
|
| I started by creating a one person llc and a business
| account, and moving over my expenses. Even before making
| money the fees are offset by tax writeoffs. My first
| client was a friend that wanted some help w/ his startup,
| then my first big client was a former employer. The first
| quarter you make money you start filing a 1040.
| jcims wrote:
| If you build your life around this assumption, you're going
| to be unpleasantly surprised when you see how easy it is to
| get a job in your 40's. I was hired by a FAANG at 43 with a
| high school diploma, quit and hired on again non-FAANG (at
| 45!) and have since nearly doubled my TC in that role over
| the past five years. In that time I've applied to three jobs
| just to keep fresh, two FAANG and one at a specialist company
| in my domain and got offers for two of the roles.
|
| If you face obvious age discrimination, put them on blast and
| keep looking.
| csomar wrote:
| > when I have the money to travel in style and not backpack
| around and stay at hostels
|
| I think that's where you went wrong. The backpacking at hostels
| is the best (as long as you pick hostels and fellow travelers
| that do not look like your typical backpacker haha). The thing
| is, now that I'm 30, I feel it's probably out of fashion. But
| these nights I spent in big-city hostels had the most fun,
| stories and affairs.
|
| > Don't listen to PG, kids. Live the life you want to have now,
| not the life you think you'll want to have several decades out.
|
| You can do both. The thing is, you can backpack 1 month per
| year and still work really HARD for 11 months of the year. 1
| month is enough to visit 3-4 countries, and have 20 something
| night out. Over 15 years, that's over 300 night out. Way too
| much. And you still worked very hard for most of your youth.
| sbaildon wrote:
| Certainly not out of fashion. I'm approaching 30, and I've
| spent 2 and a half years in and out of a hostel in London.
| Fantastic life experience
| bradlys wrote:
| > You can do both. The thing is, you can backpack 1 month per
| year and still work really HARD for 11 months of the year. 1
| month is enough to visit 3-4 countries, and have 20 something
| night out. Over 15 years, that's over 300 night out. Way too
| much. And you still worked very hard for most of your youth.
|
| Wat. 300 nights over _15_ years is _way too much_? That is
| utterly insane to me. That means on average, you only went
| out 1 night every 2 weeks. If you had kids, I 'd understand
| but for someone in their youth - that is nearly shut-in
| status.
|
| What you're thinking about doing over the period of 15 years,
| I've done in about the span of a year. Life is too short to
| spend it inside working. You won't get your youth back - once
| it's gone, it's gone.
| csomar wrote:
| > Wat. 300 nights over 15 years is way too much? That is
| utterly insane to me. That means on average, you only went
| out 1 night every 2 weeks. If you had kids, I'd understand
| but for someone in their youth - that is nearly shut-in
| status.
|
| I think we need to agree on what's a night out. If you come
| back at home around 3AM and sleep at 5AM; I find it hard
| that you can work the next morning and keep at it everyday.
| It's possible to do that at weekends, but then you probably
| have errands to run at that. A month in another country
| avoids any onshore errands and also brings adventure.
|
| Sure you can go out every-night for 1-2 hours at your local
| pub/coffee. But these hardly bring any adventure or
| novelty; they are just part of the routine and honestly
| now, I couldn't care less about them. They are forgettable
| events: irrelevant. I'd rather be doing interesting work,
| or just sit down in front of Netflix.
| bradlys wrote:
| This might be a bit of a niche version of a night out
| that might only fit well with Berlin. I was usually out
| for 3-6 hours/day (go out around 7-9PM, come home
| 12-2AM). Varied on how much I enjoyed what I was doing
| wildly. Not every night out was great but neither was
| every night out when I'm traveling either. (Nor is every
| night memorable)
|
| If you do things enough - the memories aren't likely to
| last. Things that are novel are what create memories. For
| you - you were visiting countries and seeing things you'd
| never seen. Unrealistic for regular 9-5 life. Doesn't
| mean that you still can't have a good time in a non-novel
| thing though. I had plenty of good nights that I don't
| really remember but I enjoyed them still.
|
| Travel enough - and you might find out... the novelty
| wears off there too.
|
| But novelty shouldn't be the only pursuit in life.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| 30 is the next 20 :) I've started seriously backpacking when
| 27 and 29 (2x3 months in india&nepal) and continued till
| current age of 40. Life changing experiences.
|
| The only thing that stopped me was having kids, so the best
| reason possible. Corona would just mean closer travels and
| more mountains rather than people if we didn't have them.
|
| I see no reason to stop unless your body or mind can't handle
| it anymore. Which with taking good care of oneself (and a bit
| of luck) can be easily 75, met quite a few of those.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| He's got an audience that he is writting too. He's talking
| about building great things, not how to live a full and happy
| life.
|
| While working at Tesla, we definitely all built great things
| but that's all we did. I left, took a 70% paycut to start my
| own consulting business and work 4-5 hours a week while being a
| 'Digital Nomad'. I've never been happier and guess what, that
| nagging feeling of 'I'm not doing real work' or finding
| 'idleness distasteful' goes away when you don't feel like the
| whole team has a gun to your head.
| tempson wrote:
| Bingo. Author is writing for his audience. On one hand I
| don't care how his followers are following his words. On the
| other hand, I'm concerned that few years down the road, these
| founders/leaders will end up imposing these expectations on
| their employers.
| csharpminor wrote:
| I think you and PG are actually in agreement on this:
| https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1404321931491430403
|
| It depends on what your life goals are. If you want to travel
| the world, do that. If you have big ambitions(tm) then work
| hard. Either is OK.
|
| This essay is not a call for everyone to work hard, it is a
| guide for those who choose that path.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| I have to echo this. I know HN is full of people obsessed with
| a very different lifestyle but frankly... I think this piece
| misses the mark entirely.
|
| PG I suspect and many others derive intrinsic happiness from
| the grind. From achievement. Yet this is a very myopic way to
| live that for the vast majority of people will result in a fair
| amount of unhappiness.
|
| A far healthier and happier way to live is to live a balanced
| life. Work efficiently when you need to work, and be focused on
| your objectives. Don't waste time on stuff that doesn't matter.
| You can still be successful, grow yourself, etc. but without
| killing yourself in the process.
|
| And for the love of god... take time for yourself to enjoy the
| finer things in life. Take a walk and try to find the beauty in
| things. Go travel somewhere new! Enjoy some you time and treat
| yourself.
|
| I cannot disagree more with PG here, sadly. But that's all it
| is... a disagreement. Everyone gets to choose what life they
| want to live.
| megameter wrote:
| I think on some level, barring the "stuck-in-bed depression"
| cases, we all work hard, but the work is nothing like a
| startup or a coding challenge.
|
| It's more often things like going on a walk and identifying
| the birds, going to the bar and getting better at telling
| stories or playing pool, seeing patterns in watching daily
| traffic or weather. Things you absolutely could go deep on,
| but just can't justify as "character building exercise"
| because they won't directly lead to you acquiring property or
| power.
|
| And that's where the alarm bells start to come in; if you get
| anxious about that, you can get stuck on the idea of work and
| cut yourself off from a balanced set of interests, and this
| hits young people especially hard because they don't know
| what the balance could look like, or they observe
| media(including HN) where the balance is clearly defined
| towards one extreme, think "I will become that" and treat it
| as a masochistic exercise. I believe this to be a deep
| affliction of the online world particularly since, without
| trying you can stumble into media containing the "best" of
| everything.
| sethammons wrote:
| My brother in law said: I have two feet and they are working
| now, not sure about later. Quit his job, and my sister did the
| same. They sold their house and staring working at a wildlife
| refuge in Alaska in summers and traveling by camper in the
| lower 48 in winter.
| matwood wrote:
| > One of my greatest regrets is how much time I wasted on
| 'work' in my 20s and 30s.
|
| In my 20s I was similar. A 'long' vacation was a long weekend
| in Vegas with friends. Fun, but not much of a vacation. I was
| fortunate to meet my wife in my early 30s who pushed me to slow
| down a bit and take at least 2 consecutive weeks off a year
| (sometimes even twice) in a time zone that made work near
| impossible. We've been to many places across Europe spending
| 3-4-5 days in a single location, which is long by American
| standards.
|
| > when I have the money to travel in style and not backpack
| around and stay at hostels
|
| There is a lot of room between staying in hostels and traveling
| in style. It's possible to travel relatively cheaply and still
| be comfortable. I know some hostels are nicer than others, but
| tbh nothing about staying in a hostel sounds vacation like to
| me.
|
| > Don't listen to PG, kids. Live the life you want to have now,
| not the life you think you'll want to have several decades out.
|
| It's hard to know. If I didn't work as hard in my 20s would I
| be in the position to take off 2-4 weeks/year since then? IDK.
| Hindsight and all that...
|
| Finally, I think the most important thing people can do is
| learn to enjoy the day to day. Even if you're working hard,
| learn to appreciate those fun moments with your co-workers or
| those moments with your dog when you come home. Not everything
| has to be about the big adventure. As I get older I'm learning
| to find happiness in all sorts of mundane things, even
| something as simple as sitting the backyard with the sun on my
| face.
| maigret wrote:
| In most countries in Europe everyone gets 5-6 weeks a year
| plus public holidays and often flexible days off. You don't
| have to "work hard", just work. I spent my twenties learning
| skills and working well but not too much. Could have gone a
| bit further in my career by working harder but not that much
| further. Looking back I think that was the right compromise.
| As developers we are fortunate to have a lot of choice for
| interesting and well paid jobs, so there should be space for
| an interesting life besides that.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| Did you read the whole essay? He writes about finding out
| what's important. That doesn't have to mean (and probably
| doesn't mean) some mindless job. He also talks about constantly
| re-evaluating what the correct time commitment is for the given
| work, and that it's not the same for everyone nor for every
| task. Bill Gates not taking a vacation day wasn't trying to
| communicate that we all should be this way; it was evidence of
| the fact that big success requires hard work.
|
| True he doesn't talk much about leisure and retirement, because
| that's not what this essay is about.
| dgb23 wrote:
| Your resonse is valid and interesting, even moreso without
| the first sentence!
|
| I think one thing that could be added is that the metric of
| success is not necessarily monetary. Financial success often
| depends more on socioeconomic conditions, rather than hard
| work. But intrinsic satisfaction seems to be based on truly
| earned achievement.
| samstave wrote:
| SAME exact experience. I wish I wouldnt have been so driven in
| my 20s/30s.
|
| I made many millions *for other people* -- and as luck would
| have it, I left several companies a month or so before big
| aquisitions.
|
| SI spent years as a consultant, where I was brought in to focus
| on a specific project and get-it-built - so I never got stock
| in those companies - just had a high paying hourly rate...
| which obviously life happens, and all the material bullshit I
| acquired meant nothing and is now all gone and I am pretty
| minimalist.
|
| I worked with a guy once who would work for six months, then
| take six month off to travel - every single year. That was a
| good model...
|
| Also, I became a manager WAY too early in my career - so I had
| to focus on people/people-skills, which actually took time away
| from me going deeper on some of my technical skills/creative
| interests.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I feel for you there as I'm sick myself in a way that means
| even working is a challenge.
|
| My suggestion for you and possibly advice for myself is if you
| can't "travel" then move.
|
| For me I imagine working 2 years from New Zealand outside of a
| city, somewhere beautiful to be a cool thing to do. You need to
| travel to get there but then you can stay put for the most
| part, doing short trips when it suits.
|
| I think world trips are overrated. I did some backpacking in SE
| Asia and in some ways it feels like IKEA: a bunch of sheep
| following the same path around doing the same things trading
| money for a buzz. It's interesting to see places but boring at
| the same time, everyone wants to "party"
|
| If I had the time again I'd trade those 3 months travelling for
| a year in NZ, Tasmania, some parts of Eastern Europe or US and
| very slowly travel while working remote. Really wish I could
| have had that idea planted in my head.
|
| Final thought: if you are a coder it can feel quite bad looking
| back on your years because most of the code you write has
| probably been replaced! So I cope with this by thinking of it
| like I am a gardener and most of my veggies have been eaten. So
| what? My work was useful and helped people.
| M277 wrote:
| Genuine question, what if you're too poor to live the life you
| want in your 20s?
| pwinnski wrote:
| Then your best bet is most likely to adjust your
| expectations. Otherwise there's a good chance you will never
| have enough to live the life you want until it's too late to
| enjoy it. Figure out how to live happily now, is my advice.
|
| You don't have to be rich to enjoy your life while you're
| young. Not every experience worth having is expensive!
| M277 wrote:
| Sage advice, thank you so much. I have actually been trying
| to apply it in my life in everything (with success
| thankfully), but I hit a wall lately when it came to
| marriage and relationships in general. I admit that this
| isn't just a me thing though, it's actually something that
| most of the youth in my country face.
| colanderman wrote:
| I'd love to, but...
|
| All my friends are like this too.
|
| Time off from work is no fun when all your friends have glued
| themselves to a monitor. It's impossible to even convince my
| most sun-loving friends with secure jobs to take a beach day.
|
| I don't find meaning in traveling alone so... drown myself in
| work it is.
| hughrr wrote:
| Find some new friends. Seriously. I know that sounds hard but
| your friendship choices always end up aligning with your work
| as you get older and that's not healthy. Literally you work
| to the work calendar. Eventually you get to the point that
| the first calendar you look at is the work one every time. At
| that point you are owned. Been there. Was stuck in the rut
| for about 4 years.
|
| Meetup is a great place to do that. Just turn up at random
| events outside of your usual comfort zone outside of your
| usual calendar cycle. Amazing the variety of people out there
| who are interesting and friendly.
| nineplay wrote:
| Travel alone. Please. Everyone I know who has done it has
| found it worthwhile.
|
| It's easy to find dozens of excuses to avoid going into the
| unknown. Don't let them control you.
| pwinnski wrote:
| YES! I was terrified to do anything alone before my mid-
| life divorce, but now I realize that traveling alone is
| absolutely amazing. Seeing movies alone is fantastic.
|
| Doing things alone is a radically different experience than
| doing them with other people, and I love both, for
| different reasons.
| nickd2001 wrote:
| This is genuinely sad. Is there nothing you can do to prise
| them away from their monitors? Maybe you need to find some
| new friends too?
| goodpoint wrote:
| > drown myself in work it is.
|
| This is physically unsustainable. Our bodies and our minds
| are not built to sit at a desk and work 60 ours a week.
|
| Ignore that and you'll get all sort of issue ranging from
| back pain to mental illness.
|
| We don't need lavish vacations in fancy places. We need to
| stretch every hour, go for a walk in the park every other
| day, some hours for cultural and social life every day.
| mmcgaha wrote:
| There is room in the world for all kinds of people. If you love
| going to work every day, do that. If you love making something
| great happen, do that. If you love backpacking around the
| world, do that. Only two rules: don't let anyone tell you that
| your choice is wrong and don't second guess the decisions that
| you made in the past.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| > how to work toward goals that are neither clearly defined nor
| externally imposed.
|
| This is the crux of the entire article, in my opinion. Still
| haven't figured this out after all these years.
|
| How?
| zdbrandon wrote:
| The framework that I have for myself, is to figure out which
| letter from MAPS [1] is missing from the work, and then figure
| out how to fill it. I've found that if I have all 4, then it's
| much easier to work hard without asking myself "why" every day.
|
| [1] Usually known as CAR, but I find MAPS more helpful:
|
| _M_ astery: Do you enjoy geeking out about the subject matter?
| When others correct you, or show you a better way to do
| something, are you annoyed or delighted? If annoyed, this may
| be something you should be delegating if you can.
|
| _A_ utonomy: Do you feel sufficiently powerful enough to
| accomplish the tasks you deem necessary for your goals, and in
| the _way_ you want to accomplish them?
|
| _P_ urpose: Is this goal helpful to anyone? Is anyone counting
| on you to accomplish this?
|
| _S_ ocial Interaction: Do you enjoy spending time with the
| people you're working with?
| mgh2 wrote:
| > There are three ingredients in great work: natural ability,
| practice, and effort.
|
| There is one essential factor that if someone does not have,
| everything else mentioned here does not matter: luck or provision
| (scientifically speaking, luck does not exist). Every
| entrepreneur knows that no matter how hard they work, at the end
| of the day if they are not in the right place, at the right time,
| with the right people, success is not guaranteed.
|
| This view is biased towards certain kinds of people. Yes, these
| three ingredients might increase your success chances, especially
| in the US (being born is the US is luck). This is why so many 3rd
| world country people want to emigrate, for better opportunities.
| Even with this premise, you probably know of someone who worked
| incredibly hard only to be screwed by their boss, or the
| privileged kid who got a foot in the door at an Ivy League or a
| job.
|
| People in Silicon Valley and tech live in a bubble - the danger
| of this is to attribute your success to hard work, when in fact
| everything was given (yes, even your opportunity to work hard or
| ability to be self-motivated was provided). Examples of SV's
| bias: "Everyone should learn how to code" (not everyone has a
| coder's mindset). "Universal Basic Income" (pandemic checks,
| people become lazy)
|
| With this said, it is still _our responsibility_ to work hard at
| everything we do.
|
| > It comes partly from _popular culture_ , where it seems to run
| very deep, and partly from the fact that the outliers are so
| rare.
|
| As an outlier, you are the _lucky_ few, don 't forget that.
|
| Perhaps the greatest myth in American popular culture comes from
| the belief in free will, which makes hard work seem like the most
| plausible explanation for someone's mis/fortune:
| https://m-g-h.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf80...
| zdbrandon wrote:
| Would it have soothed you if he began the article with: "Though
| the advice in this article is necessary, it alone is not
| sufficient to achieve success. Luck also plays a large factor.
| You need both. You will also need to obtain financial leverage.
| Hard work at McDonald's is not the type that this article
| addresses."? It seems unnecessary to me, particularly because
| he's already written articles on these subjects. [1] [2]
|
| Also, as another person that doesn't believe in free will, I
| find it interesting that you thought it necessary to critique
| the way PG handled this subject matter, as if he had any
| choice.
|
| But then again, neither did you.
|
| Edit, forgot to link the articles. [1]
| http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html [2]
| http://www.paulgraham.com/really.html
| mgh2 wrote:
| Context - PG on luck: https://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/c
| omments/1tbxab/paul_g...
| kcatskcolbdi wrote:
| No mention of the near slave labor in our agriculture system. No
| mention of the parents working two custodial jobs to provide for
| their children. No mention of the vast quantity of individuals
| working hard every day who don't get to become billionaires.
| skapadia wrote:
| Exactly. There are millions of people that work hard to provide
| their family a roof over their heads, food on the table, and a
| chance to go to school. Perhaps PG's article wasn't meant for
| those people, but it's so incredibly tone deaf.
| nkingsy wrote:
| I understand the drive to share here, as nothing fees better than
| hard work, but it's a very intimidating read and feels quite
| navel gazey.
|
| In my experience, there is no such thing as hard work. There's a
| universal river of truth that I can tap into in flow state, and
| if something is blocking me from getting there, I might as well
| watch a show and see if the river is open later.
| xwdv wrote:
| I gotta be honest, I hate working hard. At least for money
| anyway. I hate the amount of time and mindshare it takes and the
| way it's looked up to as some virtue by the rest of society; the
| hallmark of some truly good person.
|
| I'm sure there will be knee jerk reactions to downvote this just
| because of how programmed it is into society that hard work is a
| noble endeavor, and perhaps it is, for a certain class of
| problems that humanity occasionally faces where there is no easy
| way to solve them except by working hard. But making money and
| living a good life should not be one of those problems.
|
| You really don't know how pointless it is to work hard until you
| make easy money. It's not uncommon for my investment portfolio to
| have a gain or loss of $20-30k in a day, I've made over $200k in
| the past two months, not really doing anything. My job itself
| pays close to $200k a year, but I justify working it by the fact
| that it's fairly easy and really I only put in about 4 hours of
| solid work per day.
|
| I feel fairly secure in not being a very ambitious person
| anymore. I used to be, back when I was young and hopeful and
| immersed in the whole startup scene with hopes of making it big
| and changing the world for the better. But no startup I was ever
| part of ever made it big. Worse, as I got to _know_ the world I
| didn 't see the point in trying to change it. It is what it is
| and that's all it will ever be.
|
| So yea, I've accepted I'm not one of those people destined to
| save the world through hard work. Instead I'm here to savor the
| fruits of their hard labor, and my goal now is to live as richly
| as possible with the least amount of effort. There is so much to
| enjoy in life and not enough time to enjoy it if you spend all
| your time working hard.
|
| Nothing makes me feel as good as working smart, or even not
| working at all, and yet _still_ producing the same amount of
| results as someone who has worked very hard. It is intoxicating,
| and knowing that others would be doing the same if I was working
| hard right now makes it very unappealing to work hard myself. I
| am cursed in that I will never be able to work hard again.
| rendall wrote:
| Meh. This isn't a guide on how to work hard, tbh, unless "wake up
| at 13 with the will to work hard" is a guide. "Be like Bill
| Gates" is no guide.
|
| Give me a guide by someone who grew up a slacker, fucked off deep
| into adulthood and _then_ learnt or taught themselves the hard
| lessons on working hard. What to do when you want to sleep in,
| when you want to stay out late, when you have such aching,
| gnawing anxiety about going to class that even looking at the
| textbook is ... hey look, Witcher Season 2 is on. A person who
| had been through that shit can talk about "how to work hard"
| antiterra wrote:
| Reading about Bill Gates not taking a day off in his 20s doesn't
| inspire me to work harder at all. If anything, it's a
| miscalculation on Gates's part, assuming he'd actually enjoy a
| day off. Would he have been materially less successful if he took
| a single day off in his 20s? Probably not. How about a week, or a
| week a year? Two weeks?
| rdiddly wrote:
| Good point. Gates isn't really even a good example because luck
| and happenstance played a big role. Possibly it's the same to
| some degree for most "outliers." People seem to minimize the
| effect of chance when writing how-to's, probably because "be
| lucky" isn't helpful advice, luck isn't something you control,
| and in some cases they might want to believe they themselves
| had a bigger role in their success than they did. Although hard
| work seems to be table stakes nonetheless.
| Gatsky wrote:
| I don't think this is it - he is an obsessive person. He was
| working that hard because he wanted to. I mean look at him now,
| he isn't exactly playing golf or swanning about on yachts.
| antiterra wrote:
| I meant to allow for that with the 'assuming he'd actually
| enjoy a day off' caveat, but even so, there's this, from
| Walter Isaacson:
|
| "Every spring, as they have for more than a decade, Gates
| spends a long weekend with Winblad at her beach cottage on
| the Outer Banks of North Carolina, where they ride dune
| buggies, hang-glide and walk on the beach."
|
| Yachts? How about this:
|
| https://moneyinc.com/a-closer-look-at-serene-
| the-330-million...
|
| He also does play golf, is a member of Augusta National, and,
| apparently, has been living at a golf resort for months.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| I just think that quote is a complete fabrication.
| antiterra wrote:
| Are you saying you think the interview Time magazine had
| with Gates was a complete fabrication, or that the author
| just randomly made up that bit?
|
| http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1371
| 32,...
|
| Or do you mean you think Gates actually took days off and
| the suggestion he didn't is a fabrication?
| lovecg wrote:
| He might have meant something like "never took a day off
| beyond the usual weekend/holiday". Or "even on vacation,
| I did things like exercise and reading books, so it
| doesn't count as taking a day off". Who knows.
| kaimorid wrote:
| wow
| aabajian wrote:
| Paul Graham makes a few points that show why medical training
| needs reform. There's a disconnect between hard work and income
| in medicine:
|
| i. You work _hard_ throughout residency, yet your salary is
| fixed. The hardest-working neurosurgery resident gets the _same_
| check as the coasting primary care trainee.
|
| ii. Trainees are praised for their academic knowledge and their
| academic output, yet the highest-earning physicians are in
| private practice.
|
| iii. Physician jobs in desirable areas are scarce, and they pay
| the least. Hard-work improves your chances of getting a job in a
| competitive market, but at a lower salary.
| rmah wrote:
| When I was younger, for some odd reason I thought it was
| important to convince people that hard work was important. But
| today, the more people I see commenting that "hard work" is
| essentially a scam -- or something to that effect -- the happier
| I become. It just means that there is less competition. Feel free
| to do your own thing, relax, skate along and enjoy life.
| andagainagain wrote:
| So many things annoy me about this sort of self-help guru
| vagueness.
|
| "One thing I know is that if you want to do great things, you'll
| have to work very hard" - this is not true. You have to work, but
| the "hard" part implies that stress is important. Stress is
| incidental - everyone experiences stress regardless of work. I
| learned years ago that high achievers don't experience more
| stress... an in fact they tend to rephrase problems to give them
| LESS stress. They work, but they purposely make those things less
| stressful. The work itself, from their perspective isn't "hard"
| at all.
|
| "There are three ingredients to great work: natural ability,
| practice, and effort". These aren't separate things! Natural
| ability is learned just like anything else. It's a set of skills
| that you develop through building your own ways of thinking. You
| get those through practice. And for some, that effort is often
| negligible for one reason or another - experiences and thoughts
| that they have because of emotions or places they grew up or what
| context they relate to. I could go on for hours about this
| specific topic.
|
| "And yet Bill Gates sounds even more extreme. Not one day off in
| ten years?" - A surprising number of people do this anyways. If
| it's not stressful to them, it's not effort... it's just what you
| do. By the way, most of these people don't become rich. Why? It's
| not because of "natural ability" or "lack of practice and
| effort". It's because their daily work covers things that aren't,
| directly, money. "Cows got to get fed" or "lawn has to be mowed"
| or "kids need to be watched" or "spend a bit of time on something
| that I actually like". For Bill Gates, that "just what you do"
| was probably "work on microsoft". And if it failed, he's
| publically said that yeah, his backup plan was to go back to
| Harvard, becuase that was of course an option for him. Relatively
| speaking, it wasn't a super high risk decision.
|
| "Now, when I'm not working hard, alarm bells go off. I can't be
| sure I'm getting anywhere when I'm working hard, but I can be
| sure I'm getting nowhere when I'm not, and it feels awful". This
| sounds, honestly, quite unhealthy. It's "feel pain now because
| reasons. I have multiple theories on how this sort of thought
| process comes around. For example, When we can't relax during our
| downtime, or we don't actually get the rewards of our labor.
|
| But you notice that outside of constructed work environments
| (like school, or any job where you have a direct boss), this
| doesn't happen. Those who practice violin practice until they're
| done practicing, then they relax, then they come back later and
| practice some more. They don't half-ass practice, because there
| isn't a point to that. If you're practicing, it's not "so that I
| can work hard, and if I don't I feel guilty". Instead it's "I
| need to polish this one part of the song" or "I'm struggling with
| my fingering here" or maybe even "I'm going to play with this
| section of the song, it seems fun". Note - it's not pointless
| work. So "I'm working, but not working hard" just... doesn't
| happen. Because why would it? That doesn't make the song better,
| it doesn't make you better.
|
| The more I go through the article, the more I just think the
| goals are getting tripped up by a combination of external forces
| that take up mental resources, and a mental model where the
| stress of the situation determines the quality of the product.
|
| I have tons of suggestions (I trimmed this comment down and
| rewrote it 3 times already). The big one though I think is
| learning to roll with what matters. Do everything you're doing,
| and then take a break, and then do it again. Honestly, unless you
| get into the nitty gritty details, It's really a lot simpler than
| people think.
| WhompingWindows wrote:
| Yet another Paul Graham stream of consciousness. He presents a
| thesis but forgets to support it as he streams out another essay.
| I take issue with this fundamental thesis: "There are three
| ingredients in great work: natural ability, practice, and
| effort."
|
| He doesn't distinguish between practice and effort. In my view,
| practice takes effort and effort occurs during practice, they are
| two dimensions of the same thing, which is really just
| "experience." You don't gain experience without effortful
| practice.
|
| Furthermore, where is his mention of accountability to a team?
| One of the greatest motivators is having helpful allies who tell
| you what they want from you, provide tips how to do it
| (leveraging their experience), and then give you the keys you
| need to work hard and get great things done.
|
| Another lackluster article from PG that rockets to the top of HN
| within an hour. There are much better writers out there, I'm not
| sure why his work is so lauded.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| Because this website is pretty much centered around people who
| read/liked PGs essays.
| r0s wrote:
| > Yet another Paul Graham stream of consciousness.
|
| Absurd to expect anything else. I missed the part of the essay
| where it pretended to be... whatever you seem to think it
| should.
|
| You're not sure why it's popular and here you are responding to
| it, attaching to it and reacting, building on it. It sounds
| like you did in fact get a lot out of the essay, just like the
| rest of the peanut gallery.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| Working hard is relatively easier if you care about the work.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Hard work can be good, but only if you own a substantial capital
| interest in the company/result. But if you can hire people to do
| it for you, then you can reap the benefits _and_ live a life
| worth living. If you are just part of the labor and not the
| capital, then there really isn 't an incentive to work harder
| than necessary to keep you job or earn a measly raise.
|
| If you tell people that if they work 12+ hours a day in their 20s
| that they would be multi-millionaires or billionaires, then
| almost everyone would accept that position. The real world
| doesn't work that way and using statistical outliers like Gates
| is disingenuous to the discussion about hard work and how it
| applies to normal people.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I guess it depends on what we're calling "hard work". I think
| most software devs have already done lots of different types of
| hard work to get where they are. Going to school, doing intern
| work, finding a job and learning new languages, etc. It gets
| easier once you've established a career, but it takes
| significant work to get there.
|
| But if we're defining it as "working lots of hours," then yeah,
| I agree, don't do that.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Working hard is an attitude, not just hours. The Gates example
| is more approachable as we've all heard of them.
|
| I'll use myself as an example both ways. You don't know who I
| am, and you never will, I'm just a cog in the wheels of
| society. I was a shitty student, always interested in whatever
| wasn't being taught. I became good at working the system
| instead of working.
|
| When I started working in high school at farms and later in
| sales, it clicked that the people who worked harder and did a
| better job... did better. That didn't always mean money, but it
| meant respect, better shifts, etc. It was more real to me than
| academics.
|
| Later on in my professional life, working really hard and
| delivering more, whatever more was, paid off in innumerable
| ways. It turns out the way to know what you're talking about is
| to do stuff. Now I'm a midcareer director level person and that
| hard work means when I pick up the phone, someone answers. When
| there's a problem or a solution, people listen.
|
| That said, there's lines I won't or can't cross. I won't
| sacrifice my family's life, which is a career ceiling. My
| mediocre performance as a student effectively locked me out of
| high end schools and the jobs that follow.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > If you tell people that if they work 12+ hours a day in their
| 20s that they would be millionaires or billionaires
|
| Billionaire isn't a realistic goal, but millionaire is a common
| outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s
| and 30s now. It doesn't even require a FAANG job or living in a
| super expensive city any more, just wise job selection, a
| reasonable amount of financial savvy and budget adherence, and
| a deliberate effort to work on your career path.
|
| You don't need to own substantial equity in a company in your
| 20s to have a reason to work hard, as long as you're doing work
| that builds your skill set, reputation, and network. Everything
| you do (or don't do) has some impact on your persona capital
| over time.
|
| Working hard in the mailroom or stocking shelves at a grocery
| store isn't going to translate into a successful software
| career, but making an impact and helping people get things done
| at several companies through your 20s is the easiest way to
| build a strong network that opens doors in your 30s and beyond
| lm28469 wrote:
| > but millionaire is a common outcome for software developers
| who work hard through their 20s and 30s now.
|
| lol, the world isn't limited to SF and FAANG.
|
| Software developers are the new factory workers, becoming
| millionaire is far from "common"
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Billionaire isn't a realistic goal, but millionaire is a
| common outcome for software developers who work hard through
| their 20s and 30s now._
|
| In some bubble yes. There are 10s of millions of software
| developers in the world, and hardly 1% of them is any kind of
| millionaire...
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| > wise job selection
|
| I.e. choosing companies that have (or eventually get)
| publicly traded stock that goes up a bunch.
|
| There are whole classes of people who sit around all day
| trying to figure out which companies will grow and succeed
| and which ones won't. They aren't really that good at it.
|
| There's a certain point of working hard enough to clear the
| interview bar of the FAANG companies or similar, but beyond
| that your financial success is largely tied to a favorable
| roll of the dice.
| bko wrote:
| > Working hard in the mailroom or stocking shelves at a
| grocery store isn't going to translate into a successful
| software career
|
| Right, but it might lead to satisfaction regardless. Even the
| most menial positions are often rewarded. I have worked a few
| menial jobs, and effort is even more important. When I worked
| hard and went the extra mile when required, I got rewarded
| with better shifts, more flexibility and more respect. It
| also personally felt good.
|
| I find that people who don't work hard and are apathetic
| about the work they do are often deeply unhappy, while people
| that take pride in their work and work hard are satisfied.
| The best feeling I get in the day is after a grueling
| workout. There are health benefits sure, but its not worth
| the amount of discomfort and suffering I have to endure. If
| there were a pill that gave me the same benefits, I would be
| less satisfied than putting in the work. But maybe that's
| just me.
|
| People who work hard often have better personal circumstances
| as well. Who would want to be with a partner that just spends
| their life going through the motions with no real purpose or
| drive?
| lanstin wrote:
| That's honestly the only thing you can optimize for: do the
| very best you can at what you are doing. Take care of what
| is right in front of you. You'll be fulfilled, and in many
| world-lines you will also be successful. But also, when you
| are resting, rest thoroughly. Don't just rest to work more
| later or try to scheme this or that in your day dreams.
| Just let go of the effort and relax.
| lupire wrote:
| Putting that extra effort into forming a union might pay
| off a lot more than trying to impress MegaMart AI Scheduler
| v3.6
|
| Putting the extra effort into a menial job isn't "a
| grueling workout", it's mortgaging your body and health for
| a price you'll regret in 20 years.
| bko wrote:
| I don't know what to tell you if you think that. I guess
| don't put in effort in a menial job? Just quit, slack off
| and post on HN instead?
|
| I don't think menial work leads to "mortgaging your
| body". Some jobs sure, but those very physically
| demanding jobs pay well because the alternative would be
| a job that pays equally as poorly and is not physically
| demanding. You can always default to working at a grocer
| or fast food job.
|
| Those factory jobs at Amazon that are fairly grueling pay
| a lot better than similar jobs in those areas w/ that
| skill set. People don't really work them very long either
| due to the demands. So you can do that for a few years,
| make more money and hopefully invest it in building out a
| more valuable skill-set or give better opportunities to
| your children.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Putting the extra effort into a menial job isn't "a
| grueling workout", it's mortgaging your body and health
| for a price you'll regret in 20 years.
|
| Maybe if you're working grueling construction jobs or
| consuming fast food and soda for 3 meals a day because
| you're too busy for anything else.
|
| However, having worked in an industry with a lot of
| people who are on their feet and doing physical work
| throughout the day, I've come to realize that sedentary
| jobs like programming are a huge risk to long-term
| health. Sitting at a desk all day every day takes a toll
| on the body. The people who were active and moving about
| every day for decades are still in good physical health
| years later. The people who sit at desks all day (without
| compensating with exercise) accumulate a lot of health
| problems and weight gain if they're not careful.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Great point. I've actually done some of my hardest work for
| hobbies, volunteer positions, or just helping friends with
| huge projects. And I loved every minute of it. There's a
| lot to be said for being able to appreciate accomplishing
| things and working together with other people.
|
| I've had good success hiring some bootcamp grads for this
| reason. Some of them may not have the years of experience
| that senior candidates or even college grads might have,
| but you can find a lot of hard working and highly motivated
| people among bootcamp grads.
|
| This is especially true for those who came from careers
| that involved a lot of hard work or manual labor. It's
| refreshing to work with people who enjoy getting things
| done and can appreciate how lucky we all are to be able to
| sit in air conditioned offices and type on computers all
| day. Contrast this with some of the perpetually disgruntled
| college grads I've seen lately who think we're taking
| advantage of them unless we pay them Google L6 compensation
| that they saw on levels.fyi .
| the_jeremy wrote:
| > just wise job selection, a reasonable amount of financial
| savvy and budget adherence, and a deliberate effort to work
| on your career path.
|
| None of that requires working 12+ hours a day. I am one
| employee out of x,000 at my company. The difference between
| me giving 75% and me giving 150% (hours) seems very unlikely
| to affect the stock price in any meaningful way.
| cloverich wrote:
| Do you think your colleagues can distinguish between
| someone who excel's and someone who does not? Do you think
| when they find some lucky opportunity, they would be more
| likely to reach out to the harder working colleagues they
| know or the lazier ones? It doesn't require 12 hour work
| days and we could exagerate ad nauseum, but generally
| speaking working hard and working smart earns you more than
| just a marginal impact on your current business -- it earns
| you a reputation that you can leverage towards greater
| opportunity.
| the_jeremy wrote:
| Sure. There are definitely colleagues I would recommend
| over others if I had to only choose one, but I don't.
| Bouncing between large companies means "sure, I'll refer
| you and get $5k for doing so" as long as I think you can
| pass the interview.
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| And luck. Don't forget luck.
| giantg2 wrote:
| This. I have experienced a lot of bad luck. Luck is a huge
| component that can even negate other factors like hard
| work.
| hashkb wrote:
| Not common. As in, strictly less than half.
| minikites wrote:
| >just wise job selection, a reasonable amount of financial
| savvy and budget adherence, and a deliberate effort to work
| on your career path
|
| The "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You seem to
| be saying that privileged people become successful, which is
| kind of a tautology.
| sidlls wrote:
| > millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who
| work hard through their 20s and 30s now.
|
| No, it's not. It's common for _some_ FAANG engineers. It 's
| not common at all for the industry as a whole.
|
| Look at all these comments doubling-down on the "7%/$10k-per-
| year" arithmetic, as if the only thing that affects savings
| rates is knowledge of this basic math. For a data driven
| community there sure are a lot of people ignoring the data.
| random314 wrote:
| 10% of Americans are millionaires. I would say that 90% of
| full time software engineers will end up becoming
| millionaires. FAANG engineers become millionaires in their
| 20s. For others it will take longer.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Will "millionaire" still have the same meaning in 30
| years as it does today?
| sidlls wrote:
| All these replies with the typical 7% return for 20-30
| years calculations are missing the point. I know what the
| arithmetic is. It is not common to be in a position to do
| that, even in the software industry.
| pcbro141 wrote:
| Software Developer Median Salary (2020): $110,140 per
| year
|
| That sounds like a lot of software developers are in a
| position to put away $10k+/year to me.
|
| Source: BLS, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-
| information-technology/...
| sidlls wrote:
| That doesn't account for the events of life, like
| illness, maintenance on vehicles and property, etc.
| notyourwork wrote:
| If you start maxing out retirements in your first job and
| continue to do so throughout your career, raises will be
| raises and you'll continue to save. If you tap into your
| max savings per year in start of your career, you'll have
| trouble pairing that income back and putting it away for
| savings. Max out your retirement funds early and never
| look back.
| joquarky wrote:
| That's all great until you have to use your retirement
| funds for medical emergencies.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Life can add obstacles, not sure that's basis to dismiss
| the point.
| sidlls wrote:
| The fact that over 80% of individuals don't even have
| $1MM in assets certainly is a basis to dismiss the point.
| "It's possible" is technically correct (no, that's not
| the best kind of correct), but leaves out just a ton of
| context. "It's possible" for a Boltzmann brain to form.
| Doesn't mean it's likely, common, or that people who
| don't achieve it have somehow done something wrong.
| notyourwork wrote:
| How does the percentage of those with 1MM in assets
| relate to whether or not you should prioritize savings?
|
| Are you suggesting individuals should not be saving for
| retirement or long term financial well being? If so I'm
| not sure I have anything to offer to you.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Who has $19k plus another $6k to put away every year to
| max retire accounts?
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| Anyone making high 5 or low 6 figures will be a millionaire
| at the start retirement if they can save a modest amount
| from a reasonably early start, say 30 years old.
| hatchnyc wrote:
| While technically correct, this doesn't square with most
| people's intuitive sense of what "being a millionaire"
| means. It's not having a solid retirement nest egg, it is
| being able to jet off to your yacht in St. Tropez on a
| private jet.
|
| I think this is largely due to inflation. A million
| dollars in the 50s or 60s would be around 10 million
| today, while at the turn of the 20th century when the
| term really became popular it would be worth 30 million
| today. A "millionaire" of the time is really living a
| different lifestyle and can likely afford a very
| extravagant upper class lifestyle purely on interest of
| their wealth.
|
| With housing costs having risen so much faster still
| beyond inflation, today you can easily be "a millionaire"
| simply by having a bit of equity in a modest home in a
| costal city.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| yeah well that's true about people's intuition but it
| hasn't been the case for a long time. to "jet off on a
| private jet" anywhere regularly probably requires a
| salary on the order of a million per year.
| Matticus_Rex wrote:
| Who thinks being a millionaire means a yacht and a jet,
| other than children?
| closeparen wrote:
| But most people's intuitive sense of "being a
| millionaire" informs how they think about tax policy...
| ericmay wrote:
| I think it's common when compared to other industries,
| though maybe not generally common. Admittedly I have no
| data to back up this hunch.
|
| If I'm wrong, please correct me, but my interpretation of
| what the person you're replying to was trying to get at was
| that modest savings from a 23+ year old software engineer,
| to the tune of $800/month or $10,000/year (this could be
| 401k match and contributions) will get you pretty close to
| a million.
|
| Using this calculator[1] with an assumed rate of 6.7%, $0
| initial investment, $800/month, compounded semi-annually
| and a variance of 1 netted $891,000 within 30 years.
|
| I think $800/month for nearly all software engineers is
| doable.
|
| [1] https://www.investor.gov/financial-tools-
| calculators/calcula...
| bosie wrote:
| In that time period the cost of your house went from 100k
| to 700k. You aren't a millionaire anymore. You are poor.
| Getting to a million dollars with the same purchasing
| power (make sure your inflation basked is properly
| chosen) as of today outside of metro area (as a million
| in sf isn't much)
| ericmay wrote:
| Ok don't save then. Idk what you want me to tell you.
| paulpauper wrote:
| inflation though...
| ericmay wrote:
| No doubt. People usually assume 2% inflation/year since
| that is what the Federal Reserve targets (and the 6.7% is
| a little conservative) but that amount of money also
| continues to grow over time, so depending on your
| expenses you may never touch the principal at that point
| with a 4% withdrawal rate.
|
| There are a lot of variables too. $800,000 with a paid
| off house is different than $800,000 and still renting,
| for example. Depends on your country of residence too,
| etc.
|
| But you can get to that point by saving, using common
| assumptions.
| thebean11 wrote:
| Probably only a problem if you're in cash
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Exactly. The math is easy, but convincing people that
| becoming a millionaire is a matter of consistent moderate
| savings is still hard.
|
| $800/month is $9.6K per year. Approximately half of the
| maximum 401K contribution limit, so it can be tax-
| advantaged as well. If you can swing the full 401K
| maximum, you'll hit the millionaire status even faster.
| Add some taxable savings and it can be done in a decade
| without getting too extreme. A married couple doing this
| together makes it even more achievable.
|
| Unless someone has maxed out their career options
| (unlikely) almost everyone in software could get a
| $10-20K bump in the coming year through negotiation or
| changing jobs. Allocate that raise entirely to tax-
| advantaged savings and stay consistent for a few decades
| and it will add up to a million dollars.
|
| It doesn't require FAANG compensation or extreme
| frugality. It just requires consistency over 20-30 years.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The math is easy, but convincing people that becoming a
| millionaire is a matter of consistent moderate savings is
| still hard.
|
| Consistent moderate savings _on top tier income_ , sure.
|
| > $800/month is $9.6K per year. Approximately half of the
| maximum 401K contribution limit,
|
| Also, approximately 1/3 of national median household
| disposable income after taxes and transfers ( _NB:_ not
| essential expenses, just taxes and transfers) in the
| United States.
|
| > A married couple doing this together makes it even more
| achievable.
|
| Yes, you can become a half-millionaire much faster than a
| millionaire--brilliant observation.
|
| > Unless someone has maxed out their career options
| (unlikely) almost everyone in software could get a
| $10-20K bump in the coming year through negotiation or
| changing jobs.
|
| "Software" includes a lot of different occupations, but
| most of the nob-management ones have median compensation
| around or substantially below $100K; so you are
| suggesting most people are leaving upward of 10-20% on
| the table. That's...unlikely.
|
| > It just requires consistency over 20-30 years.
|
| Asserting that that is easy in software would be more
| convincing if we were more than 20-30 years from a major
| industry crash, or had some structural guarantee of it
| not happening again.
|
| Not completely convincing even then, but more
| convincing...
| ericmay wrote:
| > Consistent moderate savings on top tier income, sure.
|
| Do keep in mind that the context for this thread was
| software engineers. The median pay makes saving
| $10,000/year very, very achievable.
|
| > "Software" includes a lot of different occupations, but
| most of the non-management ones have median compensation
| around or substantially below $100K; so you are
| suggesting most people are leaving upward of 10-20% on
| the table. That's...unlikely.
|
| Below $100k sure, but closer to $60,000 or so which again
| makes this amount of savings very achievable. My first
| job out of college was exactly this amount and I was
| saving about $1,000/month in a MCOL city. And if you're
| making that amount and living in a HCOL of city you may
| need to consider changing your location. You might not
| like it, but that's reality.
|
| > Asserting that that is easy in software would be more
| convincing if we were more than 20-30 years from a major
| industry crash, or had some structural guarantee of it
| not happening again.
|
| This is only a problem if you happen to retire right when
| a market collapse happens. Even then you adjust your
| withdrawal rate or try to put retirement off a bit. For
| those saving 20-30 years, those market dips are _buying
| opportunities_ as the ROI of the market compounds over
| time. Given what we know, there 's no reason to assume
| things won't just keep chugging along, at least for the
| purposes of general discussion. You can say that it won't
| and give great reasons for that, but I think it's fair to
| state those up-front.
|
| If you want to discuss specifics I think that would make
| sense, but given that the person your responding to and
| myself were speaking generally about the software
| engineering profession (sure maybe there's some confusion
| there but for my part I was speaking about software
| engineers) so obviously there's some generalizations and
| built-in assumptions that are pretty common in the
| finance space.
| bosie wrote:
| Aren't 401k taxed? Can you write down the math how a
| police officer can do this easily (get to 1m purchasing
| power of today's value in 10 years) please? I cannot
| figure it out how to even get a quarter of that
| ericmay wrote:
| I highly recommend Reddit's Personal Finance subreddit
| and this item called the "Prime Directive". Try
| old.reddit.com .
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/commontopic
| s
|
| 401ks are taxed (either a Roth or Traditional 401k) but
| are tax advantaged.
|
| Please feel free to contact me directly. Happy to help.
| It'll be difficult to get to $1mm in purchasing power of
| today's value in 10 years without saving around
| $50,000/year or getting extremely lucky.
| pjfin123 wrote:
| With a $100,000 salary, $50,000 expenses, 30% tax rate, and
| 5% real returns you could put away $20,000 a year and have
| a million (2021) dollars in 26 years.
|
| Hardly easy but not out of the realm of possibility for a
| persistent and highly paid software developer.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Ideally the money would go into tax-advantaged accounts
| like 401Ks first, which would reduce the effective tax
| rate and thus boost savings.
| giantg2 wrote:
| But that still doesn't fit the paradigm presented by
| using Gates as an example. That you work really hard in
| your 20s and you're set for life.
| cloverich wrote:
| If you use his definition of working hard, by the time
| you are 30-year old software developer you'll have
| valuable skills and a valuable network in addition to a
| solid amount of money. You may be unable to _retire_ at
| 30 but you will, generally speaking, be setup for success
| for the rest of your life.
| giantg2 wrote:
| So if I worked hard in my 20s, then why don't I have a
| solid amount of money and am not set up for lifelong
| sucess?
| cloverich wrote:
| How did you work hard? What kind of career did you
| choose? What was your budget like? Did you have any bad
| luck re health or family? There's many possible reasons,
| many under your control, some not. Should I assume based
| on your response and the original article, by hard work
| you mean not just effort on the job, but also effort in
| finding work you align with, explored other job types,
| spent real effort networking, studied for job skills a
| bunch, and didn't have any bad luck to explain it?
| giantg2 wrote:
| Good grades, got a job I thought was good at the time,
| great grades in a masters program (expanded network
| outside the company), became an expert at my company,
| filled a role on the team 1-2 levels above mine. Then got
| denied promotions based on political games and contrary
| to policy, more ignored policy to my detriment, even
| worked a second job for a while, outsourced my team,
| forced to switch to even less known tech, etc etc. Got
| AWS and financial certs, filled a role above my grade
| (again), more politics, more violation of policy to my
| detriment, etc etc. No other good job options in this
| area, wife won't relocate, multiple family health issues
| in the past year and family commitments (ie my wife walks
| all over me now that we have a kid) that prevent me from
| throwing in extra hours, not that I feel much reason to
| based on past treatment when I used to do that.
|
| Budget has always been very frugal. I make my own cheap
| beer/wine, make soap, grow food in a garden, almost never
| take vacations (honeymoon was the only expensive one),
| cook 99% of the time at home, etc.
|
| You can't trust companies to keep their word. Working
| hard gets you no where. The greedy people at the top are
| the ones who get everything and will screw you over
| constantly. And I'm not even talking about success in
| terms of $200k+ salary and fancy titles like CTO etc. I'm
| just talking about success as making it to the natural
| progression of senior dev and techlead with a salary over
| $100k.
|
| But I must be a loser who didn't work hard since other
| people made it.
| pjfin123 wrote:
| I'm sorry to here about some of your bad luck and run ins
| with office politics.
|
| My reading of the Essay was that hard work was necessary
| for great success not sufficient, which would be a very
| different claim.
| cvwright wrote:
| I'm glad you phrased it like that, because I think it
| explains a lot of the talking past each other that's
| going on here.
|
| The article is not titled "How to be rich af". It's How
| to do Great Work.
|
| So Gates is the example here because he built a huge
| company that made software used by almost every human on
| earth, and because every reader will know who he is.
|
| I guess the author could have used RMS, or John Carmack,
| or Bill Joy, but that would have excluded people who
| aren't into free software or gaming or Unix etc.
| packetlost wrote:
| No, it is. If you don't retire (at 65~) with 2+ million in
| the bank you did something wrong (or had a rare cataclysmic
| event that drains your financial resource). I have a modest
| salary in the Midwest and should retire with $3m+ making
| reasonable contributions to a 401k, and that's if I don't
| change anything.
| Sr_developer wrote:
| Or you could be served divorce papers from your partner
| and lose a substantial fraction of your net-worth and
| future income.
|
| Or you ( or a member of your family) could have a
| debilitating/rare disease and your insurance does not
| cover all the treatments for it.
|
| Or you could have been fired and opened your own business
| and your partners fleeced you out (ask me how I know)
|
| Or you live in a country where salaries are below 45 k
| /y.
|
| And so on ...
|
| You have a very naive, simplistic and privileged
| worldview so I hope for your own sake you never have to
| leave that cocoon.
| packetlost wrote:
| > Or you could be served divorce papers from your partner
| and lose a substantial fraction of your net-worth and
| future income.
|
| This definitely implies a questionable decision.
|
| > Or you ( or a member of your family) could have a
| debilitating/rare disease and your insurance does not
| cover all the treatments for it
|
| Sure, there could be rare cataclysmic events that drain
| you of your financial resources. That's not really on-
| topic to what the discussion is about though.
|
| > Or you could have been fired and opened your own
| business and your partners fleeced you out (ask me how I
| know)
|
| This is 100% a bad decision. Do not take money out of
| your 401k to start a business.
|
| > Or you live in a country where salaries are below 45 k
| /y.
|
| Then you likely live in a country where the CoL is
| significantly lower than in the US and the dynamics of
| retirement are very different. I'm speaking 100% from an
| American-centric point of view.
|
| > You have a very naive, simplistic and privileged
| worldview so I hope for your own sake you never have to
| leave that cocoon.
|
| I'm sorry my short internet comment on a technology forum
| is not comprehensive enough to account for all potential
| scenarios and nuance. I grew up in poverty, and I'm going
| to do everything I can to prevent myself from ending back
| up in that situation.
| sidlls wrote:
| > I grew up in poverty
|
| I grew up in poverty, too. Not the caricature "TV in
| every room" "fake-poverty" nonsense some use to try to
| "prove" poor Americans aren't poor, but actual poverty.
| Like, almost homeless, single-mom skipping meals so me
| and my brother could eat, exposed to drugs and gun
| violence, pest-infested inadequate housing, style
| poverty. In America. I can do the poverty olympics all
| damn day with anyone here, even those from so-called
| under-developed nations.
|
| I am...skeptical...of your statement. I'm rich now thanks
| to an IPO--and my hard work in being in a position to be
| employed at a successful company. But I recognize that a
| lot of what you've written there is just...wrong. It's
| "right" enough in some respects, but just so very wrong
| in so many ways.
| packetlost wrote:
| There's definitely different levels of poverty. Rural
| American poverty is different from urban American
| poverty, there's different problems. We didn't have pest
| problems, but one of the houses we lived in had severe
| mold that caused health problems (so we had to move). We
| didn't have gun violence or drugs, but we chopped and
| burned wood from the area to heat our house through the
| cold winters because we couldn't afford fuel. We didn't
| go hungry, but only because we got heavily subsidized or
| free lunches from the school. We had our electricity shut
| off on several occasions. I was lucky in the sense that
| we lived within the territory of a decent school
| district, so I was able to dig a computer out of the
| school dumpster that only had a failed hard drive, which
| I fixed and used to teach myself programming (by this
| point, we could at least afford internet service). It
| wasn't consistently like that, and not as bad as what you
| described, but it was absolutely still poverty.
| Sr_developer wrote:
| According to him if your partner divorces you it is
| always a bad decision of yours. If people betrays you it
| is a bad decision if you get sick it is a bad decision,
| if you live in Haiti earning 300 USD/month it is fine
| because COL is lower. Living in hindsight-land, but it is
| OK since he grew up in "poverty". Totally absent of any
| sense of perspective of what a normal human life consists
| of, typical of an upper-middle class able, white, male in
| IT.
| SonicScrub wrote:
| The Millionaire Next Door concepts are still as relevant as
| ever, albeit the specifics are a bit dated. Millionaire
| status is reasonably achievable for someone whose income
| and cost of basics allow for modest discretionary income.
| This is certainly the case for the majority of software
| developers
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door
| darksaints wrote:
| The Millionaire Next Door is about as misleading as it
| gets, at least for today. Let's not forget that $1M in
| the mid 1990's is about the same as $2M today, at least
| in terms of terms of CPI. Even then, that is after 20+
| years of housing prices outpacing inflation by 2x or
| more.
|
| In the mid 1990's, the top 20% could get to $1M with some
| good financial discipline and hard work. Today? Maybe the
| top 1% could save $1M, and unless you inherited the
| family home, you're still living a lifestyle that is
| somewhat median in 1995 terms.
|
| The fact that $1M is still some kind of mental benchmark
| that we hold up for being "rich" tells us everything we
| need to know about today's economic conditions.
|
| So the principles of the book may still apply, but the
| outcomes are worlds away from reality.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The median US household has ~$12k/year available to
| save/invest after all ordinary living expenses, per the
| US government (BLS), and that number goes up very rapidly
| for people above the median.
|
| Americans are notoriously poor savers, also per the US
| government, but a large percentage of all households --
| at least 40% -- could fairly easily accumulate $1M if
| they were diligent about saving and investing a decent
| fraction of that surplus income. The surplus income is
| available but Americans choose to use that income for
| things other than saving and investing.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Whiler I agree with the thrust of your comment, your
| committing an error: the distribution of incomes isn't
| uniform across time/age. That is, the set of under 30 and
| under 40 household with 12k/ year is lower than 40%. If
| you look at not the median household at this moment, but
| the lifecycle of the median household from when it
| started to when, it probably couldn't save 10k/yr until
| recently.
|
| And the early years are the most important ones.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That surplus income is only surplus until you have
| medical event, catastrophic loss, or need a major repair
| (roof). Ot to mention the need to save for retirement.
| It's those extraordinary living expenses that kneecap
| you.
| ericmay wrote:
| I can't speak to the book, but I would say that you
| should examine your thinking regarding the top 1% saving
| $1mm. While it might be that only the top 1% can save an
| actual million dollars in cash, saving about $10,000/year
| with somewhat conservative estimates will get somebody to
| around $900,000 over 30 years. Granted, that's still not
| _most_ people, but it 's a much larger group than the top
| 1%. I made a separate comment here with the same OP if
| you'd like to run some numbers yourself. Compound
| interest is crazy.
|
| > The fact that $1M is still some kind of mental
| benchmark that we hold up for being "rich" tells us
| everything we need to know about today's economic
| conditions.
|
| This is a very interesting comment. I wonder why the
| mentality of this benchmark amount hasn't changed.
| Economic conditions certainly have, $1mm isn't the same
| now as it would have been in 1970. Maybe it's a financial
| independence thing? At $1mm you really are independently
| wealthy in most cases.
| sanderjd wrote:
| > _At $1mm you really are independently wealthy in most
| cases._
|
| This doesn't strike me as true. A big facet to consider
| also is liquidity. Are you talking about $1M in net
| worth? If so, I disagree with you: a big chunk of that
| $1M is likely very illiquid for a younger person, tied up
| in a house and retirement accounts with penalties for
| withdrawal. But sure, if you have managed to save $1M
| above and beyond equity in your home and tax advantaged
| retirement accounts, then you are probably independently
| wealthy (but your actual net worth is probably
| significantly higher than $1M).
| ericmay wrote:
| Well, I'd say if you look at what I wrote it was a
| savings rate of $10,000/year so my underlying assumption
| is that goes into the market, which will be liquid. You
| could choose to do a Traditional 401k or Roth 401k. Both
| are liquid enough.
|
| My point wasn't to really give a breakdown of all savings
| forms, but just to show that saving $10,000/year with
| historical returns will net you close to $900,000. You
| don't even have to put it in a tax-advantaged account.
| Though you should.
|
| And that amount is _plenty_ to retire on and be
| independently wealthy at least today and for the next 5
| or so years. Though I guess maybe that 's not the best
| choice of words since what I mean to say is that you can
| just live pretty comfortably without working - more
| financially independent than "wealthy".
|
| Certainly economic conditions can change, so the more the
| better.
|
| And just to be clear, you could take $1mm right now with
| 0 assets and buy a decent enough house for <$200,000 and
| pay pretty low taxes. You'd still have $800,000 left over
| to appreciate with low cost of living in the vast
| majority of America.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Retirement accounts aren't liquid at all if what we're
| talking about is reaching financial independence and
| retiring really early (in your 30s or 40s say), which is
| what I thought we were talking about. But if you're
| strictly talking about being financially independent
| enough to retire at the normal time (when you can access
| retirement accounts), then I agree with you.
|
| On the house point, people always seem to forget that
| people already live someplace and also often have
| families. No, it is not possible to find a house for a
| family of four where I live for less than $200k.
| ericmay wrote:
| Sure they are. For example your Roth IRA contributions
| can be taken out at any time. You've already paid taxes
| on them. The interest though has to wait until I believe
| 55 years old. You should do your own research (you as in
| anyone reading this) to see what investment options are
| right for your personal goals.
|
| > No, it is not possible to find a house for a family of
| four where I live for less than $200k
|
| Well we weren't talking about you specifically, but
| Americans in general. If you need $10mm retire in the Bay
| Area or something g ya know that's just what you'll
| personally have to work on. I don't have an answer for
| you. You can buy affordable houses and live comfortably
| in almost anywhere in America. In fact there are people
| who retire and move to other countries, or live very
| frugally on much less, like $400,000.
| darksaints wrote:
| The key factor in being able to do so is to have money to
| save early in your career. The median household may have
| 10k/year to spend, but the median household is already
| 10-15 years into their career, and thus 10-15 years
| behind on that compound interest.
|
| And nobody really has that kind of money early in their
| career, except maybe the top 1%. You either make a lot of
| money and spend most of it on housing, or you make a
| little bit of money and spend most of it on housing.
| dhd415 wrote:
| Using the standard definition of "independently wealthy"
| as "no longer needs to work to cover living expenses", I
| would say that $1MM is nowhere enough to do that in
| almost any place in the US, especially if you have kids.
| I'd say at least $3MM in cash and as much as $5-6MM in
| higher cost-of-living areas would be required to maintain
| an upper middle class standard of living.
| ericmay wrote:
| If you had $1mm today you for sure no longer need to work
| to cover living expenses in most places in America. I
| guess healthcare is a question, but even then your annual
| income rate will probably qualify you for Obamacare
| subsidies.
|
| Even with kids. Though that makes the budgeting a little
| more tight.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Over what time horizon? How do we factor in retirement
| needs and inflation?
|
| The point is that the vast majority of people are not
| going to be financially independent by 30, or even 40.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > How do we factor in retirement needs and inflation?
|
| Use inflation-adjusted calculators. Any good savings and
| retirement calculator will have an option for this.
|
| Inflation is commonly misunderstood in long-term
| financial planning. It's important to consider inflation
| for expenses and future savings amount, but many people
| don't realize that inflation will also life their
| investments to some degree.
|
| For example, if a common house costs $5,000,000 on your
| future retirement date and you've been saving your money
| in cash this whole time, you're in a bad spot. However,
| if you buy a house in your 30s that meets your needs, the
| value of your house will also rise with inflation.
| Inflation is also loosely coupled to rising stock prices
| (except for hyper-inflation or other economic
| catastrophes) and asset prices. Just don't keep your
| money all in cash, because that's the only guaranteed way
| to lose out to inflation.
| giantg2 wrote:
| And then your tax bill on that house has inflated too.
| There are a lot of variables (I work in finance).
|
| This is really getting off topic.
|
| Do you really think using Gates as an example is
| legitimate to talk about hard work for normal people?
| That was the main point.
| sjg007 wrote:
| Gates was also extremely lucky and in the right place at
| the right time born to the right parents. Gladwell covers
| this in one of his books. As a 13 year old he got access
| to a time share computer. His school even bought hours on
| one and the school was only able to do that via the PTO
| which was wealthy and run by his mother etc...
|
| Yes he was interested and worked hard but there's a lot
| more to it.
| cloverich wrote:
| Yes, because despite being _insanely_ intelligent he was
| _also_ insanely hard working. Its questionable whether
| aiming to be an outlier is reasonable, but it was a
| revelation to me that most of the wildly successful
| outliers I knew of growing up were also harder working
| than anyone I'd ever met. Yet no one ever talked about
| that, only how lucky it would be to be "born with" X.
| From there I realized that most people have this fallacy
| where they discount what they can achieve because they
| don't see how hard others work to get to whatever level
| they are at. Aiming for Bill Gates would be foolish, but
| understanding the recipe is not.
| giantg2 wrote:
| So why not showcase the data that supports the point
| rather than pick an outlier and have people question if
| the recipe really works?
|
| The successful people I know mostly got there by luck.
| Sure hard work and intelligence played a role, but I know
| people who were smarter and worked harder and didn't get
| half as far.
| cloverich wrote:
| > Sure hard work and intelligence played a role, but I
| know people who were smarter and worked harder and didn't
| get half as far.
|
| Are you arguing that people shouldn't work hard or work
| to improve their knowledge or networks because its not
| important and won't impact their lives?
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm arguing that working hard is not the main goal. PG
| completely misses how you need to be in a position to
| benefit from that hard work. Without that positioning it
| will be pointless/useless.
| sidlls wrote:
| It's so hard to get $1MM that only about 19% of people
| age 65 or over ever reach it. Is software overrepresented
| in that group? Probably. But not to the extent that it's
| reasonable to make the claim that it's common for
| software developers to reach it in their 20s and 30s.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| Do you include house and pension's worth in those
| numbers?
| cloverich wrote:
| Not that they _do_ reach it, but that they can. I think
| the general argument is that most people are not
| sufficiently financially literate to appreciate that the
| path to a million dollars is paved with consistent
| savings and reasonable budgets.
| sidlls wrote:
| It's a bad argument, though. Financial literacy isn't
| even necessary, though it may help. Life happens, things
| occur that make sustained savings impractical or
| impossible, and so on.
| sanderjd wrote:
| I think you misread the comment. Or at least read it
| differently than I did. I read that most software
| engineers who work hard in their 20s and 30s can become
| millionaires at some point. You seem to have read it that
| they will become millionaires in their 20s or 30s, which
| I don't think is what it says. My reading is more that
| putting hard work in early in the career sets you on a
| path to pay off debts and start saving and also have the
| experience to get good jobs later, which allow you to
| save more. This meshes with my experience of the
| industry.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Is "financially independent by 30, or even 40" the
| definition of "being a millionaire"? Or does it count if
| you save up a million dollars by some point in time? I'm
| honestly asking what we're discussing here, because they
| seem like very different things.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The whole point of this comment thread is that it wasn't
| appropriate to use a statistical outlier like Gates to
| represent that hard work for normal people leads to his
| level of success (financially independent,
| multimillionaire in his 30s).
| sanderjd wrote:
| It seems like $100k is conservatively a pretty typical
| salary these days even outside the big companies. That is
| $4M after a 40 year career, which makes you a millionaire
| when you retire if you can save 25%, even if the savings
| appreciate 0%. This seems pretty accomplishable.
|
| But perhaps the idea of "being a millionaire" you're
| thinking of is not that you slowly manage it over a long
| career, but that it happens more quickly?
| giantg2 wrote:
| BLS says that $110k is the median.
|
| It's not about eventually becoming a millionaire. It's
| about using Gates and other successful outliers as a
| pattern for normal people. There are tons of smart and
| hardworking people out there who are not very successful.
| There's a lot more going on than just hard work.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Working hard in the mailroom or stocking shelves at a
| grocery store isn't going to translate into a successful
| software career
|
| Equally, working hard as a software engineer isn't going to
| translate into the "uncapped salary" class of employment like
| CEO/CTO, VP, Founder, etc. There's a class ceiling where only
| a _certain type of person_ gains entry. You can hard-work
| yourself to the bone writing code, but that "VP of
| Engineering" role is going to go to the external candidate
| who is already "VP of Engineering" somewhere else, and who
| has been some flavor of Director or VP his whole career. Jobs
| are a lot more class-stratified and career immobile than we
| like to think they are. This reminds me of a previous "hard
| work" discussion here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517158
| romanhn wrote:
| This has nothing to do with class, similar to how declining
| a junior engineer for an architect role is not classist. A
| VP Engineering role is a senior management position, and
| being a fantastic programmer is not a reasonable transition
| point. It's a lot more reasonable to either make a lateral
| hire or promote internally from a lower level (say,
| Director). Tiny startups take more chances with whom they
| place into these positions out of necessity. At the end of
| the day though, vast majority of coders don't have the
| right set of skills to be a successful VP right there and
| then, as their day-to-day responsibilities do not
| meaningfully overlap. Doesn't mean they can't get there,
| but there's a career progression aspect to it which is
| certainly within their grasp. Vast majority of Directors
| and VPs work their way up, just like everyone else.
| watwut wrote:
| But that is not argument against what he said. All
| software engineers cant be VPs. It is not possible -
| there are not enough positions and many people are not
| suitable for that role.
|
| If everyone worked super hard, still only minority would
| got these positions.
| romanhn wrote:
| That was not the main argument of the parent comment,
| this was:
|
| > There's a class ceiling where only a certain type of
| person gains entry
|
| It is true that working hard alone is not going to get
| you into a VP role, but working hard on the _right
| things_ has a much higher likelihood of accomplishing
| that. Impact != hours put in, and vice versa, and frankly
| this is where a lot of the hard working people find
| themselves. Doing a difficult, but low leverage activity
| (relatively speaking) really well does not automatically
| entitle one to a role that is intended to be high
| leverage, all the time.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I think my use of the word "class" was problematic. The
| word doesn't really capture what I mean, and I struggled
| to find the right description. Those people who always
| seem to end up SVPs and CEOs and Founders all seem to be
| cut from a certain cloth. Not a "class" in the literal
| sense of English aristocracy, but it's always the same
| "Ivy Leaguer" type of person. Smooth talker, big smile,
| outgoing, and credentialed up the wazoo. Like a game show
| host but with a business degree. Look at all the CxO
| folks at your company and tell me they are not all
| basically cut from this same fabric.
|
| It's almost never the smart, hard working kid whose
| parents were factory workers in Pittsburgh, who hard-
| worked their way up from the mail room.
|
| EDIT: Maybe not a perfect comparison, but how many
| current active duty 4 star military officers started out
| their careers as enlisted grunts rather than as officers?
| nradov wrote:
| That's nonsense. Look at the "about us" pages for tech
| companies and startups. You'll see a huge diversity of
| backgrounds among SVPs of engineering, including many
| first generation immigrants.
|
| There are also a lot of senior military officers at the
| O-5 to O-6 level who started out enlisted. The relative
| lack at the O-7 level and above is due more to retirement
| age limits than anything else. If a service member did a
| couple enlisted tours, then went to college and OCS, they
| usually just run out of time.
| overtonwhy wrote:
| Allow yourself to be exploited by capital in exchange for
| experience and you'll probably be rewarded later when you get
| to exploit inexperienced people? Sounds like a big risk for
| labor and a big win for capital.
| tmule wrote:
| Strange framing. Working very hard in the US has made my
| compensation increase 7X in 9 years. I'm not capital (this
| isn't a static group, btw), I don't feel exploited, and I
| don't exploit anyone - I invested in myself and
| successfully optimized for long-run outcomes.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I worked hard, got a masters, basically doing everything
| "right". I'm 9 years in with maybe a +20% inflation
| adjusted salary.
| minikites wrote:
| Well said. That's why capital has to write essays like this
| to make it seem like a better deal than it is, lest the
| rest of us figure it out and organize.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I updated to multi-millionaire. The idea was that people
| would have enough money to quit their job and live very
| comfortably.
|
| I think the network effect is highly overblown for the
| average person. Sure, networks can be good for the people in
| the top 10%, but I don't see it really helping most of us
| because what are the chances our average friends will be in a
| position to hire us to a high position.
|
| I don't see an average developer being even a millionaire
| after a decade. Average salary is about $100k, but might be
| skewed due to the high cost areas. That's $1M before tax,
| living expenses, etc. Maybe you could hit $1M after 2 decades
| if lucky.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Is the average for a developer really that low (in the US)?
| In the Boston-area market (now remote, but same pay scale),
| we're paying more than that for fresh college hires.
|
| Get hired, contribute to your 401(k), buy a house, and do
| that for 15 years and in most markets I think your change
| in net worth over the 15 years is more likely to be >$1MM
| than less.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yes. I make under $100k with 9 years experience and a
| masters as a midlevel.
|
| https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-developer-
| salary...
| thebean11 wrote:
| GlassDoor is notorious for having salary data that's
| consistently lower than reality. Compare any individual
| company's GlassDoor and levels.fyi
| giantg2 wrote:
| Levels.fyi is skewed to the top paying tech companies
| though.
|
| BLS shows median as $110k
|
| https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
| technology/...
| thebean11 wrote:
| Right, but that's not an issue if you're looking at a
| single company on GlassDoor and levels.
|
| That median includes QA and Testers, do folks in these
| job titles always code? If not I wouldn't call them
| SWE/SDE.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Then I guess I'm just a loser.
| thebean11 wrote:
| Depends how much you value salary..wouldn't necessarily
| measure yourself by it
| giantg2 wrote:
| Well, I have to support a family on it. I dont get time
| to do anything enjoyable. I don't have any upward
| mobility. All with no end in sight for when I'll be able
| to quit this job I hate.
| thebean11 wrote:
| I don't really know your personal situation, but that
| sucks I hope things improve for you.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Start working some l33tcode problems and applying to
| other jobs. If you hate your job, it pays poorly, you
| have no upward mobility, and you don't get to do anything
| enjoyable, _get another job_. The companies on levels.fyi
| are all hiring, go do what it takes to get hired by them.
| giantg2 wrote:
| There really aren't any job options in my area. I don't
| consider remote an option for a new job since it's much
| more difficult to onboard virtually. I dont have time to
| LeetCode due to family constraints.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Stats May 2018 for the
| job category "Software Developers, Applications" mean
| salary is $108K. They provide percentiles 10% at 66K and
| 90% at 161K.
|
| https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes151132.htm
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| > buy a house In my neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY, a 1
| bedroom is approximately a million dollars. COL in the
| area where your job is is critically important as well.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah, same issue in the Bay Area.
|
| It's frustrating because increasing housing supply has so
| many positive effects for the group. It'd make life so
| much easier.
| lupire wrote:
| > live very comfortably.
|
| The single highest ROI thing you can do for your life is to
| drop that "very".
| giantg2 wrote:
| But then it wouldn't be consistent with the use of Gates
| as an example. That's basically the point.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I think the network effect is highly overblown for the
| average person. Sure, networks can be good for the people
| in the top 10%, but I don't see it really helping most of
| us because what are the chances our average friends will be
| in a position to hire us to a high position.
|
| Your friends don't need to be in a position to hire you
| into a high position. They just need to be in a position to
| recommend you for a good job that might be a step up. Or
| put in a good word for you when you apply at their company.
|
| They don't even need to be friends. In fact, most of the
| time I get my back-channel references from people who
| simply worked at a company at the same time as another
| person.
|
| Network effects aren't always obvious. I can't tell you how
| many times I've changed my mind on a candidate (in either
| direction) due to a friend of a friend giving me some more
| info about their experience working with the candidate.
| giantg2 wrote:
| All I know is that it's never helped me.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > then you can reap the benefits and live a life worth living
|
| I wish we could make the "inequality" point without resorting
| to hyperbole like this. The median American lives a life that
| is the envy of 99.9% percent of people who have ever walked
| this earth including most monarchs and emperors, and certainly
| >90% of people alive today.
|
| I do agree that something needs to be done to keep inequality
| in check; I just happen to think that hyperbole and dishonesty
| create more problems than they solve.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "create more problems than they solve."
|
| Like what? Or was this ironic use of your own hyperbole?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Like causing people to lose trust in the "anti-inequality"
| message. If we need to lie or exaggerate to persuade then
| we may rightly lose credibility. Pro-inequality folks can
| even deflect the conversation to our own exaggeration. I
| didn't mean to imply that hyperbole is comparable to
| inequality in scale or severity, but rather that any gains
| afforded by hyperbole tend to be short-sighted.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I don't feel it was a lie or exaggeration. Many people do
| not feel like their life is worth living when they work a
| job they hate just to pay the bills, get no time to enjoy
| life, etc. It shouldn't be a surprise when the general
| trend is for highly industrialized countries to
| experience higher suicide rates.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Whether or not we are happy, the fact remains that the
| median American lifestyle is positively luxurious by
| world standards and "America is a third world country"
| rhetoric is hyperbole. Most everyone today or throughout
| history has had to work far harder than our median
| American to secure much less. That we are unhappy only
| indicates that wealth isn't the major factor in
| happiness.
|
| Personally, for causes of declining happiness, I would
| look at rampant social media and technology addiction,
| falling-sky media narratives, rapidly increasing
| political division (itself a product of the traditional
| and social media), decreasing religious participation,
| weaker family/community ties, and good ole fashioned
| keeping up with the Jones's.
| luffapi wrote:
| I really don't think 99.9% of people want to pay 1K /month
| for health insurance or be a missed paycheck away from living
| on the street. Americans make a lot of money but the cost of
| living is through the roof and there is practically no safety
| net. That's not even touching on our complete lack of social
| and family support structures.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Again with the wild hyperbole. The American safety net may
| not be the absolute best in the world but it is still far
| better than what is available to the overwhelming majority
| of people. Indeed, a huge swath of the world is far below
| the American poverty line. Why do you suppose so many
| millions of people risk their lives to get into America in
| the first place?
|
| Come on. We can advocate for better healthcare and social
| services without going full "AmErIcA iS a ThIrD wOrLd
| CoUnTrY".
| luffapi wrote:
| It's not hyperbole it's reality. The US has the largest
| prison population in the world. It has massive problems
| with homelessness and violent crime. It has extreme
| wealth inequality. We have the most expensive healthcare
| and education in the world.
|
| The reality is that the US is a harsh place to live. Yes
| there are upsides but the hyperbole is that there aren't
| significant downsides.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > Yes there are upsides but the hyperbole is that there
| aren't significant downsides.
|
| The original claim was that the median American's
| lifestyle is enviable to the overwhelming majority of
| people on Earth today or at any other point. In other
| words, the downsides are few and far less significant
| than the upsides for most people today or at any time in
| the past.
|
| It's so exhausting to transparently argue that _relative
| to the world, the US is a very nice place_ and suffer
| responses like "but there is lots of violent crime!" Of
| course there is always some referand for which the US has
| "lots of violent crime" but _by world standards_ it does
| not. The US homicide rate for example is something like
| 30% below the global homicide rate. The poverty rate in
| the US is pretty comparable to European countries (bit
| worse than western Europe, bit better than eastern
| Europe) and far, far better than Asia, Africa, or South
| America. Even our wealth inequality is not "extreme" by
| global standards.
|
| There is no truth whatsoever to claims that the US is a
| harsh place to live. According to the quality of life
| index _which does not cherry pick metrics_ , the US is
| 15th globally (lower is better).
| https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-
| life/rankings_by_country.j...
| luffapi wrote:
| The US has the 4th highest wealth inequality of any
| nation:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_weal
| th_...
|
| The #1 rate of incarceration (by far):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarc
| era...
|
| The #1 healthcare costs (by far):
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tota
| l_h...
|
| There are a lot of problems here that you are glossing
| over.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Again, I'm not glossing over problems, I'm
| _contextualizing_ them. I 've been very clear about that
| in this entire thread. Cherry picking individual metrics
| doesn't present a clear picture, and I'm striving for a
| clear (not distorted) picture. Notably, healthcare costs
| don't mean much on their own, you have to adjust for per-
| capita wealth as well. With respect to wealth inequality,
| would you rather live in a country where almost everyone
| is below the poverty line or one in which almost everyone
| is _above_ the poverty line but some moreso than others?
| Again, I want to reign in inequality in the US, but I don
| 't need to invoke hyperbole to get there.
|
| You aren't going to get a clear picture by cherry picking
| statistics that support your conclusion. You need to
| contextualize. Of course, if your goal isn't to get a
| clear, honest picture then we're aiming for different
| things and we may as well part ways now.
|
| EDIT: From wikipedia, regarding measures of inequality:
|
| > Gini coefficients are simple, and this simplicity can
| lead to oversights and can confuse the comparison of
| different populations; for example, while both Bangladesh
| (per capita income of $1,693) and the Netherlands (per
| capita income of $42,183) had an income Gini coefficient
| of 0.31 in 2010,[53] the quality of life, economic
| opportunity and absolute income in these countries are
| very different, i.e. countries may have identical Gini
| coefficients, but differ greatly in wealth.
| luffapi wrote:
| Your original argument is flawed. You actually have no
| way of knowing if most people are "envious" of the US.
| That's pure speculation on your part. We can look at
| numbers, if we do we see some where the US looks really
| good and some where it looks really bad. That's not even
| touching less tangible things like culture, community and
| family values (all of which are extremely subjective).
| The US is definitely a harsh place to live in many ways.
| And yes, I've lived in other countries and traveled
| extensively. I've seen plenty of poor (by American
| standards) families living happily together in ways that
| would make many Americans envious.
|
| In short, your claim is too subjective to be useful and
| is directly contradicted by multiple metrics.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| The context of the thread assumes that we're talking
| about wealth. The original claim was something like, "in
| the US you must be in the management class in order to
| have a life worth living". I.e., we're talking
| specifically about wealth and not other subjective
| factors. To be perfectly clear, there are no metrics that
| contradict that the median American is wealthy by world
| or historic standards.
|
| Maybe you're arguing that I have no way of knowing that
| poorer people would be envious of richer people; fair
| enough, "envious" was figurative language on my part.
| victorhn wrote:
| - Why is wealth inequality a problem? If average people
| is relatively wealthy (which i think is the case for
| USA), why does it matter that some people are very
| wealthy? This is different than some 3rd world countries
| where average people is poor and some very small
| percentage have wealth (and mostly due to corruption /
| crime / political influence)
|
| - Rate of incarceration may also mean that USA does a
| good job of imparting justice / catch criminals.
|
| - Healthcare costs looks like an issue, but socialized
| systems also have their problems (bad quality, wrong
| economic incentives for doctors to improve their
| practice, etc.)
| luffapi wrote:
| Wealth inequality is bad in part because the wealthy then
| control policy and have wide ranging impact in the day to
| day lives of those who are not wealthy. It's a
| centralization of control.
|
| The rate of incarceration is largely due to the war on
| drugs. There's nothing just about it.
|
| I'd take NHS (despite its flaws) over my >2k /month
| health insurance any day of the week.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > I'd take NHS (despite its flaws) over my >2k /month
| health insurance any day of the week.
|
| Would you also take the 40% reduction in post-tax, post-
| healthcare, post-retirement pay?
|
| I actually favor a stronger social safety net and I agree
| that we need to reign in inequality (because an
| egalitarian society of very wealthy people and very poor
| people strikes me as completely infeasible in the same
| way that a prosperous socialist or communist country is
| completely infeasible), but that will almost certainly
| mean the professional class is worse-off. Reasoning
| soberly about tradeoffs is imperative IMO.
| luffapi wrote:
| > _Would you also take the 40% reduction in post-tax,
| post-healthcare, post-retirement pay?_
|
| Yes, and I have! What I missed most when not living in
| the US:
|
| * variety of everything
|
| * large appliances
|
| What I missed least:
|
| * driving/car culture
|
| * overwork
|
| So sadly I found I was actually a typical "consumer" who
| wants things that are pretty crappy for the environment
| (except for the car thing). I was fine with getting paid
| less than I would in the US because as a senior
| technologist, I was making way more than most of the
| locals and the economy was tuned to their pay.
| temp8964 wrote:
| What you said is simply not true. There are countless people
| work on different positions in different fields are enjoying
| hard work as part of their life.
|
| If you read the essay through, he never said "hard work == long
| hours of work". He explicitly wrote "Trying hard doesn't mean
| constantly pushing yourself to work, though."
| jb775 wrote:
| > are enjoying hard work as part of their life
|
| Also known as "suckers", or "employees".
| bidirectional wrote:
| Why? Unless you are working so hard that it drains you
| outside of office hours, what's wrong with it? I just feel
| plain worse when I slack off at work, and feel accomplished
| and valued when I work hard. I work the same number of
| hours either way.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah, people like having purpose and feel good
| contributing to a shared goal.
|
| If the work is stimulating, and the company is doing
| something you find valuable (or it's your own company)
| then that's very fulfilling.
|
| There's some cultural trope that everything is zero sum
| and that people can't possibly enjoy their work or get
| value from it. I think this is just empirically wrong.
| People don't just "think" they enjoy hard work, many
| actually do - and feel worse when they're having trouble
| doing it.
|
| I like the essay a lot, but I'm not sure it meets its
| title _How_ to work hard. It lays out that to do great
| work you must and that it often feels good to do so. John
| Carmack proofread the essay and is probably one of the
| hardest working programmers alive (in addition to massive
| natural ability).
|
| I think a more common problem is people that want to work
| hard, feel good when they do so, but have a hard time
| getting themselves to do so. Strategies around getting
| better at this (the "how") are difficult. He touches on
| it a bit with how goals must be set once out of school
| and no one will set them for you. Interest helps, but is
| often not enough.
|
| There's of course also the group of people that don't
| value hard work and don't feel bad from not working
| hard/meeting potential, but I actually suspect this group
| is smaller than most think (and less interesting to
| discuss given the topic).
| papito wrote:
| Do they enjoy it or do they THINK they enjoy it? Many people
| realize that they wasted their lives on being in the office
| after they retire.
|
| This TED talk can be a revelation: https://www.ted.com/talks/
| bj_miller_what_really_matters_at_t...
|
| And the Bill Gates thing? PLEASE. Yeah, I agree with the
| previous comment. A _horrible_ example.
|
| Bill Gates was one of the most lucky sons of bitches in the
| history of the planet. Born to wealthy parents, he was
| impossible to deal with, so they took him to a therapist
| (again, a lucky pick) that advised them to set Gates free.
| They put him in this prep school with other privileged kids,
| and like a meteor made of pure gold, by luck, it had a
| computer. Almost no schools had a computer at the time.
|
| Hard work is only part of the equation. You have to be at the
| right place, at the right time. Most people never are.
|
| Might as well read the next article on "Ten morning habits of
| billionaires". Luck. Is. A. Factor.
| paulpauper wrote:
| also it was his mom's connection with IBM that made him a
| billionaire, but the rest helped as well. Bill was also
| able to secure a contract because a competitor Gary Kildall
| did not show up. Luck is the factor.
| EricE wrote:
| Isn't it funny that all these people with incredible luck -
| every single one - also work their asses off?
| papito wrote:
| Yes, Tim Ferris tells us we should work harder to have
| what he has.
|
| Next time, I will be sure to be born in the Hamptons. He
| made the right first choice.
| barrkel wrote:
| It's necessary but not sufficient. What if you work hard
| all through your 20s, not a day off, and it doesn't work
| out (which it doesn't, in the billionaire sense, for most
| people)? How do you get back the first flush of youth?
|
| This essay from Paul reminded me once again how
| relatively blinkered he is. He has his mental model of a
| good life - for obvious reasons, it's one which is
| somewhat similar to his own - and he doesn't question his
| assumptions. What is his utility function? Is it a
| universal utility function, or is it actually just his
| preferred, locally, personally optimal way of increasing
| its value?
|
| Dismissing whole departments at college is part of that.
| You might not see value in the philosophy - PG is on
| record as dismissing it - but philosophy has changed the
| world more than almost anything else. It's at the
| foundation of science, law, government and politics, and
| most of the wars of the 20th century were fought,
| ultimately, over philosophy. PG knows this, maybe he
| views it differently - he studied it in college after all
| - but in his shoes, I wouldn't be so dismissive.
| paulpauper wrote:
| >it's necessary but not sufficient.
|
| not even necessary if you inherit it
| lupire wrote:
| Warren Buffet's son didn't.
| paulpauper wrote:
| in a generation or 2 we are going to be seeing the forbes
| 50 list full of bezos and musks kids. yeah hard work
| indeed
| mehphp wrote:
| Hard work is just a prerequisite. Tons of people work
| just as hard as Gates/Musk but don't get the lucky breaks
| for whatever reason.
|
| I would posit that luck is THE differentiator between
| these people, not hard work.
| papito wrote:
| The Chinese say "luck is a combination of preparedness
| and opportunity". You have to be prepared for an
| opportunity - but it may never come.
| twalla wrote:
| I've heard hard work described as increasing your luck
| "surface area". So imagine you're trying to catch luck
| "raindrops" and you're Bill Gates - sure you're busting
| your ass but you're starting off with a football stadium
| sized bucket in monsoon season. A poor kid from Baltimore
| with divorced parents could work as hard and end up with
| the analogy-equivalent of a coffee cup in Death Valley
| colonelanguz wrote:
| In my opinion, no, not really. Hard work could be
| necessary but not sufficient, or contingently necessary.
| Or the success criterion could be defined in a way that
| obscures the link to hard work. This is from a review of
| Taleb's The Black Swan:
|
| As Cicero pointed out, we all suffer from 'survivorship
| bias': that is, we confine our evidence to that adduced
| from those few who succeed or survive, and ignore the
| silent evidence of all those who didn't make it. The
| graveyard is silent, the awards ceremony is noisy.
|
| [1] https://sunwords.com/2009/08/24/to-understand-
| success-and-fa...
| lupire wrote:
| Where is the evidence that people who regret working hard
| would have not regretted working less hard?
|
| Some people are biochemically unhappy.
| colonelanguz wrote:
| Well said! I came here to say this. Founders of successful
| businesses usually are not exceptional geniuses. They often
| happen to be in the right place at the right time, or they
| steal ideas from other people when the business is too
| young to be worth litigating over. See, e.g., Microsoft,
| Facebook, Snapchat, etc. Or they get government assistance
| at a critical time. E.g., Elon Musk. There are so many
| species of selection bias at work here; I totally agree
| with your comment about reading "Ten morning habits of
| billionaires."
|
| Also, the idea that one should be "constantly judging both
| how hard you're trying and how well you're doing," _while_
| trying to try hard and trying to do well, is insane. You
| can't be the CEO and the ditch-digger at the same time. You
| have to be able to inhabit both perspectives as _separate_.
|
| That said, it was an interesting read, albeit a self-
| consciously unhelpful one. It was helpful and humbling to
| read that you just think some things are easy for you
| because they were taught at a low level in school. I can
| adapt that same logic to suggest that this author isn't
| imparting serious, deep knowledge about the true nature of
| hard work and success.
| gmadsen wrote:
| if you are actually doing software 12+ hours a day for a
| decade, I find it hard you wouldn't find great success.
|
| unless you spend none of that time improving and just doing the
| same thing you learned in the first year, you will become an
| expert. Experts are well rewarded for their skills
| bluedino wrote:
| Depends on if you're working on the next Twitter or plugging
| away at Java code as a corporate slave for an insurance
| company.
| gmadsen wrote:
| That seems to conflict with the preface that you are
| constantly learning and improving, which should include
| changing jobs when you have become stagnant. you can make
| absurd money working in finance with java programming.
| bluedino wrote:
| What happens when 'everyone works hard'? Sure, the people
| doing trading algorithms will make money but not the
| people doing CRUD apps.
| username90 wrote:
| People doing CRUD apps at Google makes lots of money and
| Google still hires everyone who pass their general tests
| afaik. Not everyone can work at Google, but if all
| software engineers were great we would have way more well
| run tech companies and therefore more companies paying
| similar to Google. So that argument doesn't really makes
| sense, software demand is still far from being met so all
| value any programmer can be delivered will be used up.
| Unlike for example cleaners, if every cleaner did 2x the
| work then we would just hire half as many cleaners.
| gmadsen wrote:
| the ability to work hard(defined as continuous focus,
| improvement, work ethic) with reasonable intelligence as
| a trait follows a Gaussian. I am not going to sugar coat
| the fact that that will naturally create a hierarchy of
| success
| giantg2 wrote:
| My personal experience was that once I became an expert the
| company wouldn't promote me and then outsourced the team. It
| was obscure tech, so it was basically a dead end.
| okprod wrote:
| _then there really isn 't an incentive to work harder than
| necessary to keep you job or earn a measly raise._
|
| Some people just like working hard, regardless of the financial
| incentives/disincentives.
| extr wrote:
| I accepted a job at a startup not too long ago. They offered a
| pretty good salary, but no equity. Shame on me for not doing
| better research. As soon as I got in the role, they made it
| clear they expected 70 hours a week, oh and by the way, the CEO
| is really excited about the prospect of selling the company,
| and how rich he's going to get. He's going to mention potential
| valuations all the time, and he's also "really depending on me"
| to shape up core business functions to make the company sale-
| ready. LOL! Fuck that, I left within 3 months.
| minikites wrote:
| >The real world doesn't work that way and using statistical
| outliers like Gates is disingenuous to the discussion about
| hard work and how it applies to normal people.
|
| Exactly. This is the central lie that sustains capitalism.
| Wealthy C-level executives get rich when the rest of us work
| hard, which is why they harp on "working hard" so much. There's
| no reason to work hard when all the benefits go to the already-
| wealthy above you, which is why they try to obscure that fact
| in as many ways as possible.
| lupire wrote:
| Jeff Bezos could bankrupt himself giving each of his
| _current_ employees $200K (one time only, after 25+ years of
| work, not per year).
|
| And that's by far the most extremely case.
|
| You can argue that it's exploitative or that no one should be
| as rich as he is, but you can't say that working hard to do
| better for yourself as an employee is useless just because
| that small amount gets skimmed off.
| minikites wrote:
| >you can't say that working hard to do better for yourself
| as an employee is useless just because that small amount
| gets skimmed off.
|
| I like this argument, but for higher taxes on the wealthy
| instead. Taxes benefit everybody, but my surplus labor
| value goes only to Jeff Bezos and his substantial money
| hoard.
| xyzelement wrote:
| // There's no reason to work hard when all the benefits go to
| the already-wealthy above you, which is why they try to
| obscure that fact in as many ways as possible
|
| I have always been an employee and yet I am thrilled and
| thankful for the financial returns.
|
| Looking around my neighborhood, the same is true for most
| folks around me.
|
| There are not guarantees in life but if you have the
| combination of luck, skill and hard work, you can land in a
| place where you and employer are mutually benefited.
|
| I am lucky enough that this has been the case for my 18 year
| career so far and not uncommon.
|
| What you are saying on the other hand is a dead end. If you
| don't believe good employer/employee relationship is
| possible, you won't do your part and it will be a self
| fulfilling prophecy. I feel bad for people who think like
| this.
|
| Honestly it reminds me of the incel movement. Someone
| somewhere owes you something and you have no agency on how it
| shapes out. I fundamentally disagree.
| minikites wrote:
| >I am lucky enough that this has been the case for my 18
| year career so far and not uncommon.
|
| You shouldn't need luck to get food and shelter, which is
| how our current economic system works and the fact that it
| works this way upsets me greatly.
|
| >What you are saying on the other hand is a dead end. If
| you don't believe good employer/employee relationship is
| possible, you won't do your part and it will be a self
| fulfilling prophecy. I feel bad for people who think like
| this.
|
| Why is change always demanded from those without power by
| those with power? The employers are the ones ruining the
| relationship and I think the employer side of the
| relationship needs to change. One way of changing that is
| through labor unions.
| xyzelement wrote:
| // You shouldn't need luck to get food and shelter
|
| Most people in the US have both, but that's also
| irrelevant to the point I responded to - his claim was
| that you can't do well by being an employee which is
| untrue.
|
| // Why is change always demanded from those without power
| by those with power?
|
| I am not demanding any change. However, if you are not
| happy with your situation, the most actionable place for
| you to change it is with yourself. Start with yourself
| FIRST.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "If you don't believe good employer/employee relationship
| is possible, you won't do your part and it will be a self
| fulfilling prophecy."
|
| I agree that it can become self-fulfilling. However, there
| are some of us who started out believing the best and
| changed their minds after being repeatedly screwed over.
| xyzelement wrote:
| >> and changed their minds after being repeatedly screwed
| over.
|
| I both sympathize for you and still don't think the
| "changing your mind" is helpful here. My personal example
| here is in my dating life. I only got married at 38.
| Before that I had probably 15 semi serious or serious
| relationships that ultimately didn't work out. Each one
| of them would have been a good reason to say "oh, well,
| it's not for me to find love" or "I am doomed because my
| parents divorce messed me up" or "everyone out there's
| not good enough for me" or whatever.
|
| But while I would be "justified" in thinking that way,
| I'd also actually doom myself by thinking that way.
| Instead I kept looking for changes I can make (mainly in
| how I feel about and value others in this case) that
| eventually allowed me to meet an amazing woman and start
| a family together.
|
| The paint I am making is - we have agency. Whatever
| shitty work situation you have, do you have some room to
| find a better employer? To beef up your skills so you're
| more valuable? To contribute more to the org and be
| deeply recognized? To build such a network that if
| something ever happened you can find another job in a
| matter of weeks? In my experience, almost everyone has
| SOME leverage they can use to improve their situation. If
| they continuously use it, their situation is
| statistically likely to iteratively improve (and give you
| bigger levers over time.) If you get jaded and give up,
| nothing will magically improve and just get worse.
|
| So no matter how much you may justify jadedness, it's not
| a thing worth accepting because it will just kill you.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "it's not a thing worth accepting because it will just
| kill you."
|
| That would be ok too.
| xyzelement wrote:
| OK. As long as you are open with yourself and others
| upfront where that goes... I guess that's your call. Not
| a decision I'd make.
| teorema wrote:
| The question isn't whether a good employer-employee
| relationship is possible. the question is whether a
| horrible employee-employer relationship, one that has
| significant butterfly effects, is possible. More
| pertinently, the question is whether it's possible for
| someone to be in such complex circumstances that finding a
| good employer, or even job opportunity, is possible for
| that person.
|
| The incel community isn't the right comparison maybe? A
| more apt comparison might be domestic abuse worldwide.
|
| Sometimes I'm amazed at the assumptions being made here and
| elsewhere that what applies to one person's life applies at
| large. It's not just survivorship bias, it's some kind of
| egocentrism (in a perceptual sense) bias.
|
| You yourself say you consider yourself lucky. Do you
| really? What about the unlucky ones?
|
| It's easy to say "well for two decades it's worked out for
| me and hundreds of neighbors" forgetting that there's many
| more decades in a life, and billions of people.
| xyzelement wrote:
| You've been downvoted and I think that's right.
|
| The main point is - you can't control your luck. you can
| control what you do. For some reason, there's an attitude
| that "because you can't control your luck, you shouldn't
| control what you actually can control" which is dumb.
|
| You can acknowledge both. But you need to maximize that
| which is under your control (and if you don't do that you
| have no room to complain about anything else.)
| Aunche wrote:
| Working 12+ hours a day isn't necessarily working hard. It may
| be physically and mentally draining, but people can do that by
| just grinding rather than challenging yourself. Working hard is
| more about the relentless drive towards self improvement rather
| than your economic output.
| xyzelement wrote:
| I think you are using a narrow definition of hard work.
|
| Doing "actual work" is hard. Figuring out what your business is
| and who you need to hire is also hard work. Hard in a different
| ways but perhaps also harder in that fewer people are capable
| of doing it and it's less obvious.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| I think this is a great argument for a decentralized economy
| for creatives (and anyone else who wants it). Society would be
| more productive. People would see the products of their effort,
| share in the rewards. Even if the rewards are small it is still
| nice to see a direct effect between your work and the results.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I think that hard work is also good if you're working towards
| an outcome that isn't money/ownership.
|
| In my experience the zero sum nature of those things tends to
| make it harder to be intrinsically motivated towards the work.
| tut-urut-utut wrote:
| Entirely agree.
|
| Instead of worshipping hard work, maybe we should be promoting
| "smart work". As a society, we don't need a bunch of overworked
| and burnt out people in their late twenties. That's not good
| for anyone.
| reader_mode wrote:
| >If you tell people that if they work 12+ hours a day in their
| 20s that they would be millionaires
|
| In software development this is a realistic goal if you play
| your cards right. Plenty of other careers too.
|
| I think there's also statistical data to support this as well
| (hours worked early on increasing your income and net worth
| down the line).
|
| Working hard early on in your career does pay off.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I haven't seen it personally. I've done everything "right" in
| life and I still get screwed 10 ways.
|
| Do you have any links to the data you mention?
| luffapi wrote:
| I totally agree. If you want to get ahead, you need to
| "hack" the system by convincing people in the upper class
| that you belong there too. Working hard is a great way to
| signal that you're middle class labor.
| xyzelement wrote:
| You got downvoted not because you are wrong but because you
| are right.
|
| Some people would rather hear they have no power and no
| chance because it takes away the bad feeling for their own
| agency in their situation. Others are empowered by their
| agency and act on it.
|
| Thank you for spreading the 2nd point of view.
| giantg2 wrote:
| https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-
| rol...
| luffapi wrote:
| As someone who has gone from being poor to being upper middle
| class via the tech industry, I can say without exception hard
| work had nothing to do with it. Every quantum leap in my
| career came from convincing some rich guy to allow me to bask
| in the mist of the cash firehose being directed at them.
|
| I would say working hard is actually negatively associated
| with success. Once you get branded a "worker bee", your
| chances for high level advancement quickly bottom out.
|
| If you _really_ want to get ahead go to the right parties.
| The VP no one can ever get a hold of is making an order of
| magnitude more money then the middle manager putting in 80
| hours a week. That person will correctly have been identified
| by the execs as not belonging to the upper class.
|
| That being said, once you see how the game is played it can
| be hard to stomach. It is reality though.
| reader_mode wrote:
| That's not what I'm getting at. You can accumulate >1M net
| worth just by being an engineer/contractor - no need to get
| into upper management or socialise with rich people.
|
| Working on acquiring experience early on in your career
| will accelerate the point where you're making decent money
| where you're able to save/invest a decent portion of your
| income.
|
| Your path doesn't sound widely reproducible.
| luffapi wrote:
| You don't need to work hard to acquire that much money as
| an engineer. You can totally coast and make market
| salary. The hard part is going to be having the
| discipline to save and live beneath your means.
| username90 wrote:
| You have to work hard to get the job in the first place.
| A large majority of people can't even get through the
| basics of learning to code so can't even get a degree or
| do the basics to get a job as a self learner. To them
| getting a software engineering job is too much hard work
| and they instead just continue earning their poor
| salaries.
| luffapi wrote:
| I love programming and know a dozen languages. I learned
| them for fun and didn't consider it work.
|
| I also know people who know a little Python or JS and can
| make >$100k a year.
|
| You may have to learn a bare minimum to get in the door,
| you may consider that hard work or not, but once in, you
| no longer need to work hard. Sweet talking your boss or
| jumping jobs will get you way more bang for your buck.
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| To add to this: there are people who earn minimum wage doing
| what some might call menial jobs (or 3 jobs back to back) and
| they work 10x harder than the average startup programmer or
| founder.
|
| They might not have gone to school at all. Or they might have a
| PhD from country most Americans couldn't find on a map but
| still end up cleaning the offices of startups.
| ryanSrich wrote:
| - Working on a computer all day, from the comfort of my house
|
| - Being able to tend to work issues from my phone
|
| - Getting intellectual stimulation from my work
|
| - Getting to work with really really smart people
|
| - Getting to see the joy customers get from using a product you
| helped build
|
| These may not seem like much. They might even seem like a burden
| to some. But I've worked horrendous jobs in the past. Not just
| brutal manual labor, but mindless factory jobs that practically
| turn your brain into mush.
|
| Working on things I actually enjoy, in an enjoyable environment,
| for 12-16 hours per day is a life I'd take any day of the week
| over life's I've lived in the past.
|
| I'd say overall, working hard pays off if you have a strong
| impact on the business and own a good chunk of it. If you're
| working at BigTechCoFaang I'd slack absolutely as much as
| possible. Just riding the border between hired and fired.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-29 23:00 UTC)