16 ms·

> I just have to say this: So typically american. The attitude presented in the article is indeed typically American -- but not for the reason I think you inte

by exelius 11y ago

> I just have to say this: So typically american. The attitude presented in the article is indeed typically American -- but not for the reason I think you intended. The quintessential American quality is the belief that every person has the right to control their own destiny. Fuck, it's right there in the first sentence of the first document declaring this country's independence. Americans are often seen as greedy relative to our European counterparts. But you have to remember that there's a different social contract over in the USA -- if you fall, you're on your own. Therefore, money is seen primarily as a means to self-determination. Now, this all gets fucked when you throw in consumer culture on top of it, but the desire to accumulate large sums of money is not uniquely American -- but we're damn good at it because the cultural message we get sent early on is that once you're an adult, you're on your own. If you want to control your destiny, you'd better learn how to make money. But notice that the author's main complaint wasn't about money -- it was about all the wasted opportunities where if he had more power (in the form of a management role) he could have had more influence on the outcome of situations he was involved with. The loss of self-determination is the big gripe -- and the entire reason I hit the eject button from engineering early in my career.

andyjohnson0 11y ago
Like you, I don't think the author of the blog post wanted money or power for their own sake. Relevant to your final paragraph: People Want Power Because They Want Autonomy [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11340137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11340137
- KyleBrandt 11y ago
  Right. If you get a lot of money it doesn't mean you have to go buy a bunch of crap you don't really want. Rather it can give you influence. You can invest in charities or companies you believe in to shape the future. For example http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-florida.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-fl...
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    The only amount of money people really need for autonomy is the amount of money it takes to supply their immediate needs and some reasonable wants; the amount of money necessary to provide for a normal middle-class lifestyle. I would ballpark this around $80k/yr. It's not enough to make big donations to candidates, companies, or charities, and it won't buy the most expensive stuff out there, but it's plenty to keep your life running reasonably comfortably. Big money is a different ballpark and I don't think that's what most people want. I think they just want to be comfortable in doing what they want to do.
    - JimboOmega 11y ago
      Incidentally, isn't $80k around the point where happiness from income levels off? The advantage of big money isn't just charities and companies - it's having your time back, since you're not tied to getting an income from it.
      - tcfunk 11y ago
        I feel like $80k must be an outdated number. My wife and I pull in just under $100k together, and we can't even (comfortably) afford a home. Between rent, student loan payments, health insurance, bills, and car loans, and food, I think we maybe have $500 left to throw around each month. If we were paying against a mortgage, that would basically be zero.
        clock_tower 11y ago
        Location is everything. You can live like a prince in Tennessee or Kentucky on $80k/yr -- not so much in the really prosperous parts of the country.
        cookiecaper 11y ago
        Mortgages are usually cheaper than rents on comparable units. The issue is that they require a big upfront chunk of cash to get into. And, as a sibling comment stated, it depends on location. I think $80k is right for most areas of the country. If you live in NYC, SF, LA, or another place with really high cost of living, adjust accordingly (which is probably like 2.3x).
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Yes. In post-industrial society, we seem to have lost the true sense of independence. Almost all of us now depend on the good graces of an employer to be able to pay for our needs. That is not independence, it is fiefdom. Meanwhile, true independence is derided as families who provide for their own and are able to pass an inheritance on that grants their children and their grandchildren a degree of autonomy are mocked, which honestly can only really be attributed to jealousy. I hope that I am able to pass a sizable estate to my children and grandchildren, so that they will not be dependent on banks, universities, and employers that will charge them outrageous fees in time and money just so that they may have a hope at a normal middle-class lifestyle. True independence for ourselves and our posterity should be the goal for all of us. For most of human history, it has been; these days, we are confused and pretend that being enslaved to usurers is the ideal.
  - fhood 11y ago
    If I have a skill that a large number of people are willing to pay for them that in itself represents independence. Earning potential is far more valuable than money. And guess what, if your children decide not to use those banks and universities, and don't get jobs then they may be "independent, but they are also dead weights. If they don't have skills that contribute to society, they are irrelevant. I agree that people should have access to enough money to realize their potential, but not more than that.
    - cookiecaper 11y ago
      >If I have a skill that a large number of people are willing to pay for them that in itself represents independence. No. Having an in-demand skill is a tool to obtain and keep independence. It's not independence itself. There are many people out there with high-demand skills who still find themselves unhappily slaving away in a job where they must do someone else's bidding for 40%+ of their waking day. Once they have the property and assets to make that an optional activity that they can leave at any time, they are independent. Having the ability to go find a new master if you get fed up enough with your current one is good, but it's not really independence. Independence is the freedom to control how you spend your days, and unless you're debt-free, own your living space outright, and have a consistent, sustainable source of food, you don't have the option to not work. > If they don't have skills that contribute to society, they are irrelevant. Define "contribute to society". I think you're being way too exclusive here. There are ways to contribute to society without being part of the industrial workforce. Just ask the big bosses, who, incidentally, are the ones pushing this narrative that life is meaningless without their patronage. You don't have to be a professional to make a meaningful contribution. In fact, I would argue that being a good parent has a far greater positive social effect than being a good professional. >And guess what, if your children decide not to use those banks and universities, and don't get jobs then they may be "independent, but they are also dead weights. A bank provides people with very little actual value, so I'm not sure why you included it. I will be immensely pleased if my children can go their whole adult lives without having to pay a cent of usury. It's a massive hidden tax on the middle class, making every major purchase cost about 2-3x its sticker price. If you think about it, you'll see that much of our industrial culture is based on guaranteeing this effortless income to usurers, and I want to break that cycle for my children. This is also a large part of why the media wants to promote negative images of independent wealth; they're trying to protect their dirty income streams and reinforce their position as a hidden cost that people just accept as an implicit requirement. Of course the children of independent people should be taught to do something useful with their time and lives. I think that by and large, they are. You don't hear about that because it doesn't please the massive indentured population to hear about it on TV, but if you look around, you'll see that it's generally true. And in the age of welfare, you don't have to be independently wealthy to be a layabout or a loiterer. It's no longer an exclusive privilege, so providing a decent estate that will allow your posterity to have its freedom and control its own destiny is not really any more dangerous to individual productivity than not doing so. >I agree that people should have access to enough money to realize their potential, but not more than that. I absolutely do agree that too much money in the wrong hands is a recipe for disaster.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  But gaining power means losing autonomy. It means more interdependence to lay off risk. True autonomy is its own discipline. The problem with gaining power is that you now have to steer into the maelstrom of human foibles for a living. "The Turks pay me a golden treasure, yet I am poor! Because I am a river to my people! " - Auda abu Tayi in "Lawrence of Arabia". No, people pursue power for status, not for autonomy.
- ufmace 11y ago
  Just read the articles on that. It's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but comes from a study that's based on things like online surveys and playing games with college students. I'm not going to take that one too seriously just yet.
akkartik 11y ago
I'd like to see a concrete defense of the position that going into management gives you greater influence on the outcome of situations. I'm inclined to believe in this quote from "Days of Thunder" (1990): Control is an illusion, you infantile egomaniac. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099371/quotes http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099371/quotes)
- Bluestrike2 11y ago
  Agreed in a lot of circumstances. How many bad managers think that yelling to get things done is actually accomplishing something on their part? Good managers have the ability to shepherd their people and resources in a way that gives them a better chance of success and minimizes the potential stumbling blocks. It still requires good people, clear goals, and lots of other things that may or may not be 100% under your control, but even with those caveats, you can generally assume that you'll have a bit more control in management, though parts are more indirect (you're not involved in writing the actual code as much if at all depending on the company, etc.). But it's really easy to over-estimate that control and your ability to wield it. If the Peter principle is accurate, and people are promoted to their level of incompetence, then it also indicates that people assume their level of competence is higher than it actually is. And then you get project failures, screaming managers, and lots of lost money.
nickbauman 11y ago
OTOH people I know with a lot of money have serious relationship issues. Money distorts your social connections. It's really not worth it. At the end of the game, the king and the pawn go back into the same box (old Sicilian proverb).
- maqr 11y ago
  You may be right, but I only ever hear my fellow working class people espousing that view...
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    You may sit at a desk, but if you don't fire people for a living, you're working class. "Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves to pick it up" - Ragnar Lodbrok, "Vikings".
pink_dinner 11y ago
"The quintessential American quality is the belief that every person has the right to control their own destiny." So you don't think you have this right? I believe you have the right of opportunity, but not of outcome. I learned what this guy learned pretty early on: If you are an employee (developer or not), you will be paid to do things you are against and people less intelligent and experienced than you will be making decisions for you at some point...and you can't do anything about it. This is the sole reason I started my own company. I was sick of being forced to go down a path of failure..after every attempt to do otherwise was ignored. After our failure, management never wanted to look bad, so they almost always picked someone to blame. Sometimes it was me or my team, sometimes someone else. Speaking up about it meant you weren't a 'team player' and you would probably be on the chopping block during the next round of layoffs. I was able to survive most layoffs because I learned how to play politics, but at the cost of never feeling satisfied with my job. I've had my own company for 5 years and I don't regret a thing. It was the best decision I ever made. "I just have to say this: So typically american" Really? I was thinking it was typically Chinese. My wife's family is from China and they pretty much all try to one up/compare each other in terms of assets, money, or jobs. "If you want to control your destiny, you'd better learn how to make money." This message is pretty truthful. The more you rely on someone to support you (the government, friends, family, job), the less control you have over your life. Money gives you the ultimate power and freedom to do what you want. Regardless of your culture, this doesn't change. If you have more more money, you will always have more options/freedom.
- exelius 11y ago
  > So you don't think you have this right? I believe you have the right of opportunity, but not of outcome. I do think I have this right; as an American it is the #1 thing that makes me an American. It's why we ignore the rules we don't like. It's why we lust for power and for money, lest some other person beat us to the punch and have power over us. And while no rational person thinks they can control every factor that goes into their own outcome, we at least want to have some influence. If you're an engineer and your company goes belly-up because your marketing guy was a moron and you didn't have the power to make him listen to your ideas... that's the position many Americans strive to avoid. > Really? I was thinking it was typically Chinese. My wife's family is from China and they pretty much all try to one up/compare each other in terms of assets, money, or jobs. I feel that this no longer an American trait. 30 years ago, yeah, but with the whole backlash against the 1% and the hipster movement where bankers making $500k/yr dress like homeless musicians... it's not as cool to flaunt money anymore (unless you're a musician; then it's just part of the whole consumer culture thing because you're selling a life of luxury to poor people...) My household income last year was over seven figures, but I live in a house worth less than half of that and drive a 5 year old base model Subaru. Once money buys you autonomy, it's not really worth much (and that's a modern American perspective that's backed up by research). > Regardless of your culture, this doesn't change. If you have more more money, you will always have more options/freedom. I absolutely agree. But the single most important value that America was founded on is self-determination: the idea that each person is in control of their own destiny. Outside forces may get in your way, but it's your obligation to figure out how to get around them. American business culture is the same way: if you want to limit your chances of being fired through no fault of your own, you should probably get more power so you're higher up on the decision making chain.
UncleOxidant 11y ago
> Therefore, money is seen primarily as a means to self-determination. And even deeper down, it's a means of survival. The safety net here has pretty much disintegrated since it began to be dismantled in the '80s. A lot of people in the US haven't saved enough for retirement considering this new reality... they haven't even saved enough to get them through a few months of unemployment. There's a loss of hope in rural America now in places where it can be very tough to find decent paying work. It's starting so show up in a decrease in lifespan and in many ways it's very similar to what happened in Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed. The drug of choice there was/is alcohol. Here it seems to be prescription opiates (in addition to alcohol).
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Jefferson anticipated this, and thought the only way for rural life to work out was for this to be a nation of small freeholders. People just don't have enough to do otherwise.
- pjlegato 11y ago
  > The drug of choice there was/is alcohol. Here it seems to be prescription opiates (in addition to alcohol). These situations are not even remotely comparable. The fraction of Americans who abuse opiates is tiny compared to the percentage of Russians who abuse alcohol. As a rough approximation, about 2.5 million Americans have an opiate abuse issue in 2016[1], out of a population of 319 million. This is about 0.8% of the population. Statistics from the Soviet Union are hard to find due to the government's indifference to the problem, but even official news sources -- which routinely greatly underreported the true magnitude of social problems -- put alcohol abuse rates at 19% of the population.[2] Also note that the amount of drinking you have to do to be considered "abusing" alcohol is far, far greater in Russia than in the US. [1] http://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/opioid-addiction-disease-facts-figures.pdf http://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/opioid-addi... [2] http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/6/824 http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/6/824
- fhood 11y ago
  I think that opiate abuse has more to do with increased availability then a loss of hope.
Tloewald 11y ago
My big problem with what the writer says is that he assumes power comes from position. Most power, and the most useful power, is soft power. In those cases he cites, such as the startup store, where he thinks he could have made a difference as a leader - sorry, but he could have made a difference as a peon if he built credibility and stuck to his guns. Clearly he didn't have that kind of personality, or has too narrow a view of his job.
- jacobush 11y ago
  I can't help but think of Sisyphus, or how a drop of water makes a mark on a stone. Yes, he could. But it sounds like a 100 times more work.
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    Tried and found difficult or thought difficult and left untried? Building up soft power is something anyone should do if they care about their work. Building big things means collaborating, and collaborating means persuading other people when you're right and recognizing when you're wrong. Do that and you become a leader, regardless of your position on the org chart.
- dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  Stuck to his guns? This is very naive and is really not a good criticism whatsoever. On some level, putting yourself into a position where you have to be, as another commenter wrote, Sisyphus, is probably something to regret in itself late in your career.
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    He didn't realize the other guy hadn't committed code in two years? He simply didn't care enough to do a good job. My guess is that this fellow felt like his having set aside his leadership position in a role should simultaneously have given him instant authority and at the same time allowed him to shrug and ignore problems he saw but wash"the directly responsible for.
Bluestrike2 11y ago
It's a very interesting dynamic. Humanistic psychology focuses extensively on ideas of locus of control (Rotter) and self-actualization (Maslow). The perspective has its shortcomings, but I think it manages to hit on a point that many of the others either miss or place little emphasis on. People in general tend to underestimate just how significant that can be. For example, I've always found the argument that certain voters (commonly poor white working-class) who vote for small-government are voting against their own economic interests to be rather interesting from a psych perspective. I'm a libertarian so I don't put much faith in the idea, but I think that issue could be traced back to the concept of locus of control. Voting for larger social spending might benefit them financially, but it also means accepting the belief that control over their life is externalized. The alternative--that control is internalized or even just the perception that it's internalized--is likely more palatable psychologically as a core self-evaluation, with a more beneficial influence on other CSEs (neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem). That leads to better life satisfaction, and can contribute to later economic success according to the research. Reality is a lot more nuanced than that, but perception is absolutely fundamental in terms of how it can affect personality.
- karmelapple 11y ago
  Interesting point. The idea of a meritocracy is pretty ingrained into the tech world, and that means control over life is internal, not external. But tech is not a meritocracy. [1] [2] Accepting that you have less control over your life may change some of your outcomes, but I doubt it would completely crush one's spirit. I've accepted that I'll never flap my arms unaided and fly like a bird. I'm not depressed because of that realization. It's a known limitation of my life, and I can live with it, and I won't spend my weekends practicing my flapping and running skills. It actually helps me focus on areas I can affect change... such as building a jetpack. Knowing which things are outside of your control should help you realize what is and is not within your ability to change, and then you can figure out how to make the most success given which variables are mutable or immutable. You mention research about one's perception can affect later economic success; I'd be very interested in a reference. [1] http://istechameritocracy.com http://istechameritocracy.com [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272646267/how-the-meritocracy-myth-affects-women-in-technology http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272...
vacri 11y ago
> The quintessential American quality is the belief that every person has the right to control their own destiny. Fuck, it's right there in the first sentence of the first document declaring this country's independence. ... and then took nearly a century to getting around to the idea of not owning people. There are a lot of caveats to that American belief.

by exelius 11y ago

andyjohnson0 11y ago

Like you, I don't think the author of the blog post wanted money or power for their own sake. Relevant to your final paragraph: People Want Power Because They Want Autonomy [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11340137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11340137

KyleBrandt 11y ago
Right. If you get a lot of money it doesn't mean you have to go buy a bunch of crap you don't really want. Rather it can give you influence. You can invest in charities or companies you believe in to shape the future. For example http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-florida.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-fl...
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  The only amount of money people really need for autonomy is the amount of money it takes to supply their immediate needs and some reasonable wants; the amount of money necessary to provide for a normal middle-class lifestyle. I would ballpark this around $80k/yr. It's not enough to make big donations to candidates, companies, or charities, and it won't buy the most expensive stuff out there, but it's plenty to keep your life running reasonably comfortably. Big money is a different ballpark and I don't think that's what most people want. I think they just want to be comfortable in doing what they want to do.
  - JimboOmega 11y ago
    Incidentally, isn't $80k around the point where happiness from income levels off? The advantage of big money isn't just charities and companies - it's having your time back, since you're not tied to getting an income from it.
    - tcfunk 11y ago
      I feel like $80k must be an outdated number. My wife and I pull in just under $100k together, and we can't even (comfortably) afford a home. Between rent, student loan payments, health insurance, bills, and car loans, and food, I think we maybe have $500 left to throw around each month. If we were paying against a mortgage, that would basically be zero.
      - clock_tower 11y ago
        Location is everything. You can live like a prince in Tennessee or Kentucky on $80k/yr -- not so much in the really prosperous parts of the country.
      - cookiecaper 11y ago
        Mortgages are usually cheaper than rents on comparable units. The issue is that they require a big upfront chunk of cash to get into. And, as a sibling comment stated, it depends on location. I think $80k is right for most areas of the country. If you live in NYC, SF, LA, or another place with really high cost of living, adjust accordingly (which is probably like 2.3x).
cookiecaper 11y ago
Yes. In post-industrial society, we seem to have lost the true sense of independence. Almost all of us now depend on the good graces of an employer to be able to pay for our needs. That is not independence, it is fiefdom. Meanwhile, true independence is derided as families who provide for their own and are able to pass an inheritance on that grants their children and their grandchildren a degree of autonomy are mocked, which honestly can only really be attributed to jealousy. I hope that I am able to pass a sizable estate to my children and grandchildren, so that they will not be dependent on banks, universities, and employers that will charge them outrageous fees in time and money just so that they may have a hope at a normal middle-class lifestyle. True independence for ourselves and our posterity should be the goal for all of us. For most of human history, it has been; these days, we are confused and pretend that being enslaved to usurers is the ideal.
- fhood 11y ago
  If I have a skill that a large number of people are willing to pay for them that in itself represents independence. Earning potential is far more valuable than money. And guess what, if your children decide not to use those banks and universities, and don't get jobs then they may be "independent, but they are also dead weights. If they don't have skills that contribute to society, they are irrelevant. I agree that people should have access to enough money to realize their potential, but not more than that.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    >If I have a skill that a large number of people are willing to pay for them that in itself represents independence. No. Having an in-demand skill is a tool to obtain and keep independence. It's not independence itself. There are many people out there with high-demand skills who still find themselves unhappily slaving away in a job where they must do someone else's bidding for 40%+ of their waking day. Once they have the property and assets to make that an optional activity that they can leave at any time, they are independent. Having the ability to go find a new master if you get fed up enough with your current one is good, but it's not really independence. Independence is the freedom to control how you spend your days, and unless you're debt-free, own your living space outright, and have a consistent, sustainable source of food, you don't have the option to not work. > If they don't have skills that contribute to society, they are irrelevant. Define "contribute to society". I think you're being way too exclusive here. There are ways to contribute to society without being part of the industrial workforce. Just ask the big bosses, who, incidentally, are the ones pushing this narrative that life is meaningless without their patronage. You don't have to be a professional to make a meaningful contribution. In fact, I would argue that being a good parent has a far greater positive social effect than being a good professional. >And guess what, if your children decide not to use those banks and universities, and don't get jobs then they may be "independent, but they are also dead weights. A bank provides people with very little actual value, so I'm not sure why you included it. I will be immensely pleased if my children can go their whole adult lives without having to pay a cent of usury. It's a massive hidden tax on the middle class, making every major purchase cost about 2-3x its sticker price. If you think about it, you'll see that much of our industrial culture is based on guaranteeing this effortless income to usurers, and I want to break that cycle for my children. This is also a large part of why the media wants to promote negative images of independent wealth; they're trying to protect their dirty income streams and reinforce their position as a hidden cost that people just accept as an implicit requirement. Of course the children of independent people should be taught to do something useful with their time and lives. I think that by and large, they are. You don't hear about that because it doesn't please the massive indentured population to hear about it on TV, but if you look around, you'll see that it's generally true. And in the age of welfare, you don't have to be independently wealthy to be a layabout or a loiterer. It's no longer an exclusive privilege, so providing a decent estate that will allow your posterity to have its freedom and control its own destiny is not really any more dangerous to individual productivity than not doing so. >I agree that people should have access to enough money to realize their potential, but not more than that. I absolutely do agree that too much money in the wrong hands is a recipe for disaster.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
But gaining power means losing autonomy. It means more interdependence to lay off risk. True autonomy is its own discipline. The problem with gaining power is that you now have to steer into the maelstrom of human foibles for a living. "The Turks pay me a golden treasure, yet I am poor! Because I am a river to my people! " - Auda abu Tayi in "Lawrence of Arabia". No, people pursue power for status, not for autonomy.
ufmace 11y ago
Just read the articles on that. It's one of those things that sounds reasonable, but comes from a study that's based on things like online surveys and playing games with college students. I'm not going to take that one too seriously just yet.

akkartik 11y ago

I'd like to see a concrete defense of the position that going into management gives you greater influence on the outcome of situations. I'm inclined to believe in this quote from "Days of Thunder" (1990): Control is an illusion, you infantile egomaniac. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099371/quotes http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099371/quotes)

Bluestrike2 11y ago
Agreed in a lot of circumstances. How many bad managers think that yelling to get things done is actually accomplishing something on their part? Good managers have the ability to shepherd their people and resources in a way that gives them a better chance of success and minimizes the potential stumbling blocks. It still requires good people, clear goals, and lots of other things that may or may not be 100% under your control, but even with those caveats, you can generally assume that you'll have a bit more control in management, though parts are more indirect (you're not involved in writing the actual code as much if at all depending on the company, etc.). But it's really easy to over-estimate that control and your ability to wield it. If the Peter principle is accurate, and people are promoted to their level of incompetence, then it also indicates that people assume their level of competence is higher than it actually is. And then you get project failures, screaming managers, and lots of lost money.

nickbauman 11y ago

OTOH people I know with a lot of money have serious relationship issues. Money distorts your social connections. It's really not worth it. At the end of the game, the king and the pawn go back into the same box (old Sicilian proverb).

maqr 11y ago
You may be right, but I only ever hear my fellow working class people espousing that view...
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  You may sit at a desk, but if you don't fire people for a living, you're working class. "Power is only given to those who are prepared to lower themselves to pick it up" - Ragnar Lodbrok, "Vikings".

pink_dinner 11y ago

"The quintessential American quality is the belief that every person has the right to control their own destiny." So you don't think you have this right? I believe you have the right of opportunity, but not of outcome. I learned what this guy learned pretty early on: If you are an employee (developer or not), you will be paid to do things you are against and people less intelligent and experienced than you will be making decisions for you at some point...and you can't do anything about it. This is the sole reason I started my own company. I was sick of being forced to go down a path of failure..after every attempt to do otherwise was ignored. After our failure, management never wanted to look bad, so they almost always picked someone to blame. Sometimes it was me or my team, sometimes someone else. Speaking up about it meant you weren't a 'team player' and you would probably be on the chopping block during the next round of layoffs. I was able to survive most layoffs because I learned how to play politics, but at the cost of never feeling satisfied with my job. I've had my own company for 5 years and I don't regret a thing. It was the best decision I ever made. "I just have to say this: So typically american" Really? I was thinking it was typically Chinese. My wife's family is from China and they pretty much all try to one up/compare each other in terms of assets, money, or jobs. "If you want to control your destiny, you'd better learn how to make money." This message is pretty truthful. The more you rely on someone to support you (the government, friends, family, job), the less control you have over your life. Money gives you the ultimate power and freedom to do what you want. Regardless of your culture, this doesn't change. If you have more more money, you will always have more options/freedom.

exelius 11y ago
> So you don't think you have this right? I believe you have the right of opportunity, but not of outcome. I do think I have this right; as an American it is the #1 thing that makes me an American. It's why we ignore the rules we don't like. It's why we lust for power and for money, lest some other person beat us to the punch and have power over us. And while no rational person thinks they can control every factor that goes into their own outcome, we at least want to have some influence. If you're an engineer and your company goes belly-up because your marketing guy was a moron and you didn't have the power to make him listen to your ideas... that's the position many Americans strive to avoid. > Really? I was thinking it was typically Chinese. My wife's family is from China and they pretty much all try to one up/compare each other in terms of assets, money, or jobs. I feel that this no longer an American trait. 30 years ago, yeah, but with the whole backlash against the 1% and the hipster movement where bankers making $500k/yr dress like homeless musicians... it's not as cool to flaunt money anymore (unless you're a musician; then it's just part of the whole consumer culture thing because you're selling a life of luxury to poor people...) My household income last year was over seven figures, but I live in a house worth less than half of that and drive a 5 year old base model Subaru. Once money buys you autonomy, it's not really worth much (and that's a modern American perspective that's backed up by research). > Regardless of your culture, this doesn't change. If you have more more money, you will always have more options/freedom. I absolutely agree. But the single most important value that America was founded on is self-determination: the idea that each person is in control of their own destiny. Outside forces may get in your way, but it's your obligation to figure out how to get around them. American business culture is the same way: if you want to limit your chances of being fired through no fault of your own, you should probably get more power so you're higher up on the decision making chain.

UncleOxidant 11y ago

> Therefore, money is seen primarily as a means to self-determination. And even deeper down, it's a means of survival. The safety net here has pretty much disintegrated since it began to be dismantled in the '80s. A lot of people in the US haven't saved enough for retirement considering this new reality... they haven't even saved enough to get them through a few months of unemployment. There's a loss of hope in rural America now in places where it can be very tough to find decent paying work. It's starting so show up in a decrease in lifespan and in many ways it's very similar to what happened in Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed. The drug of choice there was/is alcohol. Here it seems to be prescription opiates (in addition to alcohol).

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Jefferson anticipated this, and thought the only way for rural life to work out was for this to be a nation of small freeholders. People just don't have enough to do otherwise.
pjlegato 11y ago
> The drug of choice there was/is alcohol. Here it seems to be prescription opiates (in addition to alcohol). These situations are not even remotely comparable. The fraction of Americans who abuse opiates is tiny compared to the percentage of Russians who abuse alcohol. As a rough approximation, about 2.5 million Americans have an opiate abuse issue in 2016[1], out of a population of 319 million. This is about 0.8% of the population. Statistics from the Soviet Union are hard to find due to the government's indifference to the problem, but even official news sources -- which routinely greatly underreported the true magnitude of social problems -- put alcohol abuse rates at 19% of the population.[2] Also note that the amount of drinking you have to do to be considered "abusing" alcohol is far, far greater in Russia than in the US. [1] http://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/opioid-addiction-disease-facts-figures.pdf http://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/opioid-addi... [2] http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/6/824 http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/6/824
fhood 11y ago
I think that opiate abuse has more to do with increased availability then a loss of hope.

Tloewald 11y ago

My big problem with what the writer says is that he assumes power comes from position. Most power, and the most useful power, is soft power. In those cases he cites, such as the startup store, where he thinks he could have made a difference as a leader - sorry, but he could have made a difference as a peon if he built credibility and stuck to his guns. Clearly he didn't have that kind of personality, or has too narrow a view of his job.

jacobush 11y ago
I can't help but think of Sisyphus, or how a drop of water makes a mark on a stone. Yes, he could. But it sounds like a 100 times more work.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  Tried and found difficult or thought difficult and left untried? Building up soft power is something anyone should do if they care about their work. Building big things means collaborating, and collaborating means persuading other people when you're right and recognizing when you're wrong. Do that and you become a leader, regardless of your position on the org chart.
dinkumthinkum 11y ago
Stuck to his guns? This is very naive and is really not a good criticism whatsoever. On some level, putting yourself into a position where you have to be, as another commenter wrote, Sisyphus, is probably something to regret in itself late in your career.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  He didn't realize the other guy hadn't committed code in two years? He simply didn't care enough to do a good job. My guess is that this fellow felt like his having set aside his leadership position in a role should simultaneously have given him instant authority and at the same time allowed him to shrug and ignore problems he saw but wash"the directly responsible for.

Bluestrike2 11y ago

It's a very interesting dynamic. Humanistic psychology focuses extensively on ideas of locus of control (Rotter) and self-actualization (Maslow). The perspective has its shortcomings, but I think it manages to hit on a point that many of the others either miss or place little emphasis on. People in general tend to underestimate just how significant that can be. For example, I've always found the argument that certain voters (commonly poor white working-class) who vote for small-government are voting against their own economic interests to be rather interesting from a psych perspective. I'm a libertarian so I don't put much faith in the idea, but I think that issue could be traced back to the concept of locus of control. Voting for larger social spending might benefit them financially, but it also means accepting the belief that control over their life is externalized. The alternative--that control is internalized or even just the perception that it's internalized--is likely more palatable psychologically as a core self-evaluation, with a more beneficial influence on other CSEs (neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem). That leads to better life satisfaction, and can contribute to later economic success according to the research. Reality is a lot more nuanced than that, but perception is absolutely fundamental in terms of how it can affect personality.

karmelapple 11y ago
Interesting point. The idea of a meritocracy is pretty ingrained into the tech world, and that means control over life is internal, not external. But tech is not a meritocracy. [1] [2] Accepting that you have less control over your life may change some of your outcomes, but I doubt it would completely crush one's spirit. I've accepted that I'll never flap my arms unaided and fly like a bird. I'm not depressed because of that realization. It's a known limitation of my life, and I can live with it, and I won't spend my weekends practicing my flapping and running skills. It actually helps me focus on areas I can affect change... such as building a jetpack. Knowing which things are outside of your control should help you realize what is and is not within your ability to change, and then you can figure out how to make the most success given which variables are mutable or immutable. You mention research about one's perception can affect later economic success; I'd be very interested in a reference. [1] http://istechameritocracy.com http://istechameritocracy.com [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272646267/how-the-meritocracy-myth-affects-women-in-technology http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272...

vacri 11y ago

> The quintessential American quality is the belief that every person has the right to control their own destiny. Fuck, it's right there in the first sentence of the first document declaring this country's independence. ... and then took nearly a century to getting around to the idea of not owning people. There are a lot of caveats to that American belief.