5 ms·

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 W

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      I feel like $80k must be an outdated number.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).
      - citizens 11y ago
        It's definitely outdated, or at least location dependent. The average rent in Manhattan in 2/16 was $3,850. Landlords won't rent to you unless you earn 40x the monthly rent which is $154k. In Brooklyn, the average is $2,716 which ends up being $108,640. (http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report)
        cookiecaper 11y ago
        Most people don't live in Manhattan or Brooklyn. If you live in a high COL area, adjust accordingly. I suggested using an approximate 2.3x multiplier elsewhere. The most financially effective way to be a programmer is to work remotely for someone who pays SF or NYC salaries and live in a moderate COL area. I've always seen the rental income requirement you stated phrased as "monthly income must be at least 3x monthly rent", in case the 40x thing threw anyone else off (40/12=3.33).
    - rifung 11y ago
      I assume you're referring to: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract for the $80k number. In case you haven't seen it, there's another paper that argues the opposite: more money does make you happier (but only if you know how to use it). http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/danielgilbert/files/if-money-doesnt-make-you-happy.nov-12-20101.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/danielgilbert/files/if-mone... I make more than $80k and I can certainly say that I was less stressed before I took a huge pay cut. On the other hand, I like my job more so I guess I might actually still be happier. All else being equal though, if I made more I imagine I would be much less stressed..
  - hueving 11y ago
    You are mixing up the amount of money required to not be worried about money and the amount of money required to just let you do whatever you want. Yes, an 80k salary means you aren't worried about how you will survive, but it still has you tied to a job that will limit your autonomy quite a bit. To achieve the level of autonomy being discussed here, you would need the 80k/yr without any obligations.
  - brianpan 11y ago
    I think you have defined autonomy in a very specific way. That is not everyone's goal (what they want control over, or to feel like they are accomplishing). I think the OP wanted control over building/shipping/creating products. Not life comforts, house, food on the table, free time. His goals would not be helped by a middle-class income, but more control over the products he was building.
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.

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).
    - citizens 11y ago
      It's definitely outdated, or at least location dependent. The average rent in Manhattan in 2/16 was $3,850. Landlords won't rent to you unless you earn 40x the monthly rent which is $154k. In Brooklyn, the average is $2,716 which ends up being $108,640. (http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report)
      - cookiecaper 11y ago
        Most people don't live in Manhattan or Brooklyn. If you live in a high COL area, adjust accordingly. I suggested using an approximate 2.3x multiplier elsewhere. The most financially effective way to be a programmer is to work remotely for someone who pays SF or NYC salaries and live in a moderate COL area. I've always seen the rental income requirement you stated phrased as "monthly income must be at least 3x monthly rent", in case the 40x thing threw anyone else off (40/12=3.33).
  - rifung 11y ago
    I assume you're referring to: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract for the $80k number. In case you haven't seen it, there's another paper that argues the opposite: more money does make you happier (but only if you know how to use it). http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/danielgilbert/files/if-money-doesnt-make-you-happy.nov-12-20101.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/danielgilbert/files/if-mone... I make more than $80k and I can certainly say that I was less stressed before I took a huge pay cut. On the other hand, I like my job more so I guess I might actually still be happier. All else being equal though, if I made more I imagine I would be much less stressed..
- hueving 11y ago
  You are mixing up the amount of money required to not be worried about money and the amount of money required to just let you do whatever you want. Yes, an 80k salary means you aren't worried about how you will survive, but it still has you tied to a job that will limit your autonomy quite a bit. To achieve the level of autonomy being discussed here, you would need the 80k/yr without any obligations.
- brianpan 11y ago
  I think you have defined autonomy in a very specific way. That is not everyone's goal (what they want control over, or to feel like they are accomplishing). I think the OP wanted control over building/shipping/creating products. Not life comforts, house, food on the table, free time. His goals would not be helped by a middle-class income, but more control over the products he was building.

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.