8 ms·

Do you really want to be rich?

103 points by maxklein 17y ago

Xurinos 17y ago
Yes, of course I do, and the generalizations here are gross and condescending. You will not convince me that I do not want this. I lean towards the Comfort angle, but I also start tinkering and producing when I am bored, so I could hardly be considered to walk the lazy path. I look for freedom from lower-level concerns so as to begin address higher-level needs. Money provides a layer of abstraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs I am sure someone can link to the study that refuted the "money can't buy happiness" claim.
- mmastrac 17y ago
  I was going to reply myself, but you've basically said exactly what I was thinking. Some of us enjoy what we do, but would rather have a self-sustaining lifestyle that lets us do what we enjoy doing not because we have to, but because we want to.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  If you're talking about the same study I'm thinking of then its conclusion was that "money can buy happiness but usually doesn't" because you need to spend the money on experiences rather than things, and spending money on things is vastly easier.
- pw 17y ago
  "Money provides a layer of abstraction." Wonderful way of saying it. Maybe it doesn't quite make sense, but I'm a sucker for applying technical concepts to more domestic concerns ;-)
  - maximilian 17y ago
    It seems to make perfect sense. Its like storing and retrieving objects in a database. You can do it by hand, but its more of a pain -- better to leave it to something else and use the abstraction: storeData(key,value), retreiveData(key). We can directly map this to nice shirts. Normally one has to buy and iron shirts, which is a pain. (assuming you don't like buying or ironing). Now if you have a lot of money, you can pay someone to abstract that all away. You just look in your closet and grab whatever shirt you want. At the end of the day you just put it in the dirty clothes bin, and poof magically it will appear clean and ironed again in the closet. Money provides the person who abstracts the mechanisms that allow the shirt to exist. We could even do this experiment to harvesting the cotton, producing the shirt etc, which is abstracted away using money as trade for the various levels in the manufacturing.. mmm.
- Aetius 17y ago
  "Money provides a layer of abstraction" This is so true. For those who say that getting money for the sake of getting money is a useless pursuit, no, it isn't. No one who isn't already rich is getting money strictly for the sake of getting money. They are doing it for an infinite number of reasons. Caricaturing them into rat-racey participants of Lifestyles Of The Rich and Famous, simply because they want to be rich, is despicable. Money is like energy. Just because I'm interested in acquiring a gigawatt of energy doesn't mean I want to use it for smelting aluminium. I can use energy for an infinite number of activities. That's why I want to be rich. It allows me to easily pick and choose what I want to do, without specializing in doing just that.
  - akd 17y ago
    Pedantry: a gigawatt is a unit of power, not energy. Perhaps you meant a gigawatt-hour? :)
- robryan 17y ago
  I don't think you could ever have an amount of money you couldn't do anything with. Even if you had $100 billion, as Bill Gates shows their is plenty you can do with it. I think I would head down the spaceX path if I even became mega rich. If government no longer wish to fund space exploration it would be great to take up that role and push humanity forward. You could never have enough money with a pursuit like this.
telemachos 17y ago
It's a lesson that some people will understand, and some won't ever. I'm curious about this: does anyone who doesn't want to be rich - at all, or not in the correct third way - fall into the group of "those who don't understand"? I think I understand that if I had a desire to be rich - endlessly, endlessly rich - and not for the things it brought me or for comfort, then I might prefer to work with other people with the same attitude. But is it necessarily the case that if you understand this lesson, then your desires fall into line? Socrates thought this about being good: if you understand what goodness really is, then you immediately have the appropriate desires. I don't think desire and understanding work this way, generally speaking. I certainly don't see any attraction in "being rich" as described in the piece, but I don't think that means I failed to understand something.
- Retric 17y ago
  I know several people in the 5 to 100 million range and I don't really want to be that rich. A close friend growing up had 6-7 million in trust fund + a lot more on the way and it was a lot harder than you might think. You don't have enough to "change the world" but working is almost pointless etc. So he took a lot of stupid risks to feel alive and died at 30. I have that type of personality and while I like taking 6 months off, it gets old and I want something meaningful to do.
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    A close friend growing up had 6-7 million in trust fund + a lot more on the way and it was a lot harder than you might think. You don't have enough to "change the world" but working is almost pointless etc. I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but if you ask me, the "almost pointless" excuse is pretty pathetic. All else equal, being rich gives you strictly more options, and therefore the means to make work more meaningful. At $6m net worth, you own your own time and can work or play at will, in pretty much any industry you desire. Also, your career is going to be much better if you're rich because 1) upper management assumes you work hard because you actually want to do so rather than have to, 2) you get better jobs and projects because people want to buy your family's connections, and 3) most importantly, you don't have the "fear of the boss" that middle-class people do, so upper management sees you as more independent and confident. I've worked on Wall Street at desks that send more money across the table every day than most rich kids' trust funds, and even there, rich kids advance faster, primarily for reason #3. In the for-profit sector, working is actually pointless for 90+% of people in it, who will never appreciably advance and only go to work because they have to. Being unusually talented or wealthy gives one a chance to not be caught in that trap and to do "pointful" work. So I don't buy into the bullshit excuse that his trust fund made working "almost pointless". Not in the least.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
pw0ncakes 17y ago
I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants . 2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly portrayed by OP. 3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are responsible for the "next quarter" mentality that has ruined the US and shaken the world economy. What unifies types I and III is the narcissistic character of a toxic and dangerous personality. What differentiates them is low (I) vs. high (III) self-image. The stronger self-image of the third set makes these people more dangerous, IMO. What about? Group 2+: Those who want to be comfortable, so they can spend their mental energy on things that are actually interesting and useful. These are people who wouldn't mind getting rich, but are more interested in solving interesting problems and making the world a better place than in having toy X at age Y.
- angelbob 17y ago
  I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either. They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard enough you can't do it accidentally."
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    Explain. Do you really think the Google founders set out to be billionaires? I think that most of the interesting and decent rich people had no idea they'd be so successful. They put one foot in front of the other until they had something of great value.
    - fnid2 17y ago
      For the record, they also didn't set out to compete with any of the existing search engines, rather their interest was to prove the viability of their linux cluster and an internet of data was a good theater for that.
      - 17y ago
fnid2 17y ago
I'll never do business with someone who doesn't know when enough is enough. This post is saying to do business with greedy people. Kind of sad really, but I'm glad I'm the kind of person the author doesn't want to do business with. I look on people like this with pity. For them, money is an addiction. They'll do anything for their fix. They'll lie, cheat, steal. Those aren't the kinds of people to do business with, because eventually they'll look to get their fix from you.
- migpwr 17y ago
  You do business with the people that will bring you a profit. In theory, it doesn't matter what personal views the person across the table has if they adequately provide the services you need. Learn to identify the wants/needs of those people that operate around you and plan accordingly. Business is about profit, not feeling good about the people you buy/sell services from/to. Defend yourself if you see a need. Don't avoid people just because you don't get a warm feeling when you exchange services with them.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    I'm of the opposite opinion. I have the freedom to choose who I work with, who I buy products from, and who I sell my products to. There is a lot of room in the world to do business with people who are considerate, responsible, and of a mindset that I think makes the world a better place. I've refused to create accounts for other types of individuals on more than one occasion. If they want to use a competing product, that's okay with me. I don't mind losing business from customers I don't appreciate. If someone is a nasty person I don't want them to benefit from the use of my product. Check out some of the firing bad clients threads. Best just not to do business with them in the first place. It's my little way to shape my world and surround myself with people I appreciate -- that's more important to me than money.
froo 17y ago
I disagree. I think that there are not enough categories. For example, I've got a comfortable lifestyle, I earn a decent passive income (~18k a month) and it affords me time to work on the stuff that I want to work on. I'm working on something now because I look at the industry that I'm targeting and I all I see is flaws. The products don't match the consumers wants. I want to fix that and I see a big opportunity eventually. So I don't match the "don't want to be poor" crowd, because I'm not poor (I'm not rich either) and yet I'm still working on making more. I don't really care if anyone knows my name. I'm not that vain. Lastly, while I like the idea of making more money - that in itself is not the big motivator for what I'm doing. I want to build something that changes the game, not because of any external factor other than a personal goal. Maybe I'm just an edge case, but I don't think you can quite classify everyone into 3 categories.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  For most people, an 18K monthly income ($216K annualized) that is passive is most definitely considered "being rich".
  - froo 17y ago
    Except that given it could potentially end tomorrow, I am motivated to work on something different. Sure I have a comfortable position at the moment, but resting on my laurels could be a costly mistake. I am just using this breathing room to work on something that has more potential rather than having to hustle for income... basically forgoing short term gains for long term ones.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      Fair enough, nothing wrong with that and I agree with your first comment too, just wanted to introduce perspective, because sometimes we all get caught up in where we are and forget that a lot of people are still where we were. :-)
      - froo 17y ago
paulbaumgart 17y ago
I'm not convinced there's a significant difference between the first and third categories. Both are means to gaining status- the difference is just in the audience (the people they're trying to impress) and in the sophistication of how the status is expressed.
- DougBTX 17y ago
  Sophistication is significant.
gamble 17y ago
Yikes. If there's anything I've learned, it's to avoid people in the third category at all costs. These are the guys who see every transaction as a zero-sum game, and the people who will stick a knife in you the moment an opportunity presents itself.
- mediaman 17y ago
  Not true. Warren Buffett fits in that category. Many people in that third category care about making money in an abstract sense -- it's a game, but it can be a long-term game. They don't care about the cars or the status symbols. They love building wealth, but not for wealth's sake. People who don't understand long-term relationships are not actually in the long-term game to make money. Usually they just lack some emotional intelligence. People who 'get it' develop good, long-term business relationships, because they know that to be a successful businessperson and make lots of money you can't just rely on short-term contract-type thinking. You rely on relationships.
  - lukev 17y ago
    Treating finance as a game is only an option for those who are already wealthy enough to never worry about being comfortable. Plus, I sincerely doubt Warren Buffet is likely to give up finance in favor of Chess anytime soon, even if he came to the conclusion it was more interesting (not saying it is, just drawing a comparison.)
telemachos 17y ago
The post from a litle over a month ago is worth a re-read in light of this: http://blog.cubeofm.com/programming-is-a-way-to-procrastinate http://blog.cubeofm.com/programming-is-a-way-to-procrastinat... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124953 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124953
jfarmer 17y ago
You should read "Enough" by John Bogle, founder and former CEO of the Vanguard Group.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 17y ago
Yes, yes I do, but it is really not for the reasons given. I want to control my own schedule. My brother pointed this one out to me, and it makes perfect sense. Having a lot of money, but being bound to the clock doesn't quite sound as fun.
tome 17y ago
This is really saying: "partner with people whose interests are aligned with yours". Doesn't matter whether it's about making money, intellectual development or playing on a sports team. The same principle applies.
drunkpotato 17y ago
I'm sensing a theme from this blog: admiration of narcissists. There are successful people I admire and emulate, and they are nothing like the "successful" people heaped praise upon by this blog.
callmeed 17y ago
I really like Max's posts but I wish he would elaborate on the 3 types a little further. It seems hard to pigeon-hole every type of entrepreneur/potential partner within these 3 categories (at least as he has described them). I think I "get" what he's saying (and I definitely concur on type 1–seen plenty of those in my day) but I think it would benefit from more details/examples.
mediaman 17y ago
People here are showing a lot of dislike for the third category, those who want to make money. I think that's because of how the author describes them, not how they actually are. People who want to make money for money's sake love building things. They can't stand to sit still. They understand long-term relationships, and the smart ones learn that trust and inspiring leaders within your own and other organizations is the only way to keep building. They love competing, and they love winning. But that doesn't mean they lack integrity, or think lying or cheating is the way to win. They understand that at best that gets you a win in the very short run. They are the tinkerers of capitalism. And that's why they don't fail you once they can afford a Porsche, why they don't constantly try to impress people because of their insecurities, and why they don't stop thinking about improving their business once they "have enough". Not everyone is like that, but that's not a reason to disrespect those who are.
- wynand 17y ago
  That's an interesting take. At least in the case of Buffett, I think he really likes what he does (I mean, the man still lives in a normal family house). To me there is a distinction between people who want to make more money and people who want to build things. The former is in it for power, whilst the latter is in it for recognition. I realize how simplistic that sounds. But many of our current problems came about because people don't care about what's behind the money. We need less indirection in the financial world. If I invest in something, I should give some kind of damn about it.
- JohnnyBrown 17y ago
  "I'm reasonably happy, but the money's not the point. It's an indication that I've succeeded in the grand adventure of understanding reality." -George Soros The way I look at it, making money is a great competition because it has the largest and most talented pool of competitors you will ever find. You get to measure yourself against the world, give or take a few people.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
What does this paragraph intend to say: "For these men we sat with, I spent over 10.000 yuan on the program this evening. I took us to an expensive hotel, I paid the tips for all the girls, I ordered really expensive food. But when we spoke to these men, they never mentioned how much money they had. They never tried to impress me, in spite of me doing all this." That (and the dog meat) bit seem like total non sequiturs to me.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
jxcole 17y ago
I hate this article. I hate anything that says "There are two types of people in the world, those that x, and those that y". I hate it because either: 1) The statements x and y are opposites and combine to be a truism. Truisms are not interesting. (from the 2nd and 3rd matrix) "Some things change, and others don't". 2) The generalization is demonstrably false or unknowable. In this article in partiular, I found a sort of weird mesh. The second and third category are clear opposites of each other. They are a truism in that you can say "A rich person either will keep on trying to get rich, or will stop after a while." This is roughly equivalent to what these categories represent. The first category is sort of contained in the second category. Or, more accurately, if someone is going to stop trying to make money after a while, they will either stop because they are comfortable or because they are being looked up to. Not exactly mind blowing information. I feel that broad categorization of people is useless. People are not either one thing or another. People have features in quantities. Fuzzy logic rules over binary in the world of humans. It would be nice and easy if humans were so simple, but they are not.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  I hate anything that says "There are two types of people in the world, those that x, and those that y". I hate it because either: 1) ... 2) ... Irony :)
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    I'm pretty sure he didn't rail against generalization in general, only for people in particular ;)
  - jacobolus 17y ago
    Do those two options seem exhaustive to you? If so, could you explain how?
- gizmo 17y ago
  Although I don't disagree with any of your assertions, I think TFA is interesting because it observes that all the people who want to be rich don't actually want to be rich. The first group considers money the solution to insecurity. Money is not what they want, they want to be confident and date models. The second group doesn't want money (they just want some money) and the third group is playing a game. They want to win, and the metric is money. People state the desire to be rich often enough, but there are only very few people who really want to be rich. I think the blog pointed that out pretty well.
maxwin 17y ago
This article getting to the front page is either an indication of the weaknesses of HN algorithms or the drop of quality of HN users who voted it up.
- codexon 17y ago
  maxklein has admitted in the past to psychologically gaming HN.
- telemachos 17y ago
  Why do you think that the article's popularity reflects badly on HN or HN's current users? Sure it's provocative (maybe deliberately so, maybe not), but it's also well-written and engaging. I won't argue about the writing, but engaging should be pretty obvious: almost everyone involved in this thread disagrees with the author, but they're all clearly involved in the debate, right?
  - maxwin 17y ago
    So if I write an article about how to torture a dog for fun making most to engage in the conversation to voice their disagreement,does this article become a worthy one?is this article suited for this audience?do people gain any insights ?
    - telemachos 17y ago
      I don't think that your analogy is fair. The blog post talks about different approaches to "getting rich." A lot of people here are interested in this issue. So, the article gets voted up. For whatever it's worth, I'm have zero interest in getting rich. I wish HN were more about tech & code and less about the money and success. But that isn't a decision I get to make. Having said that, the article engaged me because it made me think about the psychology of people who do care that much about wealth.
Confusion 17y ago
How strange: the post does not actually give a reason for only wanting to go into business with people that chase money for the purpose of chasing money. It does not explain why the reason that people want money matters. It states a preference of the author, without a single justification.
- gridspy 17y ago
  I thought the justification was obvious - you don't want to build a relationship with a partner who will drop out for personal reasons.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    That is far from obvious, because a partner that's only in it for the money will drop out as soon as he spots a more lucrative opportunity. They are just as much a liability as the other categories: they don't give a shit about you or your goals.
mo34 17y ago
I grew up washing dishes and eating the food off the incoming plates because I was hungry. I never, ever want this for my kids. Yes, I wanted to be rich, am now rich, and I will pass these riches onto my kids.
wynand 17y ago
I got really angry when I first read this blog post (see my other comment here) and I was thrilled that most people here are as annoyed. I read maxklein's other story (about how programming is procrastination). I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt now. To be blunt, he needs to work on how he communicates. But, I think the gist of what he's trying to say is: there are certain things you need to do if you want to succeed well in business. You have to want to do business (the making money part), but that includes things far beyond programming (for example). I think I see what he means about working with people who want to make money: they have to be in it for the long haul. But even people who would lose interest when they're rich have a long way to go while they're still (relatively speaking) poor. You don't want to discount the Woz's of the world just because their hearts are in the tech. If you do, you lose.
swah 17y ago
YES!

103 points by maxklein 17y ago

Yes, of course I do, and the generalizations here are gross and condescending. You will not convince me that I do not want this. I lean towards the Comfort angle, but I also start tinkering and producing when I am bored, so I could hardly be considered to walk the lazy path. I look for freedom from lower-level concerns so as to begin address higher-level needs. Money provides a layer of abstraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs I am sure someone can link to the study that refuted the "money can't buy happiness" claim.

mmastrac 17y ago
I was going to reply myself, but you've basically said exactly what I was thinking. Some of us enjoy what we do, but would rather have a self-sustaining lifestyle that lets us do what we enjoy doing not because we have to, but because we want to.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
If you're talking about the same study I'm thinking of then its conclusion was that "money can buy happiness but usually doesn't" because you need to spend the money on experiences rather than things, and spending money on things is vastly easier.
pw 17y ago
"Money provides a layer of abstraction." Wonderful way of saying it. Maybe it doesn't quite make sense, but I'm a sucker for applying technical concepts to more domestic concerns ;-)
- maximilian 17y ago
  It seems to make perfect sense. Its like storing and retrieving objects in a database. You can do it by hand, but its more of a pain -- better to leave it to something else and use the abstraction: storeData(key,value), retreiveData(key). We can directly map this to nice shirts. Normally one has to buy and iron shirts, which is a pain. (assuming you don't like buying or ironing). Now if you have a lot of money, you can pay someone to abstract that all away. You just look in your closet and grab whatever shirt you want. At the end of the day you just put it in the dirty clothes bin, and poof magically it will appear clean and ironed again in the closet. Money provides the person who abstracts the mechanisms that allow the shirt to exist. We could even do this experiment to harvesting the cotton, producing the shirt etc, which is abstracted away using money as trade for the various levels in the manufacturing.. mmm.
Aetius 17y ago
"Money provides a layer of abstraction" This is so true. For those who say that getting money for the sake of getting money is a useless pursuit, no, it isn't. No one who isn't already rich is getting money strictly for the sake of getting money. They are doing it for an infinite number of reasons. Caricaturing them into rat-racey participants of Lifestyles Of The Rich and Famous, simply because they want to be rich, is despicable. Money is like energy. Just because I'm interested in acquiring a gigawatt of energy doesn't mean I want to use it for smelting aluminium. I can use energy for an infinite number of activities. That's why I want to be rich. It allows me to easily pick and choose what I want to do, without specializing in doing just that.
- akd 17y ago
  Pedantry: a gigawatt is a unit of power, not energy. Perhaps you meant a gigawatt-hour? :)
robryan 17y ago
I don't think you could ever have an amount of money you couldn't do anything with. Even if you had $100 billion, as Bill Gates shows their is plenty you can do with it. I think I would head down the spaceX path if I even became mega rich. If government no longer wish to fund space exploration it would be great to take up that role and push humanity forward. You could never have enough money with a pursuit like this.

telemachos 17y ago

It's a lesson that some people will understand, and some won't ever. I'm curious about this: does anyone who doesn't want to be rich - at all, or not in the correct third way - fall into the group of "those who don't understand"? I think I understand that if I had a desire to be rich - endlessly, endlessly rich - and not for the things it brought me or for comfort, then I might prefer to work with other people with the same attitude. But is it necessarily the case that if you understand this lesson, then your desires fall into line? Socrates thought this about being good: if you understand what goodness really is, then you immediately have the appropriate desires. I don't think desire and understanding work this way, generally speaking. I certainly don't see any attraction in "being rich" as described in the piece, but I don't think that means I failed to understand something.

Retric 17y ago
I know several people in the 5 to 100 million range and I don't really want to be that rich. A close friend growing up had 6-7 million in trust fund + a lot more on the way and it was a lot harder than you might think. You don't have enough to "change the world" but working is almost pointless etc. So he took a lot of stupid risks to feel alive and died at 30. I have that type of personality and while I like taking 6 months off, it gets old and I want something meaningful to do.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  A close friend growing up had 6-7 million in trust fund + a lot more on the way and it was a lot harder than you might think. You don't have enough to "change the world" but working is almost pointless etc. I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but if you ask me, the "almost pointless" excuse is pretty pathetic. All else equal, being rich gives you strictly more options, and therefore the means to make work more meaningful. At $6m net worth, you own your own time and can work or play at will, in pretty much any industry you desire. Also, your career is going to be much better if you're rich because 1) upper management assumes you work hard because you actually want to do so rather than have to, 2) you get better jobs and projects because people want to buy your family's connections, and 3) most importantly, you don't have the "fear of the boss" that middle-class people do, so upper management sees you as more independent and confident. I've worked on Wall Street at desks that send more money across the table every day than most rich kids' trust funds, and even there, rich kids advance faster, primarily for reason #3. In the for-profit sector, working is actually pointless for 90+% of people in it, who will never appreciably advance and only go to work because they have to. Being unusually talented or wealthy gives one a chance to not be caught in that trap and to do "pointful" work. So I don't buy into the bullshit excuse that his trust fund made working "almost pointless". Not in the least.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

pw0ncakes 17y ago

I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants . 2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly portrayed by OP. 3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are responsible for the "next quarter" mentality that has ruined the US and shaken the world economy. What unifies types I and III is the narcissistic character of a toxic and dangerous personality. What differentiates them is low (I) vs. high (III) self-image. The stronger self-image of the third set makes these people more dangerous, IMO. What about? Group 2+: Those who want to be comfortable, so they can spend their mental energy on things that are actually interesting and useful. These are people who wouldn't mind getting rich, but are more interested in solving interesting problems and making the world a better place than in having toy X at age Y.

angelbob 17y ago
I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either. They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard enough you can't do it accidentally."
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Explain. Do you really think the Google founders set out to be billionaires? I think that most of the interesting and decent rich people had no idea they'd be so successful. They put one foot in front of the other until they had something of great value.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    For the record, they also didn't set out to compete with any of the existing search engines, rather their interest was to prove the viability of their linux cluster and an internet of data was a good theater for that.
    - 17y ago

fnid2 17y ago

I'll never do business with someone who doesn't know when enough is enough. This post is saying to do business with greedy people. Kind of sad really, but I'm glad I'm the kind of person the author doesn't want to do business with. I look on people like this with pity. For them, money is an addiction. They'll do anything for their fix. They'll lie, cheat, steal. Those aren't the kinds of people to do business with, because eventually they'll look to get their fix from you.

migpwr 17y ago
You do business with the people that will bring you a profit. In theory, it doesn't matter what personal views the person across the table has if they adequately provide the services you need. Learn to identify the wants/needs of those people that operate around you and plan accordingly. Business is about profit, not feeling good about the people you buy/sell services from/to. Defend yourself if you see a need. Don't avoid people just because you don't get a warm feeling when you exchange services with them.
- fnid2 17y ago
  I'm of the opposite opinion. I have the freedom to choose who I work with, who I buy products from, and who I sell my products to. There is a lot of room in the world to do business with people who are considerate, responsible, and of a mindset that I think makes the world a better place. I've refused to create accounts for other types of individuals on more than one occasion. If they want to use a competing product, that's okay with me. I don't mind losing business from customers I don't appreciate. If someone is a nasty person I don't want them to benefit from the use of my product. Check out some of the firing bad clients threads. Best just not to do business with them in the first place. It's my little way to shape my world and surround myself with people I appreciate -- that's more important to me than money.

froo 17y ago

I disagree. I think that there are not enough categories. For example, I've got a comfortable lifestyle, I earn a decent passive income (~18k a month) and it affords me time to work on the stuff that I want to work on. I'm working on something now because I look at the industry that I'm targeting and I all I see is flaws. The products don't match the consumers wants. I want to fix that and I see a big opportunity eventually. So I don't match the "don't want to be poor" crowd, because I'm not poor (I'm not rich either) and yet I'm still working on making more. I don't really care if anyone knows my name. I'm not that vain. Lastly, while I like the idea of making more money - that in itself is not the big motivator for what I'm doing. I want to build something that changes the game, not because of any external factor other than a personal goal. Maybe I'm just an edge case, but I don't think you can quite classify everyone into 3 categories.

run4yourlives 17y ago
For most people, an 18K monthly income ($216K annualized) that is passive is most definitely considered "being rich".
- froo 17y ago
  Except that given it could potentially end tomorrow, I am motivated to work on something different. Sure I have a comfortable position at the moment, but resting on my laurels could be a costly mistake. I am just using this breathing room to work on something that has more potential rather than having to hustle for income... basically forgoing short term gains for long term ones.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Fair enough, nothing wrong with that and I agree with your first comment too, just wanted to introduce perspective, because sometimes we all get caught up in where we are and forget that a lot of people are still where we were. :-)
    - froo 17y ago

paulbaumgart 17y ago

I'm not convinced there's a significant difference between the first and third categories. Both are means to gaining status- the difference is just in the audience (the people they're trying to impress) and in the sophistication of how the status is expressed.

DougBTX 17y ago
Sophistication is significant.

gamble 17y ago

Yikes. If there's anything I've learned, it's to avoid people in the third category at all costs. These are the guys who see every transaction as a zero-sum game, and the people who will stick a knife in you the moment an opportunity presents itself.

mediaman 17y ago
Not true. Warren Buffett fits in that category. Many people in that third category care about making money in an abstract sense -- it's a game, but it can be a long-term game. They don't care about the cars or the status symbols. They love building wealth, but not for wealth's sake. People who don't understand long-term relationships are not actually in the long-term game to make money. Usually they just lack some emotional intelligence. People who 'get it' develop good, long-term business relationships, because they know that to be a successful businessperson and make lots of money you can't just rely on short-term contract-type thinking. You rely on relationships.
- lukev 17y ago
  Treating finance as a game is only an option for those who are already wealthy enough to never worry about being comfortable. Plus, I sincerely doubt Warren Buffet is likely to give up finance in favor of Chess anytime soon, even if he came to the conclusion it was more interesting (not saying it is, just drawing a comparison.)

telemachos 17y ago

The post from a litle over a month ago is worth a re-read in light of this: http://blog.cubeofm.com/programming-is-a-way-to-procrastinate http://blog.cubeofm.com/programming-is-a-way-to-procrastinat... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124953 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124953

jfarmer 17y ago

You should read "Enough" by John Bogle, founder and former CEO of the Vanguard Group.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 17y ago

Yes, yes I do, but it is really not for the reasons given. I want to control my own schedule. My brother pointed this one out to me, and it makes perfect sense. Having a lot of money, but being bound to the clock doesn't quite sound as fun.

tome 17y ago

This is really saying: "partner with people whose interests are aligned with yours". Doesn't matter whether it's about making money, intellectual development or playing on a sports team. The same principle applies.

drunkpotato 17y ago

I'm sensing a theme from this blog: admiration of narcissists. There are successful people I admire and emulate, and they are nothing like the "successful" people heaped praise upon by this blog.

callmeed 17y ago

I really like Max's posts but I wish he would elaborate on the 3 types a little further. It seems hard to pigeon-hole every type of entrepreneur/potential partner within these 3 categories (at least as he has described them). I think I "get" what he's saying (and I definitely concur on type 1–seen plenty of those in my day) but I think it would benefit from more details/examples.

mediaman 17y ago

People here are showing a lot of dislike for the third category, those who want to make money. I think that's because of how the author describes them, not how they actually are. People who want to make money for money's sake love building things. They can't stand to sit still. They understand long-term relationships, and the smart ones learn that trust and inspiring leaders within your own and other organizations is the only way to keep building. They love competing, and they love winning. But that doesn't mean they lack integrity, or think lying or cheating is the way to win. They understand that at best that gets you a win in the very short run. They are the tinkerers of capitalism. And that's why they don't fail you once they can afford a Porsche, why they don't constantly try to impress people because of their insecurities, and why they don't stop thinking about improving their business once they "have enough". Not everyone is like that, but that's not a reason to disrespect those who are.

wynand 17y ago
That's an interesting take. At least in the case of Buffett, I think he really likes what he does (I mean, the man still lives in a normal family house). To me there is a distinction between people who want to make more money and people who want to build things. The former is in it for power, whilst the latter is in it for recognition. I realize how simplistic that sounds. But many of our current problems came about because people don't care about what's behind the money. We need less indirection in the financial world. If I invest in something, I should give some kind of damn about it.
JohnnyBrown 17y ago
"I'm reasonably happy, but the money's not the point. It's an indication that I've succeeded in the grand adventure of understanding reality." -George Soros The way I look at it, making money is a great competition because it has the largest and most talented pool of competitors you will ever find. You get to measure yourself against the world, give or take a few people.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

What does this paragraph intend to say: "For these men we sat with, I spent over 10.000 yuan on the program this evening. I took us to an expensive hotel, I paid the tips for all the girls, I ordered really expensive food. But when we spoke to these men, they never mentioned how much money they had. They never tried to impress me, in spite of me doing all this." That (and the dog meat) bit seem like total non sequiturs to me.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

jxcole 17y ago

I hate this article. I hate anything that says "There are two types of people in the world, those that x, and those that y". I hate it because either: 1) The statements x and y are opposites and combine to be a truism. Truisms are not interesting. (from the 2nd and 3rd matrix) "Some things change, and others don't". 2) The generalization is demonstrably false or unknowable. In this article in partiular, I found a sort of weird mesh. The second and third category are clear opposites of each other. They are a truism in that you can say "A rich person either will keep on trying to get rich, or will stop after a while." This is roughly equivalent to what these categories represent. The first category is sort of contained in the second category. Or, more accurately, if someone is going to stop trying to make money after a while, they will either stop because they are comfortable or because they are being looked up to. Not exactly mind blowing information. I feel that broad categorization of people is useless. People are not either one thing or another. People have features in quantities. Fuzzy logic rules over binary in the world of humans. It would be nice and easy if humans were so simple, but they are not.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
I hate anything that says "There are two types of people in the world, those that x, and those that y". I hate it because either: 1) ... 2) ... Irony :)
- Locke1689 17y ago
  I'm pretty sure he didn't rail against generalization in general, only for people in particular ;)
- jacobolus 17y ago
  Do those two options seem exhaustive to you? If so, could you explain how?
gizmo 17y ago
Although I don't disagree with any of your assertions, I think TFA is interesting because it observes that all the people who want to be rich don't actually want to be rich. The first group considers money the solution to insecurity. Money is not what they want, they want to be confident and date models. The second group doesn't want money (they just want some money) and the third group is playing a game. They want to win, and the metric is money. People state the desire to be rich often enough, but there are only very few people who really want to be rich. I think the blog pointed that out pretty well.

maxwin 17y ago

This article getting to the front page is either an indication of the weaknesses of HN algorithms or the drop of quality of HN users who voted it up.

codexon 17y ago
maxklein has admitted in the past to psychologically gaming HN.
telemachos 17y ago
Why do you think that the article's popularity reflects badly on HN or HN's current users? Sure it's provocative (maybe deliberately so, maybe not), but it's also well-written and engaging. I won't argue about the writing, but engaging should be pretty obvious: almost everyone involved in this thread disagrees with the author, but they're all clearly involved in the debate, right?
- maxwin 17y ago
  So if I write an article about how to torture a dog for fun making most to engage in the conversation to voice their disagreement,does this article become a worthy one?is this article suited for this audience?do people gain any insights ?
  - telemachos 17y ago
    I don't think that your analogy is fair. The blog post talks about different approaches to "getting rich." A lot of people here are interested in this issue. So, the article gets voted up. For whatever it's worth, I'm have zero interest in getting rich. I wish HN were more about tech & code and less about the money and success. But that isn't a decision I get to make. Having said that, the article engaged me because it made me think about the psychology of people who do care that much about wealth.

Confusion 17y ago

How strange: the post does not actually give a reason for only wanting to go into business with people that chase money for the purpose of chasing money. It does not explain why the reason that people want money matters. It states a preference of the author, without a single justification.

gridspy 17y ago
I thought the justification was obvious - you don't want to build a relationship with a partner who will drop out for personal reasons.
- Confusion 17y ago
  That is far from obvious, because a partner that's only in it for the money will drop out as soon as he spots a more lucrative opportunity. They are just as much a liability as the other categories: they don't give a shit about you or your goals.

mo34 17y ago

I grew up washing dishes and eating the food off the incoming plates because I was hungry. I never, ever want this for my kids. Yes, I wanted to be rich, am now rich, and I will pass these riches onto my kids.

wynand 17y ago

I got really angry when I first read this blog post (see my other comment here) and I was thrilled that most people here are as annoyed. I read maxklein's other story (about how programming is procrastination). I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt now. To be blunt, he needs to work on how he communicates. But, I think the gist of what he's trying to say is: there are certain things you need to do if you want to succeed well in business. You have to want to do business (the making money part), but that includes things far beyond programming (for example). I think I see what he means about working with people who want to make money: they have to be in it for the long haul. But even people who would lose interest when they're rich have a long way to go while they're still (relatively speaking) poor. You don't want to discount the Woz's of the world just because their hearts are in the tech. If you do, you lose.

swah 17y ago

YES!