7 ms·

Of course. That's what people do when they retire, they don't "do" nothing, but they don't "work" either. But it's possible there's a sample bias; people who g

• SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago
  Totally agreed. I know a few people who (financially) don't need to work for a living but still do, a couple of them regularly putting in 12 hour days 6 days per week. Of course, that's how they got "rich" in the first place. In their case, making a lot of money was a pleasant side effect of their preexisting strong work ethic, not the driving force. (...and don't get me wrong, these guys also play hard when they're not working)
  • jazzyk 10y ago
    "regularly putting in 12 hour days 6 days per week" "Play hard" after 72 hours of working? They must be super-human. What about, you know, er, human contact? Like spending time with your family and friends?
    • xemdetia 10y ago
      The kind of people I know of that do 72-80 hours a week and are wealthy enough to do less, generally the circle of friends are the people you worked with/your clients. Doing good work for people at your own leisure and participating in the community in that fashion is actually something I see those type of people really get a lot of satisfaction out of- like the article says a status thing. Going to local Chamber of Commerce style events, sponsoring/participating in parades, events, youth leagues and so on. Being able to write the check to send the school science team to a national competition as just a generous member of the community at large can mean a lot. Family gets neglected in that case, or nepotism'd so you can see them. The act of doing business for those sorts of people is play.
      • jazzyk 10y ago
        Hmm, I did not know "going to parades, events... and so on" was considered working? That's probably how Marissa Mayer was "working" 130 hrs/week :-)
        • tedmiston 10y ago
          That's certainly work when you're the spokesperson of a company. Though we can debate about priorities of course.
        • xemdetia 10y ago
          Planning and participating in events is actually quite a bit of logistics work. It isn't just showing up to consume, it's presenting/booth stuff and so on. There's a difference between showing up to an event and participating/running the event that often gets put on the better planner types.
        • rhizome 10y ago
          I wonder how many hours "emailing at midnight" counts for, does the workday extend to the last activity?
    • dsfyu404ed 10y ago
      There's plenty of entry level employees "read single males" who are putting in 12 x 5 at work then, going home and pursue whatever hobby they now suddenly have money to pursue until 1am every day. It's still less of a time commitment than raising young kids.
      • wiz21c 10y ago
        Yeah. Raising kids is not a matter of time, it's a matter of energy. When you have kid you have to (and, hell, of course, you want to), be 100% with them when they want you to be with them. You don't postpone them, you don't schedule them. So that's much more energy draining than time-eating
    • rhizome 10y ago
      Working 72 hours a week doesn't leave much time for non-work relationships.
    • tedmiston 10y ago
      It really depends how you define "work". Remember 4HWW?
• tedmiston 10y ago
  This is where I think a basic income becomes interesting. The threshold for what each person requires to decide how to allocate their waking hours when their basic expenses are paid varies. But maybe being rich isn't the point, and it's actually about reducing the risk of not working. I think we'd see more founders emerge.
• erobbins 10y ago
  > people who get rich are the kind of people who can't stop working, even if/when they can. Other people would totally stop working if they got rich but it's hard to prove, because they never do get rich That's exactly the problem I think. If you're driven enough to get rich you're too driven to stop. If you'd be happy stopping, you're not driven enough to get rich.