5 ms·

I have to say, I nearly threw this article across the proverbial room after reading the second paragraph: > Before that point, you’re just adding frosting on t

I have to say, I nearly threw this article across the proverbial room after reading the second paragraph: > Before that point, you’re just adding frosting on the lifestyle cake of your wage-slave existence. Beyond that point, you can forget about aspirational consumer buying of 48-inch flat-panel TVs. You suddenly confront the most existential questions in human life: what do I do with my life? What’s a good life? No one’s forcing me to do anything, so what do I do now? I'm sorry, but that's just offensive. The fact that you can't imagine a "wage-slave" contemplating these questions is probably closely linked to why you can't imagine a successful startup founder getting off the treadmill either. If you were willing to take your $4.2M or whatever and be happy, you'd also be able to understand that you can live a good life without that kind of money too. (Free hint: it's not the 48-inch TV that makes your life fulfilling.)

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
scott_s 16y ago
I think perhaps you're interpreting what he wrote too harshly. I took it to mean that once you have FU money, you have to confront these questions because there's nothing left for you to worry about. Much of our time and mental effort is spent dealing with and worrying about survival. (Not survival in the hunter-gatherer sense, but making sure you have enough money in the next few days/weeks/months/years to live on.) When you worry about that every day, it's easier to not think about the big stuff. When only the big stuff is left, it's hard not to think about it.
- antongm 16y ago
  Scott, that's exactly what I was getting at. My only fear about making it as a startup is having to one day answer that existential question myself. I frankly don't know what I'd decide to do.
  - kscaldef 16y ago
    Fair enough, I respect that you're willing to admit that. But please don't call me a "wage slave" because of your fears and uncertainties.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      "wage slave" is a pretty well-known, long-standing term for someone that works for another. It's not intended to be depreciating towards those enslaved, it's attacking the idea of using your labor to enrich someone else's life rather than your own. Now, you may disagree with that, and that's fine...
      - kscaldef 16y ago
        "Wage slave" is always, in my experience, used in one of two derogatory ways: 1) In the original usage, as a condemnation of the whole capitalist system, or 2) In the sense that's more common in this crowd, to describe anyone who doesn't want to be a startup founder. Applied to technology workers (typically privileged & upper middle class), the term is offensive on multiple levels.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Even if tech workers are upper middle class, that doesn't mean that they're not bound to their job. The conditions may be better, it's true, but if they lost their job, they'd end up just as destitute. I only say this because it's something I've though a lot about recently, mostly while investigating the arguments of usage #1 up there. My parents are solidly middle class; but for most of my childhood, they basically lived paycheck to paycheck. When times get tough... things start to get ugly. Granted, not as ugly as 'real' slavery... but I think that the analogy is a good one.
        kscaldef 16y ago
        I could quit my job right now. I'd need to get another one eventually, maybe in 6 months, maybe in a year, depending on how tightly I budgeted myself. I've chosen to live within my means; to build up enough savings that I don't need to be terrified of losing my job. I'd venture to say that virtually any other tech worker could do the same. If you feel bound to your job, and that you're at imminent risk of becoming destitute if you lose it, that's because of your own choices. The slavery exists only in your head.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  What technology worker spends all day worrying about survival? It's not hard to save up a couple years living expenses on a software engineer salary, and it's not hard to find another job (or even found a successful company) if you have a couple years to do it.
  - wensing 16y ago
    With or without kids + family? I don't worry about those things, but 'it's not hard to save up a couple years living expenses' depends a lot on your ... dependents.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      My experience is without kids, but it applies with kids as well. Half of American families manage to get by on $50K/year or less. If you make $100K/year and live like that, then for every year you work, you've saved up a year of security. That even assumes that your spouse doesn't work. Whether you will do this depends a lot on your priorities. Some people want to get their kids the best toys, clothes, and vacations that money will buy. Others would rather give them the gift of parents that are not totally stressed out and have time to make it to their soccer games. There's not a right answer to this, but as someone whose family's household income hovered around the $50K mark for most of my childhood, I can say that you don't really suffer from not being able to afford a trip to Europe every summer.
      - oziumjinx 16y ago
        $50k a year in salary doesnt sound like enough to send your kids to college with their tuition paid for. Being able to do that enables them to not have to worry about student loans and decades of debt after they graduate. IMHO, that is something to strive for.
        nostrademons 16y ago
        It's not - I had virtually no college savings when I went to college, my parents borrowed almost the full amount (mostly in their names, so that my sister and I would be mostly debt-free when we graduated). Five years after graduation, it's paid off in full. $50K/year is, however, low enough that you can get some really generous financial aid if you manage to get into an elite college. Nowadays it'll give you a full ride at Stanford/MIT/Amherst; in my time it was more like a 2/3-ride. Or a full-ride merit scholarship at a state school, if you could otherwise get into an elite college. Also, weren't we talking about making $100K/year and spending like you have $50K/year? If you do that, in 4 years you've got your kid's college education fund.
- kscaldef 16y ago
  Except that he then goes on to argue that the people who get FU money won't confront those questions because they can't be happy that much money, they'll have to keep going because of their "insatiable hopes of yet greater scores". And, if that's how you think, you're just as trapped as any "wage slave". (Incidentally, I think the author is wrong, and skewed by his time at Goldman. I personally know substantially more people who have either had "small" payoffs, or have lifestyle businesses or passive income streams, and their desire doesn't seem to be to collect still more money, but rather to spend their time travelling or backpacking or what have you. But, I'm probably just as skewed by living in Portland as the author is from living in Manhattan.)
  - NickPollard 16y ago
    I think your argument here almost supports his hypothesis though - he argues that there is a correlation between large payouts and a desire to continue and earn even better. So the idea that those people who have smaller payoffs don't still have a burning avaricious desire is consistent with his suggestion. The question is, /if/ his hypothesis is true and there is a correlation, what is the causation? Does winning big give you a taste for it and make you want to try again? Or is it (more likely in me eyes) that only those with such a strong drive to beat out the odds will ever make it to the really big payouts without cashing in early for less.
- thrdOriginal 16y ago
  I remember one of my favorite philosophy professors talking about the various philosophers' ideas of "first philosophy", where first philosophy meant which philosophy is the root of all other philosophy (e.g. for Aristotle it is Metaphysics). Midway through the lecture the professor finally said something along the lines of "...this is nice and all, but what really should be first philosophy is figuring out a way to live in this world such that you can concern yourself with philosophy at all." I agree.
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    Philosophy is all about "figuring out a way to live in this world" at least the philosophy I have studied anyway, which includes Aristotle.
ez77 16y ago
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds. Bob Marley EDIT: Based on a speech by Marcus Garvey
- psawaya 16y ago
  I accidentally downvoted this on my phone, meaning to upvote. Sorry about that, the quote is really appropriate.
geebee 16y ago
This line irritated me too. Every now and then, I read another article about how we're slaves to money. Has anyone else noticed that these articles almost always use some variant of a television (plasma, 48 inch, etc...) as an example of an unnecessary material comfort that distorts a person's view of what is truly important. I'm definitely a wage slave, and I assure you, I don't do it for a big tv. I don't have a big tv. I don't want a big tv. What I do have is a family that depends on my continued employment for such trivialities as a place to live (my two small children share a room with a bunkbed in our small 2br house), trips to the pediatrician, and preschool (education isn't "free" in the US until kindergarten, though one of my children now in public elementary school). The "stuff" like tv's isn't even a rounding error in the brutally high cost of living in SF. I could have the "big tv", nor not, makes no difference in my life. A bigger difference would be leaving San Francisco and moving to a cheaper place, but by living in SF, I get to live where I grew up, and my kids and I get to visit my parents and siblings almost daily. That's worth it. But no, it's not the tv. I don't think anyone puts up with this for a tv. These writers need to stop about the tv.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  Lol. Gee dude you really are angry about the telly huh? I think the TV is just a symbol to communicate a bigger picture. It is not about the TV per se, but the fact that you can afford the TV. So if you can afford such telly, then you can afford a great house too, so that your kids won't have to share a room, you would not have to worry about making trips to the pedriatician or pre-school education, basically, finances would not be a problem. Having one problem less is not such a bad thing. Sure life is more than money, but not having to worry about money gives you more time to develop friendships, send your kids to a good school, etce...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

scott_s 16y ago

I think perhaps you're interpreting what he wrote too harshly. I took it to mean that once you have FU money, you have to confront these questions because there's nothing left for you to worry about. Much of our time and mental effort is spent dealing with and worrying about survival. (Not survival in the hunter-gatherer sense, but making sure you have enough money in the next few days/weeks/months/years to live on.) When you worry about that every day, it's easier to not think about the big stuff. When only the big stuff is left, it's hard not to think about it.

antongm 16y ago
Scott, that's exactly what I was getting at. My only fear about making it as a startup is having to one day answer that existential question myself. I frankly don't know what I'd decide to do.
- kscaldef 16y ago
  Fair enough, I respect that you're willing to admit that. But please don't call me a "wage slave" because of your fears and uncertainties.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    "wage slave" is a pretty well-known, long-standing term for someone that works for another. It's not intended to be depreciating towards those enslaved, it's attacking the idea of using your labor to enrich someone else's life rather than your own. Now, you may disagree with that, and that's fine...
    - kscaldef 16y ago
      "Wage slave" is always, in my experience, used in one of two derogatory ways: 1) In the original usage, as a condemnation of the whole capitalist system, or 2) In the sense that's more common in this crowd, to describe anyone who doesn't want to be a startup founder. Applied to technology workers (typically privileged & upper middle class), the term is offensive on multiple levels.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        Even if tech workers are upper middle class, that doesn't mean that they're not bound to their job. The conditions may be better, it's true, but if they lost their job, they'd end up just as destitute. I only say this because it's something I've though a lot about recently, mostly while investigating the arguments of usage #1 up there. My parents are solidly middle class; but for most of my childhood, they basically lived paycheck to paycheck. When times get tough... things start to get ugly. Granted, not as ugly as 'real' slavery... but I think that the analogy is a good one.
        kscaldef 16y ago
        I could quit my job right now. I'd need to get another one eventually, maybe in 6 months, maybe in a year, depending on how tightly I budgeted myself. I've chosen to live within my means; to build up enough savings that I don't need to be terrified of losing my job. I'd venture to say that virtually any other tech worker could do the same. If you feel bound to your job, and that you're at imminent risk of becoming destitute if you lose it, that's because of your own choices. The slavery exists only in your head.
nostrademons 16y ago
What technology worker spends all day worrying about survival? It's not hard to save up a couple years living expenses on a software engineer salary, and it's not hard to find another job (or even found a successful company) if you have a couple years to do it.
- wensing 16y ago
  With or without kids + family? I don't worry about those things, but 'it's not hard to save up a couple years living expenses' depends a lot on your ... dependents.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    My experience is without kids, but it applies with kids as well. Half of American families manage to get by on $50K/year or less. If you make $100K/year and live like that, then for every year you work, you've saved up a year of security. That even assumes that your spouse doesn't work. Whether you will do this depends a lot on your priorities. Some people want to get their kids the best toys, clothes, and vacations that money will buy. Others would rather give them the gift of parents that are not totally stressed out and have time to make it to their soccer games. There's not a right answer to this, but as someone whose family's household income hovered around the $50K mark for most of my childhood, I can say that you don't really suffer from not being able to afford a trip to Europe every summer.
    - oziumjinx 16y ago
      $50k a year in salary doesnt sound like enough to send your kids to college with their tuition paid for. Being able to do that enables them to not have to worry about student loans and decades of debt after they graduate. IMHO, that is something to strive for.
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        It's not - I had virtually no college savings when I went to college, my parents borrowed almost the full amount (mostly in their names, so that my sister and I would be mostly debt-free when we graduated). Five years after graduation, it's paid off in full. $50K/year is, however, low enough that you can get some really generous financial aid if you manage to get into an elite college. Nowadays it'll give you a full ride at Stanford/MIT/Amherst; in my time it was more like a 2/3-ride. Or a full-ride merit scholarship at a state school, if you could otherwise get into an elite college. Also, weren't we talking about making $100K/year and spending like you have $50K/year? If you do that, in 4 years you've got your kid's college education fund.
kscaldef 16y ago
Except that he then goes on to argue that the people who get FU money won't confront those questions because they can't be happy that much money, they'll have to keep going because of their "insatiable hopes of yet greater scores". And, if that's how you think, you're just as trapped as any "wage slave". (Incidentally, I think the author is wrong, and skewed by his time at Goldman. I personally know substantially more people who have either had "small" payoffs, or have lifestyle businesses or passive income streams, and their desire doesn't seem to be to collect still more money, but rather to spend their time travelling or backpacking or what have you. But, I'm probably just as skewed by living in Portland as the author is from living in Manhattan.)
- NickPollard 16y ago
  I think your argument here almost supports his hypothesis though - he argues that there is a correlation between large payouts and a desire to continue and earn even better. So the idea that those people who have smaller payoffs don't still have a burning avaricious desire is consistent with his suggestion. The question is, /if/ his hypothesis is true and there is a correlation, what is the causation? Does winning big give you a taste for it and make you want to try again? Or is it (more likely in me eyes) that only those with such a strong drive to beat out the odds will ever make it to the really big payouts without cashing in early for less.
thrdOriginal 16y ago
I remember one of my favorite philosophy professors talking about the various philosophers' ideas of "first philosophy", where first philosophy meant which philosophy is the root of all other philosophy (e.g. for Aristotle it is Metaphysics). Midway through the lecture the professor finally said something along the lines of "...this is nice and all, but what really should be first philosophy is figuring out a way to live in this world such that you can concern yourself with philosophy at all." I agree.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  Philosophy is all about "figuring out a way to live in this world" at least the philosophy I have studied anyway, which includes Aristotle.

ez77 16y ago

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds. Bob Marley EDIT: Based on a speech by Marcus Garvey

psawaya 16y ago
I accidentally downvoted this on my phone, meaning to upvote. Sorry about that, the quote is really appropriate.

geebee 16y ago

This line irritated me too. Every now and then, I read another article about how we're slaves to money. Has anyone else noticed that these articles almost always use some variant of a television (plasma, 48 inch, etc...) as an example of an unnecessary material comfort that distorts a person's view of what is truly important. I'm definitely a wage slave, and I assure you, I don't do it for a big tv. I don't have a big tv. I don't want a big tv. What I do have is a family that depends on my continued employment for such trivialities as a place to live (my two small children share a room with a bunkbed in our small 2br house), trips to the pediatrician, and preschool (education isn't "free" in the US until kindergarten, though one of my children now in public elementary school). The "stuff" like tv's isn't even a rounding error in the brutally high cost of living in SF. I could have the "big tv", nor not, makes no difference in my life. A bigger difference would be leaving San Francisco and moving to a cheaper place, but by living in SF, I get to live where I grew up, and my kids and I get to visit my parents and siblings almost daily. That's worth it. But no, it's not the tv. I don't think anyone puts up with this for a tv. These writers need to stop about the tv.

Ardit20 16y ago
Lol. Gee dude you really are angry about the telly huh? I think the TV is just a symbol to communicate a bigger picture. It is not about the TV per se, but the fact that you can afford the TV. So if you can afford such telly, then you can afford a great house too, so that your kids won't have to share a room, you would not have to worry about making trips to the pedriatician or pre-school education, basically, finances would not be a problem. Having one problem less is not such a bad thing. Sure life is more than money, but not having to worry about money gives you more time to develop friendships, send your kids to a good school, etce...