7 ms·

This article fails to wholly contextualize the reasons why some people play the short game vs the long game. There are systematic reasons why it may take signif

This article fails to wholly contextualize the reasons why some people play the short game vs the long game. There are systematic reasons why it may take significantly more effort and sacrifice to play the long game for very little real gain. For example: Why invest in your relationship with your partner today when you can work a little bit extra in the office? Consider the hypothetical: My partner has health issues that requires me to earn more money to support us both/cannot work. Or I need to earn more money to pay for daycare/college for my children. Or my field is very demanding and also job prospects are slim, so I need to work longer and harder than average to avoid being laid off during the next restacking. Some more familiar hypothetical: I work at a startup and if we succeed my partner will be set for life. Why wait to pay for a phone in cash, when you can put it on your credit card? Consider this hypothetical: I don't have the cash, ever, but I need the phone to get a better job so I could pay off the debt I enter when investing in a phone. Why go to the gym when you can go drinking with your friends? Consider this hypothetical: Due to working 12/14/16 hour days normally, I can only see my friends when I go out drinking with them on certain days of the week. My job is extremely stressful and my friends are my only emotional support. Essentially, I'm not impressed by the reasoning displayed here. It's a general advisement that does not contain enough nuance, or even the option of a more nuanced life context. While this advice suits a minority of people who are well-off enough such that they have stable, long-term gainful employment and enough time/resources to plan their lives, I would suggest an additional nuance that there are contextual situations that justify behaviors against the traditional short term vs long term sensibilities, in the same way that there are contextual situations where getting a codebase to work should be prioritized compared to getting a codebase to function in a readable, clever, efficient, well-thought-out architecture.

thinkloop 8y ago
Your hypothetical situations are fair, but the author never said that no-one should ever play the short game. They are simply highlighting the (possibly) under-appreciated power of the long-game, and encouraging people to try and favor it more when they can.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  I agree that the long game is under-appreciated but an article that does not appropriately address the nuances of the reasons for its under-appreciation is not really useful or wise.
  - profalseidol 8y ago
    Well, o-wise one. Maybe for you. But for a non-wise pleb like me. I think this article is really great for introducing the indentifiers "short-game" and "long-game" to me. I think it's a great way to describe this concept.
darawk 8y ago
> Consider this hypothetical: I don't have the cash, ever, but I need the phone to get a better job so I could pay off the debt I enter when investing in a phone. Under what circumstances do you need the latest smartphone to get a job? > Consider this hypothetical: Due to working 12/14/16 hour days normally, I can only see my friends when I go out drinking with them on certain days of the week. My job is extremely stressful and my friends are my only emotional support. You can't function without going out drinking several times per week? I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for that.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  A lot of businesses and banks communicate electronically with people, not just phone calls but texts and emails. A smartphone is possibly (short of using a public library) the cheapest way to get access to those sorts of things as the world becomes increasingly digitized and connected (versus having a computer that is less portable, and can't access the internet on its own without pairing with a phone or finding a public wifi hotspot or paying for a separate internet connection, assuming you have a stable home to establish that in).
  - darawk 8y ago
    Totally. That's why I said 'latest' smartphone. You can get lower end smartphones for a pretty reasonable price.
    - dragontamer 8y ago
      So I'm not a homeless person nor have I ever experienced it. But there are various homeless sites I've seen across the internet. The general recommendations I've seen are: 1. Get a good smartphone, its required to get a job these days. 2. Get a gym membership so you can get a place to shower and look good for your potential jobs. But smartphones are consistently on the recommendation lists for the homeless. Its not a secret, its their life. People in poverty already know the importance of smartphones. In my experience: its more useful to ask questions from people actually living in homeless / poverty conditions. They tend to know more about homelessness / poverty than people who have never experienced it. In general: people who are on poverty websites / homelessness websites are incredibly resourceful and understand how to play the long game very well. -------- In any case, short-game vs long-game is a basic issue that's understood at all levels of wealth. Some people are just bad at playing the long game. But in any case, a good phone, with up-to-date internet access to keep connected to today's workforce is ABSOLUTELY necessary, even at the lowest levels of poverty (ie: homelessness) in today's culture.
Jtsummers 8y ago
I think you've turned those "short game" situations into "long game" situations by how you've answered the questions. In the first, working late isn't for short term gain (overtime, hitting a deadline) for its own sake, it's for a longer term (or more critical) objective: money for the partner or daycare or college. Especially the college one, setting up that money early by working overtime now means having to work and stress less when that bill arrives. It is the long game. And you're right, as written it's not nuanced, but that's why there are questions to answer. Why do I go out with friends every Monday/Wednesday instead of doing BJJ like I used to? Precisely the same as your answer: That's when they're available to hang out with (reliably). And yes, it's a hit to my fitness, but I haven't abandoned the gym I'm just doing it less (and not BJJ). My mental and emotional health is important, along with my physical health. So this socialization is (for me) part of my long term objectives, not just because I can.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  I think you've turned those "short game" situations into "long game" situations by how you've answered the questions. This is precisely the point I wish to make; without these nuances of understanding the tradeoffs, the article weakens its argument. While it is entirely possible for a person to prioritize short-term vs long-term in a way that isn't advantageous to themselves, the situations provided do not explicitly state the argument the author tries to make with them.
  - steve_musk 8y ago
    It seems like you maybe have slightly missed the point by overly focusing on the examples in the article though.
    - aidenn0 8y ago
      Not when the article says flat out: > In its simplest form, the long game isn’t really debatable. Everyone agrees, for example, we should spend less than we make and invest the difference. Which conveniently brushes aside the fact that there are good reasons not to play the long game. Here's a very non-standard example: If I do not have nor can I afford health insurance, then I shouldn't invest the difference between expenses and wages: As time goes on the probability that I have a bankruptcy due to medical bills approaches unity, so any money I save I will likely never get to see the results of.
sdenton4 8y ago
The term we're looking for here is "poverty trap." A poverty trap is a circumstance where people are forced to take a more costly short term move. The canonical example is buying a $35 pair of shoes twice a year instead of a $50 pair that might last two years.
- Vendan 8y ago
  Obligatory Terry Pratchett quote: “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    It's a fun quote that has some truth to it, but not much more than that.
    - Aeolun 8y ago
      I think it pretty well encompasses all the criticism that I could levy at this artie.
    - yial 8y ago
      The truth of it applies to a lot of things though; if money is tight and you have to buy some quantities it means you pay more for Toilet paper. Paper towels. You can’t stock up when soup is on sale. Or tuna. Or other x canned item. Shoes, do you buy lightly used, or do you buy whatever is on clearance ? Clothing: nothing from Walmart ever seems to fit right. Used shirts and pants always seem to fit just a little off. Is there a Burlington coat factory, or a Gabe’s, or similar near you? Maybe you can grab something cheap. If not, you may have to spend entirely too much of your paycheck to replace some pieces of clothing you probably have to have for work. (Example of this, I used to know people making barely more then minimum wage, who didn’t have a car, and had to pay way too much to keep buying cheap pants when they got holes in them so they wouldn’t lose their job ).
Johnny555 8y ago
Consider the hypothetical: My partner has health issues that requires me to earn more money to support us both/cannot work. ... I work at a startup and if we succeed my partner will be set for life. That sounds like a risky tradeoff -- if you're taking a paycut in return for some possible future return, you're essentially gambling, since no matter how hard you work, you have limited power to affect the outcome. The company may succeed and ear you a lot of money... or it may fail due to market forces outside of its control. I work for a startup (though it's late stage enough that they pay market salary), but my partner works at a more traditional job.
whack 8y ago
Do you really think that the majority of people are living their lives in the most optimal way they possibly can? That they aren't sacrificing some amount of long-term benefits for short-term convenience? I personally know many people, some with very tragic life stories, who find it very hard to work up the motivation to invest towards their future, precisely for the reasons given in the article. Each act in isolation seems so insignificant, and the future feels so abstract. Why bother when you can just sit on the couch and watch youtube instead. Sure, everyone has reasons for why they ended up where they are now. Everyone has a great story to tell, for why their present circumstances aren't their fault. But ultimately, the only way they can overcome their circumstances is if they feel the motivation to sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term investments. Well intentioned do-gooders telling them that their circumstances are hopeless and they are doomed, are not doing them any favors.
- jondubois 8y ago
  >> Well intentioned do-gooders telling them that their circumstances are hopeless and they are doomed, are not doing them any favors. Of course it will do them favors. The problem is not the people, it's the system. Once people fully recognize that the system doesn't work, they might get the courage to change it. Right now nobody is trying to change the system because everyone blames themselves.
  - whack 8y ago
    This isn't an either-or. We can work to change the system, while simultaneously doing the best we can to improve our lives, given the current system. You're doing people a huge disservice if you tell them to give up hope and do nothing with their lives until the system gets around to fixing itself. FWIW, many people are indeed trying to change the system, and I'm fully supportive of that as well. Many Democratic front runners have called for proposals such as single payer health insurance, guaranteed employment, increased minimum wage, and other such proposals. I certainly hope they win and enact those proposals.
  - hnal943 8y ago
    Have you read When Helping Hurts? It's a really good exploration of this dichotomy of blame between the people and the systems. In truth, both are broken.
ed_at_work 8y ago
Seems like you're getting lost in the details, and missing the overall point they were trying to convey...
m3kw9 8y ago
There are always exceptions to the rule
woodpanel 8y ago
> Essentially, I'm not impressed by the reasoning displayed here. Agreed, the examples aren‘t perfect. But what I liked about the article was it’s intended interoperability and non-specifics. It thus clarifies it’s main statements (for me at least): - starting the long game appears never as worthwhile as keep playing the short game - but playing long, compounds day by day - but sadly, playing short does so too Other commenters already mentioned it: those are the same mechanics of the poverty trap
btilly 8y ago
The problem with your hypotheticals is that for most people who would claim that they apply to them, it would be safe to bet that they have reversed cause and effect. For example multiple longitudinal studies have found that alcoholics usually begin to drink heavily, then develop life problems, then revise their memories and remember it as they developed life problems before they started to drink. Therefore if you talk to alcoholics, they will usually claim that they were driven to drink. They aren't exactly lying - this is how they remember it. But that usually isn't what happened.
profalseidol 8y ago
The last paragraph: > In everything you do, you’re either playing a short term or long term game. You can’t opt out and you can’t play a long-term game in everything, you need to pick what matters to you. But in everything you do time amplifies the difference between long and short-term games. The question you need to think about is when and where to play a long-term game. A good place to start is with things that compound: knowledge, relationships, and finances. And if you have played the short game for awhile already. Then the choice of short vs long is now harder as you point out. Lifestyle is big factor, imo. There is a lot of things people pay for nowadays that isn't "a must". Especially paying tons of money for a wedding (I never understood why people would go thru all that hassle, but I do appreciate the beauty in it, but too extravagant I think). Paying tons of money for a wedding ring that you would likely drop in a sink or misplace anyway. Any tons more.
NullPrefix 8y ago
> Why wait to pay for a phone in cash, when you can put it on your credit card? > Consider this hypothetical: I don't have the cash, ever, but I need the phone to get a better job so I could pay off the debt I enter when investing in a phone. Companies don't want them green bubbles too?
sunstone 8y ago
Yeah, perhaps rather than privation, a better middle ground would that laid out by the epicurean philosophy.

thinkloop 8y ago

Your hypothetical situations are fair, but the author never said that no-one should ever play the short game. They are simply highlighting the (possibly) under-appreciated power of the long-game, and encouraging people to try and favor it more when they can.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
I agree that the long game is under-appreciated but an article that does not appropriately address the nuances of the reasons for its under-appreciation is not really useful or wise.
- profalseidol 8y ago
  Well, o-wise one. Maybe for you. But for a non-wise pleb like me. I think this article is really great for introducing the indentifiers "short-game" and "long-game" to me. I think it's a great way to describe this concept.

darawk 8y ago

> Consider this hypothetical: I don't have the cash, ever, but I need the phone to get a better job so I could pay off the debt I enter when investing in a phone. Under what circumstances do you need the latest smartphone to get a job? > Consider this hypothetical: Due to working 12/14/16 hour days normally, I can only see my friends when I go out drinking with them on certain days of the week. My job is extremely stressful and my friends are my only emotional support. You can't function without going out drinking several times per week? I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for that.

Jtsummers 8y ago
A lot of businesses and banks communicate electronically with people, not just phone calls but texts and emails. A smartphone is possibly (short of using a public library) the cheapest way to get access to those sorts of things as the world becomes increasingly digitized and connected (versus having a computer that is less portable, and can't access the internet on its own without pairing with a phone or finding a public wifi hotspot or paying for a separate internet connection, assuming you have a stable home to establish that in).
- darawk 8y ago
  Totally. That's why I said 'latest' smartphone. You can get lower end smartphones for a pretty reasonable price.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    So I'm not a homeless person nor have I ever experienced it. But there are various homeless sites I've seen across the internet. The general recommendations I've seen are: 1. Get a good smartphone, its required to get a job these days. 2. Get a gym membership so you can get a place to shower and look good for your potential jobs. But smartphones are consistently on the recommendation lists for the homeless. Its not a secret, its their life. People in poverty already know the importance of smartphones. In my experience: its more useful to ask questions from people actually living in homeless / poverty conditions. They tend to know more about homelessness / poverty than people who have never experienced it. In general: people who are on poverty websites / homelessness websites are incredibly resourceful and understand how to play the long game very well. -------- In any case, short-game vs long-game is a basic issue that's understood at all levels of wealth. Some people are just bad at playing the long game. But in any case, a good phone, with up-to-date internet access to keep connected to today's workforce is ABSOLUTELY necessary, even at the lowest levels of poverty (ie: homelessness) in today's culture.

Jtsummers 8y ago

I think you've turned those "short game" situations into "long game" situations by how you've answered the questions. In the first, working late isn't for short term gain (overtime, hitting a deadline) for its own sake, it's for a longer term (or more critical) objective: money for the partner or daycare or college. Especially the college one, setting up that money early by working overtime now means having to work and stress less when that bill arrives. It is the long game. And you're right, as written it's not nuanced, but that's why there are questions to answer. Why do I go out with friends every Monday/Wednesday instead of doing BJJ like I used to? Precisely the same as your answer: That's when they're available to hang out with (reliably). And yes, it's a hit to my fitness, but I haven't abandoned the gym I'm just doing it less (and not BJJ). My mental and emotional health is important, along with my physical health. So this socialization is (for me) part of my long term objectives, not just because I can.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
I think you've turned those "short game" situations into "long game" situations by how you've answered the questions. This is precisely the point I wish to make; without these nuances of understanding the tradeoffs, the article weakens its argument. While it is entirely possible for a person to prioritize short-term vs long-term in a way that isn't advantageous to themselves, the situations provided do not explicitly state the argument the author tries to make with them.
- steve_musk 8y ago
  It seems like you maybe have slightly missed the point by overly focusing on the examples in the article though.
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    Not when the article says flat out: > In its simplest form, the long game isn’t really debatable. Everyone agrees, for example, we should spend less than we make and invest the difference. Which conveniently brushes aside the fact that there are good reasons not to play the long game. Here's a very non-standard example: If I do not have nor can I afford health insurance, then I shouldn't invest the difference between expenses and wages: As time goes on the probability that I have a bankruptcy due to medical bills approaches unity, so any money I save I will likely never get to see the results of.

sdenton4 8y ago

The term we're looking for here is "poverty trap." A poverty trap is a circumstance where people are forced to take a more costly short term move. The canonical example is buying a $35 pair of shoes twice a year instead of a $50 pair that might last two years.

Vendan 8y ago
Obligatory Terry Pratchett quote: “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  It's a fun quote that has some truth to it, but not much more than that.
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    I think it pretty well encompasses all the criticism that I could levy at this artie.
  - yial 8y ago
    The truth of it applies to a lot of things though; if money is tight and you have to buy some quantities it means you pay more for Toilet paper. Paper towels. You can’t stock up when soup is on sale. Or tuna. Or other x canned item. Shoes, do you buy lightly used, or do you buy whatever is on clearance ? Clothing: nothing from Walmart ever seems to fit right. Used shirts and pants always seem to fit just a little off. Is there a Burlington coat factory, or a Gabe’s, or similar near you? Maybe you can grab something cheap. If not, you may have to spend entirely too much of your paycheck to replace some pieces of clothing you probably have to have for work. (Example of this, I used to know people making barely more then minimum wage, who didn’t have a car, and had to pay way too much to keep buying cheap pants when they got holes in them so they wouldn’t lose their job ).

Johnny555 8y ago

Consider the hypothetical: My partner has health issues that requires me to earn more money to support us both/cannot work. ... I work at a startup and if we succeed my partner will be set for life. That sounds like a risky tradeoff -- if you're taking a paycut in return for some possible future return, you're essentially gambling, since no matter how hard you work, you have limited power to affect the outcome. The company may succeed and ear you a lot of money... or it may fail due to market forces outside of its control. I work for a startup (though it's late stage enough that they pay market salary), but my partner works at a more traditional job.

whack 8y ago

Do you really think that the majority of people are living their lives in the most optimal way they possibly can? That they aren't sacrificing some amount of long-term benefits for short-term convenience? I personally know many people, some with very tragic life stories, who find it very hard to work up the motivation to invest towards their future, precisely for the reasons given in the article. Each act in isolation seems so insignificant, and the future feels so abstract. Why bother when you can just sit on the couch and watch youtube instead. Sure, everyone has reasons for why they ended up where they are now. Everyone has a great story to tell, for why their present circumstances aren't their fault. But ultimately, the only way they can overcome their circumstances is if they feel the motivation to sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term investments. Well intentioned do-gooders telling them that their circumstances are hopeless and they are doomed, are not doing them any favors.

jondubois 8y ago
>> Well intentioned do-gooders telling them that their circumstances are hopeless and they are doomed, are not doing them any favors. Of course it will do them favors. The problem is not the people, it's the system. Once people fully recognize that the system doesn't work, they might get the courage to change it. Right now nobody is trying to change the system because everyone blames themselves.
- whack 8y ago
  This isn't an either-or. We can work to change the system, while simultaneously doing the best we can to improve our lives, given the current system. You're doing people a huge disservice if you tell them to give up hope and do nothing with their lives until the system gets around to fixing itself. FWIW, many people are indeed trying to change the system, and I'm fully supportive of that as well. Many Democratic front runners have called for proposals such as single payer health insurance, guaranteed employment, increased minimum wage, and other such proposals. I certainly hope they win and enact those proposals.
- hnal943 8y ago
  Have you read When Helping Hurts? It's a really good exploration of this dichotomy of blame between the people and the systems. In truth, both are broken.

ed_at_work 8y ago

Seems like you're getting lost in the details, and missing the overall point they were trying to convey...

m3kw9 8y ago

There are always exceptions to the rule

woodpanel 8y ago

> Essentially, I'm not impressed by the reasoning displayed here. Agreed, the examples aren‘t perfect. But what I liked about the article was it’s intended interoperability and non-specifics. It thus clarifies it’s main statements (for me at least): - starting the long game appears never as worthwhile as keep playing the short game - but playing long, compounds day by day - but sadly, playing short does so too Other commenters already mentioned it: those are the same mechanics of the poverty trap

btilly 8y ago

The problem with your hypotheticals is that for most people who would claim that they apply to them, it would be safe to bet that they have reversed cause and effect. For example multiple longitudinal studies have found that alcoholics usually begin to drink heavily, then develop life problems, then revise their memories and remember it as they developed life problems before they started to drink. Therefore if you talk to alcoholics, they will usually claim that they were driven to drink. They aren't exactly lying - this is how they remember it. But that usually isn't what happened.

profalseidol 8y ago

The last paragraph: > In everything you do, you’re either playing a short term or long term game. You can’t opt out and you can’t play a long-term game in everything, you need to pick what matters to you. But in everything you do time amplifies the difference between long and short-term games. The question you need to think about is when and where to play a long-term game. A good place to start is with things that compound: knowledge, relationships, and finances. And if you have played the short game for awhile already. Then the choice of short vs long is now harder as you point out. Lifestyle is big factor, imo. There is a lot of things people pay for nowadays that isn't "a must". Especially paying tons of money for a wedding (I never understood why people would go thru all that hassle, but I do appreciate the beauty in it, but too extravagant I think). Paying tons of money for a wedding ring that you would likely drop in a sink or misplace anyway. Any tons more.

NullPrefix 8y ago

> Why wait to pay for a phone in cash, when you can put it on your credit card? > Consider this hypothetical: I don't have the cash, ever, but I need the phone to get a better job so I could pay off the debt I enter when investing in a phone. Companies don't want them green bubbles too?

sunstone 8y ago

Yeah, perhaps rather than privation, a better middle ground would that laid out by the epicurean philosophy.