10 ms·

I just don't understand this at all. If you can earn a million a year, do it for 3-5 years, never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life. I thin

I just don't understand this at all. If you can earn a million a year, do it for 3-5 years, never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life. I think the problem for most workers is the lifetime of toil, not the meaninglessness of the work. I'd happily dig ditches for 8-12 hours a day for 3 years if I knew I was completely financially independent with millions in the bank that. Actually, I'd rather do that than write code. At least I'd be getting a workout. As it is now, I write proprietary software for much less than those featured in the article, work is miserable, and I've still got maybe 10-15 years to go. Am I in the minority here?

C1sc0cat 8y ago
What % of that million are you spending
prewett 8y ago
Meaninglessness creates the toil. It's not toil if it's meaningful, it's merely physical or stressful or whatever the hard part of the particular job entails.
fermentation 8y ago
Seriously, it was hard to feel much sympathy for the person earning $1.2M/yr when they could very easily retire if they just stopped somehow spending hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
- obastani 8y ago
  Perhaps they are earning $1.2M/yr because they never found anything they enjoyed to do with their time outside of work?
  - esturk 8y ago
    So the problem lies with said individual then.
eclipxe 8y ago
5 years at a million a year, after taxes in a High COL state will be about 2.5M. A healthy sum indeed, but not enough to retire on, especially with a family.
- MrMember 8y ago
  A single person could absolutely retire on 2.5M. That's $100k a year using the 4% rule.
  - scarmig 8y ago
    I thought nowadays the recommendation was the 3% rule. Still absolutely doable.
    - Raidion 8y ago
      The Trinity study said a conservative number was 4%. Since then a lot of people said "Well, I don't want a conservative number, I want a number that has no chance of failure", so went to 3.5% or 3%. Practically I don't think that's a wise choice, a vast majority of the time most of the time, any failures comes from sequence of returns risk and the remaining percent coming from simulated bad returns coupled with a very long life. This means that as long as you're willing to cut back on expenses if the market dips soon after you retire, 4% is fine, and it's probably not worth the extra X years of your life to try to get that number lower.
  - forrestthewoods 8y ago
    Is that number for 30 years? If you’re retiring early you need your nest egg to last for 40 or 50 years.
    - zaccus 8y ago
      Don't think of it as a large nest egg; think of it as a modest fixed income. You can easily make 2.5MM last for the rest of your life if you're able to live on 100k. That might require downsizing a bit and moving somewhere with a lower COL, but it's certainly doable.
ip26 8y ago
Have you actually dug ditches for a few weeks? It's a popular rhetorical device but I wonder how many engineers have actually done stints of hard labor.
- jedberg 8y ago
  I used to dig ditches on weekends as a way of relaxing. It's not bad when you get to do it on your own time. But yeah, I'd probably not appreciate doing it for eight hours a day five days a week. I'd still do it for a million a year though.
  - compiler-guy 8y ago
    I did it 10 hours a day, four days a week when I had just graduated from high school. Extremely good money for the time, but you would have to pay me a lot more than a million now. Brutal and back breaking. I couldn't get enough to eat, my body was always sore and tired. I would do it if I had to, I suppose, but even though my cushy desk job coding pays a lot less--a very much lot less--than a million a year, I would take it every time.
- scruple 8y ago
  I have, yes. I've also framed homes, roofed homes, and water proofed basements. I spent some time landscaping. I've held a variety of manual labor jobs, from working fields to construction to warehouses and factory floors to the military. Today, I'm a team lead and senior software engineer. I'd also rather be outside again all day, working with and alongside people, physically and towards goals we can visualize, doing tasks that we all understand well and can articulate in an accurate way, and cultivating a genuine sense of camaraderie. Not the sort of weird brogrammer nonsense that is frequently encountered in our industry and which is oftentimes confused with camaraderie. I pull a lot of my previous lives experience in to my work today and I spend a lot of time working very closely with my colleagues, but it's not the same. I don't end a day with the same sense of purpose or belonging that I experienced with physically demanding jobs. I got close, once, but it was a shared experience between myself and one colleague, as opposed to a team, and it was because of circumstances that aren't exactly repeatable in a meaningful way. edit/ Of course, the above is making some assumptions that probably don't hold. There is genuinely something that I miss from physically demanding work that can't be found or replicated with the work that I do today (or, perhaps it's just that I have failed to find or replicate it). But, I'm also dramatically better compensated and live a nearly fully autonomous life today, too. These are just the trade-offs that we make, I suppose.
BucketSort 8y ago
Most people don't have passions in life, they do have a passion for possession and social status though. Our culture also looks down on the people that don't have all these status symbols, and people naturally do not want to be looked down upon, so they keep racing to keep up just so their peers respect them. Our culture breeds depression. There are farmers in third world countries that live a more meaningful and joyful life than most do here. Koyaanisqatsi.
- mactrey 8y ago
  That is true but also people come to care about what they do. They may not be "passionate" about work but it is what they spend the most time doing, it is their main source of daily challenge and problem solving, it represents social interaction, and it is their main source of pride and accomplishment and personal striving. To just up and leave work leaves a huge void in their lives. People can learn to fill that void with art or gardening or various other things but it may take years and years of discipline and self-reflection to become satisfied.
  - BucketSort 8y ago
    I said that because the parent comment said "I just don't understand this at all. If you can earn a million a year, do it for 3-5 years, never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life." They don't have those passions in life per say and fill that void with work and other things. You are actually echoing what I'm saying in your own way. Also, I like how people bring up gardening sometimes when passion is discussed. To me, passion is coupled with expression and allows you to take on an identity in some other "world". You can be passionate about music, you can have your musical identity. You can be passionate about mathematics, you can have your way of reasoning about problems. But gardening? Is there a difference between things you really like to do and a passion?
    - aynsof 8y ago
      When I think of 'passion', I think of creating things, making things better, doing something that can bring me into a state of flow. I'm not an avid gardener, but I can absolutely see how gardening would tick those boxes for someone who was.
scruple 8y ago
No. I've also always held similar thoughts. I will say, though, that in my late 30s today, I fully expect to be at this for another 30 years, if not longer.
mancerayder 8y ago
I'm 100% in agreement, and am trying to pursue that on a payscale that's fractions of what's described. I think the problem is the balancing act between "live now" and "save for living later." I think I have a healthy balance, particularly in not denying myself decent food and lifestyle despite the costs. That said, I'm moderate in almost every other way (and I don't have a car, or buy expensive clothing, etc.) At one extreme I know people who save every penny, even though they make a fortune. One person I know spends maybe 10-20 dollars a week on food by never drinking, receiving farm deliveries of vegetables, etc. and etc. At the other extreme, as per this article, you have Real Housewives-types scoffing at making less than a million, perhaps living extravagant lifestyles. Maybe this should be called "lifestyle inflation." Through social pressure, greed, trendiness, or perhaps stupidity, people piss all their money away and need more. There's a balance there, but yes, at the end of the day the goal is to have free time, right?
- johnmaguire2013 8y ago
  > Maybe this should be called "lifestyle inflation." It is: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lifestyle-inflation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lifestyle-inflation.asp
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  "Maybe this should be called "lifestyle inflation." Through social pressure, greed, trendiness, or perhaps stupidity, people piss all their money away and need more." There's also a lack of education teaching people to value and strive for something beyond material goods, fashion, and whatever the mainstream media happen to be hyping at the moment.
- fatnoah 8y ago
  >I think the problem is the balancing act between "live now" and "save for living later." In my mind, this is key. My parents barely saved for retirement, mostly because they didn't make much money. The net effect of that is that I've maxed my 401k since day one of my professional life. In contrast, my father also died at 46 (I'm 42, going on 43), so all of the life experiences he'd deferred to a more financially prudent time never happened. I work hard to try to find the balance so that I'm not left without an emergency fund or a paid-for retirement, but I also don't fret over every penny and "waste" money from time to time. My motto is to plan for tomorrow, but minimize any regrets that could arise if tomorrow never comes.
madrox 8y ago
I’ve thought about this...especially among the very wealthy. Why continue to be a high pressure CEO when you basically never have to work again? My hypothesis is that most very high paying roles are incentive-based, and incentives can be addicting: meet a goal, get a million dollar dopamine hit. I don’t think these people hate their jobs as much as they might say they do.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  It's more than that. People need purpose. That's why things like UBI are a pipe-dream. Any Fortune-500 executive could live a life of leisure with 2-3 years of planning. They tend to not make that choice.
  - CptFribble 8y ago
    On the contrary, UBI would free people to leave the jobs that feel meaningless, and do things they are passionate about. If the problem is that people need purpose, what better than a system that allows people to find purpose, rather than one that keeps them trapped doing work they hate?
    - rjf72 8y ago
      Remember how the internet was supposed to bring people together, enhance the spreading and sharing of ideas, bring knowledge and information to everybody? Not many people predicted it'd end up with people going into echo chambers, spreading misinformation about one another, and helping to drive a wedge in society so extreme that an increasingly large chunk of society (myself not included) believe it will culminate in civil war [1]? Can't win 'em all I guess. The point I'm making here is that we shouldn't play the naive game twice. Give people free money and an extra ~10 hours a day with no obligations to anybody. This isn't going to bring in some utopia of people pursuing wonderful new interests and ideas they always really wanted to, but were just held back by socioeconomic obstacles. So let's think about realistic predictions. I mean I do agree with you people would be looking for purpose. Companies would be quick to try to provide this purpose by providing the most addictive, immersive, and life destroying games ever -- even the most hardcore WoW player would blush at what we'd have in store there. We'd also probably see people finding purpose similar to how we already do online. Imagine Twitter outrage mobs. Except now since people have no obligations and really nothing to do, there's a very good chance this would spill into the streets and likely in quite high numbers. 'Hey let's come protest against [xyz] in LA on the 17th!' 'Whoa, sounds like fun. Btw, no idea what [xyz] is, fill me in then?' 'Sure, not so clear myself tbh!' Ooo and then the inevitable happens. There'd be another group, also looking for purpose, that now decides to counter protest. And these 'meetings' would be immense. There'd suddenly be thousands to millions of people with nothing to do and no obligations showing up to face off against each other to try to find some sort of purpose and meaning in life. No worries. I'm sure they'll just come together, spread and share ideas, and bring knowledge and information to one another. Well at least everybody could come together in nonstop protests demanding that the basic income should be increased. [1] - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2018/31_think_u_s_civil_war_likely_soon http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene...
starpilot 8y ago
Many in finance do this, working like dogs until they reach their "number" they need to retire. Or, some take pride in their work and would do it for free. Creating and leading a company can be making history. I don't think it's clear cut as to whether enjoying life versus working hard to produce (and taking pride in this) is a better way to live.
- alexhutcheson 8y ago
  In practice, their "number" goes up over time along with their pay, so they stay on the treadmill. Though obviously there are exceptions.
momentmaker 8y ago
I read somewhere about to really torture a prisoner in the Galog you instruct the prisoner to just keep digging a hole and then have him fill it back up again. Continue this to break thoroughly break him down. This is done without giving him any particular reason why he is doing it for...
- lovecg 8y ago
  Reminds me of “Cool Hand Luke”. Boss Paul: That ditch is Boss Kean's ditch. And I told him that dirt in it's your dirt. What's your dirt doin' in his ditch? Luke: I don't know, Boss. Boss Paul: You better get in there and get it out, boy.
- ALittleLight 8y ago
  I don't know about "really torture". I'd have to dig and fill a ditch for a very long time before I'd prefer some traditional, physical pain based, tortures.
  - misingnoglic 8y ago
    And I'd theoretically prefer water dropped on my head, but in practice it's just as grueling.
- freethemullet 8y ago
  Maybe "Notes from a Dead House" by Dostoevsky?
jackschultz 8y ago
People say these things all the time, but I always wonder how you'd actually feel if you did the 3-5 year work and saved that 3-5 million you earned. My guess is with most people, you get that 3-5 million and you're going to want more. I'm not saying you specifically, but people in general. And a clarification, I'm not thinking it'd be because you're around wealthier people which would make you want to spend more to compare to them, but rather having more security, if your passion requires more money.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I think it's not just competing with other people. In many cases, spending more money really does get you stuff that's better quality. And then you discover that you can spend more and get things that are even nicer. Not just show-off nicer, but better design, from better materials, that last longer and age better. Real quality of life improvements. I suspect that a lot of people would find that hard to give up.
sorryforthethro 8y ago
In my limited experience, and excluding obvious exceptions to the rule, the people who make 7-figure salaries are chosen for those positions because they are over-leveraged, and thus controllable.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Ding ding ding. In my brief foray in management consulting at a big three firm, both the company (helped by the credit card companies) sought to create a culture of excess. My colleagues were way overleveraged -- vacations weekly in Cancun, etc. This created dependence on the company, and ultimately intelligent workers who had no choice. By the time they made actual money (5-6 years), their expenses would way exceed their incomes. Thankfully, I got out and never really succumbed.
  - QualityReboot 8y ago
    I have pretty much no exposure to that world, and about half the comments here seem to agree with you, but I still don't understand. I can appreciate that you might need a wardrobe with nice suits, a respectable looking car, and a few stories about places you've been and things you've done. It doesn't seem like it would super hard to craft that image without spending a lot of money. How'd you get into the management consulting world? Is there a 500k/yr salary just waiting for me if I fake like I'm a Wall St guy from the 80s?
    - subjectHarold 8y ago
      I have quite a few friends who ended up doing this. It isn't easy at all. And if you are just in it for the money, you probably wouldn't get an entry-level position. That probably sounds slightly crazy but how many people actually do end up leaving and doing something else? Not many. They end up in those jobs because they want the lifestyle, the status, and being "the guy" is critical to their self-image. Faking it would be pointless (it would probably lead to severe unhappiness). And if you are an employer, your job is to feed into that. I don't think it happens consciously but most of these places have working environments where the stick and carrot are used quite heavily. If you "win", the rewards in status are huge. If you "lose", you will be crucified. And most people who do exit, exit because they lose. Not because they win and decide they have had enough...no-one does that.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
It's not that easy. 'High status' jobs in many ways entail a 'high status' lifestyle. Example: they got the jobs in the first place as the result of their parents ability to pay for private school, and Ivy League. So in that lifestyle context, you're going to be doing the same thing, it's part of the cycle. Very expensive. Partners in law firms or consultancies are really in sales. They are using their business relationships to position themselves as thoughtful, successful, excellent pedigree etc.. For the same reason that real estate salespeople who drive people around a lot tend to drive nice cars, many folks in high end careers have no choice but to live that lifestyle. When you go out for dinner with business associates, you're not going to talk about the deal you got at the dollar store, rather, your golf game, the new club you got, your trip to Pebble beach. If there is any chance anyone will see you in your car, it cannot be jalopi. Telling people about your trip to Davos would be more than ideal. There are very few fields where high end folks can get away with not quite living that lifestyle. Some doctors, dentists, business owners can do that. People in tech, of course can life alt-lifestyles. It's not to say that a Director of trading at some big bank couldn't really skimp in stuff either, but it's hard to avoid the expectations of lifestyle. 'Career progress' in may of these fields entails a lot of signalling, and such signalling can be expensive. "I have three kids, so proud they all made it into Ivy League". That's a very powerful signalling statement, and a massively expensive one! Taxes on regular income are high, and expenses add up - and having a 'fairly comfortable retirement' is not cheap. I'm not entirely sympathetic to these people, because they do make choices - my point is that they are not living a 'regular lifestyle', their careers often have expensive lifestyles 'baked in' to the process. Also: "They talked about missed promotions, disaffected children and billable hours in divorce court. They complained about jobs that were unfulfilling, tedious or just plain bad." I think maybe we all have this, and when the numbers, cars and suits get nicer, those problems don't go away. In many ways, the risks are bigger. If your company falls flat it can ruin you. A carpenter can usually get work, as can most decent devs.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I can't help but wonder - shouldn't these people be getting their metaphorical lunch eaten by those who don't engage in absurd conspicuous consumption? That has happened before certainly throughout history as "gentry" have had their delusions of superiority and even relevance shattered in spite of their abundantly privileged start.
KangLi 8y ago
Not really. But remember the 1.2 Million guy is married. Sounds like an awful relationship since his partner laughed at him when he mentioned finding a more satisfying career with half the pay ( that's still 500k a year). He sounds trapped in this clusterfuck of either living in misery and keeping a luxurious "normal" lifestyle or seeking novelty and ending up in court with divorce procedures, loss of wealth, custody and a fresh start from zero. If I was this dude, I would take the red pill, but hey, who said shifting from blissful ignorance to brutal reality was gonna be that easy?
subjectHarold 8y ago
That isn't how most people work. Would you rather be the worst lover in the world but everyone think you are the best? Or the best lover in the world but everyone think you are the worst? For most people, work is their identity, it is status, it is the ability to abuse underlings terribly with no consequences. Constructing your self-image this way leads to, imo, a great deal of emotional vulnerability. If I leave my job, what will other people think? I am not the boss anymore. I am just another normal person. And btw, if you feel that you are doing whatever you are doing until you reach $X in the bank. Then that is the same. The point of the article is that you can be happy working a shitty job for no money. But you have to understand what makes you happy, what is fulfilling to you, etc. Although it is true that some jobs/working environments are just shitty.
TrackerFF 8y ago
It's easy to fall prey to the lifestyle creep. Suddenly your $300k house/apartment is too small, and you aim for one that's 5-10 times more expensive. Then your cars get more expensive. You start looking at a summer home. You get a couple of kids...and they turn out to be extremely expensive: - Daycare - Prep-schools - Private tutors - Prestigious Universities Because you want to maximize their chances of success, and have planned their academic life for the next 15-20 years. It all adds up. And since you're surrounded with peers that live the same lifestyle, you get conditioned that this is all normal. Here's a personal example, and one that I never, EVER, thought I'd fall for: I bought my first "real" suit after graduation, and paid $1000 for it. I felt like a real baller, but was also anxious about wearing it. What if I got stains on it, what if some douchebag with a cig bumped into me, what if, etc. I could afford it, sure, but it felt like A LOT of money for a piece of clothing. Years later, and I'm buying suits 5-6-7 times more expensive. The old $1.5k ones don't feel right - the fabric isn't nice enough, the fit isn't as good, the small details are lacking. Internally, I rationalize and convince myself that all these small differences are truly making the price (premium) worth it. And since I make good money, it doesn't mater. But, what if I lost my income? Or had to settle with a "normal" job, making $45k a year? There's no way in hell I could afford spending 10% of my income on one thing. But at the same time, downgrading from luxury like that, and all the way down - it's not even like going from 3-ply to 1-ply TP, it's like going from 3-ply to newspaper. And that's just for something as trivial as a men's suit. When I was a student, I didn't even own a suit - and had absolutely zero interest or care about wearing one. But then you get put in an environment, and ridiculous things start to get normalized. I know people that swore to the shittiest of shit lite-beers, but now obsessively shop wine bottles worth tens of thousands. It doesn't happen overnight - but is rather a very gradual process.
- rakejake 8y ago
  Great comment. I'm still in school but I noticed how my lifestyle got slightly more expensive after I made some money through internships, or after I've been on vacation and enjoyed myself (and seen others enjoy themselves). I used to think of myself as a very minimalist no-frivolous-spending kind of guy. I would do meticulous research on products to maximize the quality to price ratio (with strict upper bounds on price of course). Nowadays I just don't bother. I think you're right that the process is gradual. When a culture built around consumerism surrounds you, there is no choice but to become more consumerist.
lallysingh 8y ago
Private schools and high-quality childcare. If you look in the parking lots of top-tier schools, you'll see as many old Hondas as Range Rovers. Many parents care more about getting their children the best possible education than their own financial freedom. If the job's tolerable, why not just do it to see the kids happy with a bright future?
joncrane 8y ago
In addition to the other answers, one of the reasons animals strive is to attract a mate. I think a lot of people marry someone who did so with an understanding that the gravy train continues indefinitely.
credit_guy 8y ago
One million a year is not that much, if you live in NYC. Various taxes sum up to about half of that: 330k Federal, 70k State, 40k City, 30k FICA [1]. Health insurance plus copays, a few more 10s of ks. Then there's real estate. Either you rent, or you buy. Rent for a family of 4 in Manhattan, next to a good public school can easily be >10k/month. If you buy, a 3bdr appartment in a similar zone is >$2.5MM, the mortgage plus taxes and common charges are easily >15k/month. Let's say you manage to put aside 200k/year and you want to retire after 3 years of work. If you are about 30y old, your life expectancy is about 52y [2]. That will buy you an annuity of about $22k/year [3] (assuming a 3% annual growth rate). That is far, far from "never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life". [1] https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax-calculator#aYosnz0SWY https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax-calculator#aYosnz0... [2] https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi [3]https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calculator.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calcu...
- everdrive 8y ago
  It's very important not to live in NYC.
  - credit_guy 8y ago
    If you remove NYC and SF from the equation, there aren’t many million dollar jobs out there ...
    - Amygaz 8y ago
      Most fundamental jobs out there would not make anyone a millionaire
SZJX 8y ago
I wonder if people actually do this and then go on to "pursue their passions in life". I wonder how you'd feel if you actually went through what you described here. What makes one's passion and one's work two strictly separate entities? In fact many people who retire early feel really lost and even depressed because they lose their bearings and aren't contributing to the community meaningfully. If you dislike the current job a lot why not change it? For example, some people might only consider programming in functional programming languages. The number of job openings might be smaller but they are really passionate about the technology and they can be much happier on the job.

C1sc0cat 8y ago

What % of that million are you spending

prewett 8y ago

Meaninglessness creates the toil. It's not toil if it's meaningful, it's merely physical or stressful or whatever the hard part of the particular job entails.

fermentation 8y ago

Seriously, it was hard to feel much sympathy for the person earning $1.2M/yr when they could very easily retire if they just stopped somehow spending hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

obastani 8y ago
Perhaps they are earning $1.2M/yr because they never found anything they enjoyed to do with their time outside of work?
- esturk 8y ago
  So the problem lies with said individual then.

eclipxe 8y ago

5 years at a million a year, after taxes in a High COL state will be about 2.5M. A healthy sum indeed, but not enough to retire on, especially with a family.

MrMember 8y ago
A single person could absolutely retire on 2.5M. That's $100k a year using the 4% rule.
- scarmig 8y ago
  I thought nowadays the recommendation was the 3% rule. Still absolutely doable.
  - Raidion 8y ago
    The Trinity study said a conservative number was 4%. Since then a lot of people said "Well, I don't want a conservative number, I want a number that has no chance of failure", so went to 3.5% or 3%. Practically I don't think that's a wise choice, a vast majority of the time most of the time, any failures comes from sequence of returns risk and the remaining percent coming from simulated bad returns coupled with a very long life. This means that as long as you're willing to cut back on expenses if the market dips soon after you retire, 4% is fine, and it's probably not worth the extra X years of your life to try to get that number lower.
- forrestthewoods 8y ago
  Is that number for 30 years? If you’re retiring early you need your nest egg to last for 40 or 50 years.
  - zaccus 8y ago
    Don't think of it as a large nest egg; think of it as a modest fixed income. You can easily make 2.5MM last for the rest of your life if you're able to live on 100k. That might require downsizing a bit and moving somewhere with a lower COL, but it's certainly doable.

ip26 8y ago

Have you actually dug ditches for a few weeks? It's a popular rhetorical device but I wonder how many engineers have actually done stints of hard labor.

jedberg 8y ago
I used to dig ditches on weekends as a way of relaxing. It's not bad when you get to do it on your own time. But yeah, I'd probably not appreciate doing it for eight hours a day five days a week. I'd still do it for a million a year though.
- compiler-guy 8y ago
  I did it 10 hours a day, four days a week when I had just graduated from high school. Extremely good money for the time, but you would have to pay me a lot more than a million now. Brutal and back breaking. I couldn't get enough to eat, my body was always sore and tired. I would do it if I had to, I suppose, but even though my cushy desk job coding pays a lot less--a very much lot less--than a million a year, I would take it every time.
scruple 8y ago
I have, yes. I've also framed homes, roofed homes, and water proofed basements. I spent some time landscaping. I've held a variety of manual labor jobs, from working fields to construction to warehouses and factory floors to the military. Today, I'm a team lead and senior software engineer. I'd also rather be outside again all day, working with and alongside people, physically and towards goals we can visualize, doing tasks that we all understand well and can articulate in an accurate way, and cultivating a genuine sense of camaraderie. Not the sort of weird brogrammer nonsense that is frequently encountered in our industry and which is oftentimes confused with camaraderie. I pull a lot of my previous lives experience in to my work today and I spend a lot of time working very closely with my colleagues, but it's not the same. I don't end a day with the same sense of purpose or belonging that I experienced with physically demanding jobs. I got close, once, but it was a shared experience between myself and one colleague, as opposed to a team, and it was because of circumstances that aren't exactly repeatable in a meaningful way. edit/ Of course, the above is making some assumptions that probably don't hold. There is genuinely something that I miss from physically demanding work that can't be found or replicated with the work that I do today (or, perhaps it's just that I have failed to find or replicate it). But, I'm also dramatically better compensated and live a nearly fully autonomous life today, too. These are just the trade-offs that we make, I suppose.

BucketSort 8y ago

Most people don't have passions in life, they do have a passion for possession and social status though. Our culture also looks down on the people that don't have all these status symbols, and people naturally do not want to be looked down upon, so they keep racing to keep up just so their peers respect them. Our culture breeds depression. There are farmers in third world countries that live a more meaningful and joyful life than most do here. Koyaanisqatsi.

mactrey 8y ago
That is true but also people come to care about what they do. They may not be "passionate" about work but it is what they spend the most time doing, it is their main source of daily challenge and problem solving, it represents social interaction, and it is their main source of pride and accomplishment and personal striving. To just up and leave work leaves a huge void in their lives. People can learn to fill that void with art or gardening or various other things but it may take years and years of discipline and self-reflection to become satisfied.
- BucketSort 8y ago
  I said that because the parent comment said "I just don't understand this at all. If you can earn a million a year, do it for 3-5 years, never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life." They don't have those passions in life per say and fill that void with work and other things. You are actually echoing what I'm saying in your own way. Also, I like how people bring up gardening sometimes when passion is discussed. To me, passion is coupled with expression and allows you to take on an identity in some other "world". You can be passionate about music, you can have your musical identity. You can be passionate about mathematics, you can have your way of reasoning about problems. But gardening? Is there a difference between things you really like to do and a passion?
  - aynsof 8y ago
    When I think of 'passion', I think of creating things, making things better, doing something that can bring me into a state of flow. I'm not an avid gardener, but I can absolutely see how gardening would tick those boxes for someone who was.

scruple 8y ago

No. I've also always held similar thoughts. I will say, though, that in my late 30s today, I fully expect to be at this for another 30 years, if not longer.

mancerayder 8y ago

I'm 100% in agreement, and am trying to pursue that on a payscale that's fractions of what's described. I think the problem is the balancing act between "live now" and "save for living later." I think I have a healthy balance, particularly in not denying myself decent food and lifestyle despite the costs. That said, I'm moderate in almost every other way (and I don't have a car, or buy expensive clothing, etc.) At one extreme I know people who save every penny, even though they make a fortune. One person I know spends maybe 10-20 dollars a week on food by never drinking, receiving farm deliveries of vegetables, etc. and etc. At the other extreme, as per this article, you have Real Housewives-types scoffing at making less than a million, perhaps living extravagant lifestyles. Maybe this should be called "lifestyle inflation." Through social pressure, greed, trendiness, or perhaps stupidity, people piss all their money away and need more. There's a balance there, but yes, at the end of the day the goal is to have free time, right?

johnmaguire2013 8y ago
> Maybe this should be called "lifestyle inflation." It is: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lifestyle-inflation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lifestyle-inflation.asp
pmoriarty 8y ago
"Maybe this should be called "lifestyle inflation." Through social pressure, greed, trendiness, or perhaps stupidity, people piss all their money away and need more." There's also a lack of education teaching people to value and strive for something beyond material goods, fashion, and whatever the mainstream media happen to be hyping at the moment.
fatnoah 8y ago
>I think the problem is the balancing act between "live now" and "save for living later." In my mind, this is key. My parents barely saved for retirement, mostly because they didn't make much money. The net effect of that is that I've maxed my 401k since day one of my professional life. In contrast, my father also died at 46 (I'm 42, going on 43), so all of the life experiences he'd deferred to a more financially prudent time never happened. I work hard to try to find the balance so that I'm not left without an emergency fund or a paid-for retirement, but I also don't fret over every penny and "waste" money from time to time. My motto is to plan for tomorrow, but minimize any regrets that could arise if tomorrow never comes.

madrox 8y ago

I’ve thought about this...especially among the very wealthy. Why continue to be a high pressure CEO when you basically never have to work again? My hypothesis is that most very high paying roles are incentive-based, and incentives can be addicting: meet a goal, get a million dollar dopamine hit. I don’t think these people hate their jobs as much as they might say they do.

Spooky23 8y ago
It's more than that. People need purpose. That's why things like UBI are a pipe-dream. Any Fortune-500 executive could live a life of leisure with 2-3 years of planning. They tend to not make that choice.
- CptFribble 8y ago
  On the contrary, UBI would free people to leave the jobs that feel meaningless, and do things they are passionate about. If the problem is that people need purpose, what better than a system that allows people to find purpose, rather than one that keeps them trapped doing work they hate?
  - rjf72 8y ago
    Remember how the internet was supposed to bring people together, enhance the spreading and sharing of ideas, bring knowledge and information to everybody? Not many people predicted it'd end up with people going into echo chambers, spreading misinformation about one another, and helping to drive a wedge in society so extreme that an increasingly large chunk of society (myself not included) believe it will culminate in civil war [1]? Can't win 'em all I guess. The point I'm making here is that we shouldn't play the naive game twice. Give people free money and an extra ~10 hours a day with no obligations to anybody. This isn't going to bring in some utopia of people pursuing wonderful new interests and ideas they always really wanted to, but were just held back by socioeconomic obstacles. So let's think about realistic predictions. I mean I do agree with you people would be looking for purpose. Companies would be quick to try to provide this purpose by providing the most addictive, immersive, and life destroying games ever -- even the most hardcore WoW player would blush at what we'd have in store there. We'd also probably see people finding purpose similar to how we already do online. Imagine Twitter outrage mobs. Except now since people have no obligations and really nothing to do, there's a very good chance this would spill into the streets and likely in quite high numbers. 'Hey let's come protest against [xyz] in LA on the 17th!' 'Whoa, sounds like fun. Btw, no idea what [xyz] is, fill me in then?' 'Sure, not so clear myself tbh!' Ooo and then the inevitable happens. There'd be another group, also looking for purpose, that now decides to counter protest. And these 'meetings' would be immense. There'd suddenly be thousands to millions of people with nothing to do and no obligations showing up to face off against each other to try to find some sort of purpose and meaning in life. No worries. I'm sure they'll just come together, spread and share ideas, and bring knowledge and information to one another. Well at least everybody could come together in nonstop protests demanding that the basic income should be increased. [1] - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2018/31_think_u_s_civil_war_likely_soon http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gene...

starpilot 8y ago

Many in finance do this, working like dogs until they reach their "number" they need to retire. Or, some take pride in their work and would do it for free. Creating and leading a company can be making history. I don't think it's clear cut as to whether enjoying life versus working hard to produce (and taking pride in this) is a better way to live.

alexhutcheson 8y ago
In practice, their "number" goes up over time along with their pay, so they stay on the treadmill. Though obviously there are exceptions.

momentmaker 8y ago

I read somewhere about to really torture a prisoner in the Galog you instruct the prisoner to just keep digging a hole and then have him fill it back up again. Continue this to break thoroughly break him down. This is done without giving him any particular reason why he is doing it for...

lovecg 8y ago
Reminds me of “Cool Hand Luke”. Boss Paul: That ditch is Boss Kean's ditch. And I told him that dirt in it's your dirt. What's your dirt doin' in his ditch? Luke: I don't know, Boss. Boss Paul: You better get in there and get it out, boy.
ALittleLight 8y ago
I don't know about "really torture". I'd have to dig and fill a ditch for a very long time before I'd prefer some traditional, physical pain based, tortures.
- misingnoglic 8y ago
  And I'd theoretically prefer water dropped on my head, but in practice it's just as grueling.
freethemullet 8y ago
Maybe "Notes from a Dead House" by Dostoevsky?

jackschultz 8y ago

People say these things all the time, but I always wonder how you'd actually feel if you did the 3-5 year work and saved that 3-5 million you earned. My guess is with most people, you get that 3-5 million and you're going to want more. I'm not saying you specifically, but people in general. And a clarification, I'm not thinking it'd be because you're around wealthier people which would make you want to spend more to compare to them, but rather having more security, if your passion requires more money.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
I think it's not just competing with other people. In many cases, spending more money really does get you stuff that's better quality. And then you discover that you can spend more and get things that are even nicer. Not just show-off nicer, but better design, from better materials, that last longer and age better. Real quality of life improvements. I suspect that a lot of people would find that hard to give up.

sorryforthethro 8y ago

In my limited experience, and excluding obvious exceptions to the rule, the people who make 7-figure salaries are chosen for those positions because they are over-leveraged, and thus controllable.

tathougies 8y ago
Ding ding ding. In my brief foray in management consulting at a big three firm, both the company (helped by the credit card companies) sought to create a culture of excess. My colleagues were way overleveraged -- vacations weekly in Cancun, etc. This created dependence on the company, and ultimately intelligent workers who had no choice. By the time they made actual money (5-6 years), their expenses would way exceed their incomes. Thankfully, I got out and never really succumbed.
- QualityReboot 8y ago
  I have pretty much no exposure to that world, and about half the comments here seem to agree with you, but I still don't understand. I can appreciate that you might need a wardrobe with nice suits, a respectable looking car, and a few stories about places you've been and things you've done. It doesn't seem like it would super hard to craft that image without spending a lot of money. How'd you get into the management consulting world? Is there a 500k/yr salary just waiting for me if I fake like I'm a Wall St guy from the 80s?
  - subjectHarold 8y ago
    I have quite a few friends who ended up doing this. It isn't easy at all. And if you are just in it for the money, you probably wouldn't get an entry-level position. That probably sounds slightly crazy but how many people actually do end up leaving and doing something else? Not many. They end up in those jobs because they want the lifestyle, the status, and being "the guy" is critical to their self-image. Faking it would be pointless (it would probably lead to severe unhappiness). And if you are an employer, your job is to feed into that. I don't think it happens consciously but most of these places have working environments where the stick and carrot are used quite heavily. If you "win", the rewards in status are huge. If you "lose", you will be crucified. And most people who do exit, exit because they lose. Not because they win and decide they have had enough...no-one does that.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

It's not that easy. 'High status' jobs in many ways entail a 'high status' lifestyle. Example: they got the jobs in the first place as the result of their parents ability to pay for private school, and Ivy League. So in that lifestyle context, you're going to be doing the same thing, it's part of the cycle. Very expensive. Partners in law firms or consultancies are really in sales. They are using their business relationships to position themselves as thoughtful, successful, excellent pedigree etc.. For the same reason that real estate salespeople who drive people around a lot tend to drive nice cars, many folks in high end careers have no choice but to live that lifestyle. When you go out for dinner with business associates, you're not going to talk about the deal you got at the dollar store, rather, your golf game, the new club you got, your trip to Pebble beach. If there is any chance anyone will see you in your car, it cannot be jalopi. Telling people about your trip to Davos would be more than ideal. There are very few fields where high end folks can get away with not quite living that lifestyle. Some doctors, dentists, business owners can do that. People in tech, of course can life alt-lifestyles. It's not to say that a Director of trading at some big bank couldn't really skimp in stuff either, but it's hard to avoid the expectations of lifestyle. 'Career progress' in may of these fields entails a lot of signalling, and such signalling can be expensive. "I have three kids, so proud they all made it into Ivy League". That's a very powerful signalling statement, and a massively expensive one! Taxes on regular income are high, and expenses add up - and having a 'fairly comfortable retirement' is not cheap. I'm not entirely sympathetic to these people, because they do make choices - my point is that they are not living a 'regular lifestyle', their careers often have expensive lifestyles 'baked in' to the process. Also: "They talked about missed promotions, disaffected children and billable hours in divorce court. They complained about jobs that were unfulfilling, tedious or just plain bad." I think maybe we all have this, and when the numbers, cars and suits get nicer, those problems don't go away. In many ways, the risks are bigger. If your company falls flat it can ruin you. A carpenter can usually get work, as can most decent devs.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Nasrudith 8y ago
I can't help but wonder - shouldn't these people be getting their metaphorical lunch eaten by those who don't engage in absurd conspicuous consumption? That has happened before certainly throughout history as "gentry" have had their delusions of superiority and even relevance shattered in spite of their abundantly privileged start.

KangLi 8y ago

Not really. But remember the 1.2 Million guy is married. Sounds like an awful relationship since his partner laughed at him when he mentioned finding a more satisfying career with half the pay ( that's still 500k a year). He sounds trapped in this clusterfuck of either living in misery and keeping a luxurious "normal" lifestyle or seeking novelty and ending up in court with divorce procedures, loss of wealth, custody and a fresh start from zero. If I was this dude, I would take the red pill, but hey, who said shifting from blissful ignorance to brutal reality was gonna be that easy?

subjectHarold 8y ago

That isn't how most people work. Would you rather be the worst lover in the world but everyone think you are the best? Or the best lover in the world but everyone think you are the worst? For most people, work is their identity, it is status, it is the ability to abuse underlings terribly with no consequences. Constructing your self-image this way leads to, imo, a great deal of emotional vulnerability. If I leave my job, what will other people think? I am not the boss anymore. I am just another normal person. And btw, if you feel that you are doing whatever you are doing until you reach $X in the bank. Then that is the same. The point of the article is that you can be happy working a shitty job for no money. But you have to understand what makes you happy, what is fulfilling to you, etc. Although it is true that some jobs/working environments are just shitty.

TrackerFF 8y ago

It's easy to fall prey to the lifestyle creep. Suddenly your $300k house/apartment is too small, and you aim for one that's 5-10 times more expensive. Then your cars get more expensive. You start looking at a summer home. You get a couple of kids...and they turn out to be extremely expensive: - Daycare - Prep-schools - Private tutors - Prestigious Universities Because you want to maximize their chances of success, and have planned their academic life for the next 15-20 years. It all adds up. And since you're surrounded with peers that live the same lifestyle, you get conditioned that this is all normal. Here's a personal example, and one that I never, EVER, thought I'd fall for: I bought my first "real" suit after graduation, and paid $1000 for it. I felt like a real baller, but was also anxious about wearing it. What if I got stains on it, what if some douchebag with a cig bumped into me, what if, etc. I could afford it, sure, but it felt like A LOT of money for a piece of clothing. Years later, and I'm buying suits 5-6-7 times more expensive. The old $1.5k ones don't feel right - the fabric isn't nice enough, the fit isn't as good, the small details are lacking. Internally, I rationalize and convince myself that all these small differences are truly making the price (premium) worth it. And since I make good money, it doesn't mater. But, what if I lost my income? Or had to settle with a "normal" job, making $45k a year? There's no way in hell I could afford spending 10% of my income on one thing. But at the same time, downgrading from luxury like that, and all the way down - it's not even like going from 3-ply to 1-ply TP, it's like going from 3-ply to newspaper. And that's just for something as trivial as a men's suit. When I was a student, I didn't even own a suit - and had absolutely zero interest or care about wearing one. But then you get put in an environment, and ridiculous things start to get normalized. I know people that swore to the shittiest of shit lite-beers, but now obsessively shop wine bottles worth tens of thousands. It doesn't happen overnight - but is rather a very gradual process.

rakejake 8y ago
Great comment. I'm still in school but I noticed how my lifestyle got slightly more expensive after I made some money through internships, or after I've been on vacation and enjoyed myself (and seen others enjoy themselves). I used to think of myself as a very minimalist no-frivolous-spending kind of guy. I would do meticulous research on products to maximize the quality to price ratio (with strict upper bounds on price of course). Nowadays I just don't bother. I think you're right that the process is gradual. When a culture built around consumerism surrounds you, there is no choice but to become more consumerist.

lallysingh 8y ago

Private schools and high-quality childcare. If you look in the parking lots of top-tier schools, you'll see as many old Hondas as Range Rovers. Many parents care more about getting their children the best possible education than their own financial freedom. If the job's tolerable, why not just do it to see the kids happy with a bright future?

joncrane 8y ago

In addition to the other answers, one of the reasons animals strive is to attract a mate. I think a lot of people marry someone who did so with an understanding that the gravy train continues indefinitely.

credit_guy 8y ago

One million a year is not that much, if you live in NYC. Various taxes sum up to about half of that: 330k Federal, 70k State, 40k City, 30k FICA [1]. Health insurance plus copays, a few more 10s of ks. Then there's real estate. Either you rent, or you buy. Rent for a family of 4 in Manhattan, next to a good public school can easily be >10k/month. If you buy, a 3bdr appartment in a similar zone is >$2.5MM, the mortgage plus taxes and common charges are easily >15k/month. Let's say you manage to put aside 200k/year and you want to retire after 3 years of work. If you are about 30y old, your life expectancy is about 52y [2]. That will buy you an annuity of about $22k/year [3] (assuming a 3% annual growth rate). That is far, far from "never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life". [1] https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax-calculator#aYosnz0SWY https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-tax-calculator#aYosnz0... [2] https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi [3]https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calculator.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calcu...

everdrive 8y ago
It's very important not to live in NYC.
- credit_guy 8y ago
  If you remove NYC and SF from the equation, there aren’t many million dollar jobs out there ...
  - Amygaz 8y ago
    Most fundamental jobs out there would not make anyone a millionaire

SZJX 8y ago

I wonder if people actually do this and then go on to "pursue their passions in life". I wonder how you'd feel if you actually went through what you described here. What makes one's passion and one's work two strictly separate entities? In fact many people who retire early feel really lost and even depressed because they lose their bearings and aren't contributing to the community meaningfully. If you dislike the current job a lot why not change it? For example, some people might only consider programming in functional programming languages. The number of job openings might be smaller but they are really passionate about the technology and they can be much happier on the job.