3 ms·

"They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten." The only thing that motivates me in my

by jbenz 18y ago

"They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten." The only thing that motivates me in my professional life more than money is history. I would like to be remembered. I would like a student of history to read about me in 100 years and think that I left this place better than I found it. Alas, this motivation doesn't stick well in my head, and the money is always there for the taking. I like his point that people simply earning money will not be remembered. He's made his money, and he's OK without being remembered. He can now relax (Which by the way, is why money is such a high motivating factor for me, personally. I don't particularly love the sight of money, but I believe it can buy peace of mind.)

jhancock 18y ago
I'm not trying to be insulting. But your post is interesting. You claim not to be motivated by money, but are motivated by a desired to be remembered (fame). I can't properly dissect the ego, but I think both the desire for money and fame stem from similar places. That is, I'm not sure they're that different. I have often though that if we ever do want a society based on merit and humanity, we need to get control of runaway egos. Maybe this requires a gene modification, so maybe we are too many years from it. Who knows. I would love to locate and find remedy for the "asshole gene".
- fallentimes 18y ago
  I'm actually the opposite of the OP. I would like to have enough money for myself, friends & family never have to worry about it in my life time. But I never ever want to be famous. One of my great fears would be having complete strangers (not founders, not YCers, not HNers) regularly recognize me. Starting your own business, no matter what it is, certainly causes some loss of privacy, but I'd prefer that 100 years from now no one gives a shit about who I was or what I did. Because if they did, it more than likely means I did something wrong.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    When you say "would like to have enough money for myself, friends & family never have to worry about it in my life time."... there are two ways to go about this. One is to have a society that allows you to feel secure in that you will always be able to have an income stream that enables high quality of life. The second is to gather enough FU money so you can provide for yourself without regard to what the rest of society does. The second route is what most have been doing. And for good reason; that's mostly all our society allows, there are few occupations or opportunity for taking the high road. The trouble is this route doesn't "scale" as a solution for everyone. This route is "get out of my way, I'm taking care of myself, family, and friends. This requires you grab a bunch of equity. And that's the part that doesn't scale to everyone and therefore not a sustainable model.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      I'm also going the second route. It does scale and I'm going to make others rich in the process - creating wealth is not zero sum. And I never said "get out of my way" :). "We don't take steps to redress inequalities of looks, friends, or sex life. We don't grab a kidney from you to save someone's life, even though that health difference was unfair brute luck. Redistribution of wealth has some role in maintaining a stable democracy and preventing starvation. But the power of wealth redistribution to produce net value is quite limited. The power of wealth creation to produce net value is extraordinary. Most of America's poor are already among the best-off of all humans in world history. We should be putting our resources, including our advocacy and our intellectual resources, into wealth creation as much as we can." -Tyler Cowen
      - jhancock 18y ago
        My reply was to build on your comment, not to tear down your position. Creating wealth is not a zero sum game, but... because noone can be certain of the proper amount of FU money one needs, you overreach (I don't mean "you" you, I mean anyone). It is precisely this that creates hordes of wealth "locked up". This is a highly inefficient model and does not scale to "all" people. You reach a point very quickly where maybe less than 20% can participate before you create inflation and devalue the equity, which in turn makes people raise their "FU quotient". It creates a culture of continual acquisition of wealth due to the fear that not to do so means your relative wealth will decline. But what if everyone slows down? What if you can follow a well understood path to financial security that did not rob you of your life as a youth or your life as a parent or of your life as a spouse? I'm not saying you or anyone else is a bad person for pursuing wealth. I am saying the model we have in which to do so is flawed. Most of us are aware it is flawed but don't bother to describe or attempt to fix it as there appears to be no alternate solution (i.e. we only live in one economy, we don't get to go hang out in a different one if we find the one we're in unappealing or flawed). My hypothesis is that the only/best timing for creating alternate solutions is in harsh times. Times when people are hurting and willing to open their minds to new things. After all, this is the original secret of any entrepreneur: "find someone who is hurting, he'll take a chance on a tiny company he's never heard of." I think the same lessons apply to changing our local and global economy.
- jbenz 18y ago
  Actually, I did claim to be motivated by money. I said the only thing that motivates me more than money is history. I don't necessarily associate fame (or celebrity) with being remembered. There are many great filmmakers or company founders who have left an important mark on history and have easily walked into a mall without getting recognized. That is how I would like to be remembered. Being super famous in my own time would not be very cool at all. I know this sounds like egomania, and maybe part of is that., but this is what it boils down to: I want to leave this world in a significantly better place than I found it. And I'd like that legacy to last for a while. (I had to avoid writing: "And I'd like people to know it". Wow, that does sound terrible. Maybe I need I do need to rethink that particular philosophy.)

by jbenz 18y ago

jhancock 18y ago

I'm not trying to be insulting. But your post is interesting. You claim not to be motivated by money, but are motivated by a desired to be remembered (fame). I can't properly dissect the ego, but I think both the desire for money and fame stem from similar places. That is, I'm not sure they're that different. I have often though that if we ever do want a society based on merit and humanity, we need to get control of runaway egos. Maybe this requires a gene modification, so maybe we are too many years from it. Who knows. I would love to locate and find remedy for the "asshole gene".

fallentimes 18y ago
I'm actually the opposite of the OP. I would like to have enough money for myself, friends & family never have to worry about it in my life time. But I never ever want to be famous. One of my great fears would be having complete strangers (not founders, not YCers, not HNers) regularly recognize me. Starting your own business, no matter what it is, certainly causes some loss of privacy, but I'd prefer that 100 years from now no one gives a shit about who I was or what I did. Because if they did, it more than likely means I did something wrong.
- jhancock 18y ago
  When you say "would like to have enough money for myself, friends & family never have to worry about it in my life time."... there are two ways to go about this. One is to have a society that allows you to feel secure in that you will always be able to have an income stream that enables high quality of life. The second is to gather enough FU money so you can provide for yourself without regard to what the rest of society does. The second route is what most have been doing. And for good reason; that's mostly all our society allows, there are few occupations or opportunity for taking the high road. The trouble is this route doesn't "scale" as a solution for everyone. This route is "get out of my way, I'm taking care of myself, family, and friends. This requires you grab a bunch of equity. And that's the part that doesn't scale to everyone and therefore not a sustainable model.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    I'm also going the second route. It does scale and I'm going to make others rich in the process - creating wealth is not zero sum. And I never said "get out of my way" :). "We don't take steps to redress inequalities of looks, friends, or sex life. We don't grab a kidney from you to save someone's life, even though that health difference was unfair brute luck. Redistribution of wealth has some role in maintaining a stable democracy and preventing starvation. But the power of wealth redistribution to produce net value is quite limited. The power of wealth creation to produce net value is extraordinary. Most of America's poor are already among the best-off of all humans in world history. We should be putting our resources, including our advocacy and our intellectual resources, into wealth creation as much as we can." -Tyler Cowen
    - jhancock 18y ago
      My reply was to build on your comment, not to tear down your position. Creating wealth is not a zero sum game, but... because noone can be certain of the proper amount of FU money one needs, you overreach (I don't mean "you" you, I mean anyone). It is precisely this that creates hordes of wealth "locked up". This is a highly inefficient model and does not scale to "all" people. You reach a point very quickly where maybe less than 20% can participate before you create inflation and devalue the equity, which in turn makes people raise their "FU quotient". It creates a culture of continual acquisition of wealth due to the fear that not to do so means your relative wealth will decline. But what if everyone slows down? What if you can follow a well understood path to financial security that did not rob you of your life as a youth or your life as a parent or of your life as a spouse? I'm not saying you or anyone else is a bad person for pursuing wealth. I am saying the model we have in which to do so is flawed. Most of us are aware it is flawed but don't bother to describe or attempt to fix it as there appears to be no alternate solution (i.e. we only live in one economy, we don't get to go hang out in a different one if we find the one we're in unappealing or flawed). My hypothesis is that the only/best timing for creating alternate solutions is in harsh times. Times when people are hurting and willing to open their minds to new things. After all, this is the original secret of any entrepreneur: "find someone who is hurting, he'll take a chance on a tiny company he's never heard of." I think the same lessons apply to changing our local and global economy.
jbenz 18y ago
Actually, I did claim to be motivated by money. I said the only thing that motivates me more than money is history. I don't necessarily associate fame (or celebrity) with being remembered. There are many great filmmakers or company founders who have left an important mark on history and have easily walked into a mall without getting recognized. That is how I would like to be remembered. Being super famous in my own time would not be very cool at all. I know this sounds like egomania, and maybe part of is that., but this is what it boils down to: I want to leave this world in a significantly better place than I found it. And I'd like that legacy to last for a while. (I had to avoid writing: "And I'd like people to know it". Wow, that does sound terrible. Maybe I need I do need to rethink that particular philosophy.)