3 ms·

A young man sets out to seek his fortune... Yes, it's the beginning of a fairly tale, a standard mythological motif - by which I don't mean it is fictional or

by 13ren 18y ago

A young man sets out to seek his fortune... Yes, it's the beginning of a fairly tale, a standard mythological motif - by which I don't mean it is fictional or trivial, but that it is universal. BTW: Matt does acknowledge that the next generation will do the same to his (at the end). He's right about greater productivity - but if everyone is more productive, then the competitive bar simply resets at a higher level. It's an endless trudge, if the finish line recedes as you approach... There's a sophisticated argument that with a smaller firm-size, you have more CEO's. The problem with competitive success remains that not everyone can be a winner - it's a zero-sum game by definition. But everyone can have a family. Everyone can have the satisfaction of improvement and mastery. Everyone can enjoy the thrill of risking a lesser thing for a greater thing. Everyone can take pride in effort and sacrifice for a worthy goal. And ultimately, these things are immensely more satisfying than vacationing for months in Europe. Talkin bout my generation

MaysonL 18y ago
Repeat after me: The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game. There does not need to be a loser for every winner. We can all be happy and affluent.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  Happiness, however, apparently is a zero-sum game: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29109.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29109.php (Actually, the research in question had caveats: absolute income correlated with happiness until one's basic physical & health needs were satisfied. After that point, it didn't matter: instead, what mattered was how well you were doing relative to your peer group. So for there to be winners, there had to be losers as well.)
  - tomjen 18y ago
    Well all that proves is that the average person is an idiot. We knew that.
- 13ren 18y ago
  From the WSJ article Matt is rebutting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html?mod=most_emailed_day http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html?mod=... "They want to be CEO tomorrow," "I deserve favors from others" "I know that I have more natural talents than most." expect ready access to senior executives, even the CEO, to share their brilliant ideas.
- kwamenum86 18y ago
  People have their own definitions of winning. If I want to be a millionaire and I have 1000 dollars in savings I am a loser. If I want to own a home and I rent an apartment I am a loser. The parameters of the game are not well defined and the rules are not universal. I had an interesting conversation with a co-worker from the Midwest and for the first time I understood how the defition of winning and happiness differs. I don't think there has ever been a time in my life where I needed something and couldn't have it whereas my co-worker had to work hard for everything he has. His definition of "winning" is having a nice place to sleep, being able to eat a nice meal, and go out every once in a while. And once he has that, maybe a little bit nicer place to sleep, a little bit nicer meals, and going out more often. What other people have is not important to him, therefore, in his world everyone can win. My definition of winning pretty much requires losers. I don't understand how you can consider yourself a winner unless you are more/better/faster/stronger/etc. than someone else. Some people have their scale of success calibrated to be absolute (my co-worker), and other have it calibrated to be relative (myself). I hypothesize that the absolutes are happy more often but the relatives have the drive to achieve a greater magnitude of success albeit less of the time, which explains why some people are happy with (relatively) little and others are unhappy even with extreme wealth.

by 13ren 18y ago

MaysonL 18y ago

Repeat after me: The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game. There does not need to be a loser for every winner. We can all be happy and affluent.

nostrademons 18y ago
Happiness, however, apparently is a zero-sum game: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29109.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29109.php (Actually, the research in question had caveats: absolute income correlated with happiness until one's basic physical & health needs were satisfied. After that point, it didn't matter: instead, what mattered was how well you were doing relative to your peer group. So for there to be winners, there had to be losers as well.)
- tomjen 18y ago
  Well all that proves is that the average person is an idiot. We knew that.
13ren 18y ago
From the WSJ article Matt is rebutting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html?mod=most_emailed_day http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html?mod=... "They want to be CEO tomorrow," "I deserve favors from others" "I know that I have more natural talents than most." expect ready access to senior executives, even the CEO, to share their brilliant ideas.
kwamenum86 18y ago
People have their own definitions of winning. If I want to be a millionaire and I have 1000 dollars in savings I am a loser. If I want to own a home and I rent an apartment I am a loser. The parameters of the game are not well defined and the rules are not universal. I had an interesting conversation with a co-worker from the Midwest and for the first time I understood how the defition of winning and happiness differs. I don't think there has ever been a time in my life where I needed something and couldn't have it whereas my co-worker had to work hard for everything he has. His definition of "winning" is having a nice place to sleep, being able to eat a nice meal, and go out every once in a while. And once he has that, maybe a little bit nicer place to sleep, a little bit nicer meals, and going out more often. What other people have is not important to him, therefore, in his world everyone can win. My definition of winning pretty much requires losers. I don't understand how you can consider yourself a winner unless you are more/better/faster/stronger/etc. than someone else. Some people have their scale of success calibrated to be absolute (my co-worker), and other have it calibrated to be relative (myself). I hypothesize that the absolutes are happy more often but the relatives have the drive to achieve a greater magnitude of success albeit less of the time, which explains why some people are happy with (relatively) little and others are unhappy even with extreme wealth.