4 ms·

Ugh. All these articles conflate the idea of “getting rich” with the kind of wealth that most people don’t know what to do with, eg billions of dollars. What ab

Ugh. All these articles conflate the idea of “getting rich” with the kind of wealth that most people don’t know what to do with, eg billions of dollars. What about just reaching the point where you never need to work again? Can we talk about how that’s a reasonable goal for people to push for rather than accumulating the net worth of a small country?

syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Then it will sound like there’s a continuum of wealth, rather than the black-and-white, soapy-journalism-primed “haves and have-nots” that modern media can’t stop talking about
galaxyLogic 3y ago
Most billionaires still work I think. I personally believe that true contentment in life is if you can do something meaningful to help others. The human connection is such a basic thing in life. We want love, not just sex. You might think that getting lots of money would make other people like you more but I think that is the opposite. Billionaires really aren't that "likable" are they?
- samuria 3y ago
  They are very much liked by people who are interested in their wealth. Which I think is the wrong reason to "like" someone for.
  - galaxyLogic 3y ago
    Right but I think they know it themselves, so they cannot be sure whether people really like them for other things besides money. The point I was trying to make was that people want to get rich really because they want to be truly liked and appreciated by others. Whether we suck up to a billionaire or try to perhaps con them somehow WE know that we don't "like" them very much. But really I don't know any billionaires, I've only seen them on TV, so I may be wrong.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > Billionaires really aren't that "likable" are they? I'm sure that billionaires are constantly approached by people wanting to be their new best friend. That would make any billionaire rather standoffish and close with any friendship reciprocation.
- m463 3y ago
  money can sure poison relationships. For example, as I get older, I hear more and more first-person stories about families falling apart because of probate shenanigans.
- soupfordummies 3y ago
  They may work but they don't HAVE to
  - galaxyLogic 3y ago
    And they can choose what they want to work on. They can even afford to give some money to charity. They are lucky.
paulpauper 3y ago
it is a sort of blind spot in which either you're poor or fifthly rich, not much in-between
helicalmix 3y ago
I think it’s a happy medium, and I don’t think the message of the article is for you. More so for the hyper ambitious people set on generating uhnw
breadwinner 3y ago
> reaching the point where you never need to work again? You don't want to reach that point. You want to stay below that point, because what brings satisfaction and happiness in life is something called the "power process". The Unabomber explained it well [1]. The Unabomber unfortunately used bad methods to spread his ideas, but the ideas themselves were good. [1] https://medium.com/chris-messina/surrogate-activities-the-power-process-16203dda87 https://medium.com/chris-messina/surrogate-activities-the-po...
- saurik 3y ago
  There are many goals you can set and achieve that require effort but don't relate to needing to work to make money. Maybe I'm somehow crazy on a forum of tech "entrepreneurs"... but, I like to do stuff like learn to sing and play the guitar, speak new languages, get better at drawing and painting, or plunge ever deeper into the worlds of math and physics... all of which seems eminently compatible with this "power process" thesis and which are all much more pleasant when you don't simultaneously have to work.
  - breadwinner 3y ago
    Those are surrogate activities, and according to the article, they are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (see last paragraph). The point is that when you have to work for a living, and you are successful at that, that is much more satisfying than being successful at a hobby. That sounds about right to me!
    - ghaff 3y ago
      I didn't really get that from the last paragraph. Though I suppose it partly depends if you got a windfall at 30 or if you're just retiring early at 50.
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      > 9. No one is going to remember you in 100 years. So you might as well focus on what’s going to make you happy now, instead of what money might buy you in the future. There is a Scottish proverb: Be happy while you are living, for you are a long time dead. That sounds like the exact opposite of what you're saying.
rickydroll 3y ago
I believe I would stop working for money but work for me. examples, helping people rewild their yards, start a vista reclamation project for a few mountain tops that are overgrown with trees, start a B-corp for electrifying low income housing and developing appliances for same. build virtual power plants by distributing batteries in neighborhoods and building microgrids.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago

Then it will sound like there’s a continuum of wealth, rather than the black-and-white, soapy-journalism-primed “haves and have-nots” that modern media can’t stop talking about

galaxyLogic 3y ago

Most billionaires still work I think. I personally believe that true contentment in life is if you can do something meaningful to help others. The human connection is such a basic thing in life. We want love, not just sex. You might think that getting lots of money would make other people like you more but I think that is the opposite. Billionaires really aren't that "likable" are they?

samuria 3y ago
They are very much liked by people who are interested in their wealth. Which I think is the wrong reason to "like" someone for.
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  Right but I think they know it themselves, so they cannot be sure whether people really like them for other things besides money. The point I was trying to make was that people want to get rich really because they want to be truly liked and appreciated by others. Whether we suck up to a billionaire or try to perhaps con them somehow WE know that we don't "like" them very much. But really I don't know any billionaires, I've only seen them on TV, so I may be wrong.
WalterBright 3y ago
> Billionaires really aren't that "likable" are they? I'm sure that billionaires are constantly approached by people wanting to be their new best friend. That would make any billionaire rather standoffish and close with any friendship reciprocation.
m463 3y ago
money can sure poison relationships. For example, as I get older, I hear more and more first-person stories about families falling apart because of probate shenanigans.
soupfordummies 3y ago
They may work but they don't HAVE to
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  And they can choose what they want to work on. They can even afford to give some money to charity. They are lucky.

paulpauper 3y ago

it is a sort of blind spot in which either you're poor or fifthly rich, not much in-between

helicalmix 3y ago

I think it’s a happy medium, and I don’t think the message of the article is for you. More so for the hyper ambitious people set on generating uhnw

breadwinner 3y ago

> reaching the point where you never need to work again? You don't want to reach that point. You want to stay below that point, because what brings satisfaction and happiness in life is something called the "power process". The Unabomber explained it well [1]. The Unabomber unfortunately used bad methods to spread his ideas, but the ideas themselves were good. [1] https://medium.com/chris-messina/surrogate-activities-the-power-process-16203dda87 https://medium.com/chris-messina/surrogate-activities-the-po...

saurik 3y ago
There are many goals you can set and achieve that require effort but don't relate to needing to work to make money. Maybe I'm somehow crazy on a forum of tech "entrepreneurs"... but, I like to do stuff like learn to sing and play the guitar, speak new languages, get better at drawing and painting, or plunge ever deeper into the worlds of math and physics... all of which seems eminently compatible with this "power process" thesis and which are all much more pleasant when you don't simultaneously have to work.
- breadwinner 3y ago
  Those are surrogate activities, and according to the article, they are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (see last paragraph). The point is that when you have to work for a living, and you are successful at that, that is much more satisfying than being successful at a hobby. That sounds about right to me!
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I didn't really get that from the last paragraph. Though I suppose it partly depends if you got a windfall at 30 or if you're just retiring early at 50.
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    > 9. No one is going to remember you in 100 years. So you might as well focus on what’s going to make you happy now, instead of what money might buy you in the future. There is a Scottish proverb: Be happy while you are living, for you are a long time dead. That sounds like the exact opposite of what you're saying.

rickydroll 3y ago

I believe I would stop working for money but work for me. examples, helping people rewild their yards, start a vista reclamation project for a few mountain tops that are overgrown with trees, start a B-corp for electrifying low income housing and developing appliances for same. build virtual power plants by distributing batteries in neighborhoods and building microgrids.