5 ms·

The work you do, the person you are (2017)

113 points by mitchbob 2y ago

hunterrrrrr 2y ago
> and I have never placed the security of a job above the value of home Yeah I mean this tracks because we can look at data to prove that it’s true. The value of a single family home in California has increased 10%-11% year over year. Is your salary increasing 10-11% year over year? What’s the point of chasing income at your job once you own a single family home here? Lol. I had to explain to my wife today that it’s ok that she hasn’t replaced her 70k a year salary and that it’s ok for her to be in school right now. We could sell our house and pocket the difference and nothing was lost financially. Hopefully the companies doing business here catch up, I know it’s going to take a lot of difficult conversations and hand wringing, I’m really rooting for them. I can’t imagine the struggle of figuring out how to pay employees a living wage. Really can’t imagine what they must be going through right now as they execute mass lay offs in tech. My heart goes out to all of the execs. Truly. lol.
- itsmemattchung 2y ago
  I agree with you regarding the rising value of a home year of year compared to the salary increasing. That being said > and I have never placed the security of a job above the value of home I think what the author was referring to was not the value of [a] home (i.e. equity in the house) but the concept of a home as it relates to family.
  - hunterrrrrr 2y ago
    Right, I am making the joke of taking it literally
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- jstanley 2y ago
  > We could sell our house and pocket the difference and nothing was lost financially. This is a fallacy. You're born "short housing", because you need somewhere to live. Owning a house is just cancelling out your natural short position. If you sell the house, you're short again. You might make a "profit" on the house if the market went up, but that just means you'll be buying another house in the new more expensive market. If you want to upsize, you're actually better off if the market goes down, because then to get a house that is X% more expensive requires less additional capital.
  - pixelatedindex 2y ago
    > If you sell the house, you're short again. You might make a "profit" on the house if the market went up, but that just means you'll be buying another house in the new more expensive market. As someone who doesn’t own a home and dreams of buying one, I really don’t believe this take. Anyone who bought a home in the late 2000s post-crash is now living in a much nicer place while spending the same. I don’t think I’ll get an opportunity to see such a massive increase to quality of life by doing practically nothing. Housing prices won’t go down any time soon, so now I have to spend way more with much poorer ROI prospects.
  - hunterrrrrr 2y ago
    > If you sell the house, you’re short again Unless we aren’t short again. 10% is the median year over year growth. What if it was 20%? Is that more realistic than her doubling her income in the same time period? I think that we could only be short if rent increases at the same rate that the property appreciated? Maybe I’m completely cooked / fried - it’s pretty late - and I’d be happy to be wrong - as my version of reality I’m seeing feels pretty destitute as it is
  - robocat 2y ago
    > you're actually better off if the market goes down Only in a perfectly spherical house market. In my limited experience (non-US market), your assumptions are poor. Opinion: 1: You often can't get a mortgage on the same terms so you often can't find equality between selling a home and buying a home. 2: When the market is down, turnover can reduce drastically so your choices for a house can be severely restricted. 3: when the market is down, prices are sometimes driven by unwilling sellers and bargain hunters. A desirable home may sell at a reasonable price but an average home might not. The market is often down when interest rates are up and you can't get a mortgage on terms that suit you. > You're born "short housing" You are short the "minimum" necessary which is a lot smaller than a whole house. You are not short 1.0 houses. Maybe short 1.0 rooms. And it really depends on who else you are tightly linked with (family or partner).
- earnesti 2y ago
  Having a house is not enough to live. You need money for other things as well. But yeah, capital income is rising way faster than salaries. At this point this really shouldn't be any kind of news to anyone, as it has been a trend for a long time now. For the average Joe it doesn't really mean "you should buy a house" because homes can be really shitty investments, and it is not really one if you live in it. It is more about the fact that everyone should be focusing getting capital income as early as possible. Index funds being the most obvious choice.
- knallfrosch 2y ago
  I think you're lost in the technical details of your finances. You've got a roof over your head and your capabilities and health allow you to move freely across the globe and get work and roof anywhere else, too. You could lose your house tomorrow, but you'll still have a home. After all, you do have a wife. "Your real life is with us, your family."
  - yard2010 2y ago
    In theory, you mean. Keep it in theory, that's all I'm saying.
TimSchumann 2y ago
https://archive.is/7Q6qO https://archive.is/7Q6qO
rramadass 2y ago
Short but powerful article; Key advice; Perhaps he understood that what I wanted was a solution to the job, not an escape from it. In any case, he put down his cup of coffee and said, “Listen. You don’t live there. You live here. With your people. Go to work. Get your money. And come on home.” That was what he said. This was what I heard: 1. Whatever the work is, do it well—not for the boss but for yourself. 2. You make the job; it doesn’t make you. 3. Your real life is with us, your family. 4. You are not the work you do; you are the person you are.
- paganel 2y ago
  I was hoping this advice would have come from a real worker who has to worry about rents/mortgages, bills, health insurance etc etc, instead I see that the article was written by a very cocooned Nobel-laureate writer which puts it in another perspective, i.e. the perspective of people who don't care about bills, mortgage/rents, health insurance and the like. As such, their advice on whatever work is meant to "mean" is worth close to zero for us, normal people.
  - quonn 2y ago
    Sure, but many people - especially many (most?) on this site - could probably live in about 20% of the space they live in and drive a cheaper car an so on and the rent/mortgage/bills will then at best only make up 20% of their income. In other words, there is the hedonistic treadmill and then there are human emotions and these are real for you, me and for a Nobel-laureate writer.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - matthewhammond 2y ago
    Geez you think Toni Morrison lived a cocooned and privileged life because she won the Nobel at age 62, and she never had any challenges like those you mention (and much, much more) in her life leading up to that that she can draw on? Get a grip, honestly
allknowingfrog 2y ago
This sentiment is commonly summarized as "work to live, don't live to work", and I frankly categorize it as defeatist position. I'm living at work just like I'm living when I take a shower or prepare a meal. I strive for satisfaction and well-being in all that I do. I couldn't possibly have enough fun in my hours of true "free time" to justify joylessly slogging through the rest of them.
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  Nothing in that advice requires you to hate your job. It's about setting boundaries and not letting your job define or control you. Last sentence of the article: > I have never considered the level of labor to be the measure of myself, and I have never placed the security of a job above the value of home.
  - packetlost 2y ago
    I disagree partially. I think some people should let their career become part of their identity, but not a job. The former is in service to other aspects of life (such as family, leisure, etc.), but for some it's also a core part and there's nothing wrong with that.
    - pantulis 2y ago
      Nothing wrong with that, of course, until your work career stops feeling like you are on top of a soaring rocket. And this will probably happen sooner or later to most people, bringing burnout issues.
    - kayodelycaon 2y ago
      Many people defined themselves by what kind of work they do. That’s fine. Tying identity to a company or specific industry career ladder, not so much.
      - packetlost 2y ago
        This is what I'm saying
blueyes 2y ago
This embodies a culture of dignity, which I admire, and contrasts with a culture of offense and complaint, which seems prevalent today. In a culture of dignity, you take back power to define your worth, and fight less with others about opinions and actions beyond your control. A culture of dignity ends up being less totalitarian; while a culture of offense ultimately tends toward top-down control to save the victims.
- MourYother 2y ago
  Your "culture of dignity" seems a little like the culture of the grind and hustle.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - blueyes 2y ago
    She did her job, and she went home. Not much hustle there. Maybe there's grind, but yeah, I believe there are fundamental scarcities in life that require we do hard things to make a living. I don't have much empathy for people who don't believe that. I do think there are limits to what employers can demand of us, and in Morrison's story, she learned one place to draw the line (take the salary instead of the used clothes).
Anitalawson 2y ago
[flagged]

113 points by mitchbob 2y ago

> and I have never placed the security of a job above the value of home Yeah I mean this tracks because we can look at data to prove that it’s true. The value of a single family home in California has increased 10%-11% year over year. Is your salary increasing 10-11% year over year? What’s the point of chasing income at your job once you own a single family home here? Lol. I had to explain to my wife today that it’s ok that she hasn’t replaced her 70k a year salary and that it’s ok for her to be in school right now. We could sell our house and pocket the difference and nothing was lost financially. Hopefully the companies doing business here catch up, I know it’s going to take a lot of difficult conversations and hand wringing, I’m really rooting for them. I can’t imagine the struggle of figuring out how to pay employees a living wage. Really can’t imagine what they must be going through right now as they execute mass lay offs in tech. My heart goes out to all of the execs. Truly. lol.

itsmemattchung 2y ago
I agree with you regarding the rising value of a home year of year compared to the salary increasing. That being said > and I have never placed the security of a job above the value of home I think what the author was referring to was not the value of [a] home (i.e. equity in the house) but the concept of a home as it relates to family.
- hunterrrrrr 2y ago
  Right, I am making the joke of taking it literally
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jstanley 2y ago
> We could sell our house and pocket the difference and nothing was lost financially. This is a fallacy. You're born "short housing", because you need somewhere to live. Owning a house is just cancelling out your natural short position. If you sell the house, you're short again. You might make a "profit" on the house if the market went up, but that just means you'll be buying another house in the new more expensive market. If you want to upsize, you're actually better off if the market goes down, because then to get a house that is X% more expensive requires less additional capital.
- pixelatedindex 2y ago
  > If you sell the house, you're short again. You might make a "profit" on the house if the market went up, but that just means you'll be buying another house in the new more expensive market. As someone who doesn’t own a home and dreams of buying one, I really don’t believe this take. Anyone who bought a home in the late 2000s post-crash is now living in a much nicer place while spending the same. I don’t think I’ll get an opportunity to see such a massive increase to quality of life by doing practically nothing. Housing prices won’t go down any time soon, so now I have to spend way more with much poorer ROI prospects.
- hunterrrrrr 2y ago
  > If you sell the house, you’re short again Unless we aren’t short again. 10% is the median year over year growth. What if it was 20%? Is that more realistic than her doubling her income in the same time period? I think that we could only be short if rent increases at the same rate that the property appreciated? Maybe I’m completely cooked / fried - it’s pretty late - and I’d be happy to be wrong - as my version of reality I’m seeing feels pretty destitute as it is
- robocat 2y ago
  > you're actually better off if the market goes down Only in a perfectly spherical house market. In my limited experience (non-US market), your assumptions are poor. Opinion: 1: You often can't get a mortgage on the same terms so you often can't find equality between selling a home and buying a home. 2: When the market is down, turnover can reduce drastically so your choices for a house can be severely restricted. 3: when the market is down, prices are sometimes driven by unwilling sellers and bargain hunters. A desirable home may sell at a reasonable price but an average home might not. The market is often down when interest rates are up and you can't get a mortgage on terms that suit you. > You're born "short housing" You are short the "minimum" necessary which is a lot smaller than a whole house. You are not short 1.0 houses. Maybe short 1.0 rooms. And it really depends on who else you are tightly linked with (family or partner).
earnesti 2y ago
Having a house is not enough to live. You need money for other things as well. But yeah, capital income is rising way faster than salaries. At this point this really shouldn't be any kind of news to anyone, as it has been a trend for a long time now. For the average Joe it doesn't really mean "you should buy a house" because homes can be really shitty investments, and it is not really one if you live in it. It is more about the fact that everyone should be focusing getting capital income as early as possible. Index funds being the most obvious choice.
knallfrosch 2y ago
I think you're lost in the technical details of your finances. You've got a roof over your head and your capabilities and health allow you to move freely across the globe and get work and roof anywhere else, too. You could lose your house tomorrow, but you'll still have a home. After all, you do have a wife. "Your real life is with us, your family."
- yard2010 2y ago
  In theory, you mean. Keep it in theory, that's all I'm saying.

TimSchumann 2y ago

https://archive.is/7Q6qO https://archive.is/7Q6qO

rramadass 2y ago

Short but powerful article; Key advice; Perhaps he understood that what I wanted was a solution to the job, not an escape from it. In any case, he put down his cup of coffee and said, “Listen. You don’t live there. You live here. With your people. Go to work. Get your money. And come on home.” That was what he said. This was what I heard: 1. Whatever the work is, do it well—not for the boss but for yourself. 2. You make the job; it doesn’t make you. 3. Your real life is with us, your family. 4. You are not the work you do; you are the person you are.

paganel 2y ago
I was hoping this advice would have come from a real worker who has to worry about rents/mortgages, bills, health insurance etc etc, instead I see that the article was written by a very cocooned Nobel-laureate writer which puts it in another perspective, i.e. the perspective of people who don't care about bills, mortgage/rents, health insurance and the like. As such, their advice on whatever work is meant to "mean" is worth close to zero for us, normal people.
- quonn 2y ago
  Sure, but many people - especially many (most?) on this site - could probably live in about 20% of the space they live in and drive a cheaper car an so on and the rent/mortgage/bills will then at best only make up 20% of their income. In other words, there is the hedonistic treadmill and then there are human emotions and these are real for you, me and for a Nobel-laureate writer.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- matthewhammond 2y ago
  Geez you think Toni Morrison lived a cocooned and privileged life because she won the Nobel at age 62, and she never had any challenges like those you mention (and much, much more) in her life leading up to that that she can draw on? Get a grip, honestly

allknowingfrog 2y ago

This sentiment is commonly summarized as "work to live, don't live to work", and I frankly categorize it as defeatist position. I'm living at work just like I'm living when I take a shower or prepare a meal. I strive for satisfaction and well-being in all that I do. I couldn't possibly have enough fun in my hours of true "free time" to justify joylessly slogging through the rest of them.

kayodelycaon 2y ago
Nothing in that advice requires you to hate your job. It's about setting boundaries and not letting your job define or control you. Last sentence of the article: > I have never considered the level of labor to be the measure of myself, and I have never placed the security of a job above the value of home.
- packetlost 2y ago
  I disagree partially. I think some people should let their career become part of their identity, but not a job. The former is in service to other aspects of life (such as family, leisure, etc.), but for some it's also a core part and there's nothing wrong with that.
  - pantulis 2y ago
    Nothing wrong with that, of course, until your work career stops feeling like you are on top of a soaring rocket. And this will probably happen sooner or later to most people, bringing burnout issues.
  - kayodelycaon 2y ago
    Many people defined themselves by what kind of work they do. That’s fine. Tying identity to a company or specific industry career ladder, not so much.
    - packetlost 2y ago
      This is what I'm saying

blueyes 2y ago

This embodies a culture of dignity, which I admire, and contrasts with a culture of offense and complaint, which seems prevalent today. In a culture of dignity, you take back power to define your worth, and fight less with others about opinions and actions beyond your control. A culture of dignity ends up being less totalitarian; while a culture of offense ultimately tends toward top-down control to save the victims.

MourYother 2y ago
Your "culture of dignity" seems a little like the culture of the grind and hustle.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- blueyes 2y ago
  She did her job, and she went home. Not much hustle there. Maybe there's grind, but yeah, I believe there are fundamental scarcities in life that require we do hard things to make a living. I don't have much empathy for people who don't believe that. I do think there are limits to what employers can demand of us, and in Morrison's story, she learned one place to draw the line (take the salary instead of the used clothes).

Anitalawson 2y ago

[flagged]