3 ms·

"Most of this overburdening is by choice because we all need to be productive, otherwise we will not feel like we are changing the world. Founders are reporting

by larrys 13y ago

"Most of this overburdening is by choice because we all need to be productive, otherwise we will not feel like we are changing the world. Founders are reporting being depressed and having anxiety issues." Grumpy gramps here. Would like to point out that back in the day this was known as "keeping up with the Jones". And had nothing to do with changing the world. Just keeping up with the Joneses. The big difference is way back you weren't really aware of the things that other people were doing other than your neighbors, some relatives, or people who hit it big enough to make it into the press. When I was growing up you heard about 1 billionaire, Howard Hughes. That was pretty much it. [1] Every now and then the local big city paper would run a story on a businessman that had done particular well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses [1] Forgetting inflation and magic numbers ("1 billion") the press really didn't report on business people. And corporate execs made way less than they do today (even accounting for inflation).

AndrewKemendo 13y ago
"Would like to point out that back in the day this was known as "keeping up with the Jones"...And had nothing to do with changing the world." To me "Keeping up with the Joneses" always had a clear material connotation eg: more money, bigger house, better car etc... I drew the distinction about changing the world because I think that is the difference between generations. I completely agree that this generation does the same peer comparisons, it's just that our metric is influence and "disrupting" the status quo rather than accumulation of wealth (though its often tough to divorce those things).
- larrys 13y ago
  "I completely agree that this generation does the same peer comparisons, it's just that our metric is influence and "disrupting" the status quo rather than accumulation of wealth (though its often tough to divorce those things)." Sure but is that the case because you all actually organically think that way or because the peer group exhibits those tendencies and make you think that way? Further perhaps you (I mean the group not the individual where ymmv) grew up with more so they aren't as hungry or needing material goods? When we were growing up with got like 2 toys per year. Birthday and holiday. Or close to it. And we were middle class not poor. And there weren't many toys to begin with. Parents in general were more strict and didn't spoil kids. And you didn't go out to eat practically ever (weren't that many restaurants like today) and tv was black and white and not much entertainment. So there weren't as many distractions. So money was a way to have more fun. Oh and another thing was you needed money because you were raised where your parents controlled everything and weren't your friend or someone you would hang with. Want to make it clear that of course there were individual exceptions to anything that I've said above. But things were different and that difference meant you ended up having different needs and values. When I was a kid my dad payed for 1/2 of the money to buy me a tty that I could use to dial up to the time share. The fact that he even agreed to do that was a big deal. I had to work and make 1/2 the money but felt lucky that he was willing to help me out. By comparison I just bought my daughter a macbook air and didn't even think twice about it. Even got her the extra memory and larger flash drive.

by larrys 13y ago

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

"Would like to point out that back in the day this was known as "keeping up with the Jones"...And had nothing to do with changing the world." To me "Keeping up with the Joneses" always had a clear material connotation eg: more money, bigger house, better car etc... I drew the distinction about changing the world because I think that is the difference between generations. I completely agree that this generation does the same peer comparisons, it's just that our metric is influence and "disrupting" the status quo rather than accumulation of wealth (though its often tough to divorce those things).

larrys 13y ago
"I completely agree that this generation does the same peer comparisons, it's just that our metric is influence and "disrupting" the status quo rather than accumulation of wealth (though its often tough to divorce those things)." Sure but is that the case because you all actually organically think that way or because the peer group exhibits those tendencies and make you think that way? Further perhaps you (I mean the group not the individual where ymmv) grew up with more so they aren't as hungry or needing material goods? When we were growing up with got like 2 toys per year. Birthday and holiday. Or close to it. And we were middle class not poor. And there weren't many toys to begin with. Parents in general were more strict and didn't spoil kids. And you didn't go out to eat practically ever (weren't that many restaurants like today) and tv was black and white and not much entertainment. So there weren't as many distractions. So money was a way to have more fun. Oh and another thing was you needed money because you were raised where your parents controlled everything and weren't your friend or someone you would hang with. Want to make it clear that of course there were individual exceptions to anything that I've said above. But things were different and that difference meant you ended up having different needs and values. When I was a kid my dad payed for 1/2 of the money to buy me a tty that I could use to dial up to the time share. The fact that he even agreed to do that was a big deal. I had to work and make 1/2 the money but felt lucky that he was willing to help me out. By comparison I just bought my daughter a macbook air and didn't even think twice about it. Even got her the extra memory and larger flash drive.