6 ms·

This line stands out to me: > Income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system. It is a something you genera

by dcre 11y ago

This line stands out to me: > Income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system. It is a something you generate yourself. It is the byproduct of your hard work, combined with learning and mastering the system itself. Even the system itself is subject to your control if you choose. It's easy to interpret this as a positive statement about the way things simply are, but I don't think the author quite intends it that way. When pressed, he might say it is a positive statement, but the clearly intended ethical significance of the statement—the fact that it has deep consequences for the way his son should act—suggests we can look deeper. Specifically, it's important to understand the normative dimension of the statement: that when "income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system", that is a good thing. And most importantly, it's possible for things not to be that way—whether because the laws or government of your country are not set up the right way, or because you yourself have the wrong attitude about your work. The attitude interpretation is probably what the piece is focusing on (and what most readers will take away), because obviously the author can't teach his son to solve problems outside of his control. But the author is thinking about systems too. When he says "the system itself is subject to your control if you choose" it's clear that there are plenty of systems where this is not the case, where the system is so huge or arbitary or irrational that "learning and mastering" it is not possible. Examples might include oppressive dictatorships, bloated bureaucracies, or sweatshops (especially to a child). ------------ The point I'm trying to make is that we have a responsibility not just for our own attitudes and actions, but also to shape our world in such a way that it is possible for the right attitude to pay off. Edit: the author's point about how the son's savings account enables him to be generous is a great example of this. This is called "moral luck" by philosophers--the idea that certain conditions need to obtain before a person can be virtuous. The idea goes back all the way to Aristotle.

JakeAl 11y ago
I am reminded of the book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. I recommend it to everyone who has not read it.
- brc 11y ago
  Just absorbing the difference between the circle of influence and the circle of concern is a massive win for most people.
Dewie3 11y ago
In a wider social- and group-context it is sometimes best to maintain the view that you are a victim being manipulated by outside forces. In a strictly personal context it is often better to maintain the view that you are a fully empowered actor.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  It's really quite important to maintain both. Becoming wealthy without manipulating the system (or, put another way, becoming wealthy while creating a similar amount of value) requires both prudence and either a great deal of luck or a lot of hard work and reasonably good luck. Many people work hard; most do not become wealthy. Sometimes that's due to their own choices, but not always. It's something of a disservice to teach a child that he or she is a fully empowered actor; the reality is very different. In the real world, you are competent, professional, and hardworking but your employer goes under during a bust. During the 2 years you're out of work, you drain your savings and have to start over from scratch. 5 to 10 years of earning, saving, and investing go down the crapper. In the real world, you work hard, draw good pay, and invest wisely. Unfortunately, due to monetary policy established by unelected officials, you are faced with a choice of losing money to inflation every day or paying wildly inflated prices for any asset available to you. As a result, you never achieve financial independence no matter what you do. In the real world, you may be faced with a choice between working a job that will never enable you to become financially independent and engaging a crooked physician to help you collect disability benefits from the government for the rest of your life. You find it impossible to accept that you should have to work for what others are given for nothing. A child who grows up believing he or she is fully empowered is likely to respond poorly when encountering these situations later in life. It would be reasonable to interpret them (incorrectly, of course) as evidence of one's own failure, inadequacy, or even bad character. The reality is that the game is rigged, and badly so. The industrious good behavior the Calvinist work ethic endorses makes success a little more likely, but it's nothing close to a guarantee. Better to learn these lessons young, even if it encourages "cheating" later in life. Sadly, cheaters usually do prosper; the choice to be "honest" or not should be made from moral principles, not a misguided belief that it will lead to success/happiness/financial independence.
branchless 11y ago
> "income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system", He retired in his 30s and derives income from "a rental house or two". I'd suggest he's doing well out of this rigged system. I'd also suggest that saving $70 on coffee is utterly eclipsed by his equity gains on these two properties and that the rent derived from them would enable him to bathe in coffee daily.
- dasil003 11y ago
  If it was just coffee sure, but where did he get the money to buy rental properties in his early thirties? It wasn't because of rich parents or a machiavellian scheme, it was because of a deep anti-consumerist philosophy that extends to everything from not owning a smart phone to riding a bike to buy groceries. Reducing his philosophy to one tiny thing like coffee is like saying a world class pianist could have shortened their practice by 10 seconds a day and still be world class—it's true in the most narrowly-defined strawman sense, but they got where they are by practicing as much as they could, not by looking for corners to cut.
  - branchless 11y ago
    > where did he get the money to buy rental properties in his early thirties? Errr...leveraged debt, at a guess.
    - dasil003 11y ago
      There's an awful lot of assumptions in your whole harangue.
Immortalin 11y ago
The line strangely reminds me of the rose-tinted view of Atlas Shrugged.
- jchrisa 11y ago
  Funny to me it sounds like an argument for Basic Income.
  - loco5niner 11y ago
    Nope > "It is the byproduct of your hard work"

by dcre 11y ago

JakeAl 11y ago

I am reminded of the book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. I recommend it to everyone who has not read it.

brc 11y ago
Just absorbing the difference between the circle of influence and the circle of concern is a massive win for most people.

Dewie3 11y ago

In a wider social- and group-context it is sometimes best to maintain the view that you are a victim being manipulated by outside forces. In a strictly personal context it is often better to maintain the view that you are a fully empowered actor.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
It's really quite important to maintain both. Becoming wealthy without manipulating the system (or, put another way, becoming wealthy while creating a similar amount of value) requires both prudence and either a great deal of luck or a lot of hard work and reasonably good luck. Many people work hard; most do not become wealthy. Sometimes that's due to their own choices, but not always. It's something of a disservice to teach a child that he or she is a fully empowered actor; the reality is very different. In the real world, you are competent, professional, and hardworking but your employer goes under during a bust. During the 2 years you're out of work, you drain your savings and have to start over from scratch. 5 to 10 years of earning, saving, and investing go down the crapper. In the real world, you work hard, draw good pay, and invest wisely. Unfortunately, due to monetary policy established by unelected officials, you are faced with a choice of losing money to inflation every day or paying wildly inflated prices for any asset available to you. As a result, you never achieve financial independence no matter what you do. In the real world, you may be faced with a choice between working a job that will never enable you to become financially independent and engaging a crooked physician to help you collect disability benefits from the government for the rest of your life. You find it impossible to accept that you should have to work for what others are given for nothing. A child who grows up believing he or she is fully empowered is likely to respond poorly when encountering these situations later in life. It would be reasonable to interpret them (incorrectly, of course) as evidence of one's own failure, inadequacy, or even bad character. The reality is that the game is rigged, and badly so. The industrious good behavior the Calvinist work ethic endorses makes success a little more likely, but it's nothing close to a guarantee. Better to learn these lessons young, even if it encourages "cheating" later in life. Sadly, cheaters usually do prosper; the choice to be "honest" or not should be made from moral principles, not a misguided belief that it will lead to success/happiness/financial independence.

branchless 11y ago

> "income is not something that employers or the government ration out to you based on a rigged system", He retired in his 30s and derives income from "a rental house or two". I'd suggest he's doing well out of this rigged system. I'd also suggest that saving $70 on coffee is utterly eclipsed by his equity gains on these two properties and that the rent derived from them would enable him to bathe in coffee daily.

dasil003 11y ago
If it was just coffee sure, but where did he get the money to buy rental properties in his early thirties? It wasn't because of rich parents or a machiavellian scheme, it was because of a deep anti-consumerist philosophy that extends to everything from not owning a smart phone to riding a bike to buy groceries. Reducing his philosophy to one tiny thing like coffee is like saying a world class pianist could have shortened their practice by 10 seconds a day and still be world class—it's true in the most narrowly-defined strawman sense, but they got where they are by practicing as much as they could, not by looking for corners to cut.
- branchless 11y ago
  > where did he get the money to buy rental properties in his early thirties? Errr...leveraged debt, at a guess.
  - dasil003 11y ago
    There's an awful lot of assumptions in your whole harangue.

Immortalin 11y ago

The line strangely reminds me of the rose-tinted view of Atlas Shrugged.

jchrisa 11y ago
Funny to me it sounds like an argument for Basic Income.
- loco5niner 11y ago
  Nope > "It is the byproduct of your hard work"