Okay, strike that. I agree with the idea that money isn't everything but ... money is a huge enabler. I rented a 2 bedroom apartment even though I can only sleep in one room. That other room? Friends from around the world visited and stayed there all the time and I got to spend far more time with them than if they had had to stay at a hotel. Heck, they probably wouldn't have even visited the area if they had to pay for a hotel.
If you're rich and doing nothing yea maybe you're bored and unhappy but there's all kinds of things I would do with money that instead I can't because someone else with money is "the decider".
It really depends on the amount of money. Most of the games I'd like to make (I'm a game dev) would probably cost in the $7-$14 million price range.
I'd love to open a gamedev co-working space. No idea how much money that would cost to run long enough to make it profitable but it's probably more than I have. And heck, if I had the money I'd consider doing it even if it didn't make a profit. If we're talking money to burn then I'd be happy to burn it. I'd also love to pay someone to run it. To make sure it had lots of events and activities.
Similarly I'd love to do giant digital art exhibitions. The kind that require several hundred thousands in equipment (projection mapping projectors good enough for large buildings are not cheap) on top of having to hire all the people to organize those types of events. Yea, I could beg others to let me but if I had the money I wouldn't have to ask I'd just do it.
And yes there would still be struggles. Even with money lots of things are still real work. Still it would be nice not to have my options limited because I know I still need to save for retirement.
Keep in mind that while the post is poetic, he mentions getting rich in an IPO, and references Peter Thiel. So when he says wealth doesn't make you happy, he's saying something like "the difference between 10 million and 50 million isn't that great". My understanding is that there's some evidence of diminishing returns beyond $60k/yr in the US. (And a related psychological concept: hedonic treadmill.)
For regular working people like me, while I do have to wrestle with work/life balance--even if one is comfortable not having a lot of personal time to chill or pursue non-work stuff, there are social expectations (and I'm single, with a spouse and kids it's even tougher)--but still, I feel like anyone who wants to lecture me about money not being that important should maybe commit to paying my utility bills first. (In fact I feel money even helps with the aforementioned social expectations, i.e. if I have some resources of my own and feel somewhat secure then I can better support other people and participate in other activities.)
Took the words out of my mouth. Let's nevertheless assume that a lot of folks are coming from situations where they need to experience first hand what the article is saying before they believe it
The assumption that the answer to everything lies in achieving your dreams and ambitions through your possession and redirection of money.
Studies have shown that the ratio of overall happiness per dollar in salary decreases after you hit a certain level, and it can be proven that the level required for happiness decreases as the average income decreases as long as the expectation/experience is not there to expect that income.
While I'm a capitalist in a first-world country, I'm not in denial about this. We are overprivileged. We are the economic equivalent of obese people whose gut flora has become unbalanced and they feel that they need to eat carbs all of the time. We are lazy fuckers that expect investors to show up and fund our big idea, and that if they do, we deserve it; because we don't give a shit about the many others who are much more intelligent, creative, and able than we are, but don't have the resources or support structure that we have are not our problem. Well- fuck that. Wake up and realize that you don't deserve a trophy for showing up. We're all lucky as shit to be here reading this. It's not a blessing to be overprivileged- it's a challenge; you are torn between trying to make your family/self happier and your duty, really, to take care of others. If you fail that challenge, which many do, at the least you are significantly lowering the potential of the planet. Do you not realize how many lives you could be positively impacting by helping others who are less fortunate? And at worst, you are further dividing the haves and the have nots- which is a cause of war.
When I was quite young someone I knew said to me that they didn't want to be famous, and didn't want lots of new things.
These ideas struck me profoundly and I realised that in fact I couldn't think of anything worse than being famous. I realised that many many people in our society want to be famous - I'd never questioned that as a worthwhile desire.
I'm not rich but I have given thought to what I would do if I suddenly became extremely rich - would I want it to be broadly known, outside of my close family? I don't think so.... I suspect people treat you differently when you are rich and I don't want to be treated differently - I just want to be ordinary.
I used to want to be CEO of my own company, great office, lots of employees etc etc. Now I don't want even one employee, and I certainly don't want an office.
That's a great point. According to the 2nd episode of the 3rd season of Startup (https://gimletmedia.com/episode/season-3-episode-2/) the twitch guys got rich, bought a big house and dedicate one floor to helping/mentoring startups. You could say they just in it for the money (get rich off another startup) but I suspect they're really enjoying themselves.
The problem with those of us who make money in the tech field is that it's often pretty much binary.. all work pretty much all the time (and decent to great money) or no work (living on savings). Add to this employer's resistance to hire if you have you haven't been working lately... :/
I've thought of this. I've been living off savings for quite a few years, but it would be nice to do a bit of work for extra money / challenge / variety. But it seems unlikely that anyone would employ me.
Then don't run engineering teams :) - assuming you can code. When I realized most software companies treat engineers better than they do managers, I switched. I actually can't recall a single employer who didn't treat the engineers at least as well as the (non-executive) management. It's not a panacea, but there is a more regular sense of achievement and less BS.
I think you're right, but there are plenty of companies (especially startups with new founders/inexperienced engineers/no engineers) that could use some help with running a software team. It's definitely doable.
> In the early years of this blog I wrote a lot about the personal struggles of people who had attained financial independence only to find out that it revealed that money was not what was standing in the way of happiness.
Spoken like a rich person!
For the poor and working classes who live month-to-month -- which is a large and growing chunk of Americans -- money (or the lack thereof) is a huge source of stress, fear, and -- yes -- unhappiness. It probably also shortens your life.
And probably means you're not even getting one seat at whatever MLB or NBA game you'd like to go see. Might even mean you're not sure you're going to get to keep that one single bedroom you'd like to sleep in.
Hmm, money. Just today I have thought: "If only I had $630 to buy my stepsister a decent laptop so that she can study outside her noisy home with her heavy aspie brother."
Check Amazon and eBay. I got my sister a great used i7 Thinkpad for Christmas / graduation for around $200. I added more RAM and an SSD but those were pretty inexpensive too. She's been super happy with it.
The core thesis is really only true if money can't be exchanged for some expectation value of additional years of healthy life. Up until fairly recently (say 20 years) that was the case. You couldn't really do a lot with a lot of money to swing odds, any more than you could with just a little money and some forethought. The free stuff like planning, exercise, and calorie restriction outweigh everything else, and by the time you're in late old age how far you get is a complete lottery of genes and happenstance.
It isn't true any more, however. You can outlay money to increase your life span down the line - though it isn't an individual thing, it is increasing life span for everyone. It is a collaborative effort.
How: money can be used as a lever at all levels of research and development in the science of aging to increase everyone's life expectancy by pushing forward the right lines of development. Whether that is by being an insider putting in five figures into a seed round in a useful startup, or by being a billionaire establishing a research foundation, you can move the needle. Early stage research is dirt cheap. Venture capital is overflowing the sandbags for any venture that can do something credible with its seed round. There are startups at various stages today that have means of repairing/removing some of the cell and tissue damage that causes aging, and are pushing towards human testing.
The game of life used to be limited. It used to have a line at the end, you are done. Everything in life and all of our culture is very much defined by the existence of that once-immutable endpoint. The endpoint is fading, however, in the sense that bringing aging under medical control is a research and development project that can and has been envisaged in some detail. But next to no-one has yet adapted to the new reality: the world is still full of old people playing the same old game of gathering points in politics and markets for some final score, and of young people aiming to be in the same position.
If there was sanity, the old game board would be thrown out, and immense interest and investment would be directed towards the biotechnologies of aging and longevity. There is a big difference between a world in which you can't buy time with money, and one in which you can.
I think the lifespan issue misses the point. The core thesis is that 'more' - money, houses, lifespan - doesn't buy you happiness. You've still got to figure out what to do with each day you get, and that's where happiness either happens or doesn't.
"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion". Perhaps we'll find the same is true about life itself. We'll live twice as long, but we'll be twice as cautious, twice as likely to say 'tomorrow'.
Everything has to end. Even the human race. For me the deadline gives our activities meaning. Ironically, even your eager desire to extend longevity only has a sense of urgency and interest because we die. But the actual lifespan itself will always be arbitrary, a number picked out of a hat. So why isn't 80 years ok? Why is 160 years really better?
In fact, wouldn't faster generations make the world even a bit more interesting?
I may still be too young at 25, but I can't think of a single time in my life where the threat of eventual death was a motivator of any kind. maybe as I get older it'll come, but only because it'll be just over the horizon. If I lived 800 years instead of 80, it might motivate me for the last 30 years, but that still gives me an extra 690 years of being motivated by other factors (happiness, comfort, pride, love, whatever floats your boat).
Looking at society as a whole, there's not much to be gained by increasing lifespan. There's no shortage of people being born. They come up to speed quickly to be able to do useful things (20 years or so). There are a few people doing great work even in old age, who couldn't easily be replaced by somebody younger, but I'd say they are an exception. There's no reason to think those particular people would be chosen for life extension first.
I think if you read the original, the choices discussed were personal happiness vs money and status. Choosing happiness in that context is wise, not selfish.
Also, I think you're confusing happiness with the pursuit of pleasure. Most of the science suggest that happiness requires both enjoyment and a greater purpose.
Apparently you're unselfish and deep; maybe you could be less judgmental, too.
Human-size applies to many activities, too. You only get so much time in the day, so "someday" can be put off no matter how long you wait. You never become so exceptional that all problems are within your comfort zone as if you were an overpowered game character. Long term, you can only sustain about 4 hours of max effort on a difficult, out-of-flow mental task like a hard coding problem. You can never entirely brush aside your ordinary failings just because of your accomplishments elsewhere.
Once you have a minimum income for providing your family with the bare --Baloo-- necessities (rent, food, utility bills..), the pursue of trying to get more and more money is just a way of wasting your time and health.
That getting rich is not the key of happiness is so obvious that I don't understand how this kind of articles are revealing or enlightening to anybody.
To be frank, you could achieve immortality, anti-aging, everlasting youth, different bodies and so on. But at 800 years old, you're gonna have one wretched mind.
Nothing will excite you anymore. All those friendships over 800 years? You've had enough misunderstandings and quarrels that you're done talking to those sick bastards. You have probably exchanged a dozen partners by now and you don't want anymore. Sex? All those positions have been tried out. Now its more like a keep-fit regimen. Landing on Mars? That was like a kid trying ice-cream for the first time. Obviously with eternity we can't have everyone giving birth to immortal babies, so reproduction is strictly controlled. You saw a few grandchildren, and they're all grown up now. Everything is a blip in eternity.
No thank you. I'd rather let my mind get garbage collected whenever the time comes.
Okay, strike that. I agree with the idea that money isn't everything but ... money is a huge enabler. I rented a 2 bedroom apartment even though I can only sleep in one room. That other room? Friends from around the world visited and stayed there all the time and I got to spend far more time with them than if they had had to stay at a hotel. Heck, they probably wouldn't have even visited the area if they had to pay for a hotel.
If you're rich and doing nothing yea maybe you're bored and unhappy but there's all kinds of things I would do with money that instead I can't because someone else with money is "the decider".
It really depends on the amount of money. Most of the games I'd like to make (I'm a game dev) would probably cost in the $7-$14 million price range.
I'd love to open a gamedev co-working space. No idea how much money that would cost to run long enough to make it profitable but it's probably more than I have. And heck, if I had the money I'd consider doing it even if it didn't make a profit. If we're talking money to burn then I'd be happy to burn it. I'd also love to pay someone to run it. To make sure it had lots of events and activities.
Similarly I'd love to do giant digital art exhibitions. The kind that require several hundred thousands in equipment (projection mapping projectors good enough for large buildings are not cheap) on top of having to hire all the people to organize those types of events. Yea, I could beg others to let me but if I had the money I wouldn't have to ask I'd just do it.
And yes there would still be struggles. Even with money lots of things are still real work. Still it would be nice not to have my options limited because I know I still need to save for retirement.