11–20 of 84 posts
I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants . 2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly portrayed by OP. 3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are re…
I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants . 2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly portrayed by OP. 3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are re…
I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either. They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard enough you can't do it accidentally."
I think that most of the interesting and decent rich people had no idea they'd be so successful. They put one foot in front of the other until they had something of great value.
I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants . 2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly portrayed by OP. 3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are re…
I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either. They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard enough you can't do it accidentally."
Google (backrub) started as a research project.
Craigslist started out as a way for Craig Newmark to not feel so isolated.
Wikipedia... the list goes on.
Yes, of course I do, and the generalizations here are gross and condescending. You will not convince me that I do not want this. I lean towards the Comfort angle, but I also start tinkering and producing when I am bored, so I could hardly be considered to walk the lazy path. I look for freedom from lower-level concerns so as to begin address higher-level needs. Money provides a layer of abstraction. http://en.wikiped…
It's a lesson that some people will understand, and some won't ever. I'm curious about this: does anyone who doesn't want to be rich - at all, or not in the correct third way - fall into the group of "those who don't understand"? I think I understand that if I had a desire to be rich - endlessly, endlessly rich - and not for the things it brought me or for comfort, then I might prefer to work with other people with t…
I know several people in the 5 to 100 million range and I don't really want to be that rich. A close friend growing up had 6-7 million in trust fund + a lot more on the way and it was a lot harder than you might think. You don't have enough to "change the world" but working is almost pointless etc. So he took a lot of stupid risks to feel alive and died at 30. I have that type of personality and while I like taking 6…
I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but if you ask me, the "almost pointless" excuse is pretty pathetic.
All else equal, being rich gives you strictly more options, and therefore the means to make work more meaningful. At $6m net worth, you own your own time and can work or play at will, in pretty much any industry you desire. Also, your career is going to be much better if you're rich because 1) upper management assumes you work hard because you actually want to do so rather than have to, 2) you get better jobs and projects because people want to buy your family's connections, and 3) most importantly, you don't have the "fear of the boss" that middle-class people do, so upper management sees you as more independent and confident. I've worked on Wall Street at desks that send more money across the table every day than most rich kids' trust funds, and even there, rich kids advance faster, primarily for reason #3.
In the for-profit sector, working is actually pointless for 90+% of people in it, who will never appreciably advance and only go to work because they have to. Being unusually talented or wealthy gives one a chance to not be caught in that trap and to do "pointful" work. So I don't buy into the bullshit excuse that his trust fund made working "almost pointless". Not in the least.
I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants . 2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly portrayed by OP. 3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are re…
I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either. They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard enough you can't do it accidentally."
If you are a VC or investor, this advice is true. If you however are an entrepreneur and share their interests and passion, this advice is horribly inaccurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either. They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard enough you can't do it accidentally."
Explain. Do you really think the Google founders set out to be billionaires? I think that most of the interesting and decent rich people had no idea they'd be so successful. They put one foot in front of the other until they had something of great value.
http://blog.cubeofm.com/programming-is-a-way-to-procrastinat...