Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fuck you, Money

adgrok.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Fuck you, Money

#101

Post by c1sc0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #55
sosuke wrote: post #8

To answer the authors question. Absolutely sell out, if your first success buys you the freedom to fail a thousand more times it is worth selling. He said those that would sell out are those that don't already have FU money, that they aren't in the club. Those founders that hold out might already have that FU money and are free to risk holding out. Each founder in those cases can't be compared. A man asked me to foll…

Going in to a start-up with founders that have different risk profiles is a great way to get in to very bad situations.

Can you elaborate?

Re: Fuck you, Money

#102

Post by jacquesm »

c1sc0 wrote: post #101
jacquesm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going in to a start-up with founders that have different risk profiles is a great way to get in to very bad situations.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. Let's say that your partner has a ton of money in the bank and you are dirt poor. (Exaggerated, but that makes it easier to see where the problems can come from).

After a year or two the business makes some money and you now have a steady living. Your majority partner decides to make an all-or-nothing ploy, it fails and you lose your living. He doesn't care because he already had his steady life. Of course, it could have gone the other way but the more risky a move the bigger the chance that it will fail so that's not a 50/50 thing.

It's just one of hundreds of variations to the theme but I think it clarifies the point sufficiently.

If all the partners in a business have a similar risk profiles then they are all going to be behind most of the strategic decisions, which in turn will help with both morale and explaining things to the home front (if you have one).

Re: Fuck you, Money

#103

Post by NickPollard »

kscaldef wrote: post #35
scott_s wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think perhaps you're interpreting what he wrote too harshly. I took it to mean that once you have FU money, you have to confront these questions because there's nothing left for you to worry about. Much of our time and mental effort is spent dealing with and worrying about survival. (Not survival in the hunter-gatherer sense, but making sure you have enough money in the next few days/weeks/months/years to live on.)…

Except that he then goes on to argue that the people who get FU money won't confront those questions because they can't be happy that much money, they'll have to keep going because of their "insatiable hopes of yet greater scores". And, if that's how you think, you're just as trapped as any "wage slave". (Incidentally, I think the author is wrong, and skewed by his time at Goldman. I personally know substantially mor…

I think your argument here almost supports his hypothesis though - he argues that there is a correlation between large payouts and a desire to continue and earn even better. So the idea that those people who have smaller payoffs don't still have a burning avaricious desire is consistent with his suggestion.

The question is, /if/ his hypothesis is true and there is a correlation, what is the causation? Does winning big give you a taste for it and make you want to try again? Or is it (more likely in me eyes) that only those with such a strong drive to beat out the odds will ever make it to the really big payouts without cashing in early for less.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#104

Post by Ardit20 »

thrdOriginal wrote: post #76
scott_s wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think perhaps you're interpreting what he wrote too harshly. I took it to mean that once you have FU money, you have to confront these questions because there's nothing left for you to worry about. Much of our time and mental effort is spent dealing with and worrying about survival. (Not survival in the hunter-gatherer sense, but making sure you have enough money in the next few days/weeks/months/years to live on.)…

I remember one of my favorite philosophy professors talking about the various philosophers' ideas of "first philosophy", where first philosophy meant which philosophy is the root of all other philosophy (e.g. for Aristotle it is Metaphysics). Midway through the lecture the professor finally said something along the lines of "...this is nice and all, but what really should be first philosophy is figuring out a way to…

Philosophy is all about "figuring out a way to live in this world" at least the philosophy I have studied anyway, which includes Aristotle.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#105

Post by Ardit20 »

geebee wrote: post #64
kscaldef wrote: post #16

I have to say, I nearly threw this article across the proverbial room after reading the second paragraph: > Before that point, you’re just adding frosting on the lifestyle cake of your wage-slave existence. Beyond that point, you can forget about aspirational consumer buying of 48-inch flat-panel TVs. You suddenly confront the most existential questions in human life: what do I do with my life? What’s a good life? No…

This line irritated me too. Every now and then, I read another article about how we're slaves to money. Has anyone else noticed that these articles almost always use some variant of a television (plasma, 48 inch, etc...) as an example of an unnecessary material comfort that distorts a person's view of what is truly important. I'm definitely a wage slave, and I assure you, I don't do it for a big tv. I don't have a bi…

Lol. Gee dude you really are angry about the telly huh?

I think the TV is just a symbol to communicate a bigger picture. It is not about the TV per se, but the fact that you can afford the TV. So if you can afford such telly, then you can afford a great house too, so that your kids won't have to share a room, you would not have to worry about making trips to the pedriatician or pre-school education, basically, finances would not be a problem.

Having one problem less is not such a bad thing. Sure life is more than money, but not having to worry about money gives you more time to develop friendships, send your kids to a good school, etce...

Re: Fuck you, Money

#106

Post by Retric »

btilly wrote: post #95
nostrademons wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know how fast things can change. My father got sick and died last fall. For that whole time period, my bank account (which had been monotonically increasing since I got my job) just stayed flat and even decreased a bit. Airline tickets are remarkably expensive when you're flying between coasts every couple of weeks and often don't know the days when you'll need to jet out. Plus I wasn't working for much of th…

For a short time, yeah. But when you have a long-lasting change in life circumstance, as I did, your savings cushion suddenly changes dramatically for the worse. A cutback in the 2008 financial crisis cost me a few months of paychecks. The result? A decade ago I had your attitude. I now have a very different view of the world.

There are insurance policies that cover a lot of these situations. Depending on your coverage they can go from reasonable to ridiculously expensive but it's really a question of how much risk are you willing to take?

Edit: This assumes you will find work while capable of working. But, 6 months of savings does not have to be a ridiculously large number and six months of savings + low paying job can last you for a long time.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#107

Post by rick888 »

scott_s wrote: post #63
jacquesm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but how many people reading HN are truly exploited. Only if you let them... Exploited to me smacks of child labor and indentured servitude. I highly doubt there are child laborers and true slaves reading HN. But they do exist, and in larger numbers than you probably thought possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Current_situation That's more than the population of many countries.

exploited to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploited Some people are exploited in ways that are horrific compared to how other people are exploited. But until we have words specifically to describe white-collar workers, I'm going to use the available words that I think are most apt.

"Some people are exploited in ways that are horrific compared to how other people are exploited. But until we have words specifically to describe white-collar workers, I'm going to use the available words that I think are most apt."

I realize that some white-collar works are truly exploited. However, most of the people that I see complain about being "exploited" just don't have the balls to quit their job.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#108

Post by steveklabnik »

nostrademons wrote: post #94
steveklabnik wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't work to eat; just that working for someone else isn't preferable to working for yourself. It's much more efficient, you get to keep all of your economic output, rather than giving it to someone else.

You're always working for someone else; that's why they pay you. The difference between employment and entrepreneurship is whether you're working for one person or for many people.

While that's a cute phrase (and true), you're missing the point: it's about collecting all of the fruits of your labor, rather than just some of it.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#109

Post by steveklabnik »

philwelch wrote: post #96
steveklabnik wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can leave your job, sure. And then default on your mortgage. Or be unable to pay your rent. And not be able to buy food. (or, if you mean "leave America," then you can move somewhere else... and you _still_ have to either work for yourself, or for someone else.) There's an illusion of choice, but choosing to work between McDonalds and Burger King isn't really a choice.

That's the human condition. You can sit on your ass instead of hunting or gathering, but then you'd go hungry and be shunned by your tribe. You can sit on your ass instead of working your fields, but then your crops won't grow and you'll go hungry. You can sit on your ass instead of going to work at the mill every day, and then you won't be able to afford any food and you'll go hungry. I'm grateful we can sit in meet…

See my response to rfrey above; I'm not saying that people shouldn't work, just that keeping all of your economic output is preferable to giving some of it to someone else.

Re: Fuck you, Money

#110

Post by joeyo »

steveklabnik wrote: post #74
kscaldef wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could quit my job right now. I'd need to get another one eventually, maybe in 6 months, maybe in a year, depending on how tightly I budgeted myself. I've chosen to live within my means; to build up enough savings that I don't need to be terrified of losing my job. I'd venture to say that virtually any other tech worker could do the same. If you feel bound to your job, and that you're at imminent risk of becoming de…

Just because your in a better situation, and are on the way to pulling yourself up out of wage slavery doesn't mean that you're not still in the situation that you're in. I had an analogy here to drug dealers working their way out of a ghetto, and decided it was slightly hyperbolic.

So your definition of wage slavery is anyone who is not independently wealthy?
Post reply on HN