231–240 of 289 posts
I'll always remember growing up when we moved from a big house (2000 sq ft) to a little apartment (700 sq ft). My parents didn't lose their jobs, maybe a few expensive things hit but really there was no obvious reason to an outsider. We could have stayed in the big house and gotten by. But our family wasn't in great financial shape. Small expenses became debts, parents always fighting or stressed about money, just ge…
Folks in the status professions (banking, law,..) often tell me they want to become an entrepreneur. I always tell them, you wont do it. They attended the right school, joined the right firm, attained that corner office. As a founder they would give up all that, and their family and friends will tell them that they've made a massive mistake, for years, while it appears that nothing is happening. Then they sheepishly…
How long were you willing to work for someone else before you became a founder?
Status takes many forms.
If this were true, and significant, wouldn't we expect to see more successful women in the startup scene? Women appear to be disproportionately willing to do low-status/non public-facing/schlep work, but I don't notice that they are particularly rewarded for it, probably because they tend do this low-status work in the context of an existing organization in which they have little leverage/ownership stake. Willingness…
> Women appear to be disproportionately willing to do low-status/non public-facing/schlep work I don’t think this is true at all.
Folks in the status professions (banking, law,..) often tell me they want to become an entrepreneur. I always tell them, you wont do it. They attended the right school, joined the right firm, attained that corner office. As a founder they would give up all that, and their family and friends will tell them that they've made a massive mistake, for years, while it appears that nothing is happening. Then they sheepishly…
That's ironic because most of the tech founders I meet these days do it for the status, and just pretend to be entrepreneurs.
A: Founder and CEO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sabbatical implies you are working on something else though, so seems to me quite different than "funemployed".
I didn't realize there was that connotation. If that is the case, funemployed would be the more appropriate term. To me sabbatical meant, taking time off to focus on oneself or ones own pursuits, however I didn't realize there was a work or growth related connotation to the word.
It can mean just an extended break from work, but the connotation to most is that the break is used to engage in another project that your day job constrains in some way. It also implies that you will return to your previous duties afterwards.
The trend is to call a temporary leave of absence from your job to do whatever a "career break."
Why are those folks willing to be low-status? I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of change that it's because they have a support system. Folks without that know they need to achieve at least a modicum of success because there's no one to help them in case it doesn't work out. So they settle for placing a reasonable bet as opposed to betting "everything".
Folks in the status professions (banking, law,..) often tell me they want to become an entrepreneur. I always tell them, you wont do it. They attended the right school, joined the right firm, attained that corner office. As a founder they would give up all that, and their family and friends will tell them that they've made a massive mistake, for years, while it appears that nothing is happening. Then they sheepishly…
> Folks in the status professions (banking, law,..) often tell me they want to become an entrepreneur. They mean a rich, powerful, famous entrepreneur, not an intrepid voyager living by their wit and instincts to do something that changes the world. What you tell them is spot on.
Rich, powerful, and famous is probably the end goal for most entrepreneurs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Using a 'singular global social order' is a bit of a straw man. It doesn't have to global, just like it can't be individual." and again, that's the point. neither extreme is realistic, but we have a bias toward one that we should actively compensate for. most of our esteem derives for the few hundred to a few thousand people that forms our social system, but our thinking tends to stray to where we stand in the wid…
Maybe, but that's not been my experience. I've found people tend to value the social standing of that "few thousand" people that make up their immediate society rather than the global collective. If anything, I've noticed a tendency to rail against the massive collective value because of it's juxtaposition to that of the value system closer to home. As a silly example, a giant pickup is a status symbol in cattle coun…
this bias is especially pervasive in, and because of, the modern connected society. how do we contend with extreme interconnectedness? that, the contention (and potential resolutions) of a global social network, will be a defining feature of our times to future historians i think.
I'm struggling to see the link between status and working on something obscure. Working on something you like (or even having a choice of things to work on at all), even if it's something others find trivial or pointless, still seems like a privilege.
I interpreted this to mean that someone toiling through the ranks of an organization "keeping the lights on" is more likely to be successful that someone who specifically tries to get a leadership role in an organization. Or, someone who enters politics by joining local committees, volunteering to help other candidates, and maybe running for an "insignificant" office will have more success than someone who enters pol…
I'm struggling to see the link between status and working on something obscure. Working on something you like (or even having a choice of things to work on at all), even if it's something others find trivial or pointless, still seems like a privilege.
I think in this case, they're using the word "status" to refer more to how people might perceive someone relative to certain societal norms, whereas privilege is more about the basic abilities or advantages someone has because of their "socioeconomic status". The tweet thread is using the word "status" a little differently than a sociologist might use it when talking about "socioeconomic status".