Quit Your Job • Hacker News Board

Re: Quit Your Job

#311

Post by melenaboija » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 10:37 AM UTC

thelettere wrote: post #237

JimboOmega wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It smells like privilege. That isn't to say that the OP was protected regardless. But the mindset that lets you do this is a mindset that comes from a background of abundance. Where you can always get another job if you want one, where you always have friends or parents who will bail you out or give you what you need. A background where things just always seem to work out.

The idea that only the rich are able to take risks - or even think about it - is a bias, and an ugly one at that. It doesn't match history - the only reason we have many good things is because poor people took major risks - and it's part of the tyranny of low expectations that is seeping deeper every day into the fabric of our culture. It's a remarkably effective way of keeping the pours in their place in the name of…

I think it is hard to quantify the risk and what loosing *almost everything* means for each situation.

Re: Quit Your Job

#312

Post by meheleventyone » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 10:47 AM UTC

samvher wrote: post #301

LAC-Tech wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you just come out and say what you want to say?

My guess is it reminds of Ayn Rand / Atlas Shrugged, but that’s just based on what I’ve picked up from documentaries (I haven’t read this book or anything else by her).

Yeah I went and checked out the authors Twitter after reading the article and there was a tweet praising Atlas Shrugged very near the top which was amazingly on-brand I thought after reading the article.

Having actually read the book when I was going through an ill-thought out libertarian phase I don't understand how anyone capable of engaging writing themselves can think it's anything other than turgid dross. Feels more like praising it is part of the belief system than anything else.

Re: Quit Your Job

#313

Post by TheGigaChad » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 10:48 AM UTC

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #243

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These days, I work harder than I ever have in my life. I’m at my desk for at least eleven hours a day, seven days a week. Is this what makes you happy? A lot of people might criticize this as unhealthy. This statement does not contain a lot of "balance". Where's the exercise? Cooking for yourself? Socializing with others? Spending time with loved ones/family? Working on hobbies? I too am at my keyboard a lot. A lot…

Eh. I walk a couple of miles, every day; first thing (I’m up at 5). Tomorrow will be an exception, but I’ll get my exercise, anyway, shoveling snow. I’ll get to sleep in, a bit. I eat relatively healthy, and have a reasonably rich social life. I don’t drink, smoke, use drugs, or engage in a lot of vices. I’m home all day, and have lots of time with my family (including a couple of cats, who let me know, when it’s tim…

No post body was provided.

Re: Quit Your Job

#314

Post by mstipetic » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 10:56 AM UTC

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #246

mstipetic wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re saying that everybody that makes money contributes to society?

How would that not be true?

Lobbyist lobbying to make submitting taxes difficult is a net positive?

Re: Quit Your Job

#315

Post by BlackjackCF » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 11:00 AM UTC

JimboOmega wrote: post #185

themacguffinman wrote: post #175

"If you lose everything you own, you generally still have your network and skills" I get the general call to action that those who have excess resources should leverage that to take big risks, but this really undersells the possible consequences of losing everything you own. No, you don't always keep your network and skills. Sometimes, you lose everything. You lose friends from fallout or you belatedly realize that y…

It smells like privilege. That isn't to say that the OP was protected regardless. But the mindset that lets you do this is a mindset that comes from a background of abundance. Where you can always get another job if you want one, where you always have friends or parents who will bail you out or give you what you need. A background where things just always seem to work out.

100%.

I don't think this person is considering the single mom who has to work multiple minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet; the people who have never had any opportunity to have any sort of "network" to magically get another job.

When you're in that position, you're constantly exhausted because of how much you're working. You have no savings. You absolutely cannot afford to just "quit" and have things work out.

Re: Quit Your Job

#316

Post by glimshe » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 11:02 AM UTC

TapWaterBandit wrote: post #88

darkengine wrote: post #41

I know it's bad form to move so quickly into meta-discussion on here, but I feel a lot of the comments in the thread right now are endemic of a certain closed-mindedness that has, to me, come to define in part the Hacker News zeitgeist, which stands in something of a contrast to the site's supposed founding principle of intellectual curiosity. There is plenty of prior art in Western (and other traditions of) philosop…

It is fairly easy to understand the hostile reaction to this. This guy did exactly what he said and something many, if not most, of the people who comment on HN would have the means to do (take some time off, live frugally on savings, attempt something he had passion for). His success was by no means guaranteed but he had the guts to take the risk and make it work. And as he said if worse comes to worst, he can alway…

There is a lot of goodness in this article. I can see why many people don't enjoy the style, but its essence is inspiring and positive.

You don't need to risk bankruptcy to follow the article's main idea, which is to try to use your available resources to invest in high risk, ambitious projects. Criticizing the article as speaking of "privilege" misses the point entirely - this is starting from the assumption that you are able, through networking, excess savings from previous jobs, family connections, etc, to amass the resources for this kind of investment.

Most people in this "privileged", or well deserved, position DO NOT invest their lives and talent in these big projects. Instead, they increase consumption and get tied to over-insured, materially comfortable lifestyles. And I'm not talking about the ultra rich here, but simply the top 20% in disposable income of the developed world. Tens of millions of people could use the article's ideas to better themselves and the world around them by spending a part of their life invested in high risk, high potential benefit projects.

The author sees their magazine as one such project. Maybe they are right... Who knows? I think the world is a tiny bit of a better place because they are trying to do it.

What about those who can't afford to do this? I don't think the article is for them (yet!), and that's okay. From time to time I see articles here about web development, these don't do anything for me because I'm not a web developer. Not every idea needs to benefit every person.

Re: Quit Your Job

#317

Post by jeffrallen » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 11:03 AM UTC

In 2004, I quit my engineering job to work in humanitarian aid. I found a wife, a family and a new country.

Re: Quit Your Job

#318

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 11:04 AM UTC

mstipetic wrote: post #314

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that not be true?

Lobbyist lobbying to make submitting taxes difficult is a net positive?

You have changed your argument.

First you challenged the idea that everyone who earns money contributes to society.

Then you changed your argument to challenge the idea that everyone who earns money is a net positive to society.

Those two things are not the same, and moving the goalposts in this way is intellectually dishonest.

A lobbyist contributes to society insofar as that they spend their money in their local community on food and shelter, and in most cases also pay taxes. Whether or not every earner is a net positive to society was not my argument.

Re: Quit Your Job

#319

Post by burntoutfire » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 11:09 AM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #140

thelettere wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will you know which one you are - or which one you could become - if you don't try it? Although the very idea of "trying it" like one tries on a pair of pants is absurd. Either a people has the moral fortitude to recognize and live that there are things more important than mere survival or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, ironically we're already fucked.

Worth pointing out that Starbucks and restaurants around Hollywood are staffed by actor-wannabes hoping for a big break in the movie industry, many of whom never end up amounting to anything. On another corner of the spectrum, you get Paris Hilton, who frankly doesn't have to put effort into anything she tries. Point being, depending on who "you" are and what "it" is, the advice of "why don't you just go for it, ever…

Maybe being a waitress is not the worst thing in the world? Billions of people can only dream of being a waiter/waitress in LA, and the lifestyle that goes with it.

Re: Quit Your Job

#320

Post by Traster » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 11:10 AM UTC

vindarel wrote: post #21

Traster wrote: post #5

I'm conflicted by this article. I'm sympathetic to it, but some things just really push past my BS meter. For example: >This is related to why man became stunted with the dawn of agriculture. We traded a life limited by the occasional violent struggle over bountiful surplus for a more predictable life limited by grinding labor after barely sufficient nutrition. Firstly, "man" or humanity did all of their greatest wor…

> Before agriculture, life wasn't bountiful. It was short and harsh We all have a linear view of evolution: nomadism -> agriculture -> villages -> cities => for all the better. And we think life was really not fun before agriculture. Yet, some authors (especially in the recent years, with the progress of archeology) will note that things are maybe not so clear, and that's fascinating. With agriculture, man was (possi…

Looking at the information surrounding the sources you've cited, it seems like you've literally cited the dissenting voices from the consensus view. It's not a coincidence that Scott literally names his book "Against the grain" and that reviews of his book point to his pre-existing political beliefs as colouring his view on a time in history about which we know relatively little.

It certainly doesn't seem like any of your sources actually describe a well-accepted understanding of the history. In which case it's kind of like, ok well sure we can all cherry pick academics who have quite idiosyncratic views of the topics we pick but it's a little bold to be going "Well actually" to the standard view. If you read the paragraph I pulled that quote out of, it's quite clear that the author of this blog has an extremely rose-tinted view of "mortal intensity" and "novel virtue" and finding life "at it's ... highest". A literal reading of that section is advocating for you to quit your job and to rule over those who keep theirs.