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

You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

neilthanedar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 424 posts

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#181

Post by thanedar »

kgwxd wrote: post #84

> It feels like you’re stuck in the ordinary when all you want to do is chase greatness. Gave up on greatness a long time ago, I'd settle for an "ordinary", where people just kind of try to NOT make bad things worse, or good things less enjoyable.

Your greatness is still all here! And it can be earned precisely by fighting to fix bad things.

I found that working in politics, against corruption and for Positive Politics, is how I make the most positive impact and gain the most energy!

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#182

Post by throwaway173738 »

mariusor wrote: post #67
llmslave2 wrote: post #46

Maybe this hits for millennials and older but as a gen-z I think it's safe to say we're burnt out because everything we want is simply too expensive, our degrees are useless, dating and relationships have become damaged because of the apps, and we are inheriting a world that is broken and continues to shatter. The older generations have everything and still feel burnt out and unhappy? Cool. Cool cool cool. That will…

Are millennials the "older" generation now? Ooof, my bones...

Some of us turned 40 this year.

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#183

Post by malfist »

SoftTalker wrote: post #112
bayarearefugee wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you brought up your friend in the 2nd bit there as it seems to have become relatively common for some people to make food delivery services a very regular part of their lifestyle without really paying attention to the staggering amount of saturated fat they are ingesting even from the majority of "healthy" options available on these services (nevermind the even worse fast food options) Of course this has always…

Saturated fat is not the demon we've been lead to believe for the past 30-40 years. Sugar is. And there's a lot of sugar in prepared food too.

I think you'll find scientific consensus isn't on your side here. The American Heart Association certainly doesn't agree with your assessment

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#184

Post by cosmic_cheese »

lovich wrote: post #145
asdff wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't want just a house though. They want a house in a "cool" area. Look at median home prices in rust belt cities. Mortgages around $2k a month or so. Very doable for a lot of people but you never hear a drum beat about this. You never hear about people moving to these cities unless they have family there already to remind them that, hey, this is in fact a great deal.

Are there jobs in those cities who sit in an area named after their economic collapse? Do student loan costs go down if you move to a low cost of living area? We had some movement in the direction of people immigrating to low cost areas like that with the rise of remote work, but then execs decided they didn’t like not having control over their workers live and did RTO. To their offices in the cities with high rent a…

Exactly. Do people want to live in desirable areas? Absolutely. The much bigger draw to expensive metros, however, are the vastly more robust job prospects that come with those areas.

In a city, you have both much better chances of finding employment suited to your skills specifically, better chances of being paid well for it, and better chances of upwards mobility. Plus, should it become necessary you're more likely to be able to find something to keep the bills paid with even if it's not what you'd like to be doing.

Low CoL areas by contrast come with scant employment that's generally poorly compensated and almost always has a low ceiling.

In some cases one can commute into the city for work and live in LCoL area, but then you're burning time — multiple hours each day, usually — that you'll never get back on your employer instead of yourself or with your family, plus the myriad expenses that come with driving that far and often.

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#185

Post by em-bee »

dheera wrote: post #132
lm28469 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wait until everything is planned, ready and accounted for you'll never have kids.

> you'll never have kids Which is also OK. It's financially smart to realize you don't have the resources and not have kids. If {some subset of the government, rich people, people who control the economy} want more people to have kids, which is something I keep hearing from that class of people: They need to collectively figure out how to put more money into the pockets of people. Higher salaries, drastic tax cuts, c…

i agree with most of your points, especially the reduction of work hours, but cost is not the issue that keeps people from having kids. it's actually the reverse. the more money people have, the less likely they have kids.

the problem is lifestyle and career demands.

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#186

Post by amarant »

qweiopqweiop wrote: post #171
amarant wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have more money and no kids, I still relate to your comment. I burned out basically because I'm stupid and decided to work a demanding full time job while also remodeling my house by myself. Like all renovation jobs, it ended up being bigger than planned (I actually expected it to grow from us discovering something that had to be done during the renovation, I just never expected the thing we found to be as large as…

Why didn't you just pay someone to take over out of interest?

3 factors. Biggest one the aforementioned stupidity. I'm also very stubborn, so that didn't help either.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the planned changes, combined with the unplanned ones (which were like 90% of the work), put the project well outside our budget unless we did it ourselves.

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#187

Post by GMoromisato »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #167
GMoromisato wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way about kids. For me, I think, it changed my perspective. Lots of things at work that would have bothered or frustrated me no longer do so. Having kids is a great way to develop a Zen attitude about some things. Though, to be fair, you gain a whole new set of much scarier things to worry about.

I don't have kids but I'm learning to be more zen at work. I think its a learnable thing. I can see how kids would accelerate that though

Agreed! Being more Zen is awesome and you don't need kids for that.

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#188

Post by GMoromisato »

tmp2375 wrote: post #162
GMoromisato wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way about kids. For me, I think, it changed my perspective. Lots of things at work that would have bothered or frustrated me no longer do so. Having kids is a great way to develop a Zen attitude about some things. Though, to be fair, you gain a whole new set of much scarier things to worry about.

It could be just getting older. I don't have any kids, but I care less about work now. It's just a job. Life is out there.

This! It's much healthier this way.

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#189

Post by dheera »

em-bee wrote: post #185
dheera wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you'll never have kids Which is also OK. It's financially smart to realize you don't have the resources and not have kids. If {some subset of the government, rich people, people who control the economy} want more people to have kids, which is something I keep hearing from that class of people: They need to collectively figure out how to put more money into the pockets of people. Higher salaries, drastic tax cuts, c…

i agree with most of your points, especially the reduction of work hours, but cost is not the issue that keeps people from having kids. it's actually the reverse. the more money people have, the less likely they have kids. the problem is lifestyle and career demands.

I think it's also because high middle class earners are financially smart (don't buy things if they don't have the money), AND health-smart (realize their body's needs, including sleep) so they choose logically not to have kids, because they do not have the resources for it, and will not sacrifice their own well-being just to have kids.

The upper class is financially smart, AND has the resources (20+ years of child rearing costs already secured upfront, ability to hire night nannies, ability to take a few years away from work without income, own a home and not at the mercy of rent increases), so they have kids.

The lower class is often not financially smart, is not health smart, and systematically poisoned to sacrifice themselves and buy things they cannot afford. They are given insufficient resources and told that they should have kids, so they do.

Re: You’re not burnt out, you’re existentially starving

#190

Post by agumonkey »

unstyledcontent wrote: post #14

I'm burned out because I have to raise two young children, work a full time job in a demanding career, and then in the hour or two a day of time that isn't accounted for in those two tasks, I need to maintain a household and try to care for myself. I feel a strong sense of purpose caring for my family, but don't have enough time to meet life's demands. Maybe other people relate more to this post because they more mon…

interesting, there's the burnout where you love what you do but there's too much, and then there's the burnout where you cannot love what you do no matter how you spin it. both uphill battle but different scenarios

good luck to you though

Post reply on HN