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

How to Work Hard

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: How to Work Hard

#201

Post by darksaints »

SonicScrub wrote: post #147
sidlls wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. No, it's not. It's common for some FAANG engineers. It's not common at all for the industry as a whole. Look at all these comments doubling-down on the "7%/$10k-per-year" arithmetic, as if the only thing that affects savings rates is knowledge of this basic math. For a data driven community there sure are a lot of p…

The Millionaire Next Door concepts are still as relevant as ever, albeit the specifics are a bit dated. Millionaire status is reasonably achievable for someone whose income and cost of basics allow for modest discretionary income. This is certainly the case for the majority of software developers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door

The Millionaire Next Door is about as misleading as it gets, at least for today. Let's not forget that $1M in the mid 1990's is about the same as $2M today, at least in terms of terms of CPI. Even then, that is after 20+ years of housing prices outpacing inflation by 2x or more.

In the mid 1990's, the top 20% could get to $1M with some good financial discipline and hard work. Today? Maybe the top 1% could save $1M, and unless you inherited the family home, you're still living a lifestyle that is somewhat median in 1995 terms.

The fact that $1M is still some kind of mental benchmark that we hold up for being "rich" tells us everything we need to know about today's economic conditions.

So the principles of the book may still apply, but the outcomes are worlds away from reality.

Re: How to Work Hard

#202

Post by _Nat_ »

sidlls wrote: post #123
_Nat_ wrote: post #92

It'd be nice if articles about some common term, e.g. " work hard ", would start out with a clear definition.

That would mean putting effort ("working hard") at understanding something outside one's own thought bubble. PG's essays are exercises in narcissism and confirmation bias: they're the last place to go to for the kind of wisdom you suggest.

Admittedly I'm a puzzled by the quality-level of these posts.

A lot of stuff, like the lack of formatting and HTTPS, give off an antique feel, almost like a signal that they're not meant to be taken seriously. Ditto for the over-the-top arrogant tone and relatively sparse content.

I might be off-base on this, but I sometimes wonder if these articles aren't like a honey-pot for non-serious YCombinator applicants. Like maybe people who resonate with these articles are flagged as non-serious applicants, to better focus the pool? Maybe we're all looking a little silly for commenting here at all, rather than moving on with our days and being more productive?

Re: How to Work Hard

#203

Post by s5300 »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #57
nickelcitymario wrote: post #34

> I had to learn what real work was before I could wholeheartedly desire to do it. That took a while, because even in college a lot of the work is pointless; there are entire departments that are pointless. The arrogance! This is one of my pet peeves at work: When someone looks at another person's work and judges its value or difficulty. "That's easy." "That's pointless." Ugh. Everyone else's job looks easy and/or po…

The author is right. Gender studies, for example, is a pointless degree. You certainly have a point about not being quick to judge, or overly dismissive, but there are certain things in life that are genuinely pointless, even in education.

This is such an idiotic take.

It would be much more truthful to say that everything in life is genuinely pointless than what you've said - and I'm saying this as a lifelong multidisciplined engineer.

Perhaps you meant to say useless instead of pointless? Yes, I would agree, that the overwhelming vast majority, if not all of gender studies degrees are useless in the world/societies we live in. But pointless? No.

Re: How to Work Hard

#204

Post by BoxOfRain »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #57
nickelcitymario wrote: post #34

> I had to learn what real work was before I could wholeheartedly desire to do it. That took a while, because even in college a lot of the work is pointless; there are entire departments that are pointless. The arrogance! This is one of my pet peeves at work: When someone looks at another person's work and judges its value or difficulty. "That's easy." "That's pointless." Ugh. Everyone else's job looks easy and/or po…

The author is right. Gender studies, for example, is a pointless degree. You certainly have a point about not being quick to judge, or overly dismissive, but there are certain things in life that are genuinely pointless, even in education.

It depends on how you're measuring value I suppose. Research for research's sake is rarely pointless, contributing to the sum of human knowledge is a worthy endeavour if you're okay with being in academia forever which many people are. Society's relationship with gender is a field worthy of study in my opinion, regardless of the political radicalism that apparently originates in that field.

I'd argue that the social sciences need more people involved in them, not less. For example, the way behavioural psychology has been weaponised during the pandemic by political actors (particularly the British government) has been very unethical in my opinion but as the social sciences are often seen by the general public as a bit woolly there's not been an awful lot of publicised expert criticism in the same way, say, a government denying genetics in favour of LaMarckism would put angry biologists directly into every newspaper.

Re: How to Work Hard

#205

Post by bumby »

leokennis wrote: post #152
bumby wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of the criticism is skewed by the Western notion of “work”. I.e., we tend to view a vocation as the most legitimate definition of work. If we take a different perspective, I think the author is much less likely to be the target of ire. > working hard means aiming toward the center — toward the most ambitious problems. To those in a society hyper-focused on productivity, this can certainly rub people…

See my other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27676771 I agree with your point. But I have the feeling that in the context of the linked essay, work is narrowly interpreted as "working at your job". I might be wrong though.

I don’t think you’re wrong, that’s the same impression I got as well. But I suppose that is to be expected in a society that tends to consider one’s vocation as the height of personal ambition.

I would also suspect the author scores highly in the conscientious personality trait. So it would follow they have high levels of discipline, derive pleasure from achievement etc. Maybe the title should be changed to “How to Work Hard (and why that matters to people like me)”

Re: How to Work Hard

#206

Post by david927 »

This falls into the Malcolm Gladwell genre of arguments made on top of specious anecdotal data. Paul's not wrong, per se, but it's not a well-formed argument.

Bill Gates made his fortune by being in the right place at the right time with connections from his wealthy family, and software that he first sold and then went out and bought. If hard work helped him grow his empire, great, but I wouldn't use him as a great example of what hard work can bring you.

PG Wodehouse is considered by most to be a great "fun commercial fiction" writer. Comparing him to, say, Joyce, says more about Paul than about either of these writers.

For me, I prefer this quote by Calvin Coolidge: "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

Re: How to Work Hard

#207

Post by s5300 »

jschulenklopper wrote: post #140
ARandomerDude wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is right. Gender studies, for example, is a pointless degree. You certainly have a point about not being quick to judge, or overly dismissive, but there are certain things in life that are genuinely pointless, even in education.

According to which criteria are some studies apparently “pointless”? Who’s to determine these criteria? And aren’t they just opinions instead of real facts?

>According to which criteria are some studies apparently “pointless”?

Likely the criteria made up in the heads of those who feel they've somehow been "wronged" in life by somebody who participates in said studies.

Re: How to Work Hard

#208

Post by hatchnyc »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #135
sidlls wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> millionaire is a common outcome for software developers who work hard through their 20s and 30s now. No, it's not. It's common for some FAANG engineers. It's not common at all for the industry as a whole. Look at all these comments doubling-down on the "7%/$10k-per-year" arithmetic, as if the only thing that affects savings rates is knowledge of this basic math. For a data driven community there sure are a lot of p…

Anyone making high 5 or low 6 figures will be a millionaire at the start retirement if they can save a modest amount from a reasonably early start, say 30 years old.

While technically correct, this doesn't square with most people's intuitive sense of what "being a millionaire" means. It's not having a solid retirement nest egg, it is being able to jet off to your yacht in St. Tropez on a private jet.

I think this is largely due to inflation. A million dollars in the 50s or 60s would be around 10 million today, while at the turn of the 20th century when the term really became popular it would be worth 30 million today. A "millionaire" of the time is really living a different lifestyle and can likely afford a very extravagant upper class lifestyle purely on interest of their wealth.

With housing costs having risen so much faster still beyond inflation, today you can easily be "a millionaire" simply by having a bit of equity in a modest home in a costal city.

Re: How to Work Hard

#209

Post by lupire »

minikites wrote: post #101
giantg2 wrote: post #44

Hard work can be good, but only if you own a substantial capital interest in the company/result. But if you can hire people to do it for you, then you can reap the benefits and live a life worth living. If you are just part of the labor and not the capital, then there really isn't an incentive to work harder than necessary to keep you job or earn a measly raise. If you tell people that if they work 12+ hours a day in…

>The real world doesn't work that way and using statistical outliers like Gates is disingenuous to the discussion about hard work and how it applies to normal people. Exactly. This is the central lie that sustains capitalism. Wealthy C-level executives get rich when the rest of us work hard, which is why they harp on "working hard" so much. There's no reason to work hard when all the benefits go to the already-wealth…

Jeff Bezos could bankrupt himself giving each of his current employees $200K (one time only, after 25+ years of work, not per year).

And that's by far the most extremely case.

You can argue that it's exploitative or that no one should be as rich as he is, but you can't say that working hard to do better for yourself as an employee is useless just because that small amount gets skimmed off.

Re: How to Work Hard

#210

Post by YinglingLight »

helen___keller wrote: post #162

When I was an undergrad at CMU, I learned how to work hard. Really hard. After having coasted through too-easy high school, I spent all day every day at CMU either programming, doing mathematics, or thinking about one of those things (to great effect: often the trick to prove a theorem would pop into my head while showering or while taking a walk). I would fall asleep while programming in the middle of the night, dre…

There's a time and place for everything. When I was an undergrad at RPI, I worked my ass off. Harder than I ever needed to in my working career.

Now in my 30s my focus is more on family and housework, but I will always benefit from having been 'in the grinder' back then. I know my limits for hard work is great, should I ever need it again.

Post reply on HN