The Ultimate Guide To Getting Nowhere In Life
garyharan.com
garyharan.com
A 9-5 job is pretty much great in those circumstances if you just want to enjoy life - I work for a 10 person company and I've seen what the owner has gone through in the last 10 years it's been going - he has no life. Obviously it doesn't have to be like that for everyone, but if I have to choose between my family and slogging my guts out for something which may or not pay off and consume all my time - I know which one I'd pick.
That you find joy in your family is fantastic, if only because you've found something to enjoy. That your boss has been slogging away for ten years on his business is fantastic, as long as his enjoyment of is worth more to him than the things he's not done. So long as he or you don't regret it.
The important difference is between compulsion and choice; or even more dangerously, a choice that is made, and then justified retroactively as a compulsion.
It isn't worth itemizing all of the things people are compelled to, except that this list is a somewhat abbreviated version of them: get a good (read: easy) 9-5 job; spend money as catharsis; and let other people take the lesser worn path and, if they succeed, live their joy secondhand as much as you can. Also on the list: having a wife and children. They are defaults, and I'm not the first to say that defaults can be quite compelling, and can be just as easy to pass off as compulsions afterward.
Keep in mind, these being external compulsions does not mean that everyone does them for that reason. It just means you have to be more careful about how much of your desire is actual desire, and how much is just aimless drift.
Doing things just through compulsion rarely leads to enjoyment. It might have been when the compulsions weren't just compulsions, but a lot of what we feel compelled to do is fossilized wisdom from what other people would have thought would make them happy, and maybe it did for a few people. The rest are still waiting for the pay off, or have just given up and have become satisfied being content and comfortable.
I don't think most people have to settle. I think the problem is a higher level than the author gets at in his essay: even when people have options, they feel compelled not to pursue them. In the worse case, they feel compelled to destroy those options -- I've seen this happen, and it is tragic. I don't think it has to be this way.
I don't think you're doing wrong, btw. But your comment reminded me of all the times I've seen people sacrificing to compulsion at the expense of fulfillment; it seemed worthwhile to get those thoughts out there. :-)
Thats a really good point and its scary when you see it all around you. And I think the reason it happens is because you dont see anyone else pursuing those options.
I have, recently, moved out to Queens and now live with roommates so as to save money. previously I had my own 1 bedroom in Manhattan. No one at work understands why I did this.
The one thing I've learned though is that if I get a negative reaction from my co-workers then I might be doing something right :) ...
It should be obvious that most people don't derive pleasure from the place they live. Better use the money for something else.
Personally, I can't stand living in a place that doesn't look out over greenery. I find I'm so much calmer and get more done when I can come home to a place with grass and trees and bushes, so I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars a month extra for that.
I find it similarly irrational to think of all the people that can't live anywhere but the city. I mean, they pay more than I do, and they have to live with roommates, and their places are usually smaller, and they have to specifically go somewhere else for greenery, and they're looking at an hour commute. (I'm particularly perplexed by people who spend $5k/month to live in Manhattan, which is like SF * 10 in terms of all that overstimulation and has less charm to boot.) But over time, I've realized that these people aren't stupid, they just have different priorities from me. Some absolutely love having lots of small ethnic restaurants on their block. Some enjoy having most of their friends within walking distance (which admittedly would be pretty nice). Some like to go out clubbing every night, and there're lots more opportunities for that in the city. They aren't opportunities that particularly matter to me, which is why I wouldn't make those trade-offs. But they matter to the people in question.
I've lived in cities most of my life and when I had to live in the suburbs once, it was very hard to adjust to the quiet at first. Not seeing a lot of people walking around, going about their lives made me feel something was missing. The mobility and being able to use your feet as the primary means of transport was something I missed dearly.
Having a family and moving forward in your career are not incompatible. I should have used "dead end job" instead of "9-5" job. I didn't mean that working more hours and spending time away from your family is something you should be doing. Sorry about making it sound that way.
The post was about not waisting your potential, stopping bad financial habits and living your passions.
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
In the end, I think you've nailed it with your last sentence: living your passions. If your passion is, literally, passion, then love. Make love your life. If your passion is external admiration, then succeed. (Please don't become a doctor or lawyer if your goal is admiration. Only do so if your passion is helping the sick or defending justice.) But to your point, at the end of your life, make sure you don't have a 100" flat-panel TV and a mountain of regrets.
Happiness and life fulfillment are very much found in the 9-to-5, pay-check-to-pay-check demographic of society. There are things in life one must attend to that likely force people to get 9-to-5's. You know, like a wife and kids. And then there are those who are content with what they have and don't carry that gene that gives one grandiose visions of changing the world. There's nothing wrong with having that trait, I think I've got it, but you should accept the fact that there are people that are happy with their day-to-day jobs. Not everyone is a 22yr. old college grad who can explore and take on the world with little to no financial responsibilities destined to change the world in some unprecedented and legendary way.
I wish this were true. The impression I get is more of numb, passive contentment, at least from enough people in this demographic that it is bothersome. They seem to have traded happiness and fulfillment for the image of happiness and fulfillment, and it is difficult to tell the difference until you ask the hard questions that make them feel uncomfortable and defensive. That's why most people don't, and that is why the groups are assume to intersect perfectly.
There are things in life one must attend to that likely force people to get 9-to-5's. You know, like a wife and kids.
How much of this is a must, and how much is a result of choices they made? And how much of this forcing is a result of emotional and social pressure, as a result if imminent, tangible risk? That is, how much is a result of wanting to convince others that one is a responsible parent, as opposed to one actually being irresponsible?
Or perhaps a person took such a job because his life goals simply do not relate to work. Being another cog in a cube farm may not be interesting itself, but it can be used as a source of funding for things that genuinely are. A 9-to-5 isn't my weapon of choice here (since some things I find interesting also happen to be readily marketable skills), but it is an effective one.
The main mistake I made in this post is using the term 9-5 instead of dead end. I didn't mean that you should work 90 hours a week, far from it. As my short bio on my blog says "I'm a passionate father" and I think that moving forward in your career are totally compatible with that.
I wish this were true because then I would not be trying to get away from a 9-to-5 job which pays very handsomely with no overtime.
The real reason that a 9-to-5 is not fulfilling is because ,as an employee, you are not measured by how much you create. The metrics are a bunch of bogus crap some HR dude listed down before he had to leave to pick up his kids at 5pm. So your forced to do things which are usually unfulfilling and a lot of times inconsequential to the business and your own development.
Add that to dreary meetings, performance reviews which leave you feeling violated and managers who check whether your in on time instead of what you've produced makes for a $hit of a day. Do it 223 times a year and you'll soon realize that 9-to-5 is not about happiness or fulfillment.
There are places like Google where this may not be true but this is par for the course for every job I've worked at.
I know everyone isn't suited for entrepreneurial life, but as a talented developer you can always join a startup as employee 5+ and get a reasonable amount of security and pay, with a chance of a good-sized upside.
Even if you're happy in a 9-5, medium/big company job, do yourself a favour and keep that buffer around. There are so many things you can do with it to improve you life and buy yourself freedom - more than just buying stuff for cash.
Is that because they started out that way, or because society tells them they should get 9-to-5 jobs and be happy about it?
Some people are perfectly OK working for someone else. They enjoy the labor of it, they enjoy the pay, they enjoy the company, they enjoy the security and relative comfort and anonymity. It doesn't really bother them that someone else is making 3x more off of the work performed than they are. That's OK. There's all kinds of people who are OK with this idea, too, but believe me that it's much better for some types to remain content with this than to branch out.
Some people are not content with that setup. They want to change things, they want to control how they spend their time (i.e. no hard 9-5 commitment), they want to keep the money their labors produce, they want to direct and lead and organize and control the intelligences and powers for their ends. This is OK and good too.
There's just different types of people in the world. We need employees, both employees on the way to independence and employees who don't mind becoming company men. It's good to have both.
The real thing that should be universal is a plan to develop financial independence such that one is never forced to work a job after it turns south, and such that people do not have to live in fear of their bosses. Of course, many bosses get mad at this idea because it weakens their ability to control their employees.
These people seem almost mythical... I've never met anyone like that.
There's all kinds of people who are OK with this idea, too, but believe me that it's much better for some types to remain content with this than to branch out.
Why should I believe you that it's okay for people to be content with that? If I met anyone who was content with that, I would try to wake them up to the reality of what's going on.
There are tons of people like this! I'm sure these people are mythical/rare on HN, but in the big company 9-5 world they are definitely real. Maybe these people are the NNPs of the world who are happy with obscurity because it hides that fact that they aren't adding value, and are just riding on the coattails of a company that's big enough to support them.
Almost all of my associates from corporate jobs are like this. Most people have no problem at all with a standard employee relationship given good conditions and circumstances, and it is nicer in general if you can stand it. There's much less to worry about, there's consistent flow of guaranteed pay, there's a lot of people to interact with and meet, etc. The majority of people are perfectly OK with this, even with the knowledge that corporate is making a lot more money off of their efforts than they are.
It is okay to be content with that if everything else is good. One of my old managers just wanted to be that, but was forced into a leadership role by happenstance, and it was horrible for him and everyone under him. He cared much more about remaining non-confrontational and diplomatic than he did about being effective. This is bad; it led me to quit.
Of course, not all 9-5 employees are like him, and some are great leaders. But they're content with the money and the situation so they stay with it.
Some people have a hard time tolerating that, which people often become entrepreneurs. These people are good and important too.
If no one was content with employment, we'd be full of one-man shops and our efficiency would be majorly decreased. Employees are important. Founders can't really get rich independently (i.e. without an acquisition) without employees; there's just no way they could do enough work on their own.
Most employees understand what's going on and they're fine with it. You'd be surprised how many people stick with a "good-paying job" as their ideal. It's weird to me too, but most people are fine with it.
(Thank goodness for noprocrast!)
It's like noprocrast for everything. (Although I wish they hadn't mangled the UI in the last update.)
Unfortunately, this means I get cut off mid-sen
When the timer runs out it doesn't lock me out until I navigate away from the page, and it even allows a POST so I can submit the comment.
(I do agree that saving a bit of money is good for pretty much everyone; buffers come in handy.)
Most people work just hard enough not to get fired and
get paid just enough money not to quit.
--George CarlinThat's pretty insightful. You'd think someone would have realized that by now.
You see this in programming essays, where people show examples of absurd commenting (i++; // increment i). Yes, yes, we're reasonably intelligent readers know that's bad -- show us an example of nuanced commenting, or nuanced thinking!
Other times, it is just a simple case of "I don't know what works, but I know what doesn't work". This allows the next person to not make that mistake.
Most fiction has exactly the same purpose and function on TV, which is to entertain. Yes, reading some books makes you "cultured" but so does TV; just to a different culture. I consider watching all the latest sci fi to be just as "culturing" as reading all the latest sci fi.
What skills does your TV gives to you?
Basically, you get out of any activity what you put into it. If you put zero effort into reading, you're going to get zero skill out of it.
It's a mistake to think that activities which require no effort are useless.
> Basically, you get out of any activity what you put into it. I'm going to write this one down. Thanks.
However, my vocabulary is unlikely to increase anymore.
When you watch a sci fi movie, you see the world the filmmaker has built. When you read a sci fi book, you build the world the author describes in your head. Value judgments aside, they're very different experiences.
The average TV in the US is on 6 hours per day.
Would you rather be the average American or Theodore Roosevelt?
Considering that, I would prefer the average American.
Say each book is 300 pages and he reads 30 pages an hour (generous). It would typically take 20 hours to finish two books. That leaves 4 hours to sleep, eat, wash, and do his job.
Oh but he read really fast? That's just about as useful as watching a movie in fast-forward.
Expect anyone who reads a lot to go at at least a page per minute with full comprehension. Speed Readers often read with reasonable comprehension at 3 times that rate.
Things that pop out as being quotable are generally pretty apparent if you read a lot simply because they'll be new and somehow interesting.
Attention-grabbing title aside, this is a great article for people who would like to do something interesting but feel that they "can't" for various reasons or who aren't sure how to start. I can think of several people in high school or college who would appreciate this article.
(I really like the color scheme and font choices, btw!)
Plus, it's a flawed analysis because on the one hand he's critiquing a particular aspect of capitalism (the consumerist side - what did he think was going to happen with all those advertisements and credit cards), while still maintaining that as a whole it works (he proudly states he's an "entrepreneur," who can balance work and family (subtext: so why shouldn't you?)). What's more, his arrogance turns into hypocrisy, because as an entrepreneur, whether he wants to admit it or not, he profits off of the backs of other people, the same kind of people that make poor decisions regarding long-term financial matters. As a matter of style, his flippancy which lacks the slightest modicum of decorum is insulting, while his failure to call into question the root, systemic causes to the problems he outlines is inexcusable.
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/27/rasmussen.brothers.google...
I'm pretty sure these guys got somewhere even without a cushion of money under their bums.
(extra points for preaching to the choir)
Well, no, that's not fair. It makes them feel worse. Nice try, but fail.
6) Browse 4chan.
Those who play farmville are the ones this posts is speaking about. While the 4chan crowd as a whole are a young computer literate and savvy crowd. Though correct me if that demographic assumption is incorrect.
Sweet, sweet irony.