Hacker News Reader

Comment by smiler | Hacker News Reader

How demeaning. Agree with some of it but notice how there is nothing here about anything else you might like to do with your life outside of having a job and owning a business. Like a wife and a family.

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.

View on HN

You're right about the matter of wife and family, but not in way most people believe they are right about it. There is a wide chasm between finding joy in something, and feeling the compulsion to sacrifice for it.

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. :-)

"even when people have options, they feel compelled not to pursue them"

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 :) ...

Some might prefer having a shorter commute to work and their preferred nightlife to a cheaper rent.

Well if it would make you feel better, you have sucky coworkers :)

It should be obvious that most people don't derive pleasure from the place they live. Better use the money for something else.

I'm not sure about that. I think it's more that people tend to derive pleasure from one or two "must haves" about the place they live, but don't care much about the rest. If those "must haves" don't align with what you value, it looks irrational, but it's perfectly rational to them.

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 agree it's all about priorities. Once you live in the city and get used to the hustle-bustle and the fast paced life where most things are close-by and you can walk to most places or take public transit, it becomes part of your system.

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.

(Disclaimer I'm the author of the post)

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.

I acknowledge your clarification and I agree with what YOU have said, but let me rant a little against the startup mentality that is prevalent here on HN. The general attitude seems to be that you're wasting your one chance at living unless you haven't accomplished something bigger than yourself and have left a legacy. It is a rousing sentiment, but yet, at the end of the day, I can't help but be sobered by the poem Ozymandius. Yes, you've left a legacy, but only for one, maybe two, generations before that too is forgotten:

  My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
  Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Speaking of poems, poets would tell you that you've wasted your life unless you've loved; loved so deeply that you die a little when it is lost. So which is it? Legacy? Success? Love? Family?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com