Hacker News Reader

Comment by nathan_f77 | Hacker News Reader

I like to think about things like this. I also like to think about how Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg don't really have a quality of life that is much higher than mine, at least when it comes to technology and media. You can't buy a smartphone that is better than an iPhone 7 or a Samsung Galaxy S8. We all have access to the same shows on Netflix, and a practically infinite amount of music on Spotify. I think it would be exhausting to get dressed up and eat at Michelin starred restaurants every day - most of the time I just want something from a restaurant down the road.

View on HN

Are you kidding? Gates and Zuckerberg live in a borderless world with access to nearly anything they could ever want. They could take their personal jets to any country in the world and not go through customs. They can call up any socially connected individual on the planet and get an immediate response. They don't eat at Michelin starred restaurants every day, they have their private chef make homecooked meals tailored specifically to them. They could effectively pay to enact laws directly benefiting them. Every day that they work is a choice and is devoted to their passion.

Good on them for making it there but none of us have that level of freedom. In the end I don't care about Spotify or smartphones. I care about what I spend my life on, where I spend it, and who I spend it with. In those regards, Gates and Zuckerberg have freedom which I do not.

Not kidding at all, I have a very similar level of freedom, and I also live in a borderless world. I can fly wherever I want and live wherever I want, and I don't need a personal jet to do that. I also don't really care about going through customs. One time I flew business class and went through a priority queue, which was pretty nice, but ultimately it was not a life-changing experience.

I'm not convinced that I need a private chef. I probably wouldn't hire one, even if I could afford it. My wife and I both enjoy cooking, and we enjoy eating at restaurants (I guess you would call them "public chefs".) I haven't noticed a void in my life that would be filled by a private chef.

> They could effectively pay to enact laws directly benefiting them

I think you're mainly talking about the power they have to change the world. I would handle this responsibility if it were given to me, but I'm not seeking it out. It would feel more like you have the whole world on your shoulders, which would come with a ton of stress. I'd do the same if I were in their shoes, but it's a very difficult job. Very similar to being the President, in terms of influence and power.

> Every day that they work is a choice and is devoted to their passion.

I would also like to be there one day. I only need around $4 million for that. If you invest $4 million in index funds, you can safely withdraw $120k per year, forever. That's enough for me, but I wouldn't live in San Francisco.

>I think it would be exhausting to get dressed up and eat at Michelin starred restaurants every day - most of the time I just want something from a restaurant down the road.

Come spend some time in LA and you'll see that only the plebs dress up when they go out to eat at a fancy place. All of the celebrities and people with "real" wealth ($100 million+) don't bother.

Yes, from a material point of view, Bill Gates can buy exactly the same Coca Cola as a poor fishermen.

What more money buys you, now and in 1916, is social status. And that's always good for your subjective quality of life.

It wasn't always so---economies around the globe really only took off once the bourgeoisie could buy their way into status.

True, but I don't really want any of that. I'd rather spend time with a few good friends instead of going to events and cocktail parties or whatever these "social status" people get up to.

> What more money buys you, now and in 1916, is social status.

It goes well beyond that. With more money, I can pay someone to keep my house clean and maintain my yard, own a more reliable car, buy and eat better quality/healthier food. I don't have to care about how much it costs me to go to the dentist, nor how much I have to pay to vacation for two weeks in South America.

You can exercise money to buy social status, but at the heart of it, money buys ease of life. I bet Bill Gates very rarely thinks about how much money he has or how much something will cost him; your housekeeper thinks about that much, much more often.

My main point is that a $700 smartphone is literally the best smartphone that money can buy, and there has never been a better smartphone in all of human history. I like knowing that the device in my pocket is the absolute pinnacle of mobile devices, and that no-one in the entire world has (or has ever had) a better smartphone.

Another point is about the utility of money. Once you reach a certain level of financial independence, your life is only marginally improved by private jets and private chefs. For instance, if you had $4 million in index funds, you could quit your job and live on an annual salary of $120k. You could hire cleaners, drive a very nice car, eat very good food, have great health and dental insurance, and go on vacation... permanently.

I think more software engineers should be thinking about financial independence, because it's so achievable in this industry.

The grandfather comment's argument was exactly that those differences in quality face vastly diminishing returns very quickly after you go beyond the reaches of the middle class.

And even before that: bourgeois attitudes can make a few dollars stretch a lot more. (But on the other hand, having more money lets you get away with less discipline in spending.)

People who invest in networks or production companies can get early screeners of movies/shows. They can also just hang out with the creators of those movies and shows, or hire the writers or actors to perform for them.

Mark Zuckerberg's phone has the same camera your phone has, but the photographer he pays to follow him around has a better one, so he never uses it. Bill Gates has access to the same Thai restaurants as you, but his private chef knows how to make his family's favorite dishes and he never has to wait in line.

I've also been thinking about those early screeners. There's a company that gives you early access to movies in your home theater: http://www.primacinema.com. I have a couple of reasons why I'm not really interested in that.

* Hollywood doesn't make a lot of good movies anymore. I haven't seen a great comedy in many years. There's been a few decent dramas and science fiction movies, but they're not grabbing my attention like they used to.

* I really enjoy going to the cinema. I like the ritual of going out, buying tickets, and just being around other people. If I'm interested in a movie, I'll watch it at IMAX, and I don't want to have an IMAX theater in my house. I want to have a small, comfortable house.

* I decided I don't even really want a home theater. At least, not the kind of home theater you see in these huge mansions. I can't imagine inviting 20 people to my house to watch a movie, because that's just too many people. I'm far more comfortable with maybe 4 or 5 friends in a living room, with a big TV and a nice stereo.

> They can also just hang out with the creators of those movies and shows

That would be fun, but also kind of lame. I don't want to be that guy. I'd much rather be directly involved with the production of a movie or show, and maybe meet some of those people naturally. Not because of money, but because I had some creative input.

> Mark Zuckerberg's phone has the same camera your phone has, but the photographer he pays to follow him around has a better one

Haha, I don't want to pay a photographer to follow me around. That's a very strange idea.

> Bill Gates has access to the same Thai restaurants as you, but his private chef knows how to make his family's favorite dishes and he never has to wait in line

That's the thing though, I don't want a private chef. I can pick up literally any food I want, whenever I want. If I don't want to pick it up, I can get it delivered within 45 minutes. It's like I have hundreds of private chefs all around the city.

The whole idea of "private staff" is just really weird to me. They're basically just very well-paid servants. I mean, they literally are servants. I wouldn't mind hiring a cleaning service to clean my house, someone to mow my lawn, or some SF startup to come do my laundry. But you don't have to be extremely wealthy to afford any of these services.

I hate to break it to you but Uber, homejoy, postmates, task rabbit at al are private servants that you hire for an hour at a time.

Sure, but I appreciate the facade.

Sounds like you should do them a favour and offer to switch places with them

Haha, I don't think I would want to! I would have to suddenly deal with a lot more stress and responsibility. I also love being able to walk around a new city and go to restaurants without a team of bodyguards. I definitely don't want to be a billionaire, but I wouldn't complain if I had $4 million.

To be honest, I'm not big on having my name in history books, or having statues made in my image. I'd like to help a lot of people if I can, but I don't want to start a foundation in my name. Everything is fleeting and ultimately meaningless, so why put your name on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com