Hacker News Reader

Comment by flyosity | Hacker News Reader

On a related note, it's really interesting to see how people act when they know they can't motivate someone with money.

For example, I used to do client work, but stopped (because I hate it) a few years ago after I sold my design firm. On my blog's contact form I specifically say that I don't do any consulting work, but I still get emails at least once or twice per week from people who want to hire me for iPhone work. I always politely refuse, and thank them for the consideration. Sometimes they'll reply saying "we have a large budget" or something like that, and I'll reply again saying, thanks, but no thanks, it's not about the money. As soon as I say that magical phrase, they just don't know what to say or do because they're used to motivating designers/developers with money. It's actually an interesting sociological situation.

View on HN

It's like turning down someone because you're taken. It goes from nods to nudges pretty quick.

I love this analogy. I was scratching my head at refusing $10k/per day (I can understand it logically, but can't quite grok it), but once you said that I got it totally :-)

It's very, very nice to see this article vs. the salary negotiations one [1].

Over there, Jaques mentions that a lot of people suck asking for more money because they just love their job the way it is. Which is kind of a failure if you're on the low end of the pay scale, but this particular thread here shows that it actually ends up being a good thing in the end.

IF (big..) you end up in a job that you love and that compensates you enough (not talking about endless greed here..), you're probably among the happiest people out there. Hats off to you guys and I love the "stick to things I love instead of selling myself" attitude.

1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2309317

What does that mean, "goes from nods to nudges"? It seemed like some idiom I didn't know, so I googled the phrase 'nods to nudges'. However, this very Hacker News page was the only result, so I am still in the dark.

Nudges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I

I get physical pleasure out of saying things that rhyme and chime, gel & mesh, fit and click like mortar and brick.

A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.

Surely you would reconsider for $10,000 per day?

Probably not, that'd involve me quitting a job that I love (that I don't need the money from) and I also wouldn't have time to work on my own projects, which are my favorite thing to do in the world. Of course I don't really need the money, so I'm sure others' mileage will vary.

What is your current job and motivation for preferring it, if you don't mind sharing?

UI design & development for a small marketing software company. All my friends work here, 20' ceilings, great vibe, foosball, free reign over what I work on, huge windows, I could go on. If I quit then I wouldn't be able to hang out with my friends or geek out at lunch, I'd just be sitting at my house by myself :)

For $10,000 per day you could rent a better place with all the perks and still have a lot left.

You can rent friends?

Oh wait, I suppose you can... for some value of friends...

For $10,000 a day, you could hire them to work with you.

10,000 a day for how long? If the contract is guaranteed to last a year, then heck you can bring your friends with you.

Even if they're top level devs making 200k per year, you can still hire 17.5 of them (10,000 * 356 / 200000).

http://rentafriend.com/

I like how you emphasize huge windows. A lot of people I've worked and am studying with don't seem to value natural light much. In fact, many hurry to close the blinds only to turn on artificial lighting on. Why???! I personally find large open windows very inspiring and conducive to work, and generally feel lethargic and depressed if the sky is overcast (this is partly to blame for moving out of Vancouver).

close the blinds only to turn on artificial lighting on. Why???!

Generally, I don't do this, I like natural lighting when appropriate, but I will do exactly that if the sun is creating glare on the screen I am working with, or if I am facing straight into the sun. Similarly, I would do it if I am dealing with sensitive data.

You could filter the light down perhaps? Or change your seat placing you in a perfect position to both work and sunbathe.

I spent a Spring/Summer working in an open floor office with floor-to-ceiling windows looking out over San Mateo and SF Bay. Man, that was a productive time, 75F and sunny just always puts me in a good mood. I love having a view as well, to inspire the mind.

In fact, many hurry to close the blinds only to turn on artificial lighting on. Why???

Screen glare?

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/...

So if they lose their lease at their current spot - youd be far less likely to work there?

For $10,000 a day you could save 100 lives a day via optimal philanthropy. At a certain amount of money, you might have a moral responsibility to not do exactly what you want to do. http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/villager...

How do you enforce a moral responsibility?

That question has no meaning. Morality is not something you can enforce. Morality is a strictly personal matter, and anyone that tells you that you have a moral responsibility to do something is confused. Nobody can tell you what your moral responsibilities are other than yourself.

In this light, the parent post is right. "You might have a moral responsibility" implies that you may feel compelled to do something. The frequent misinterpretation is that you have a responsibility to someone else, which is false. If you feel compelled to carry on a job you hate to save lives, you have a moral responsibility. If you do not feel so compelled, you do not have a moral responsibility. You cannot have a moral responsibility without feeling compelled.

"Morality is a strictly personal matter,"

Oh this is very much a contested position (known as 'objective' vs 'relative' morality). If I feel that murdering people with red hair is morally neutral, or positive even, is it so? I posit that it's not - murder is objectively morally wrong, no matter the ideas or feeling of being compelled of anyone.

To phrase it in your terms, I think everybody has a moral responsibility not to murder people, even if they feel compelled to do so.

Definitely contested. I believe that relative morality is the best we can really hope for, but I know that many disagree.

You can also improve the lives of those around you by being a happy and fulfilled person. In the end it doesn't really make any sense to treat life as an ethical math equation. There will always be something more you could do for others no matter how much you give away.

It all really boils down to a question of what your preferences are. Do you want to save 9 peoples' lives each day or do you want to have a somewhat more enjoyable work environment?

"There will always be something more you could do for others no matter how much you give away." This argument becomes irrelevant once you boil things down to a question of preferences.

Given 200 working days a year for that type of arrangement (assuming down time between contracts) we're talking about $2mm a year. Far less than a well executed startup could net. (And for someone demanding $10k a day, I assume that (s)he'd have a fairly high chance of attaining it.)

Also: Fuck slavery. Nobody has the right to my life. I'll help the poor, but it isn't because I'm responsible for them, it is because I can empathize or sympathize with their condition and the relative cost of helping them is negligible.

I'm not sure the phrase "moral responsibility" makes any sense from a reductionist point of view.

"you might have a moral responsibility to not do exactly what you want to do"

Eh, no. Nobody has any moral responsibility to live their lives for someone else's sake.

That's why he used the word, "might." Some people wouldn't feel a moral responsibility to pull a toddler back out of the path of a speeding bus; but many people would--and if flyosity is one of the latter, he might appreciate being made aware of the situation and his personal abilities vis-a-vis the pulling.

Well I was more thinking in terms of the discussion at hand - does one have (or, 'might there be') a moral responsibility to change a life's direction (new career) when one can make much more money that can then be used to help others. In that context, I am vehement that there is no such responsibility.

Pull a toddler out of that path of a bus - I'm not sure, I think so, but I'm not sure; I don't have a rational reason for it that can be derived from my moral axioms. I don't care very much either at this point, it's a different discussion I think (or at least a discussion much further down a sliding scale). For the case presented, I do have a strong opinion about, and felt offended at the thought that someone would suggest there is such a responsibility. Which is why I responded.

The two situations are hard to reconcile because your moral axioms are an attempt to make a simple, coherent system starting from your moral intuitions; but your moral intuitions do not actually arise from a simple, coherent system.

In the case presented, the only differences from the toddler's are the time required to save the lives, and the psychological availability of the lives saved.

Unless your moral intuitions and/or moral axioms allow lower levels of responsibility for suffering which is easier to ignore, the "time required" is the only escape.

If you lived in a world where toddlers were perpetually falling under busses in front of you, would you be morally obligated to stay in good physical condition and pay attention to nearby toddlers so you could save more of them? If not, you should be safe from the responsibility to maximize your income and use the surplus to save lives.

For what it's worth I also don't believe in morality in enough of a way for you to reasonably get offended. I don't believe in the existence of a responsibility but I believe people often act as if they have such responsibilities anyways. My beliefs are way more meta than my comment indicated which was simplified given the short amount of time I spent writing it and a perceived possible lowest common denominator audience.

Pretend I said "something like a moral responsibility" or "an important intuitive one sense that one action is better than another action". There is no such thing as a moral responsibility.

A lot also depends on the context of $10,000 per day. Yes, it's a fair bit if it's a situation where the $10K/day captures all the time you spend on the client including most prep work, travel, and so forth.

But for some types of consulting, you actually spend a relatively small amount of your time "on the clock" and lots of time gathering information, talking to people, formulating your thoughts, marketing yourself in various respects. In a prior job, $10K per day for an on-site consulting session (or a speech, etc.) was actually a pretty typical fee for that type of work but you did relatively few such engagements and sent a lot of time doing things for which you didn't get paid--or got paid a fair bit less--that were nonetheless necessary to being able to command the $10K per day.

(That rate is also getting in roughly the ballpark of high-end lawyers and similar professionals with the difference that they charge you for much more of the background work.)

The $10,000 isn't for the day you do the work, its for all of the other days that made you capable of doing it.

Absolutely. I think a lot of people hear $10,000 per day and mentally multiply it by 100 or 200 or whatever and go "WOW, that's a whole lot of money every year." But in a lot of situations, it's as you say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com