You can't have everything. You must sacrifice family if you want success and if you want family you must sacrifice success. Some people aren't even aware of that and blame the former for their lack of success.
Success is also a subjective term, success here is (I think) implicitly being defined as wealth, both Gates and Buffett are hyper-successful, and I know plenty of more-ordinarily successful people with families too. Actually, I'm almost certain I know more successful people with families than I know successful loners.
So the richest (for most part of time) and second richest man have privilege to spend time with family? What a surprise
>Success is also a subjective term
Let's not play the word game, if you made a billion dollar last year. You are successful, this is pretty much the normal definition of it. Don't change it to fit something like family matters, community matters or noble purposes imho
You cannot amass this much wealth in a reasonable -- 40-50 y.os need not apply -- timeframe if you have a family commitment. Even significant others may become detrimental to that end, if they cannot accept that they're #2 now. Close relationships take time. An absolute fuckload of time.
In order to gain that amount of wealth, it takes years of 70+ hour work weeks. You will neither have the time nor inclination to spend time with tour loved ones if you're truly operating on all cylinders. If you're not, that's fine. That's your choice, but there's many more out there that don't have those kinds of personal hangups and will dedicate more time to winning.
You would not be able to understand unless you've been there.
Oh and Warren Buffett is not a paragon of family values. He has had falling outs with and disowned one of his children -- the rest is washed away by PR firms.
Gates too. Melinda would barely see him in the early days of MSFT. Neither would his first newborn child, while Gates was wrapped up in the antitrust suits.
These people were businessman first and foremost. They did not get to the top of the food chain by spending quality time with their children. Theire businesses (or passions) will always be #1 to them.
Invariably, these men have spent less time with their children and wives than any poor south americans -- who happen to have higher emotional wellness than their American counterparts.
This isn't about not having a family. Many high perfomance men have families, but they always take a back seat to their missions. Perhaps in later life when they're more established, that changes; I've seen it happen.
It was just a game at the end of the day. Make the right moves, win the right prizes. But like any game, you lose the magic after a while. And unlike video games, you can't just step back and take a break from doing it, it's an unavoidable part of being human.
But you're not off-base. At this level you definitely lose touch with everything people find "normal." I've found myself not caring about other people or their problems. Why would I?
Group dynamics are emergent behavior that's coded into our DNA to increase survival, prisoner's dillema style. If someone does nothing for me or adds nothing to my life, why would I give them any of my empathy? Can't they fix their own problems? Do they wish some knight in shining armor would ride in and save them? Do they want a handout? My empathy, for free? How selfish is that.
Every problem has a solution, endless complaining gets one nowhere. When I was broke and homeless, I'd get my own hands dirty. Now that I'm comfortably wealthy, I can throw money at whatever problem pops up.
Whatever problems, emotional, physical, mental, sociological, economical, yada yada yada, that you have are your own responsibility. No one really gives a shit about anyone else; all relationships are transactional, and if you're not offering me gold beads, you're not getting my muskets.
Ranting aside, that's a brief intro to my experience and worldview. If any particular piece resonated with you strongly, please leave a reply. I'm always interested in seeing original ideas, how infrequent it may be.
> If someone does nothing for me or adds nothing to my life, why would I give them any of my empathy?
> Whatever problems, emotional, physical, mental, sociological, economical, yada yada yada, that you have are your own responsibility. No one really gives a shit about anyone else; all relationships are transactional, and if you're not offering me gold beads, you're not getting my muskets
Let me guess, you're American or living the US ?
We're not hunter gatherers anymore, we don't have to act like cavemen whose sole purpose is to to accumulate as many shiny stones as possible even if it means destroying other people's life. Sure if you decide to see the world as full of people trying to take advantage of you that's exactly what you'll see everywhere,.
What's the point of living in societies if it's to live like everyone is out there to get you and not solve problems together. You can become wealthy enough to not worry about money without acting like a 6 years old kid trying to get as many pokemon cards as possible.
I wasn't given a choice in this matter. I was dragged into this world without being consulted first. Now I am forced to align myself and my interests to countries that don't give a shit about me, and towards people that had never and would never reach out their hand, to help another's, as dirty as it might be. Why should I participate in any of this? That is exactly the point; there is no point in my participation for me, because I gain nothing, but others do gain -- at my exepense.
Few are truly out to get me, but none are truly out for me. I can say the same for just about all people in this country, even if that fact hasn't had an oppurtunity to be tested yet. We can solve problems together, but that requires two parties compromising their standards, lowering them to be able to satisfy all parties involved. If I'm able to solve mt peoblems, at less cost than I would "together," what incentive do I have to work "together?"
Would I not be a moron, perhaps even more insane and detached from reality, were I to choose this path?
You can became wealthy holding yourself to a much higher standard than the majority of the world's population -- but why would you? I don't gain anything besides popularity among the less fortunate than I, which at best is worth nothing, but at worst is a hindrance in my life.
There is virtually no downside I can see here, but I am open to being proven wrong, with a more well-crafted, and deep argument.
It all depends on how you quantify the cost of solving societal problems. If it is based on "do I have more money than yesterday", then yes sure, no one will ever be able to prove you wrong. Acting like a megalomaniac pos is a sure way to get hated by the majority without ensuring wealth, that's all I know.
You seem dead set on acting like the people/system you despise, I don't see how that solves anything.