Comment by ezy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ezy | Hacker News Reader

I'm very suspicious of this piece. On the one hand, it's an interesting thing to read for those of us who aren't "super-rich" (if a bit... obvious). On the other, it feels like it's an apologia for the ever increasing class divide. "Don't worry about not having money, you wouldn't be happy anyway".

Honestly, I would be quite fine with a shitload of money and a meandering purpose in life. I think that's true of most people, including the larger subset of the "super-rich" that didn't choose to whine in an article in the Atlantic. Most people have a meandering purpose in life anyway, and mixtures of reliable and unreliable friends. It's not something special royalty gets to lay claim to.

The primary difference appears to be that the royalty can choose who they want to be, where-as not all of the plebeians have that luxury ("dream it, live it" self-help bullshit aside, one still has to pay for food and shelter and dependents). And the poor rich children are depressed because they have all their options open to them...

I seem to be saying this a lot, but here it is again: cry me a fucking river. :-)

"Honestly, I would be quite fine with a shitload of money and a meandering purpose in life"

I think part of the point of the article was to say, "no, you probably wouldn't."

And my point is that I understood what the article is saying on the surface, but there's a definite subtext here aimed at those who are not as fortunate enough to be able to (easily) discard one ill-fitting "purpose"(vocation) for another that fits better.

Or in essence, I don't believe what the article is implying, and it has nothing substantial within it to make me believe it.

How about this take.

Happiness is relative, and your personal happiness likely settle down to the same place. So if you get a huge windfall (millions of dollars), you will be happier for a short term, but ultimately, your happiness will fall back to your normal levels. At that point you have different concerns, but you still have concerns.

And now you can't socially complain about those concerns

"At that point you have different concerns, but you still have concerns."

Concerns differ in terms of criticality. "I lack motivation because I don't NEED to work" is a very different concern from "I work 60 hours a week and still can barely put food on the table". The former may seem like a major concern when it's happening to you, but from a non-relative perspective, it's still much less serious than the latter.

"mo money mo problems my ass, you'se a naive cat if you still believe that, thats just some shit they tell you to keep you where you at" -ODB

This strikes me as an article written for people who don't have money as a means to explain why they don't have money (pretending money would just make them miserable). I'm reminded of the Norman Maclean passage about fishermen (and their wives) who pretend to prefer small fish because it's easier than admitting they can't catch big fish.

No, I'm not rich. But I'm not one to pretend I prefer being poor because it's easier than admitting I can't make money. Come hell or high water, I'll one day catch big fish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com