You should probably quit your job | Hacker News Reader

You should probably quit your job

ottawacitizen.com

102 pointsmiraj65 comments

I don't actually feel the need to change the world.

There are some things I enjoy tinkering with, and I've been involved in a couple of minor political causes, but I clearly don't feel the same urge that this person does to get out there and remake the world.

And so I am not likely to quit my job (which pays quite nicely, doesn't overstress me, and brings me the security to relax at the weekends and in the evenings) and go change the world.

I don't feel bad about that.

...and neither should you. If you're happy where you are then you already have more than most.

I agree, quitting isn't for everybody. But one thing everybody can do is at least consider other options that fit with their risk profiles

People who feel some overwhelming need to Change The World are basically projecting: Their "world" (internal mental landscape, personal life, whatever) is in desperate need of an overhaul. (Edit: I know because this was me, say, 20 to 30 years ago. Then I fixed my personal crap. I no longer feel like lecturing everyone else about what they "should" be doing.)

I won't even read the piece. I skimmed it. This is the closing line: You should quit your job. But, sadly, you probably won't. (It feels like a kick in the gut to even read that much.) That and the title tell me all I need to know: This individual has poor boundaries and feels entitled to screw with other people and their lives due to his dissatisfaction.

Thank you so much for not being like him. You have absolutely nothing to feel bad about (so I am glad you don't). The world would be a better place if more people were, like you, basically happy with their lives and trying to do some little things to make the world better rather than trying to promote their own Final Solution and running around lecturing people on how they should live. As a general rule of thumb, I will read things that are titled "Why I did X" and won't read things titled "Why you should do X". He knows nothing about me or my life. It is hugely egomaniacal (not to mention delusional) to presume he knows what's best for me.

Peace.

It is better for me if other people are content with their shitty jobs, hence I also feel like applauding the commenter above.

Just keep consuming what society feeds you. It's only for your best, trust me.

While I agree with some of your sentiments about the author, it feels like you're doing a bit of the same by claiming that everybody who wants to change the world are doing so only because they're projecting.

I say so with some defensiveness because one of my greatest goals in life is to do just that, to make a difference, as cliche as it is. And yes, I've quit my old job so I could pursue it. We all look around this world and see things that aren't quite right, that we'd like to see changed, and I'm no different. I'd like to be able to do something about it though, big things, not just sit idly by.

All too often in life I've been happy just coasting along, taking the easy road in front of me, pursuing good grades in earnest, working hard, and making a good living at interesting jobs. That brings me no closer to my goals in life though, that's not my dream. Some of us have dreams that can be achieved while working 9-5, that's great, but if you have a dream that's important to you, that requires you to quit, do give it some thought. You only have one life.

"Some of us have dreams that can be achieved while working 9-5, that's great, but if you have a dream that's important to you, that requires you to quit, do give it some thought. You only have one life."

I think that pretty much sums it up. I Agree on the preference for "Why I did this" rather than "Why you should" but I'm guessing the author was trying to make the point that there seem to be an awful lot of people who fall into the "I'll pursue my dream sometime" category.

For them - and I assume they are the authors target audience - an article with a title which is a direct call to an action already in the back of their minds, is one they're likely to read. Perhaps a better title would have been "If this describes you, quit your job"...but that isn't quite as good as link bait!

I am unfortunately at work. I usually do not log into HN from work. I am doing so as a curtesy to you. Any other replies I might care to make can wait until tonight.

it feels like you're doing a bit of the same by claiming that everybody who wants to change the world are doing so only because they're projecting.

You left out the words "overwhelming need". It speaks of desperation, which is very different from having goals.

I have never coasted or taken the easy road. I have consistently chosen the hard road. And please note you are stating that your desire to change the world is a personal need, not really for the benefit of the world, but to satisfy a dream. There is nothng wrong with that. Nothing at all. But do keep in mind conflict of interest: If you really, really want to make the world a better place, it helps to take a skeptical eye towards your own motives. Setting aside my ego so I could do something of real note has been one of my biggest challenges in recent years. I would be happy to discuss it more with you, on hn or off, after I am on my own time and not my employers.

Peace.

The difference is between saying, "I feel a desire to change the World," and saying, "Everyone should do as I do because everyone feels as I do."

Right. Most people that have really improved the world have not done so by telling other people what to do, but by doing something themselves.

But I think you're wrong in that everyone that tries to change the world only has personal issues to overcome, and if they do everything is alright. Believing that is pretty much solipsism. Sometimes the world really is wrong and can be fixed.

Very few people have an objective perception of "the world," and and so ideas about what is "wrong" and how to "fix" it are therefore almost always flawed.

No, that isn't my point at all. My point is that berating other people and lecturing them in the way this piece does typically comes from insecurity, hurt and so on. I would like to change the world and fix some things that are wrong. But I am not desperate to do so, I do not have overwhelming need, I try very hard to avoid sounding like I am lecturing. I don't always get it right. I just know that berating people does not make for less bad in the world, it makes for more bad -- it hurts people's feelings, it tears down their self esteem and so on. I spend a lot of time pondering how to resolve real problems effectively. I know from long experience that this approach is really not it.

Peace.

I don't think he's trying to lecture anyone - probably speaking from personal feeling rather. I mean... life is ultimately kind of a Sisyphean existance when you think about it (as the philosopher Albert Camus once pointed out). Some people don't get bothered by that, but other people can get very down thinking about the existential nature of things. And that feeling can be the impetus to want to try something different with their lives that has more meaning to them. I don't see that as a bad thing...

Oh, so you are projecting your pattern of 20 or 30 years ago on everyone else and lecturing us about how we're just selfish for changing the world?

I've seen plenty of people who have fixed their personal crap -- at that point they realized they were far more passionate about helping others than continuing to advance their careers.

He wasn't talking to you. He is talking to the people that would like to quit their jobs. They know who they are. Too many people dream about doing something else but they never do. No need to get offended about this, unless you still have some deep desire to do it and that is why it bothers you?

Nah, I'm not offended. And he was talking "to me": He said "You", which means anyone who reads the piece is being addressed directly even though it doesn't have my name in it. I would be perfectly happy to read a piece by him on why he left his job and such. I imagine that's a compelling story and would most likely go a lot further towards inspiring real change and inspiring the target audience (whomever that might be) towards actual action than this piece which is basically crabbing at them and assuming the worst about them.

Peace.

So your goal in life is essentially to relax?

Good Lord No.

I also want to make life better for my fiancee, and make sure that I'm in a secure position for raising children.

If my job was making me unhappy then I'd move to a different one. And I've quit jobs before when the management were doing things I disapproved of.

And I give money to charity, and (as I said) get involved in occasional political things (like the voting reform referendum earlier this year).

In a reasonably ideal world, most normal jobs are actually useful, too... It's not as if only charity work is worthwhile.

You come across as judgmental to me. If there were more people who's goal was essentially to relax, how bad would things be?

I did not say that relaxing is bad. I just wanted to clarify if that was the ultimate life's goal.

Although I can't help thinking that to be dead would probably be the ultimate relaxation. So if relaxing is your goal, why bother?

Mine is, or I don't really know.

What's the problem?

No problem - just wanted to be clear.

I just have never been able to understand how some people can look at all the challenges in the world and not feel a need to solve one of them.

But, I admit, this is the majority of most people. Of the minority of people that really feel compelled to "make a dent in the universe" (Steve Jobs) the majority of them are probably stuck in meaningless jobs. This article speaks to this group.

And your goal is to pretend you're making a huge difference that will probably not get noticed by anyone, and even if it does, it will be for a very short period of time and after a while everyone will die and forget about it, and then the Earth will die of heat death or something, and everything you made with your "YEAAAH!" enthusiasm and pain will be destroyed anyway.

Have fun with that perspective ;-)

Yup, I read Guy Kawasaki's "Art of the Start" where he says you should make a startup and change the world. It's incredibly frightening to think that, and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone.

Very few people change the world in the sense the author means (Mark Zuckerberg, Larry/Sergey, loads of scientists, etc).

But if you can set out to change someones world, I think you'll find your work more interesting and rewarding.

I agree that life is way too short to NOT be screwing around, and people should be doing what they feel makes a difference (and have fun doing it). It's hard to agree with this one, however:

  And shorter yet are the "productive years"; that period in your life when
  you can make a difference, when your knowledge, experience, and influence 
  add up to something.

Advances in both biomedical research and the culture of work will mean that we can expect to look forward to the "productive/creative years" lasting the majority of our total lifespan. Of course, you can always opt out, as I've seen with many middle-aged friends recently: have kids, build house, and then wait for death in a cushy bourgeois setting.

That promised land of perfect health at high age is not here yet, though. It's a nice perspective, but no guarantee.

That's right, it depends on the priorities we set as a society for this kind of thing. Not just living longer, but extending the enjoyable and productive period of a person's life. Of course, I'm in the minority (otherwise I wouldn't have gotten modded into oblivion while the guy who says that he doesn't want to have an impact on the world is praised and congratulated) but I still firmly believe it's worthwhile.

What I don't get is why many people are so violently opposed to this. I'm not even talking about transhumanism or anything as controversial as that, just preventing "old" people from degenerating.

As a med student I saw so many people wasting away in retirement homes, many of them were not even that old. With advances in biotech, I hope we'll give my generation a much more active and empowered existence when we come into this age group.

I don't think people are opposed, just skeptical.

Sure they are, I debated enough to recognize that. I even debated with medical professionals and scientists to this effect. They think it's "unnatural" (whatever that means). For a short while there, my post had a negative score. They don't like to engage, but they are opposed.

So suppose you can keep old people healthy, strong, mentally sharp, etc. at what point do they get out of the way? 100 years? 110? 150? You must see that at some point the population becomes unsustainable if the old never die off.

Somehow it must be possible to talk about the extension of productive life without people trailing off into condescending statements about population control or throwing hissy fits about the drummed up ecological aspects of immortality as if this was the most pressing concern right now. First of all, we're not even talking about making people live longer, just keeping them in shape for longer. There is absolutely zero moral outrage to be had about this one, except maybe if you want to shout something about old people taking our jobs, pointlessly and morbidly arguing that without death, disability and general human misery the global economy would suffer.

Second, of course this kind of research eventually arrives at measures that prolong (productive) life, which gives traditional people even more to scream about. We will devour the earth! Never mind falling birth rates in industrial nations which would doubtlessly be the only countries experiencing those extended lifespans.

However, my argument is more basic than that. Because, you guessed it, I'm all for longevity research as well. It's a basic ethical appeal to not waste perfectly good minds to decay and oblivion. Conjuring up economic problems that may or may not be even remotely applicable to this type of future society seems callous and short-sighted to me.

Well, here's why I'm skeptical (or let's just say opposed if you prefer) - overpopulation is already a problem, and substantially lengthening life expectancy will only make that worse. Basically, I'm afraid we're closer to solving our medical problems than we are to solving our planet-supporting-our-population problems. If we solve the latter in tandem, then I'm on board.

Or are you only talking about quality-of-life improvements, rather than lengthening life expectancy? Assuming this is even possible, I think the problem with it would be the psychological toll of a death to the survivors - while always sad, the death of an elderly loved one is less jarring than the death of a loved one in their prime ("it was his time") - so keeping everyone in their prime right up until their death would eliminate a powerfully useful coping mechanism.

Yes, as a first step, I'm only talking about extending the high-quality-of-life period for everyone. And I know it is possible, because we're already at it and there is no magical barrier stopping us from doing this on a biological level. I also don't believe that "we shouldn't do it because it makes us less sad when dying people have wrinkles and white hair" is an ethically valid argument against this kind of research.

There are two viewpoints that make any further discussion pointless. One would be the belief in any sort of afterlife, and the other one is the conviction that human consciousness has at best a very limited intrinsic value and can hence be discarded without further consequence. If you don't hold one of these beliefs, I wager there is a high degree of probability that you basically agree with people like me that we have to do something and that things cannot should how they are now.

Of course, this kind of technology will over time lead to drastically longer lives as well. When it comes to aging, there is no way to do the quality thing without the quantity thing.

Overpopulation is not a problem in wealthy, industrial countries. These countries will always have advanced tech before everyone else. So, for example, if I were to live 200 years in Germany, producing maybe 0.8 children over the entire time, I'm not crowding up the countryside. Sure, I do require resources, as does everyone else, including some Bangladeshi guy who died at 35 because of some horrible tropical disease und who nevertheless multiplied by a factor of 20 over the same 200 years.

We need new and sustainable technologies to cope with both corner cases anyway. This idea that progress has to stop now is a horrible mistake. We left the realm of our fellow animal sisters and brothers to embark on a journey of knowledge and discovery. In the course of this endeavor, we became powerful individual minds capable of achieving pretty much anything. Well, we're halfway there now, we can't just stop suddenly, that would be the end of the race. We have to move all the way through to the other side.

What I don't get is why many people are so violently opposed to this. I'm not even talking about transhumanism or anything as controversial as that, just preventing "old" people from degenerating.

I think it's an Ugh Field: http://lesswrong.com/lw/21b/ugh_fields/. The prospect of having your body and mind slowly fall apart is appalling, and most people really really don't want to think about it, to the point of dismissing possible solutions.

Which reminds me, it's about time for another donation to SENS.

That's an interesting thought, thanks for sharing this link! I never thought about it this way before.

Judging by this example of navel-gazing journalism, yes, maybe it's good the author quit his job and started a charity. The fact that he feels it's ok to publicly question his daughters ambitions to prove a dubious point further illustrates that he's not in a spot to contribute to the discussion about the value of people's career choices.

The whole idea of a limited time in your life where you can make a difference is ridiculous and choosing other journalists and managers as examples of people who have seen the light and quit their jobs just reaffirms my choice of an engineering career. Maybe I'm not finding the cure for cancer but at least I'm not sitting around dispensing bad advice.

It seems like the journalist never realized that his personal situation doesn't apply to everyone. We could use the same anecdotes and say something far more meaningful, like "life is too short, do something you value."

A career isn't mutually exclusive with a life goal. For some, a career is a means to that goal, for others, it is the goal. To each his own.

Why would I quit my job? I like my job! Dammit, stop projecting your own dislikes on to me!

I get to work with really bright people on really cool projects. My work environment is somewhat laid back. I get plenty of time off. Nobody bothers me for not showing up right at 9am. Plus, I have fun here!

Where do you work, if you don't mind me asking? It sounds like a really great place.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/ :D

Hope you get paid well too :-)

It's a classic human foible. We want to get other people to do the same thing as us, because it makes us feel better about ourselves and our decisions.

Although it's tempting to just quit to pursue your dream, I would advise against it until you have put your financial life in order and save up some money. It's called a fuck-you fund for a reason.

Good point, it's interesting to note the 2 people referenced in the article were fairly well off--I mean one was a manager at Microsoft.

The idea that you need financial success to do this though is a bit strange. I think it's easier to just quit your job when you're poor from an outside perspective because you're not giving up very much in terms of the grand scheme--you'd throw away a penny before you'd throw away a $20 bill right, but speaking from experience when you're poor, these shit jobs mean a whole helluva lot.

How much is only relative to your situation.

If you live cheaply, saving up a few thousand will allow you do things you'd like to pursue without worrying about money; if you have big house mortgage, fancy car, expensive wife, then giving up a luxury job suddenly becomes not so easy.

Yeah. I started a company after a layoff, and it was very, very rough going. I had to take whatever consulting gigs I could get on the side to keep things going, and those were a huge distraction.

"Master, what shall I do until I reach enlightenment?" "Chop wood, carry water." "And what will I do after I reach enlightenment?" "Chop wood, carry water."

I think the point is:

"Master, then why bother?". "Before you will hate it. After you will love it."

It's not quit your job. It's stop doing shit. Some companies like Facebook are changing the world. So by working on Facebook you are contributing to the world change that Facebook does.

The problem isn't with that. Life is full shit. You may not be a contributor to that, but many people are. Stop doing Shit. If you are a programmer and you know that your presence adds no value then quit!

Stop doing Shit. Go and do interesting things. Doesn't matter if you are working for someone else or you are employing people.

I agree with your basic sentiment but not your example. Facebook are certainly changing things, but change is not automatically good.

  > It's not quit your job. It's stop doing shit.

Yep. Just yesterday I came across the great piece (imho) on this topic. Just ignore the introductory first sentence in Lithuanian and read on: http://www.dansu.lt/2011/07/13/svecio-irasas-daniel-vaarik-m...

I think it applies to much more than one industry in one small country.

Ambition, entrepreneurialism, etc. They are all diseases… to some extent they are likely genetic; something you’re born with.

The writer was born with one of these, or like, diseases or is channeling someone who has been. He is therefore of the mindset that he must make a difference… do something that alters the course of history… make a mark.

We cannot blame this person for what they cannot control for they were born with this disease.

The article is certainly not meant for the overall public and this should have been stated. Your interest in making a change, putting your stamp on the world, leaving a memory, etc has nothing to do with whether you are a good or bad person or whether you are making the most of your life. Some are happy to change the life on one person (child, friend, etc) while others feel compelled to do so on a mass level. It is entirely a personal decision. It is most likely driven by whether you are infected with the disease of ambition, entrepreneurialism, etc…

I can speak to this as I too was born with both of the above mentioned diseases. I don’t wish them upon everyone but at the same time I am not sure life would be even fractionally as enjoyable without them.

I agree with everything you've said but I don't think we can classify it as a disease.

If you're tired of your job, do like I may or may not have done; wait for a performance review or a meeting with a new supervisor, and when they ask what you see yourself doing in five years, reply with something in a completely different industry. Then, hopefully, you'll be terminated and have a chance at collecting unemployment while you work full-time on your web startup.

In the current economic climate I would encourage people to think really carefully before quitting their jobs. No matter how dynamic or talented you may be, it's a pretty tough environment.

In a way, this article reminds me of Paulo Coelho’s The Alchemist. The journey of a shepherd boy who leaves his world to discover the treasures of his personal legend.

"They represent the Promised Land where, one day, we'll start doing something meaningful."

If you don’t have an urge to go out and do something different than what you’re doing now, then this article probably doesn’t apply to you. I think It’s more related to people who say you’re going to one day start your own company, or work for a startup, or “travel to Montreal” but immediate problems always get in the way. You don’t have to change the world necessarily, just be happy and follow your dreams NOW because life is too short.

I completely agree with this sentiment (and I love The Alchemist). I think it's equally virtuous for someone who has little aspirations but to be happy with the life they've been given as it is for someone who wants to achieve a lot in his/her life. Isn't the goal in the end to simply find what makes you happy and live it?

"Quitting your job" seems like the wrong directive. Find a better job.

I wouldn't even go that far. 'Evaluate your job' is more like it. Take stock of what you have, what you want, and what you can get.

And IF it makes sense to change, seriously consider it.

That all seems like common sense, but it's harder than it sounds.

Oh, common, guys. "Evaluate your job and all the possibilities and if necessary stay until you have reached financial stability or have another offer, in which case you can contemplate quitting" just has a bit less zing than "Storm into your boss's office say 'I QUIT' then defecate on his desk and leave with Metallica - Battery playing all around you.'

It's not about the quitting, it's about the charity or the startup or whatever. You can run away from things all your life, but you'll never get to a place called 'there'; you'll find that everywhere you go is still 'here'. You have to go towards what you want, not away from what you don't.

You should quit your job. But, sadly, you probably won't.

This line probably sounds best in the voice of Darrell Hammond's embittered-but-resigned, progressively drunker Jack Perkins from SNL about 15 years ago.

"That's a song. It's called 'Shadows of the Night' by Pat Benatar. We should do a Biography about her. But, I bet we won't."

I don't understand, since every single comment disagrees, why was this in the frontpage? Maybe because people like inspiring, loud words; they soothe, make you feel enlightened and accomplished without doing anything. I hate all this new age self-help enlightening crap telling people how to live their life, mostly because some of the world's greatest oppressors used the same methods in the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com