Hacker News Reader

Comment by going_ham | Hacker News Reader

If it does, you will be extremely delighted knowing there is a book by Marcus Aurelius called Meditations. The book withstood the test of time. He has written it clearly and explained his reasons in a proper manner. He was a roman ruler and everything is from that perspective. Most of the people here are probably not making enough money to get by the everyday mundanes of life. So things like self-actualization are far away from reach. Therefore, when someone drops in an article like this, saying to quit job, isn't it disrespectful for those trying to get their needs? Sure, if everyone had a comfort cushion, I guess internet would be a better place. But the reality is quite harsh! Therefore, people may say harsh things but they don't mean it. It's just to get by.

I hope this isn't offending!

View on HN

The notion that one has to take care of one's "needs" before pursuing anything "higher" is a lie and an excuse. The number of great intellectuals and writers who lived at least a portion of their lives - and often more - in absolute penury is testament to this. Einstein for example nearly died of starvation, yet he kept working.

One could make an argument that it is because of real world difficulties that one is able to do great work. What did Jesus say about the rich man and the kingdom of heaven? The times in my life when I've lived on the edges are the ones that have laid the groundwork for everything worthwhile I've done in my life. Success and comfort too often bring stupor and cowardice, and not worthy ambition.

Those people are the exceptions.

The vast majority of people, if hungry, will have their next meal as their highest priority.

How will you know which one you are - or which one you could become - if you don't try it?

Although the very idea of "trying it" like one tries on a pair of pants is absurd. Either a people has the moral fortitude to recognize and live that there are things more important than mere survival or it doesn't.

And if it doesn't, ironically we're already fucked.

Worth pointing out that Starbucks and restaurants around Hollywood are staffed by actor-wannabes hoping for a big break in the movie industry, many of whom never end up amounting to anything. On another corner of the spectrum, you get Paris Hilton, who frankly doesn't have to put effort into anything she tries.

Point being, depending on who "you" are and what "it" is, the advice of "why don't you just go for it, everything else be damned" may or may not be callous/tone deaf/etc.

Maybe being a waitress is not the worst thing in the world? Billions of people can only dream of being a waiter/waitress in LA, and the lifestyle that goes with it.

You need to look at things relative to something that makes sense in the context of the conversation. Obviously, it's better to be a barista in LA than a starving kid in a war zone, but the context here is that we're talking about people who want to be famous actors and can't, so they take on minimum wage jobs to survive until eventually bitter disillusionment hits.

These people are victims of today's culture, which glamorizes wealth and fame above all else... Before they realize that they've been duped, they waste many years of their lives.

Startup culture is similar BTW - people who take moonshots to try and become obscenely rich, only to realize (if they're in the tiny minority that succeeds) that having so much wealth is not really making much of a change in their life and they've spent important years of their lives focusing on stuff that's not important (see Notch's wailing on Twitter for an example of that realization).

> Einstein for example nearly died of starvation, yet he kept working.

Citation needed. I'm unable to find any sources that back this up.

Einstein was known as a mathematical GENIUS far beyond his years, even as a young person.

Einstein is, in fact, a counter example. He was working at the patent office as a 'technical examiner' for seven years, including throughout his 'annus mirabilis' when he released his most famous papers.

Mentioned here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7935078/

Shoutout to the Slavic Homie Nikola Tesla, was one of the greatest inventors of all time but died in poverty.

Not offended at all. I do see some Meditations showing through here. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in that work, and plenty of parallels to be drawn to the modern world -- Aurelius was, after all, dealing with the Antonine Plague just before dawn in the decline of the Roman Empire.

My biggest issue with Stoicism is that it is, at its best, basically therapy. Most of the advice in Meditations revolves around putting things into various perspectives that make a challenging situation not feel so bad. This can be quite valuable! However I think there's only so much therapy a person can do before they want to start actively changing their situation. I think the essay wants to go beyond Stoicism, to illustrate a radical path one can take to hopefully alter the circumstance of their existence positively.

I have absolutely no qualms with anyone who takes the "boring" path to provide for themselves or their family (to say otherwise would make me a hypocrite). However I think we tend to vastly overestimate what our needs are. The average yearly median in the US in 2019 was $35,977 according to the Census. This is the median, so 50% of the population lives on less than that! Probably most of the people at that wage want to make more (don't we all?) but I think the author is making the case for giving up on the luxury of tech pay in exchange for finding some actual purpose in our lives. I don't think that's disrespectful, it's just another option.

Bit of a nitpick, that's the per capita median, the US household median income in 2019 was $69,560 which is more reflective of what it takes to maintain a typical US family lifestyle.

Isn't this one of the most common criticisms of the US: that its median/common income is miserably low? That's why there's so much polemic about a "living wage" and "debt crisis" in US politics. You're assuming that the low median income of <$35k is enough and that's why "provide for themselves and family" is a low bar, but actually a lot of Americans don't think it's enough.

It doesn't matter how much money people have, they never think it's enough.

Your assumption about the demographics of HN is counter to everything I've seen. Most of these people do have money. Simply by virtue of being professionals in the US, they are part of the 1%.

If someone was really inclined, $20k USD would pay for a year's rent in a comfortable apartment. $20k for other expenses. A year of grinding is open to a lot of people here I bet. They just don't want to do it.

The fear is too large, the inertia of normie life too great.

You need to add another $20K for taxes. And potentially another $10K for health insurance, depending on location. At $70K/yr you’re well into the top tercile in the US.

Except for severe chronic health issues, healthcare can probably be handled by walk-in clinics for a year. Those are generally $100-$200 per visit. Medication costs can be lowered with services like GoodRX, which I think even has a trial month for even lower costs.

With taxes, wouldn't you be able to defer them? Just track what you owe or whatever. It might be different in other places because in Nevada we only pay sales tax.

>You need to add another $20K for taxes.

If you have the $40k for the year saved, you don't pay taxes for them again when you use it to spend the year not working, etc.

Fair, I may have misunderstood GP's comment. I was under the impression they meant $40K in take-home income.

If you only make $40k a year you aren't going to be paying very much in taxes at all. You also want be paying very much for healthcare as it will be subsidized by the ACA.

If you're self-employed your FICA rate basically doubles. Depending on your state, that means your tax burden at $40K could be ~$9-12K. Even with a subsidy you're looking at another $2-3K for health insurance. That makes your take-home less than $30K, 25% less than what GP proposed was sufficient income for basic comfort.

>If you only make $40k a year you aren't going to be paying very much in taxes at all. You also want be paying very much for healthcare as it will be subsidized by the ACA.

ACA subsidies (at least in NY) are in the form of tax credits. If you don't have any (or not enough to pay taxes on) income, those tax credits are useless.

If you have no (or very low) income, the state will instead put you on Medicaid. Which has mostly terrible healthcare providers.

As such, if you go the "quit my job and go my own way" route, expect to pay USD$600-1000/month (for an individual, families will be much, much more) for decent health insurance or deal with the huge pile of crap that is Medicaid.

If you're young, single and healthy, perhaps that won't matter to you. If you're not, that could be a big problem.

In fact, the ACA tax credit is refundable; that is, if you owe no taxes, the government pays you.

> Simply by virtue of being professionals in the US, they are part of the 1%.

most white collar professionals, SWEs included, are not even close to being in the 1%. the 1% income bucket for the whole country starts around $350k, so roughly an L5 at google.

I think the grandparent is referring to US professionals tending to be in the global 1%, not the US local 1%.

The global 1% cutoff is around $35,000, which is ironically very close to the median income in the US.

Yes, that is what I meant. I could have clarified.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com