Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZYinMD | Hacker News Reader

It's a sad truth but for most of us, when it comes to "decide which status game to play", you're simply aiming for money no matter what you choose. Money is the overarching metric that already incorporates everything else. The "weightlifting status" or the "content creator status" mentioned in the article are just money status in disguise.

Ask yourself: if you won a big lottery tomorrow, would you still keep doing what you do today? If the answer is no, then you've been playing the money game all along.

View on HN

> If the answer is no, then you've been playing the money game all along.

I’ve wondered about this for some time now. If I won the lottery, I would quit software engineering in a heartbeat.

But it’s not software engineering that I want to quit. I love writing software and having computers do my bidding automatically and elegantly.

What I loathe is all the BS around work, the posturing, the being told to drive the bus into the wall, being told when/if I can take my few weeks of PTO each year, and the spending my health and time making someone else richer.

If I could, I’d stop working today. It’s the working that kills me. And there is nothing I can do about it because without working I can’t pay my bills and I don’t think I’d be happy homeless or living on a shoestring. And software engineering is the best paying skill in my skill set, so I keep doing it. Even though it’s sucking my soul a little at a time.

I'd quit too but keep working on my side projects. in between vacations

The 'Office Space' scenario might be more interesting/fun, keep working and ignore the BS, worst case you get fired and at least you learn you were right to follow the rules, best case you get to keep the good (actually writing code) and lose the bad. Normally you can never find out where the line is without crossing it.

Nah, screw that noise. If I could stop working today and have enough money to last the rest of my life, I’d quit and you’d never catch me in an office again.

I started doing whar I do before I knew it also pays money. So yeah I’d probably keep coding and writing about coding.

Would be nice to not need money though. Then I could go coding things that are less certain to result in money. I miss the days when I could just work on projects for no reward other than working on the project.

> if you won a big lottery tomorrow, would you still keep doing what you do today? If the answer is no, then you've been playing the money game all along.

That's implying playing the money game is voluntary.

There’s a monk out there somewhere that would say it is.

Maybe. From your examples, though, if you think you're going to make any money whatsoever from the "weightlifting status" game you are in for a rude surprise. Similar to other examples from the article (softball team, nightschool classes).

> Ask your self: if you won a big lottery tomorrow, would you still keep doing what you do today? If the answer is no, then you've been playing the money game all along.

It doesn't end there. For people who really want the monetary status, there is a point where chasing more money doesn't cut it. They change their status game to something else at that point, say fame and connections with an elite group of people e.g. selective cliques or investing in a football team.

>The "weightlifting status" or the "content creator status" mentioned in the article are just money status in disguise.

Nice argument, care to back it up with your deadlift?

Arnold has a really good quote about this:

"A well-built physique is a status symbol. It reflects you worked hard for it; no money can buy it. You cannot borrow it, you cannot inherit it, you cannot steal it. You cannot hold onto it without constant work. It shows discipline, it shows self-respect, it shows patience, work ethic, and passion. That is why I do what I do."

Really makes you think. Not a whole lot of things out there with all of those properties

Being cultured and well read is very similar, I think

The main difference is that a physique is more immediately recognized; all you have to do to recognize Arnold is huge is look at him. But you'd have to listen some (and have enough cultural baggage yourself) to recognize that Chomsky is intelligent

Also - perhaps as a consequence - being physically fit is objective. Who would argue Arnold is _not_ huge? But I'm sure you'll find at least one person arguing "Chomsky is an idiot"

> being physically fit is objective

The perception of what constitutes fit is to a large extent subjective. A steroid and clen using bodybuilder with <4% might look very fit. But their blood panel and cardiogram will probably say something else entirely.

Does that one person, most obviously being Alan Dershowitz, even count given that he is nuts and/or of questionable ethics? :D

I love the quote, but I'll offer another perspective. I had a pretty significant physical transformation over the last few years. It's the result of work I did and I feel very proud of what I've built.

But! I did it after starting to work for a big tech company. The company covered weekly therapy where I ended up doing a lot of work on my relationship with food and physical activity, the company subsidized a personal trainer in company gyms, the company provided balanced meal options at the office, the company paid me enough to spend whatever I wanted on food at home as I figured out a healthier diet and to set up a home gym during a pandemic, and my position was flexible enough or me to schedule all of these things while still advancing in my career. All of this together made it easier to imagine a future for myself and to invest in it.

I think what I've done would have been possible without these (and other) privileges, but I do feel that when I show off my fitness I am displaying a partially economic status symbol given the opportunities it created in my particular case and the pace at which it's allowed me to go. Not sure how well this extrapolates (if at all) but it does seem like it's an advantage to have the resources to make space for fitness and to optimize within that.

You’re saying that having a lot of money helped you have a great body. That’s true of course but the relationship is also true in reverse. You can leverage a great body into making a lot of money. Great examples are Arnold or the Rock who became big action movie stars based on their physique. Also, of course athletes.

So I don’t think “money is the key to success in every other aspect of life” is true since the relationship is bidirectional

Nitpick: it’s not as straightforward to leverage a great body towards money as it is to leverage money towards a great body. Arnold and Dwayne Johnson are outliers. Many athletes struggle financially.

For other reasons I agree with your end point in that money isn’t strictly necessary for success everywhere else, but please don’t suggest that money isn’t uniquely useful when put to the task.

In fact, powerlifting and bodybuilding are notorious for being money drains for people who are competing but aren't in a very tiny proportion of top performers.

> don’t suggest that money isn’t uniquely useful when put to the task

I'm going to be completely honest with you - I just don't believe this, which was the point I was trying to make

I think you are someone who is holding a hammer, and is very skilled at using it, and thus everything looks like a nail to you.

There's a lot of muscle being built in prison cells at this very moment with no gym equipment whatsoever.

If you want to do it, you can do it.

You don't need to be granted privileges. No one can stop you.

"Starving artists" have long been romanticized, for one example of there being non-money games out there.

Usually after they're dead and the art community has reached an agreement that they were pretty great, though; it's not much of a status game if it doesn't bear fruit while you're around to enjoy it.

No, that is when they are monetized, and it’s part of the romanticization — the idea of a tortured soul finding glory but only after death is part of the appeal.

And then suffer a life on the hedonic treadmill dying smug and somehow all alone.

It depends on the person. Some people see net worth as an ends in itself (boring, IMO). However, for other people, the point of more money is really to play other status games exponentially better.

For example, money in itself won't make you a famous actor, an award-winning musician, a bestselling author, a renowned artist, or an Olympian. But it will open the path to such goals by giving you leisure time to pursue them without worrying about pure survival.

More directly, it's extremely easy to transmute money into status via vacations, ownership of desirable real estate, expensive cars, etc. I would submit that it's generally not the money being coveted here, but the lifestyle it allows.

I don’t think money is as big a deal as people think, but you only realize this after you’ve made a good amount (income, not wealth) while being unhappy with your work.

It requires a lot money to be able to be the 'top' of any status game.

Thomas Aquinas several hundred years ago: "Article 1. Whether man's happiness consists in wealth?"

* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm

He then goes on to consider honour, glory/fame, power, pleasure.

Overnight fame can be just as disruptive

I don't get the attraction of fame at all. Money, yes, money allows me to do what I _want_ to do, it would give me time that I otherwise have to spend working.

But fame _reduces_ what I can do. Famous people can't just pop down the local for a pint (in whatever city they happen to be in that week), famous people attract paparazzi - they're harrased by strangers...

Like I say, I don't get the appeal..

"I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job."

-- Bill Murray

Reply on news.ycombinator.com