Hacker News Reader

Comment by MuffinFlavored | Hacker News Reader

> Some people who push these values on social media care way more about the image of being a "successful person" than actually doing what it takes to achieve success (which rarely involves bragging about how hard you work on social media).

Devil's advocate but

you can measurably tell if you are financially successful (from working hard/long hours) and our healthy fitness wise (from going to the gym/eating clean/going for a run/etc.)

you can also measurably tell if you are in a good headspace from meditation/yoga/reading

I'm the first person to poop on people who "do it for the Gram" but...

Most people I know who post about being successful are the same people who wouldn't want their image hurt by being caught in a lie.

aka... they aren't really "fronting", they are really "about it" when it comes to living a "let's talk about it" lifestyle

View on HN

I think time helps shape perspectives here.

It can be really hard to tell someone's career or life trajectory in the moment or even in 1, 2, or 5 years.

I'm 35 now so I have the benefit of hindsight looking back on the decisions different people my age have made and while I'd be the first to caution against potential bias in data I can say definitively that the people who were into FIRE or grindset or whatever before those terms even existed have ended up markedly worse off by their own definition of success than people who took more traditional routes.

There are exceptions, I know one person who made millions on cryptocurrency for example. But he's the one exception to the rule I can think of.

The rest ended up no better off than their peers who weren't out there posting every motivational quote on social media or eliminating their social lives to write and ebook about credit card reward points.

So was it worth it? I doubt it. The ROI seems to be negligible or even negative to me.

It turns out there was no shortcut to wealth and happiness after all.

I think you are forgetting to factor in risk,

Those paths are much more risky, a few make it big most don't. But that's the trade off people willingly make, a small shot at making it big, or living a normal upper middle class fully employed lifestyle.

The way I think about it is, if you are on a deserted island, but you have made a nice life for yourself, shelter, water, food.

Do you risk pulling it all down to make a raft to sail into the unknown searching for somewhere better.

May people stay put and justify their stagnant lifestyle by how they are slightly ahead of the people whos raft sunk and had to swim back and start over.

Those people are the movers the shakers of the world, they take in the risk for something more in life.

Every time you fail you are failing upwards, learning skills you didn't have before becoming stronger and building better rafts.

But that's never how it's sold - "do all these things and maybe increase your chance of becoming phenomenally successful by 1%". Almost by definition a tiny percentage of people will ever be "phenomenally" successful. And the ones that do probably would do so with or without these sorts of "tips".

And most people that do then look back on their lives and point to certain things they did that sets them apart. Like an old person healthy at 100 saying they studiously avoided beans and that's the sole reason they're still fit and well.

That's not to say the advice isn't sound, maybe it is, but if it's advice based on N=1 I'm not about to change my lifestyle.

Sometimes, some people fail down too, and it damages them. If you think that all failure is 'failing up,' I'd suggest you haven't really failed, and have just experienced setbacks.

>the people who were into FIRE [...] have ended up markedly worse off by their own definition of success than people who took more traditional routes.

Can you please elaborate?

Sure, the people I know who:

- Focused on getting passive income streams set up through real estate, stock investment, content creation, retail arbitrage, etc.

- Were particularly frugal with their money and avoided travel, parties, 'lifestyle creep', etc.

- Attempted to min/max their careers by switching jobs every 1.5 to 2 years and negotiating hard each time.

Are:

- Still not retired in their mid to late 30s.

- On track to retire in their early 50s.

- Slightly behind their peers in terms of career progression.

While those who joined big tech, worked hard, and let their equity compound are basically on pace to retire at the same age while also getting to spend their youth traveling, partying, and generally enjoying life.

Plus, I've found the people who were hyper focused on retiring early or achieving financial independence to be less happy and more self-critical about their financial decisions.

I've personally not done any of that and just became a home owner but it has only been possible from crypto investments in which I got extremely lucky. It had absolutely nothing to do with my tech career or how much extra work I do outside my 9-5.

I think you have a somewhat distorted understanding of what FIRE means, or at least one that is different to my own understanding of the term.

I think of FIRE as essentially trying to optimise lifestyle and work in order to quickly reach a point where you don't need to work by paying attention to your income and expenses. This doesn't necessarily imply extreme frugality, and I think the mindset should actually make you more likely to go into big tech or the like because increasing income has a bigger impact than decreasing expenditure on for most people.

For sure there are people in the space who are trying to sell people on the idea that drinking coffee or not is the factor in when they will retire - but these people are fundamentally hucksters I think.

> While those who joined big tech, worked hard, and let their equity compound are basically on pace to retire at the same age while also getting to spend their youth traveling, partying, and generally enjoying life.

I though joining big tech and riding raises and promotions is basically the mainstream way to FIRE these days? Side hustles are ridiculous small potatoes in comparison.

I believe that one reason for this is that FIRE, passive income, entrepreneurship, etc. attracts people who are looking for shortcuts.

This means that they are optimizing for the short term, which is counterproductive to success in any area of life.

Back in the 2010s we saw this with niche sites, ebooks, info products, etc.

It worked for some but it's probably safe to say that learning to code and getting a tech job would have had better ROI for most people who went down that route.

At the moment we are seeing this in the crypto space, where you have all these guys in their 20s who are "investing in crypto" (gambling) because they want a Lamborghini ASAP.

They would likely be better off learning to code and getting a tech job, but they can’t see it at the moment because they don’t have the perspective that comes with time.

>Plus, I've found the people who were hyper focused on retiring early or achieving financial independence to be less happy and more self-critical about their financial decisions.

I also wanted to comment on this.

What I have observed about FIRE folks is that they start optimizing everything for FIRE.

This isn't a healthy way to live, certainly not in the long run, and it's not like this goes away once they reach FIRE.

Here's an article where Mrs. Money Mustache shared how uncomfortable she was about her parents taking her and their son to the movies, then to an ice cream place.

She was already retired, literally a millionaire.

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/07/27/youll-never-be-no...

If they built passive incomes, minmaxed their earnings and were financially frugal, they would have more income and less outgoing. How come they aren't financially retired by now - what went wrong with that plan?

It's really tempting to assuming the things you think are important are what actually result in success. Nobody sees all the possible lives they could have had.

Daily jogging seems like a healthy choice when you wheren’t hit by a car etc etc.

Add in all the actual lying and it's easy to get an incredibly distorted view of reality.

Avoiding jogging (in lieu of gaining obesity/any various degree of issues that come from lack of exercise) in fear of getting hit by a car seems irrational, wouldn't you agree?

You should strive for "perfect". If "perfect" is healthy and healthy means go for a run (with risks), you have to weigh it against the alternative (don't run, be unhealthy).

That's hardly the only options.

If you want to give useful advice it’s worth considering what might happen to those reading it not just your lucky history of avoiding problems. Avoiding jogging outside in favor of a treadmill is a net increase in safety without negative health impacts. Replacing it with an elliptical further reduces risks etc.

On the other hand if you want sell a lifestyle then treadmills etc are boring. Which is why a major reason so much popular advice is terrible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com