Hacker News Reader

Comment by tqi | Hacker News Reader

On the one hand, sure, status probably is a trap and won't bring "true happiness." And I think this is well meaning advice.

But on the other hand, I think it's possible that an Ivy League educated founder/VC partner/executive coach might not be in the best position to see the whole picture. To paraphrase the Aviator[1], you don't care about status because you've always had it. I think that for many people who have experienced precarity, rather than being driven by vanity, this pursuit of status is a rational way to increase security.

[1] https://youtu.be/br-ljup5Bow

View on HN

I come from a pretty precarious background but through circumstance and luck I've ended up in much higher status environments from a fairly young age. (private school, later tech jobs)

The one thing I always cared more about than a lot of kids was money but not status. People who grow up poor tend to really be aware of how much it sucks to not have money. You see it in entrepreneurs in China or former Eastern bloc countries. People who grew up in insecurity tend to be very conscious about access to resources and are very competitive.

But status is a different thing. Most people who come from precarious backgrounds in my opinion hate status games because the people who play them the most are anxious upper-middle class people afraid of falling downwards. I think I've probably harmed my career prospects by just being allergic to networking or not going to posh events because of how fake they seem.

Also important to point out that status is a complex thing in the sense that a lot of high status people are "performatively broke" because that's paradoxically the only way to flex even more if you're rich (tech CEOS living in crap houses and sleeping on old mattresses etc), so that makes advice like this even more complicated because it's difficult to tell if it's genuine.

True. The way I see is one category of people who would need first hand experience to know status really matters or not. They wouldn't find this advice much useful. But there is other group who would rather take the word of someone with status to believe status doesn't matter if they are saying so. Simply because they have status so they know better about it.

I think at core most of advice from haves to have nots has different effect on smart vs average have nots. Smarts tend to see a kind of hypocrisy in these proclamations. Whereas average folks just see the real world the way it is. So these advise seems useful info coming from important people.

This is why Aristotle, Plato, Seneca, et al are so highly valued - they are born in positions of leisure, as freemen, and speak about truly good acts which are away from the transience of society towards the permanence of the soul.

>I think that pursuit of status is a rational way to increase security.

I agree, I would recommend increasing security as the priority, not status. Status doesn't pay the bills necessarily when the recessions hit, security does. If you can get security without status, that's better than status without security.

Agree, and the best security is obviously money. But to me, status means warm intros for new business opportunities, or that your resume will reliably get past the recruiter screening stage. Stuff that can help you maintain or rebuild security.

best security is not obviously money. i wouldnt know of course, but there's a good scene that covers this in the first(ish) season of House of Cards: Kevin Spaceys character laments about otherwise excellent talent shortsightedly chasing the $$$ of the private sector jobs rather than strategically climbing the ladder of Capital Hill. All this to say, his point is broadly that influence and power can always find a way to money, money doesn't necessarily flow the other way through, not in every situation etc.

Frank obtains power, not security.

What is the difference.

The world of House of Cards is one in which each politician is constantly surrounded by people - even among their allies - who want to stab them in the back to take their job or remove them as a threat. And they'll happily use any dirty tricks, betrayal or even murder to accomplish it.

Doesn't sound very secure to me.

There's a lot of competition at the top of power structures.

Hm it sounds like what you are saying is that power is a more reliable way to get money, but money is still ultimately the goal?

What’s “security”? Money in the bank?

I would define financial security as the ability to pay for your desired lifestyle with minimal perceived risk. Some risk always exists, but it's your perception of it that either puts you at ease or stresses you out.

Until a year or so ago, a cushy career at Facebook seemed like a pretty sure thing and the opposite of risky. To others, any single source of income is a massive risk.

Thanks. I have to admit it makes sense. But I'm having a hard time making it concrete like "money in the bank". Could you give an example?

Owning a house, for instance. Having a solid job or a good resume so you can always find a job if you don't like your first, or own your own business that does well so you cannot lose your job and can live freely. Connections so that your business (or job quest) has a good chance of getting good results. A good income stream so you don't run out of money.

A lot of it is centered around money, such is our society.

A lot of things are fleeting, so it is important to also live in a country where the government won't take everything away from you because they don't like your opinion, or living in a country where war is less likely. (There are ways to mitigate these risks).

I'd argue they are probably in the best position to talk about the 'empty bowl' status is. I mean if you switch to the admin-view for a moment, status is basically the increasingly rare thing that others cant have by definition. that is statistically impossibly for commoners to have. and their advice of seeking contentment can/is always countered with 'sour grapes' style retort. We need more calming message from people who have been there and done it. after all I dont really need to get a Range-rover when my Hyundai gives me most of what I want.

As someone who has been both poor and relatively well off, the main thing is that you gain enormous stability and comfort from things like owning a home and having sufficient financial ability to choose what to do.

For example - "I choose to take the kids to school and then do some woodworking today".

The fancy cars, big houses, exotic vacations aren't that great. The lack of slavery is.

Might "status" be a different thing than "wealth"? They are not unrelated in practice in our society, but I think the OP is thinking they are different things (I think I agree), and is making an argument about status specifically.

Status is being liked, respected, included, looked up to, followed, listened to. Which is a different category than having enough money to do things you want to do. One might lead to the other (in either direction), but some people can definitely have a lot of one and little of the other (also in either direction) as well.

Now, listing those "status" category things -- of course a person might want/need some of those things some of the time, having none of those things any of the time would be challenging, for sure. I don't think the OP's claim necessarily denies that either.

> The fancy cars, big houses, exotic vacations aren't that great. The lack of slavery is.

I think that's the point, the former is all about status, but the real goal is not to show off but be relatively free, you still need money for that but that's not the same thing.

"Money won't buy you happiness", said the billionaire. But how does that calming message really help the guy who'll get evicted because he won't have enough money for rent?

I don't think we need these messages. They're a mix of humble brag, virtue signalling and self-marketing for all I can tell, and don't hold any insights that you won't find on one of those One Inspirational Quote Per Day calendars.

This is not about not having basic needs poor, it's about being middle class and chasing riches, expensive cars, homes, clothes, thinking life is about this and it will bring you happiness. Rich people surely aren't qualified to know what it's like to be poor, but they sure are for what it's like being rich by definition. The message is don't expect happiness and meaning be solved by money. That's the point of reading e.g. Marcus Aurelius (arguably one if not the most powerful person of its time) and see what happiness and the meaning of life is when you have everything, so that we middle-class can profit from that wisdom and don't waste our life chasing false dreams.

I think the issue is that while the advice is literally true, most people aren't in life for "true happiness". Most people, if observed closely, are in it for the status.

The people who are in it for happiness tend to be ascetics.

> Most people, if observed closely, are in it for the status.

This is why people are so easily manipulated: they're beholden to something that is easily gamed by the world at large. And that's exactly what it does.

That's why the advice is so good: it's meant to rattle them and make them start to question those beliefs.

Can you give concrete examples?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhu

Buddhism is at its heart a serious journey in search of peace and (as far as they accept it exists) happiness. The monks generally own one bowl, up to 3 robes and a few other things. If your goal is "true happiness" then people really don't need much except to spend time being practising being happy with what they have.

True happiness is an evolutionary dead end though, so most people pursue status, like owning a big car. That isn't going to make anyone happy though, it is going to make them look like they have money. Otherwise, a small car is more effective and no car is much more relaxing.

Status is a completely artificial construct that completely melts away the minute you run out of money. It's an unfair advantage, but it offers no security whatsoever.

Status is a social construct, and we are social animals. So it really, truly does matter. And money is not the only thing that can convey status.

Indeed. Money and status are certainly correlated, but you only need to look at e.g. the British class system, or the difference between "old money" and "new money" to understand that they are not the same thing.

I think some of it is artificial, but I think the types mentioned in the article[1] do confer real security. For someone without status, getting a top tier company on their resume will make future job searches either. Making it into the inner ring of a company makes ones position more secure against for example layoffs. Neither of these are directly tied to money, rather I think many view it as a way to protect against running out of it.

Obviously there are limits (ie governors running for president aren't doing it for additional security), but I think it is true for many.

[1] "They begin by trying to get into a top-tier investment firm. Once they accomplish this, they find a hierarchy to navigate within the fund, then realize that the real inner ring in VC is occupied by the investors who land the hottest deals."

Influencers showed that you can get paid just by having status.

And that status can be wiped out whenever google feels like it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com