Hacker News Reader

Comment by robertlagrant | Hacker News Reader

> I always find it odd when people choose this as a metric for success. Why not "a person who went to a school you've never heard of, but has a job they enjoy deeply and that gives them purpose"?

It's not odd. If your metric was "be as useful as possible to others" then making lots of money is an excellent proxy metric.

View on HN

It really isn’t thought. I might help 10 very reach people and make a lot of money or I might help 1000 and do it for free. Money is not an excellent proxy metric. Money is just money.

I know you might, but our working lives, which are how most of us spend most of our effort, eventually end up in things people buy directly, or things governments buy. If our skills/contacts/thinking/strength/work ethic is/are valuable to others, they are generally compensated better.

Who do you think helped more people by managing a project, Linus Trovalds (Linux) or Elon Musk (Tesla)? Now compare who has more money. Money is just a proxy for wealth, and there are several ways to acquire wealth (sometimes by even screwing people over). And even if you are making a median argument (most people you know work in offices) you are talking ask if there is no unfairness ever in salaries. This is a very reductionist way to look at the world.

I'm not saying it's a perfect metric, but I also don't see how the context of getting paid a lot to do a job relates to what you're saying. A general principle is not reductionalist.

Teachers and nurses would disagree!

It's more a measurement of how useful you appear to rich people. You can't make money being useful to people without money. You can make money convincing rich people you're useful to them when you're not.

Lots of businesses make money from people who are poor. Your average McDonalds demographic.

> It's more a measurement of how useful you appear to rich people. You can't make money being useful to people without money.

I disagree that the two types of people are "rich people" and "people with no money"; the latter of which is vanishingly rare in developed countries.

> You can make money convincing rich people you're useful to them when you're not.

You can, but I don't think this accounts for all or most or much movement of money.

>the latter of which is vanishingly rare in developed countries.

You may live in a bubble

Hence the limiting of things to developed countries.

Even in developed countries many people live in poverty!

That's partly because the word "poverty" gets redefined. It doesn't mean "people with no money", which is the only statement being challenged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com