Hacker News Reader

Comment by dclowd9901 | Hacker News Reader

If someone isn’t successful in making money on that work, though, it means it isn’t very good. I know it’s not a 1:1 result, but in reality, if you put in the hours and you make things people want, you will be successful.

The problem is everyone who works on something they’re passionate about (even if they suck at it) thinks they ought to be compensated, even if their contributions amount to exactly Jack shit.

Meanwhile, I do decent carpentry on the side and am hit up _regularly_ for it, simply because I’m willing to show up. And I make as much per hour as I do in my day job.

The work is out there to be passionate and make things and be successful, but you 1) have to show up and work and 2) have to not suck at it.

View on HN

You can be a baker and make the best cakes in the world, but if your shop is located in the wrong place (like a dark alley with no foot traffic) where no one knows it exists, your business can fail if you don't also learn marketing, and possibly move to a better positioned (but more expensive of course) spot. A better spot, and marketing lessons though, are hinged on having the money to make that happen... Many people can't pay for advancement because they aren't profiting off of their work to fund expansion and growth.

The ideal that people don't succeed because of the quality of their work is a fallacy... Many people who do succeed who have a shoddy/marginal history of work is also yet another example of why that ideal is not accurate.

> You can be a baker and make the best cakes in the world, but if your shop is located in the wrong place (like a dark alley with no foot traffic) where no one knows it exists, your business can fail

Who's responsible for deciding where it's located? Maybe that person didn't work hard enough at thinking through the ramifications of their location. You can come up with a 1000 excuses but I guarantee the person more likely to succeed has answers for every one of them.

Not to say that luck doesn't come into play, but it's not the dominant factor and in a lot of cases can be worked around with hard work or extreme talent.

I think you’re putting far too much stake on location. These days, folks will happily travel out of the way to find a unique or extraordinary experience. There has never been a time where people were more mobile.

I can site a personal experience example. In Portland, for a while, nobody would visit anywhere north of Alberta on the east side of the river. Around this time, a young person by the name of Matt was selling barbecue out of his little truck up near Ainsworth and MLK. In some dirt lot with no support beyond folks like myself writing Yelp reviews, he was selling the best barbecue in the city.

Now, they have multiple locations there and are sure to grow.

Location doesn’t fucking matter. Talent matters. People will show up and buy and fill their limited stomach space. Not for 3rd best or 2nd best but for the best. And blaming them for not wanting the best is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

>if you put in the hours and you make things people want, you will be successful.

What thing does a landlord make? What are the hours on the job of owning dividend-paying securities? Being successful in this economy has literally nothing to do with "making things people want" and "putting in the hours".

Who here is defending land lords? They are useless.

There are plenty of unsuccessful landlords who bought property hoping to renovate it and then found they couldn't, and for everyone who made money on the stock market there is someone who lost it.

In the comment above yours someone made the opposite example of a Baker who works all day making fantastic cakes but nobody buys them because his shop is in the wrong place, and the reply was that it's still his fault because he didn't spend enough time figuring out where and how to sell his wares. Making a good decision is just as much making a "thing" as making a physical object.

I think you are also mixing up wealth and success. A very rich man whose stock portfolio does not keep up with inflation is still very rich, but he is not successful.

I don't think that's true. Think about musicians -- someone can create incredible music and never make enough to support themselves, it happens all the time. Same with visual art. It has much less to do with quality and more to do with social trends, having a certain "look" or identity, etc. Sure, hard work and not sucking are the prerequisites, but they aren't enough on their own.

Is it really incredible if no one thinks it’s incredible?

I disagree with your premise - just because someone doesn’t make money on their work doesn’t mean it’s not good. We live in a capitalistic society, where the laws of supply and demand rule.

You’re able to make good money in carpentry by simply showing up, because there aren’t many carpenters left. Just like my cousin is able to do the same with landscaping. It’s all work fewer people are doing.

Other friends of mine, some of the most talented and hardworking people I know, have tried their stints on broadway, television, journalism, etc. and are struggling massively. Is it because they aren’t good? Of course not. It’s because there are 1,000 people lined up behind them who are just as good. And there’s another 1,000 behind that group who aren’t quite as good but are willing to do it for poverty wages.

But you see, you’re kind of making my point for me. Being good isn’t the same as being good enough. And this is only a problem if every industry is saturated with people who are good enough.

This isn’t the case, and if I’m not good enough at playing guitar to make a living at it, I go elsewhere. I don’t ask the world to make me a spot.

We need more carpenters and plumbers and a whole host of other industries. It feels very strange to me that people look at the world and say “it’s so unfair that society doesn’t value the thing that I do that isn’t particularly unique or contributive.” Why should that ever be the case?

Even in some perfect utopian society where everyone gets everything for free, am I supposed to read some mediocre book just because the person who made it wishes they were important? Even in such a society, people would still want notoriety, but they wouldn’t get it because they’re not good enough. For this reason I don’t see capitalism as the problem, I see them as the problem.

Ok let me rephrase this - the people I referenced aren’t good - they’re amazing. They have the credentials (Juilliard, S.I. Newhouse, etc.) and the work experience (lead role on broadway, ESPN and sports illustrated) and it’s still a massive struggle in their industries.

Compare that to being a warm body at a landscaping job, where the bar is “I showed up to work today” and it’s not even a comparison.

It’s the laws of supply and demand. Simple as that. Everyone wants to be a movie star.

And let me rephrase as well: be a Julliard, SI Newhouse. It doesn’t matter: if nobody fucking cares about what you do… they don’t fucking care about what you do. You aren’t going to change that.

One of the smartest people I know was a Julliard instructor. I love hearing their stories about their experiences in that world, but I can easily see why their “talent” didn’t translate into real world success. Despite their genius in musical interpretation, there taste is completely non-normative. Are you really arguing that the world is wrong and they aren’t?

It doesn’t fucking matter what you think matters. It only matters what _everyone else_ thinks matters. Feel free to downvote that opinion — I might be cynical but you’re wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com