Hacker News Reader

Comment by apantel | Hacker News Reader

People who want to make money above all else are pursuing that because they think that will make them happy. It’s just their idea of the path that will get them to happiness. They see Mark Zuckerberg wakeboarding at his Lake Tahoe retreat and think, ‘That’s happiness — having billions of dollars, not having to worry about meeting basic needs, being able to do what you want.’

View on HN

i heard a quote a long time ago "money won't buy you happiness but it's more comfortable to cry in a Mercedes".

Forget the Mercedes. Money won't bring you happiness and neither will a Mercedes, but in case of illness or living discomfort (not from overwork but from other stuff out of your control, like needing physiotherapy, braces, prosthetics, dental implants, or living in a rough, loud, polluted neighborhood etc) you'll have a much easier time taking care of yourself and escaping discomfort if you have money vs not having money.

Having money helps a lot in making yourself comfortable when life makes you uncomfortable.

Zuckerberg doesn't get to do what he wants. He's in meetings constantly and rarely has a free moment

But that is the choice he has made. I guess he can very well afford to have a less hectic schedule or to not work too.

He could step anytime he wants to. He's not someone who is going to work to make sure him and his family have food to eat.

> Zuckerberg doesn't get to do what he wants. He's in meetings constantly and rarely has a free moment

This argument of

    Conclusion: $RichPerson doesn't get to do what they want.
    Premise: They're under constant obligation to $MoneyMachine

is both unsound and invalid.

The premise is wrong: at that levels of wealth, the obligation is not real, it's opt-in and you can opt-out at any time.

The conclusion is wrong too: At that levels of wealth, the person can do everything anyone else can do in their off-time, and they have much more off-time than the person making the argument anyway.

It's a poor argument and should not be made.

Zuckerberg is a famous person though, and famous people can't go to places which are sufficiently open to the public without causing major issues.

A random billionaire nobody knows might walk around the Colosseum undetected, but try doing that with a profile like Zuckerberg's.

Also, there is the personal security concern. If you are rich, you have a lot of ability to pay kidnappers of you and your family.

There is the story that shortly after Pichai became Google CEO, he walked around a conference and he barely got recognized, but if you stay in the limelight for long enough, people recognize you.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mathonan/searching-for-...

Disagree. To me this is like saying parents can always just abandon their children. Zuckerberg likely feels an overwhelming responsibility to show up as the CEO. Could he technically not show up? Sure. And any parent can technically not show up for their children. Both of them feel overwhelming responsibility to show up. In fact often the draw to work is stronger than children, hence so many stories of parents putting work first, not because they need the money, but, because they feel responsible for things at work.

> To me this is like saying parents can always just abandon their children. Zuckerberg likely feels an overwhelming responsibility to show up as the CEO. Could he technically not show up? Sure. And any parent can technically not show up for their children.

I strongly disagree[1]; I think it is incorrect to equivocate a non-living thing that needs no care from a particular person to a child's objective need for their parent.

If we reduce all arguments to "well, of course that person cares about $FOO, because parents care about their kids", then any $FOO is then as equally valid to kill oneself over[2].

You created a well-loved piece of art? Well then it's okay to jump in front of a n oncoming train to save it because that's what parents do for their kids!

You wrote a research paper on good UI guidelines? Well then it's okay to jump into a burning building to get the only copy because that's what a parent would do for a child.

I guess I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are few, maybe even none, "I created this thing" comparisons with the parent->child and child->parent relationships.

[1] But I see your point, so upvoted you anyway. I just think that your point is not at all comparable to a parent/child relationship.

[2] Parents will not hesitate to put their life in danger to save their child.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com