Hacker News Reader

Comment by yakkomajuri | Hacker News Reader

I quit a hell of a job (in the good sense!) kinda out of nowhere at a point in my career where I was in a great upward trajectory to go on an "indefinite sabbatical" (turned out to be 7 months).

I did not quit to start a company, but the sense of multiple plunges does resonate.

From my perspective:

- It's very hard to detach yourself from stable (and growing) personal finances

- The comparison aspect is always there, you just need to learn to manage it

- The most rewarding bit was re-adjusting my metric of what's sufficient/enough in life

- I was not familiar with that video, but, indeed, I did learn to ask myself "would you rather be doing something else?" and the answer was no

- I learned to dream again

- As soon as I pulled the trigger on the decision I was flooded by a sense of insecurity even if I was really certain of it

I wrote stuff about it at the time but never published it.

View on HN

"Kind of the same" here. I'm being laid off for economic reasons and I'm lucky that my country helps me. My salary is maintained at ~70% tax free for a year while I'm searching for a new job or following trainings.

This means that I have a "sabbatical" year ahead of me if I want to. I'm planning on 2 months before working again and in the meantime I'm learning Rust (coming from Typescript), although I don't think I'll land a job for it.

What's the most frightening are:

- the personal finances (I've got a house to pay!)

- I'll need to calm down on my hobbies

- the comparisons with other developers

- will I find a job? I may be lurking /r/recruitinghell to much...

I've been working for 10 years in the industry already but there's always doubt. Should I continue programming? TBH I don't see myself doing something else and I'd miss WFH too much.

Ahhhh...

You can build a shack in a year. Take the pay and learn masonry, build a 10x20 block shack. At the end of the year you have a house and no mortgage. Its what I did.

My boys will be in college in about 6 years. My wife and I have been talking about what comes next for us. I would really like to make a significant career change but, yeah, it’s pretty scary. My current job is pretty secure, good pay, good benefits but brutally hard. I work leading delivery in consulting for very large projects. Pretty much the hardest role in the most cutthroat industry. It takes a toll.

This is why spouses sometimes divorce anyone leaving a high pay industry to rest. They have to act quickly to lock in high alimony/child support to maintain their standard of luxury at high imputed income so the spouse will go to jail if they don't continue their stressful job.

Man, this is a misanthropic take on things. Do you have any data for this?

If you want the mountain of data showing correlation of divorce with shutdown of plants, unemployment etc I will find it. But it's common knowledge. You only have a couple years to easily lock in imputed income at their high earnings.

Even if you provide that data that divorces spike due to shutdown of plants or unemployment that won't directly prove your case.

Looking around the internet, I see sources ranging from 20-60% of divorces being caused at least partly by financial issues, and that makes sense, to be poor is to be stressed, and to be unemployed is to be stressed, and to be stressed is to fight, but that doesn't provide strong evidence for a "they are locking them down to force them to work so I can live in luxury" narrative.

I really struggle with believing it as being a widespread phenomena.

You're not convinced, that's fine. You're open either possibility and asking for proof. To prove something happens at least sometimes I need at least say 2 anecdotes, which I could scrounge from some forum. But you have already decided it's misanthropic without proving that either, you are just rigging the game to play the fuck fuck game where you want it proven to some level of scientific rigor beyond what's quickly communicated on a tech bullshitting forum, while simultaneously claiming misanthropy without the level of rigor you demand for claiming so.

There are claims made by divorced people. Sometimes is not any exact percentage. The peer reviewed studies have conclusions like "the results [ of studying post earnings loss divorce ] are, however, consistent with role theories, in which the husband’s attractiveness declines if he fails to fulfill a traditional role as a breadwinner."

What would be hard to believe is that people _dont_ sometimes use the courts to lock into income streams they are loosing. That borders on extraordinarily improbable.

I'm unsure what the "fuck fuck game" is, but I honestly think HN tries to be more than just a "tech bullshitting forum". I think there's hope that you put some thought into what you say and how you say it.

Sure, there are certainly marriages for financial convenience, but you presented this like a widespread phenomena, so much so that you felt like you wanted to warn people about it.

You said so yourself, it's well documented that spouses divorce because of a change in finances and you could provide the evidence yourself of that, but, to my knowledge, not well documented that it's a common reason that spouses divorce because they want to force the unemployed high earning spouse into miserable work.

I'm not looking for a direct scientific study, but it would be nice if you could provide some sort of news article or the like about this phenomena. I'm sorry that I didn't just uncritically accept your anecdote as being true.

What level of proof do you demand to show something happens sometimes? Because you keep changing it to strawman like 'common.' And to be clear, unless it is zero, you've not applied same to your misanthropic claim.

Misanthropic is not a claim I'm making based upon data. It's not possible to validate independently, but a judgment by myself. Your claim sounds misanthropic to me - it sounds like, if we are high earners, we should distrust our spouses because they are just out for our money and will demand we work miserable jobs to make sure they have enough, and if we don't they'll divorce it and demand the money of us. That's bleak and distrustful of people.

I'm not expecting a Cambridge study, but I was hoping you had some sort of news article or something rising above an anecdote in a forum about how some guy's wife forced him back into his job. You seems to feel you should warn people about in this forum, so you believe that it happens at a rate such that it could happen to any of us. So in that case, "common" seems less "strawman", and more "correct usage". You don't have it, that's fine, but if that's the case, why do you believe it?

Alright I will switch to easily proven facts. Child support and alimony are usually based on imputed income, meaning what a judge thinks you can earn. Voluntarily taking lower pay is strong evidence you could earn higher.

Finance linked divorce is common, support is common, and throwing people in a tiny cage for not coming up with a fraction of imputed income sometimes happens. We can squabble over why it happens, but when you are locked in a cage after taking a lower stress job the reason may not matter, and the fact I could be wrong about motivations will not get these people out of jail.

Sure, and that's why I feel it's a misanthropic take.

Yes of course. People are magically different in divorce than every other litigious aspect of society and totally don't sometimes use the courts to lock in an elevated income stream at the expense of someone else. This sober view can be characterized however you like, but it being wrong defies precedent in an extraordinary way.

Someone says they're looking at what to do after their kids go to school and your reply is basically "well, if you think you're going to quit your current job, just so you know your spouse might divorce you for the money before you get a chance to quit".

Wow.

It happens, sometimes, as i said. Probably not to them, nor did I claim it would.

You didn't directly say "this will happen to you", but you are certainly implying that it is something the parent commenter should be worrying about.

It's weird. It's like telling random strangers, who you know nothing about, that they might get cancer. Is it true? Sure, cancer happens, sometimes. But it's weird to remind people about it unsolicited.

If someone has the power to have a judge order you to pay 20+% of your income, and that income is imputed meaning a lower income may leave you in an impossible position, it is smart to always keep it in mind. I also keep cancer screening in mind.

Why did you quit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com