I bet if she threw in some awkward Homeric references (instead of the boyfriend one), and wrote it a bit overly analytical and detached, then HN would be satisfied.
The problem here is the millenial-style privilege. It's all so shallow, first-world-problem-ish and child-like in its naivete. So she bought into the lie that having a job is a mystical road to self-fulfillment, discovered it's not fulfilling and set out to live, strangely enough, a lot like a housewife, except without the husband.
It's curious to me that it's so often bankers, techies, and other members of the 1% who find the courage to "strike out on their own."
I understand that injustice is happening all over the world, but isn't it still important to examine your own life? Isn't that basically the goal of being alive: to figure out what you really want to do with your time on this planet?
I don't consider that Millennial privilege. I consider it a good idea.
It is good both for people to help others get up to first world, and for people to deal with first world problems too.
The vagueness is strange. This doesn't feel right -- well people can be manipulated in to making the wrong decision by making that decision feel right and the right decision feel wrong (sales people do this all day.)
However, if you have spent all of your life with tunnel focus on education & then your job, there is a good possibility that you have missed out on a lot of the periphery parts to living. These small things matter a lot more once you reach a higher level of personal achievement. They also allow you to comprehend the rest of the world.
High performance environments, whether in a city like Manhattan or in a 100-hour work week company, breed a whole new set of problems. You don't need to run away from them, but, I do believe some times you need to take a good step or two back. When you return, the actions you take which impact your lifestyle will be more well intended and thought out.
I agree. On my first reading, even I wondered, "why is she trying to solve by quitting a problem that need to be solved with anti-depressants?". But then I realized that her only fault was not articulating her problem properly. I'm sure there are some strong feelings going on there, but I can't seem to make out the reasons.
Why is it that someone who is privileged isn't allowed to want something more? True, they have a lot, but that's the way of life at this point, people move up, people's position gets better, that's the story of human history. However, this person is SO well off, that they're not allowed to question or look for something better?
Just because there is suffering in the world doesn't mean I can't want for more for myself and family.
Edit: Nope I lied, I'm not going to ignore the inflammatory bit, fuck you for saying it.
Sure, it would be nice if everybody spent their energy worrying about poverty in Africa or South America, or human rights in China or whatever, but no one is under any particular obligation to devote their energy to those problems, or to prioritize them over their own favorite issues, whatever they may be.
In other comments i've seen often the word "maturity", well, not to be excessively critic, but that's not the first word that came to mind while reading that article.
Perspective is important no doubt. And don't get me wrong, my own take certainly includes a large degree of concern about "big picture" issues. But as somebody who is admittedly a radical individualist whose interest in philosophy tends towards Existentialism, and who realizes that we are all living very short lives in a brutal and uncaring world... I don't have much of a problem with people who choose to focus on their own problems, needs and concerns.
Like I said, it would be nice if everybody willingly chose to focus on poverty, clean water, vaccinations, clean energy, pollution, etc. But if someone chooses not to focus much (or at all) on that, I can understand and respect their stance.
Nor are most "techies", even if they are fortunate enough to be an exception to the downward trend in real wages (for the moment.)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-t...
The linked article, states a floor of $8.4 million, which is ~ $9 million.