I just don't understand this at all. If you can earn a million a year, do it for 3-5 years, never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life.
I think the problem for most workers is the lifetime of toil, not the meaninglessness of the work.
I'd happily dig ditches for 8-12 hours a day for 3 years if I knew I was completely financially independent with millions in the bank that. Actually, I'd rather do that than write code. At least I'd be getting a workout.
As it is now, I write proprietary software for much less than those featured in the article, work is miserable, and I've still got maybe 10-15 years to go.
I think we're focusing on the wrong thing here (broadly), which is mocking the guy making $1.2m a year. Yes, that's a lot of money, and almost all of us (myself included) struggle to see how to spend that money. But at the same time, I feel some empathy for that guy - he's increased his expenses proportionally and he feels trapped doing something he doesn't enjoy with no end in sight. I know I've moved my expenses up and to the right since graduating college and starting a professional job.
But all of this is a distraction - at the end of the article, the author speaks about the people who are happy and satisfied in their careers - and broadly it seems like people who have autonomy and a sense of purpose in what they do. I run a small business and broadly enjoy working, so things like the Financial Independence movement don't really make sense to me. More money, less money - this is not the crux of the issue. Engagement and autonomy are some of the keys to a fulfilling work life.
- He had received an offer at a start-up, and he would have loved to take it, but it paid half as much, and he felt locked into a lifestyle that made this pay cut impossible. “My wife laughed when I told her about it,” he said. Sounds like a good wife to me, and this "pay cut" is making 500k-600k instead of 1.2 million, what world are these people living in that you can't give up a job that you hate because you can't afford to live on 500-600k.
>what world are these people living in that you can't give up a job that you hate because you can't afford to live on 500-600k.
The one where you lock into a mortgage and a car that assumes a $1.2M salary to keep ahead of.
It's really easy to let your lifestyle expenses balloon, especially in a high-COL city where minor increases in living space/amenities can end up costing large amounts of money.
So this dovetails with what I think is the most fascinating topic in evolution: the demographic transition in humans. If you're not familiar, demographic transition is the term used to describe what has happened to the demography of nations as they become developed. Which is that, rather than producing more children with their material abundance, people in rich nations have less children. This is not, at all, what biology would predict. More resources should lead to more offspring.
My personal hunch as to what causes the demographic transition is that we have an evolved system for determining whether we are doing well or doing poorly and that system calibrates itself by examining the people around us. But, because our current economic and social system sorts people by income and status (talented people migrated into the cities from farms, even more talented people moved into more expensive neighborhoods, etc.), and because advertising constantly shows us higher levels of consumption to aspire to, even people who are, in an absolute sense, raking in obscene amounts of money are surrounded by a peer group that are roughly at their level. So it never really feels like you're rich; even though you live in a $3 million dollar home, you live on a street with $8 million dollar homes; even though your kid goes to a $30k/year private school, you can't afford to spend $200k vacationing in France during the summer like some of their peers, etc.
Interestingly, this parallels my own experience. As a senior developer, I'm now making roughly 3x what I made before becoming a programmer. Back then I would have imagined that all of my wants would be satisfied by 3xing my income. Yet somehow I still yearn to make more.
Let's say you've got three kids and you're living on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Your mortgage and maintenance for a 3 bedroom apartment at $3.5MM are going to be ~15000 a month or 180K a year. Three private school tuitions are 150K. Living in NYC you're paying NYC, NYS and Federal income taxes for probably the highest tax rate in the country. So basically it's easy to be paycheck to paycheck on 500K in NYC.
During the 2008-2010 crash, there were reports of many women leaving their wall street husbands when they lost their jobs. I still remember reading about one woman - one of her excuses were that she was no longer able to buy organic fruits (avocados or something) - apparently she only eats organic, and organic everything.
That might be a small example, but it shows the way the wealthy lead their lives. Luxury cars, high end electronics, multiple homes ... they all add up.
Contained in that question is a really interesting bit of learning.
There are many ways to go through your career and your 'wealth' cycle. What worked for me was that when ever I got a raise or "extra" money (bonus, stock vesting, etc) I always adjusted my savings rate so that my take home pay was unchanged relative to inflation. The company gave me a 10% raise and inflation was 3%? I added 7% of that raise to my savings rate. As a result, my savings grew and my lifestyle didn't change, I could always "live on" a much more modest salary than I was being paid. That gave me tremendous flexibility in being able to take jobs that had a 'pay cut' but had other aspects that made them desirable (learning something new, opportunities to develop a new skill, more fun, Etc.) And after a while the amount of money your "savings" is kicking off gets to be more and more significant. If you're lucky, then one day the number your savings is kicking off is the same amount you're paying yourself out of your own paycheck and then you can walk away at anytime, keep your life style, and never have to work again. That gives you a tremendous amount of flexibility in how you spend your time.
The rich are depressed, the middle-class is shrinking and fearful, the poor are hopeless. I'm gonna take a leap here and say maybe people need some religion in their lives to give direction and meaning.
I found it interesting that a person in the article who made $1.2M a year was still depressed in thinking they were wasting their lives and it was all meaningless. I ask myself, does this person have children? a family to leave wealth to? or children to teach values to? I'm sorry but we have become so weak in our desire to satisfy only our own goals. That person's duty is to his family, and children (if he has any). His duty to society is to raise children with values that are compatible with the society. Religion instills this virtue and gives framework of how our actions on earth and our ability to reason and create is an imitation of "god" aka creation of existence.
Some questioned how the guy couldn't live on 500-600k. There is some foundation for this. People do tend to spend up to their means. It can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking you "need" that $5m house, $150k/year in private schools, save up $1m/child to pay for 4+ years at an Ivy League school and so on when hardly any of that is true and trying to make it true is really what's making you miserable.
Fact is, if you'd be much happier in your job this will reflect on your family life and your children's lives much more than being able to go to Yale with no debt ever will.
The second thing is though, depending your career, you have to realize that you won't be earning $1m+ a year for 30-40 years. This isn't even necessarily about early retirement either. Think of pro athletes. Your earning window may be very small. You may also have to factor in luck. If you're a corporate lawyer, for example, you may not make it to partner or your firm may go under and that was really your one shot.
So having worked for now two big tech companies, I see these kinds of complaints about not being happy or not being paid enough or the like primarily from people who live in the Bay Area who have decided they need a 5 bedroom house in Palo Alto and all the aforementioned education expenses.
The fact of the matter is that the Bay Area is (IMHO) a pretty terrible place to live. The way I like to put it is people choice to live in the Bay Area to work for company X. Everywhere else pretty much they're working for company X because they live in city Y. The Bay Area probably has a high number of temporary residents. I've met more than a few people in tech who intend to "move home" in N years (where N is typically <7). To be fair, NYC probably has a fairly high number of temporary residents too (although my guess is less than the Bay Area).
Lastly, this article was written about MBAs. Honestly, if corporate politics isn't your thing it seems like they've picked the wrong career track. Or they've done it for the money and don't really enjoy it and that's a pretty stupid reason to do anything. I know some of my worst decisions have been made "because money".
I have a lot of friends who originally went into finance in college to "save up" and then pursue their dreams. But once they started living the good life, things changed.
Before you know it, they have a gf/wife who expects the best. An expensive apartment in NYC with a great view they don't have the time to enjoy. And a job that's really a cage because they are addicted to the pay and they know if they leave, they won't be able to make the same amount of money.
It seems the longer you're in the system, the harder it is to leave and be willing to let go of that 5th avenue penthouse with stunning views and the "girlfriend who is hotter than the wildest dreams" or "dream artist boyfriend about to make his break". Sad but true
I think a lot of people tend to see the issue from a lower-middle class perspective (economically speaking), this makes it very difficult to understand some of the different issues that can occur at that level. It is similar to someone living in a less developed nation looking at the things most people in the developed world sees as a necessity.
People make trade-offs, in some cases the perceived cost of making less money is:
* Later retirement
* Longer commute
* Smaller house
* Lower quality of life for the kids (no/limited private school, extracurricular, etc)
* Limited network (which can mean power)
* Decreased prestige in society (yes, society still see money as prestige)
* Lower quality vacation
* Less 'mating' options
* Ability to provide to extend family & friends
* Exchanging a stable income
People are afraid of change, "what if the lower wage means losing my wife?" "what if I realize that my new job wasn't what I hyped it to be and I can't get back to what I used to do?" The more you have (money in this case), the more you stand to lose.
Statistics about income not making people happy are common. I wonder how wealth/savings affects it. If the $1.2 million worker hadn't inflated his lifestyle, he'd be free to take any job he wanted, or even perform his own job the way he thought best, safe in the knowledge that he would be financially fine if let go.
It seems that a lot of people who reach high incomes never maintain slack in their lives. As much as possible I've tried to keep expenses lower as my income grew. And to watch in advance what the big possible causes of such lifestyle inflation are: expensive real estate, expensive car, private school, large vacations or purchases made on debt with no plan to fund them, etc
The janitor study cited here is interesting, but I wonder if they controlled for disposition. Cheery people may simply be good at finding meaning in what they do, no matter what they do. And the opposite.
For instance, the fund manager could think "if I do my job well, I am allocating capital well and helping companies succeed and helping the economy grow faster than it otherwise would." I am sure that some content fund managers do think that. But is it merely dispositional, in the same way that not keeping your expenses low may be dispositional?
Most things I have read previously showed that more money generally only makes people happier up to a certain point, somewhere around $80K. At this level it is possible (in most places) to not live paycheck to paycheck and have some savings and financial security. Above this level, nothing really changes except how expensive our things are.
Find meaning in your hobby or in your volunteering or your exploration of nature, not your work or your income bracket.
The article seems to be omitting an important piece of data: Are people who make more money less happy/equally happy/more happy than people who make less?
It implies by its framing that they're less happy, but that's not actually supported by any actual data in the piece (though to be fair, on cursory googling I wasn't able to find any evidence one way or another).
> Are people who make more money less happy/equally happy/more happy than people who make less?
This has been studied comprehensively over the years, that the results seem very clear: there is an ideal income level in terms of happiness. If you earn below or above that, you're probably sacrificing happiness.
The ideal income level depends on cost of living, but on average, in the US, that income level seems to be a bit north of $100,000/yr.
Agreed. This is a glorified op-ed piece / human interest story. It's not proper objective journalism.
I mean, given all the complaints and struggles we read of at other class levels the headline could be: The Elite - Miserable and in Fear, Just Like the Rest of Us.
And it's fear that drives greed. I mean, when you can't go from $1M to $500K that's fear of losing what you have; just like the rest of us.
I think it goes like this: You make $X. You'd like more, you see there are things that you could do with more money, and so you're kind of unhappy. But you don't get your hopes up for those things, because you only make $X, and there's no point.
Now you make $(X + Y). Now some of those things become possible that you didn't dare let yourself dream about before. The problem is, you gained $Y in income, but the amount of things that became possible is 10 * $Y. You could do any one of the things that became possible, but you can't do all of them. So now they're realistic dreams, but you still can't do (most of) them.
For many people, this makes them less happy then they were, because the gap between dreams and reality got wider, even though they actually can do at least one thing more than they could before.
> Are people who make more money less happy/equally happy/more happy than people who make less?
This is already known though. Its a curve. People who live in poverty (local standards) are unhappy, and happiness increases a lot till they have more breathing space. I'm not sure what exactly is the magic border where this doesn't count anymore but say it is 60k a year (in USA, which is a bit odd because living expenses vary a lot but hear me out). After that ceiling, the happiness does not increase much anymore.
There is a link between money to happiness according to studies. The trick is that it stops after you have enough. Basically its terrible being poor, that will effect you happiness in a negative way. Once you have enough you are happier. But even more doesn't effect it that much.
Bullshit Jobs, a 2018 book by David Graeber, discusses this phenomenon pretty extensively and calls for more research. His rudimentary theory is that people who aren't contributing to society know that they aren't, and it makes them miserable. People have an inherent desire to change the world around them, and most professional jobs are actually mostly nonsense. This results in professionals being depressed and feeling hopeless.
There was one study the book cited, "Taxation and the Allocation of Talent", which was particularly interesting. As it's abstract says: "Estimates from the literature suggest that high-paying professions have negative externalities, whereas low-paying professions have positive externalities."[1]
As a successful lawyer who quit that profession and became a software engineer, writer, and startup founder, all of this really resonates with me.
The book is an outgrowth of a 2013 essay that got re-printed 100s of times and spurred some polling.[2] I recommend at least reading the essay. It has a lot of implications for economics, business management, and various other fields.
> We want to feel that we’re making the world better, even if it’s as small a matter as helping a shopper find the right product at the grocery store.
My question for HN is do you feel that the content you are working on makes a difference in your career satisfaction? Or do you just need to know that _someone_ out there is being benefited?
Is it just as fulfilling to work on a video game that flops (but maybe a few people still enjoy it) as it is to work on Fortnite where your code changes are used by millions?
Is it more satisfying to work on consumer facing iPhone apps like Apple Fitness where you are enabling millions of people to be healthier compared to working on a high frequency trading algorithm that makes a few people lots of money?
Speaking personally, the things that give me the greatest satisfaction are those where I feel I've done a good job from a perspective of craft. Even if the code itself doesn't do very much or will never really be seen, I get the greatest contentment from feeling I designed and put it together well. If I worked on a video game that didn't get traction but that I loved, was beautifully built and designed, I think I'd be happier than say, an online poker game.
I'd be lying if I didn't care at all, obviously I'd rather the app be used. There's a special feeling of showing something to someone completely outside tech, saying "I built this" and having them "get" it. Hence why I think consumer apps are also more satisfying than a high frequency trading algo.
> My question for HN is do you feel that the content you are working on makes a difference in your career satisfaction?
For me personally, this is the primary thing that affects my career satisfaction. If I don't find the work I'm doing to be meaningful, I will be miserable. There is no amount of money or other perks that can change that.
In my personal opinion it does. Without getting into specifics, I've been working recently on a project in which I will be proud of having had a large part to play. It will [potentially] indirectly reach hundreds of thousands to million(s) of people, depending. It is also in a field I have long believed in. I won't be working with it, or the field forever, but I am glad to have done so.
There have been roles I've turned down that, while they may have provided value of some kind to somebody somewhere— I would personally find it rather empty. I've done those projects before. They're ephemeral (not that everything isn't, but I'm not being so extensive in scope...). Those things can depend on the nature of the work, or the people you meet in the process. Sometimes it can work out well, other times it can feel like oblivion for a time.
Definitely where it helps more people. If I have to make tough choices in order to get there, so be it.
As it stands, I work in online advertising by choice and I love it. It's pretty meaningful to me.
It's the hard choices that really attract me: defence, advertising and privacy, pharma, companies like Monsanto. Hated but worthwhile. That's what I like.
Personally it's satisfying when customers thank you for your product. If you're looking to make a difference only by thinking, then you need to study the industry you are in and its purpose in society. Is high frequency trading really about the allocation of resources in the economy ? Who wins, who loses, and why ?
At least in my country (Argentina) I think that at a personal level (indoor) we are all OK, the problem is at a social level (outdoor).
I can think of several projects that would make me happy and 100% sure that they would improve my community as well. But I don't have time or wealth or mechanisms to deal with it. We are lacking community level organization, because it is really hard to do it well, without messing with corruption or ineptitude.
Interesting, what projects for example and how can you be so sure people would be interested ?
I tend to think that one kinda needs to exchange (i.e. not just give everything away) with others in order for the "improvements" one is looking for gets validated / get real time feedback.
I'd just like to add a thought - maybe happiness isn't all it's cracked up to be? I mean sure, we should strive to achieve a certain standard of living for everyone. But once you get to a certain point of "happiness", maybe it's the happiness itself which makes you miserable?
> I find I am at my best when things are not going perfectly and I am backed against a corner.
I would suggest that such a situation makes you happy. Happiness does not imply the lack of struggle or difficulty. In fact, I think most people need struggle and difficulty in the mix in order to be happy.
I don't have much sympathy for someone who earns 1.2 million a year. No matter how bad it is, all you have to do is get your spending down to an absolute minimum and save up for 2 years, then you'll have over 1 million in the bank. Then move out to a nice midwestern town and live happily ever after.
I know it's really rough leaving all your friends and family and everything you know, but it's not as rough as being poor/homeless your entire life.
The meaning of life is to live (not work). The meaning of work is to make money. Money lets you live.
The richest people I know are definitely also some of the most miserable.
We've been sold a story that careers are a path to fulfillment, self actualization and empowerment. When in reality they are a soul sucking, near pointless burden that enriches investors, founders, execs and few others.
I love what I do for a living and I make a very healthy amount doing it. That being said, I see stay at home parents and think they are the people actually living life to the fullest. It's extremely difficult being a parent but the rewards trump all the accolades and money in the world (imo).
I think the 20th century screwed up our value system via marketing and mass media. People lost sight of where true fulfillment comes from and lost the ability to think in the long term and work hard to get there. Focusing on your career so you can travel internationally and buy mid-century modern furniture for your Brooklyn 1bd is pure hedonism and I think people are starting to wake up to that fact.
It's worth watching the documentary The Century of the Self to see how some of this played out and was orchestrated by the media and marketers. It's very interesting and really shows you how developments in psychology and technology lead to corporations triggering hedonistic instincts to sell more product. It's a great watch:
I think this is a quintessentially American slash Protestant-work-ethicy sentence. Why is anyone surprised that people who work so much that they don't have a life, meaningful relationships to other people or a vibrant social circle are depressed?
If you optimize for making lots of money, that's (hopefully? probably?) what you will achieve. But it's very misguided to think that having a lot of money is how you become happy. If you want to be happy, make time for your friends, family, people important to you, and spend time on yourself and what you like doing. It's not complicated.
I've always felt the key is to focus on how much you spend not on how much you make. I want to make a lot of money, but I'm always careful to never spend too much. It's consumption that ruins things.
The kinds of jobs that pay so much tend to not be very satisfying and come with high levels of stress. It's no wonder that the end result is depression.
Someone I know makes money at this level and the thing he worries about is that he doesn't have much control over it and if his marriage ends while he's still working, he's going to be on the hook for maintaining that lifestyle whether he wants to or not.
It's not what you make, it's how you make it, and whether it's ever really yours.
The trick is to not fall into the trap of spending all the money you're making. Make a budget of how much you spend on rent, bills, and fun things, and don't bump it up each time you get a raise or a new job. Eventually, you'll find you're saving a lot of money. That gives you freedom and flexibility.
A big problem with lifestyle creep - IMO - is that the environment you're in, will/can influence you a great deal.
If you're a millionaire hanging around with avg. Joe's making $50k a year, then there's really no external forces to influence your habits. Your buddies aren't going to come around with their $300k sports cars, or invite you to their million dollar homes, and you won't be going to diners or clubs, spending thousands of dollars.
The more you see, and hang around those above things, the more normal they become. Peer pressure, even if not intentional, can be quite powerful.
If you're a $1.2MM fund manager / senior banker / law partner / management consultant / etc., then I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you:
A) Live in a very expensive city (NYC as stated in the article)
B) Mostly hang around with peers of your own socio-economic class. (Co-workers / business partners, clients, friends - friends of friends, social activities / clubs, etc.)
C) Are regularly exposed to expensive lifestyle events (expensive client diners, first class business trips, expensive homes, etc.)
All that stuff becomes so normal - it's easy to get sucked in.
"...an underlying sense that their work isn’t worth the grueling effort they’re putting into it."
Just because you've become wealthy doesn't mean that you find meaning in your work. Or, conversely, non-wealthy people can also fall into this syndrome.
There is certainly another population of people who started out and continued doing what they love and in the process became wealthy. It'd be interesting to identify and interview both groups and look for what makes the difference. For example, what about the Harvard MBAs who took control of a struggling company, turned it around and grew the workforce, putting more people to work and winning the allegiance of their customers. I'd guess that group would find much more meaning in that result than the bulk of the hedge fund group.
I sometimes wonder if the problem is that we don't believe in anything in this country. Religion is on the decline, but we as a society haven't replaced it with anything meaningful. Nationalism is a swear word, jobs are performed with no loyalty (not to blame workers, we're treated pretty expendably), marriage is no longer sacred (don't like your partner? Just divorce and move on to the next!)...
What meaning can someone find in such a life? Good times create weak men, and weak men live in existential crisis. Perhaps we need hard times to grant the cure of purpose for our collective depression.
[+] [-] QualityReboot|7 years ago|reply
I think the problem for most workers is the lifetime of toil, not the meaninglessness of the work.
I'd happily dig ditches for 8-12 hours a day for 3 years if I knew I was completely financially independent with millions in the bank that. Actually, I'd rather do that than write code. At least I'd be getting a workout.
As it is now, I write proprietary software for much less than those featured in the article, work is miserable, and I've still got maybe 10-15 years to go.
Am I in the minority here?
[+] [-] seem_2211|7 years ago|reply
But all of this is a distraction - at the end of the article, the author speaks about the people who are happy and satisfied in their careers - and broadly it seems like people who have autonomy and a sense of purpose in what they do. I run a small business and broadly enjoy working, so things like the Financial Independence movement don't really make sense to me. More money, less money - this is not the crux of the issue. Engagement and autonomy are some of the keys to a fulfilling work life.
[+] [-] strikelaserclaw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naravara|7 years ago|reply
The one where you lock into a mortgage and a car that assumes a $1.2M salary to keep ahead of.
It's really easy to let your lifestyle expenses balloon, especially in a high-COL city where minor increases in living space/amenities can end up costing large amounts of money.
[+] [-] toasterlovin|7 years ago|reply
My personal hunch as to what causes the demographic transition is that we have an evolved system for determining whether we are doing well or doing poorly and that system calibrates itself by examining the people around us. But, because our current economic and social system sorts people by income and status (talented people migrated into the cities from farms, even more talented people moved into more expensive neighborhoods, etc.), and because advertising constantly shows us higher levels of consumption to aspire to, even people who are, in an absolute sense, raking in obscene amounts of money are surrounded by a peer group that are roughly at their level. So it never really feels like you're rich; even though you live in a $3 million dollar home, you live on a street with $8 million dollar homes; even though your kid goes to a $30k/year private school, you can't afford to spend $200k vacationing in France during the summer like some of their peers, etc.
Interestingly, this parallels my own experience. As a senior developer, I'm now making roughly 3x what I made before becoming a programmer. Back then I would have imagined that all of my wants would be satisfied by 3xing my income. Yet somehow I still yearn to make more.
[+] [-] JackFr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eclipxe|7 years ago|reply
New York City
[+] [-] justaguyhere|7 years ago|reply
That might be a small example, but it shows the way the wealthy lead their lives. Luxury cars, high end electronics, multiple homes ... they all add up.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|7 years ago|reply
There are many ways to go through your career and your 'wealth' cycle. What worked for me was that when ever I got a raise or "extra" money (bonus, stock vesting, etc) I always adjusted my savings rate so that my take home pay was unchanged relative to inflation. The company gave me a 10% raise and inflation was 3%? I added 7% of that raise to my savings rate. As a result, my savings grew and my lifestyle didn't change, I could always "live on" a much more modest salary than I was being paid. That gave me tremendous flexibility in being able to take jobs that had a 'pay cut' but had other aspects that made them desirable (learning something new, opportunities to develop a new skill, more fun, Etc.) And after a while the amount of money your "savings" is kicking off gets to be more and more significant. If you're lucky, then one day the number your savings is kicking off is the same amount you're paying yourself out of your own paycheck and then you can walk away at anytime, keep your life style, and never have to work again. That gives you a tremendous amount of flexibility in how you spend your time.
[+] [-] Murdoch|7 years ago|reply
I found it interesting that a person in the article who made $1.2M a year was still depressed in thinking they were wasting their lives and it was all meaningless. I ask myself, does this person have children? a family to leave wealth to? or children to teach values to? I'm sorry but we have become so weak in our desire to satisfy only our own goals. That person's duty is to his family, and children (if he has any). His duty to society is to raise children with values that are compatible with the society. Religion instills this virtue and gives framework of how our actions on earth and our ability to reason and create is an imitation of "god" aka creation of existence.
[+] [-] cletus|7 years ago|reply
Some questioned how the guy couldn't live on 500-600k. There is some foundation for this. People do tend to spend up to their means. It can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking you "need" that $5m house, $150k/year in private schools, save up $1m/child to pay for 4+ years at an Ivy League school and so on when hardly any of that is true and trying to make it true is really what's making you miserable.
Fact is, if you'd be much happier in your job this will reflect on your family life and your children's lives much more than being able to go to Yale with no debt ever will.
The second thing is though, depending your career, you have to realize that you won't be earning $1m+ a year for 30-40 years. This isn't even necessarily about early retirement either. Think of pro athletes. Your earning window may be very small. You may also have to factor in luck. If you're a corporate lawyer, for example, you may not make it to partner or your firm may go under and that was really your one shot.
So having worked for now two big tech companies, I see these kinds of complaints about not being happy or not being paid enough or the like primarily from people who live in the Bay Area who have decided they need a 5 bedroom house in Palo Alto and all the aforementioned education expenses.
The fact of the matter is that the Bay Area is (IMHO) a pretty terrible place to live. The way I like to put it is people choice to live in the Bay Area to work for company X. Everywhere else pretty much they're working for company X because they live in city Y. The Bay Area probably has a high number of temporary residents. I've met more than a few people in tech who intend to "move home" in N years (where N is typically <7). To be fair, NYC probably has a fairly high number of temporary residents too (although my guess is less than the Bay Area).
Lastly, this article was written about MBAs. Honestly, if corporate politics isn't your thing it seems like they've picked the wrong career track. Or they've done it for the money and don't really enjoy it and that's a pretty stupid reason to do anything. I know some of my worst decisions have been made "because money".
[+] [-] potatofarmer45|7 years ago|reply
Before you know it, they have a gf/wife who expects the best. An expensive apartment in NYC with a great view they don't have the time to enjoy. And a job that's really a cage because they are addicted to the pay and they know if they leave, they won't be able to make the same amount of money.
It seems the longer you're in the system, the harder it is to leave and be willing to let go of that 5th avenue penthouse with stunning views and the "girlfriend who is hotter than the wildest dreams" or "dream artist boyfriend about to make his break". Sad but true
[+] [-] Gpetrium|7 years ago|reply
People make trade-offs, in some cases the perceived cost of making less money is: * Later retirement * Longer commute * Smaller house * Lower quality of life for the kids (no/limited private school, extracurricular, etc) * Limited network (which can mean power) * Decreased prestige in society (yes, society still see money as prestige) * Lower quality vacation * Less 'mating' options * Ability to provide to extend family & friends * Exchanging a stable income
People are afraid of change, "what if the lower wage means losing my wife?" "what if I realize that my new job wasn't what I hyped it to be and I can't get back to what I used to do?" The more you have (money in this case), the more you stand to lose.
[+] [-] graeme|7 years ago|reply
It seems that a lot of people who reach high incomes never maintain slack in their lives. As much as possible I've tried to keep expenses lower as my income grew. And to watch in advance what the big possible causes of such lifestyle inflation are: expensive real estate, expensive car, private school, large vacations or purchases made on debt with no plan to fund them, etc
The janitor study cited here is interesting, but I wonder if they controlled for disposition. Cheery people may simply be good at finding meaning in what they do, no matter what they do. And the opposite.
For instance, the fund manager could think "if I do my job well, I am allocating capital well and helping companies succeed and helping the economy grow faster than it otherwise would." I am sure that some content fund managers do think that. But is it merely dispositional, in the same way that not keeping your expenses low may be dispositional?
[+] [-] snarf21|7 years ago|reply
Find meaning in your hobby or in your volunteering or your exploration of nature, not your work or your income bracket.
[+] [-] akavi|7 years ago|reply
It implies by its framing that they're less happy, but that's not actually supported by any actual data in the piece (though to be fair, on cursory googling I wasn't able to find any evidence one way or another).
[+] [-] JohnFen|7 years ago|reply
This has been studied comprehensively over the years, that the results seem very clear: there is an ideal income level in terms of happiness. If you earn below or above that, you're probably sacrificing happiness.
The ideal income level depends on cost of living, but on average, in the US, that income level seems to be a bit north of $100,000/yr.
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|7 years ago|reply
I mean, given all the complaints and struggles we read of at other class levels the headline could be: The Elite - Miserable and in Fear, Just Like the Rest of Us.
And it's fear that drives greed. I mean, when you can't go from $1M to $500K that's fear of losing what you have; just like the rest of us.
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|7 years ago|reply
Now you make $(X + Y). Now some of those things become possible that you didn't dare let yourself dream about before. The problem is, you gained $Y in income, but the amount of things that became possible is 10 * $Y. You could do any one of the things that became possible, but you can't do all of them. So now they're realistic dreams, but you still can't do (most of) them.
For many people, this makes them less happy then they were, because the gap between dreams and reality got wider, even though they actually can do at least one thing more than they could before.
[+] [-] Fnoord|7 years ago|reply
This is already known though. Its a curve. People who live in poverty (local standards) are unhappy, and happiness increases a lot till they have more breathing space. I'm not sure what exactly is the magic border where this doesn't count anymore but say it is 60k a year (in USA, which is a bit odd because living expenses vary a lot but hear me out). After that ceiling, the happiness does not increase much anymore.
[+] [-] acomjean|7 years ago|reply
These things are hard to measure.
[+] [-] Gibbon1|7 years ago|reply
Are they happier snorting five grams of coke a week vs 1 gram? vs a guy rationing a six pack over a week?
[+] [-] o_nate|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevmo|7 years ago|reply
There was one study the book cited, "Taxation and the Allocation of Talent", which was particularly interesting. As it's abstract says: "Estimates from the literature suggest that high-paying professions have negative externalities, whereas low-paying professions have positive externalities."[1]
As a successful lawyer who quit that profession and became a software engineer, writer, and startup founder, all of this really resonates with me.
The book is an outgrowth of a 2013 essay that got re-printed 100s of times and spurred some polling.[2] I recommend at least reading the essay. It has a lot of implications for economics, business management, and various other fields.
[1]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/693393
[2] "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant" http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
[+] [-] Wwhite|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuakcockrell|7 years ago|reply
My question for HN is do you feel that the content you are working on makes a difference in your career satisfaction? Or do you just need to know that _someone_ out there is being benefited?
Is it just as fulfilling to work on a video game that flops (but maybe a few people still enjoy it) as it is to work on Fortnite where your code changes are used by millions?
Is it more satisfying to work on consumer facing iPhone apps like Apple Fitness where you are enabling millions of people to be healthier compared to working on a high frequency trading algorithm that makes a few people lots of money?
[+] [-] entee|7 years ago|reply
I'd be lying if I didn't care at all, obviously I'd rather the app be used. There's a special feeling of showing something to someone completely outside tech, saying "I built this" and having them "get" it. Hence why I think consumer apps are also more satisfying than a high frequency trading algo.
EDIT: minor grammar/missing words
[+] [-] JohnFen|7 years ago|reply
For me personally, this is the primary thing that affects my career satisfaction. If I don't find the work I'm doing to be meaningful, I will be miserable. There is no amount of money or other perks that can change that.
[+] [-] 52-6F-62|7 years ago|reply
In my personal opinion it does. Without getting into specifics, I've been working recently on a project in which I will be proud of having had a large part to play. It will [potentially] indirectly reach hundreds of thousands to million(s) of people, depending. It is also in a field I have long believed in. I won't be working with it, or the field forever, but I am glad to have done so.
There have been roles I've turned down that, while they may have provided value of some kind to somebody somewhere— I would personally find it rather empty. I've done those projects before. They're ephemeral (not that everything isn't, but I'm not being so extensive in scope...). Those things can depend on the nature of the work, or the people you meet in the process. Sometimes it can work out well, other times it can feel like oblivion for a time.
[+] [-] scarejunba|7 years ago|reply
As it stands, I work in online advertising by choice and I love it. It's pretty meaningful to me.
It's the hard choices that really attract me: defence, advertising and privacy, pharma, companies like Monsanto. Hated but worthwhile. That's what I like.
[+] [-] ttoinou|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aglavine|7 years ago|reply
I can think of several projects that would make me happy and 100% sure that they would improve my community as well. But I don't have time or wealth or mechanisms to deal with it. We are lacking community level organization, because it is really hard to do it well, without messing with corruption or ineptitude.
[+] [-] ttoinou|7 years ago|reply
I tend to think that one kinda needs to exchange (i.e. not just give everything away) with others in order for the "improvements" one is looking for gets validated / get real time feedback.
[+] [-] nightski|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|7 years ago|reply
I would suggest that such a situation makes you happy. Happiness does not imply the lack of struggle or difficulty. In fact, I think most people need struggle and difficulty in the mix in order to be happy.
[+] [-] thisisweirdok|7 years ago|reply
It's hard. Life is hard.
[+] [-] thorwasdfasdf|7 years ago|reply
I know it's really rough leaving all your friends and family and everything you know, but it's not as rough as being poor/homeless your entire life.
The meaning of life is to live (not work). The meaning of work is to make money. Money lets you live.
[+] [-] antisthenes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seppin|7 years ago|reply
That would be hell to most living in the 1%
[+] [-] malvosenior|7 years ago|reply
We've been sold a story that careers are a path to fulfillment, self actualization and empowerment. When in reality they are a soul sucking, near pointless burden that enriches investors, founders, execs and few others.
I love what I do for a living and I make a very healthy amount doing it. That being said, I see stay at home parents and think they are the people actually living life to the fullest. It's extremely difficult being a parent but the rewards trump all the accolades and money in the world (imo).
I think the 20th century screwed up our value system via marketing and mass media. People lost sight of where true fulfillment comes from and lost the ability to think in the long term and work hard to get there. Focusing on your career so you can travel internationally and buy mid-century modern furniture for your Brooklyn 1bd is pure hedonism and I think people are starting to wake up to that fact.
It's worth watching the documentary The Century of the Self to see how some of this played out and was orchestrated by the media and marketers. It's very interesting and really shows you how developments in psychology and technology lead to corporations triggering hedonistic instincts to sell more product. It's a great watch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
[+] [-] randomacct3847|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StavrosK|7 years ago|reply
If you optimize for making lots of money, that's (hopefully? probably?) what you will achieve. But it's very misguided to think that having a lot of money is how you become happy. If you want to be happy, make time for your friends, family, people important to you, and spend time on yourself and what you like doing. It's not complicated.
[+] [-] flippyhead|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badpun|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarejunba|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motohagiography|7 years ago|reply
It's not what you make, it's how you make it, and whether it's ever really yours.
[+] [-] jdlyga|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TrackerFF|7 years ago|reply
If you're a millionaire hanging around with avg. Joe's making $50k a year, then there's really no external forces to influence your habits. Your buddies aren't going to come around with their $300k sports cars, or invite you to their million dollar homes, and you won't be going to diners or clubs, spending thousands of dollars.
The more you see, and hang around those above things, the more normal they become. Peer pressure, even if not intentional, can be quite powerful.
If you're a $1.2MM fund manager / senior banker / law partner / management consultant / etc., then I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you:
A) Live in a very expensive city (NYC as stated in the article)
B) Mostly hang around with peers of your own socio-economic class. (Co-workers / business partners, clients, friends - friends of friends, social activities / clubs, etc.)
C) Are regularly exposed to expensive lifestyle events (expensive client diners, first class business trips, expensive homes, etc.)
All that stuff becomes so normal - it's easy to get sucked in.
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|7 years ago|reply
Just because you've become wealthy doesn't mean that you find meaning in your work. Or, conversely, non-wealthy people can also fall into this syndrome.
There is certainly another population of people who started out and continued doing what they love and in the process became wealthy. It'd be interesting to identify and interview both groups and look for what makes the difference. For example, what about the Harvard MBAs who took control of a struggling company, turned it around and grew the workforce, putting more people to work and winning the allegiance of their customers. I'd guess that group would find much more meaning in that result than the bulk of the hedge fund group.
[+] [-] fromthestart|7 years ago|reply
What meaning can someone find in such a life? Good times create weak men, and weak men live in existential crisis. Perhaps we need hard times to grant the cure of purpose for our collective depression.