[ZYinMD]

It's a sad truth but for most of us, when it comes to "decide which status game to play", you're simply aiming for money no matter what you choose. Money is the overarching metric that already incorporates everything else. The "weightlifting status" or the "content creator status" mentioned in the article are just money status in disguise.

Ask yourself: if you won a big lottery tomorrow, would you still keep doing what you do today? If the answer is no, then you've been playing the money game all along.

[ornornor]

> If the answer is no, then you've been playing the money game all along.

I’ve wondered about this for some time now. If I won the lottery, I would quit software engineering in a heartbeat.

But it’s not software engineering that I want to quit. I love writing software and having computers do my bidding automatically and elegantly.

What I loathe is all the BS around work, the posturing, the being told to drive the bus into the wall, being told when/if I can take my few weeks of PTO each year, and the spending my health and time making someone else richer.

If I could, I’d stop working today. It’s the working that kills me. And there is nothing I can do about it because without working I can’t pay my bills and I don’t think I’d be happy homeless or living on a shoestring. And software engineering is the best paying skill in my skill set, so I keep doing it. Even though it’s sucking my soul a little at a time.

[throwaway821909]

The 'Office Space' scenario might be more interesting/fun, keep working and ignore the BS, worst case you get fired and at least you learn you were right to follow the rules, best case you get to keep the good (actually writing code) and lose the bad. Normally you can never find out where the line is without crossing it.

[8n4vidtmkvmk]

++

I'd quit too but keep working on my side projects. in between vacations

[Swizec]

I started doing whar I do before I knew it also pays money. So yeah I’d probably keep coding and writing about coding.

Would be nice to not need money though. Then I could go coding things that are less certain to result in money. I miss the days when I could just work on projects for no reward other than working on the project.

[dgb23]

> if you won a big lottery tomorrow, would you still keep doing what you do today? If the answer is no, then you've been playing the money game all along.

That's implying playing the money game is voluntary.

[hahajk]

There’s a monk out there somewhere that would say it is.

[adewinter]

Maybe. From your examples, though, if you think you're going to make any money whatsoever from the "weightlifting status" game you are in for a rude surprise. Similar to other examples from the article (softball team, nightschool classes).

[nine_zeros]

> Ask your self: if you won a big lottery tomorrow, would you still keep doing what you do today? If the answer is no, then you've been playing the money game all along.

It doesn't end there. For people who really want the monetary status, there is a point where chasing more money doesn't cut it. They change their status game to something else at that point, say fame and connections with an elite group of people e.g. selective cliques or investing in a football team.

[_v7gu]

>The "weightlifting status" or the "content creator status" mentioned in the article are just money status in disguise.

Nice argument, care to back it up with your deadlift?

[gretch]

Arnold has a really good quote about this:

"A well-built physique is a status symbol. It reflects you worked hard for it; no money can buy it. You cannot borrow it, you cannot inherit it, you cannot steal it. You cannot hold onto it without constant work. It shows discipline, it shows self-respect, it shows patience, work ethic, and passion. That is why I do what I do."

Really makes you think. Not a whole lot of things out there with all of those properties

[majormajor]

"Starving artists" have long been romanticized, for one example of there being non-money games out there.

[JasonFruit]

Usually after they're dead and the art community has reached an agreement that they were pretty great, though; it's not much of a status game if it doesn't bear fruit while you're around to enjoy it.

[rubidium]

And then suffer a life on the hedonic treadmill dying smug and somehow all alone.

[caseyross]

It depends on the person. Some people see net worth as an ends in itself (boring, IMO). However, for other people, the point of more money is really to play other status games exponentially better.

For example, money in itself won't make you a famous actor, an award-winning musician, a bestselling author, a renowned artist, or an Olympian. But it will open the path to such goals by giving you leisure time to pursue them without worrying about pure survival.

More directly, it's extremely easy to transmute money into status via vacations, ownership of desirable real estate, expensive cars, etc. I would submit that it's generally not the money being coveted here, but the lifestyle it allows.

[exdsq]

I don’t think money is as big a deal as people think, but you only realize this after you’ve made a good amount (income, not wealth) while being unhappy with your work.

[adamredwoods]

It requires a lot money to be able to be the 'top' of any status game.

[throw0101a]

Thomas Aquinas several hundred years ago: "Article 1. Whether man's happiness consists in wealth?"

* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm

He then goes on to consider honour, glory/fame, power, pleasure.

[williamtrask]

Overnight fame can be just as disruptive

[bruce511]

I don't get the attraction of fame at all. Money, yes, money allows me to do what I _want_ to do, it would give me time that I otherwise have to spend working.

But fame _reduces_ what I can do. Famous people can't just pop down the local for a pint (in whatever city they happen to be in that week), famous people attract paparazzi - they're harrased by strangers...

Like I say, I don't get the appeal..