"The thought of having to sit still [and deal with] their inner demons is terrifying,"
Reminds me of the time when I went on a Tony Robbins retreat in Hawaii with 800 other people, including several Fortune 500 CEOs. Our team had 39 people including 1 of the CEOs. We did quite a few "physical games" to build team skills, trust, and overcome personal barriers, including firewalking. One of the games was climbing a 50 foot ladder and jumping off (tethered, of course) to catch a trapeze. 38 people did it. The CEO could not. He climbed halfway up the ladder, started crying, and climbed down.
It was stunning and a little embarrassing. We had been deferring to this guy for 4 days and there he was in front of us, totally exposed, probably for the first time in years.
There were many guesses about what had happened; I never really found out. But one thing was sure in my mind; he would have never let something like that happen at work.
Not to be pithy about it, but I think there's some truth to this idea: if you think you'll just work really hard for a bit and then quit to live a life of leisure, you probably won't get rich in the first place. Work itself has to interest you; it can't just be a means to an end.
If you become an investment banker at age 23 and work non-stop for 12 years, you may be rich by the time you get to 35. You will probably be overweight and alcoholic by the time you're 35, too. And no amount of money will ever bring your youth back. Let alone your health...
OK, assuming that you do get rich, you probably will never be able to quit. You'll be addicted to the money and status. You probably will have a trophy wife who you rarely see but who spends piles of money on clothes and shoes. Your peers will be buying bigger houses and more expensive cars. You are rich, but in your milieu there are many people infinitely richer than you are. You are jealous. Your money and status become less of a prize and more of an entitlement. You want more because you "deserve" more. You want to keep up with the Joneses. You want to show the lads you're a player.
I know investment bankers who look like junkies due to lack of sleep. Some snort cocaine. They put in 90-100 hours per week. They don't have time for girlfriends, so they spend money on high-level escorts. They say they'll quit by the time they're 35 or so, and move to Costa Rica, or to the South of France. Some say they want to become wine-makers. Others want to open their own gourmet restaurant. Some desperately want to move to private equity or a hedge fund. They will never quit. A fat paycheck is a golden cage.
Ha, I just turned 24 and I work on Wall Street. I know more than enough about that lifestyle. You're right, it's definitely a golden cage.
I didn't say I approved of the sentiments in my comment above. It's not a statement of moral correctness. It just seems to be how things work out on practice.
This is the first chance I've had to be able to talk to someone that works in the wall street environment....I've been following the "alternative" economics blogosphere for many years now (globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com, market-ticker.denninger.net, etc)
I'm not sure in what capacity you work, but do you see totally corrupt (opinions may vary on what is corrupt I suppose) things happening on a daily basis?
To be honest, from what I read, it seems like a den of thieves....any chance you could spread some light on this issue?
I agree with your first comment. If you absolutely despise your work, that will show and hinder your career prospects. No one likes to work with a bitter passive-aggressive.
In case you didn't notice, I was referring to Wall Street and corporate America in general, which is what the article is all about. There's an enormous cultural difference between Wall Street and the Silicon Valley.
"I had a guy come to me and say, 'I've got $40 million. Do you think it's enough?' " White recalls. "He meant, Was it enough to be happy and safe? The correct answer is no. You won't find [those things] with $4 billion. You're looking for 'enough' in the wrong place."
Surely the correct answer is 'yes, of course - put it somewhere safe, pat yourself on the back for doing well in the financial Olympics, and apply yourself to other interesting challenges.'
I do not advocate state interference in these things, but I really think once you've made that much money it's time to ask how much you have contributed to the general welfare in the process, and if the answer is 'not that much' then there are many nonprofits and similar that could use your insight and experience.
Yep, basically. It's why I don't feel so bad about Uncle Sam getting a fat chunk of my pay.
I'd be happier if they were really good at not wasting it. But then I think of all the garbage that I buy and I realize that I sure as hell wouldn't have spent it any more wisely. And, on top of that, I personally make enough that I'm basically happy anyhow.
More money would either be more garbage bought or more assets collected. Assets are nice for the rainy days, but I'm collecting them anyhow.
you're saying that you're more incompetent than the government when it comes to using money for the common good. I find this claim hard to believe no matter how inept you are.
Yes, here's my reasoning: The Government has the ability to hire subject matter experts on a wide range of issues. They come up with plans to spend it and compete with each other about whose plan is the best and try to make compelling arguments to elected or appointed officials to get funding. The inefficiencies come from the inevitable systematic abuses of bureaucracy: nepotism, greed, personal interest, etcetera etcetera. But, they still end up doing something and it's at least been thought through.
Now, we come to my spending. I'll go through several hypothetical situations.
First, no income tax has been taken from me at all: I spend the money on stupid garbage (video games, comic books, movies, camera equipment, etcetera) or squirrel it away in an investment (as I noted, nice to have more, but I'm making investments anyway). The common good is not served, I have more stuff I probably don't need anyway, the world falls into chaos.
Second, I don't get to spend my taxed money on myself, but have to spend it towards the common good as I so choose: I put it towards a pet project that I think is worthwhile. In my case, it would be to sponsor free programming education for kids. I always thought the computer classes in school were lame and I'd like to see kids get a better introduction at a young age. Scale this up by 300 million people: Nice sounding projects to feed the homeless and provide specialized education to kids and plant gardens etcetera are supremely well funded, but there's no public police department, no public fire department, no public roads, public transportation, center for disease control, EPA, FDA, and all the other acronyms that ensure that you don't get fucking raped by some business that has enough money to buyout the private landowners to do whatever the fuck it wants to do.
Finally, I'm tasked with spending the money in such a way as to form the most ideal society as possible: Shit, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing, can't someone else take care of this? Thus, the government.
So, no, I would definitely be more incompetent than the government when it comes to using money for the common good. I would be terrible.
Also, don't go telling me that the private sector would be better at it, because brother, I've worked in a private organization that's as large as a small government, and they are filled to the fucking BRIM with bullshit.
Personally, I've always been of the mind that we should be working on automated systems to handle this sort of thing. Cold, unfeeling automata dedicated towards the most efficient dispersal of public funds. Unmotivated by emotional pleas and the suffering of the individual. Steely, ruthless, determined.
But no one else seems to like that idea and I don't know how to build it.
Wow. You left me speechless. In your earlier post, you mentioned that Government excels at wasting the taxpayer's money and you still want to give them money for the 'common good'. [Personally, I am scared of everyone who talks about common good.]
Have you ever thought about why government wastes money? As Milton Friedman put is succinctly,
There are 3 ways to spend money.
1. Your money on yourself. [e.g. buying a car for yourself]
2. Your money on someone else. [e.g. buying a birthday gift for your friend.]
3. Someone else's money on someone else. [Your beloved government.]
Ask yourself, out of these 3 scenarios, which one will get you the most bang for the buck? Yes, scenario 1, where you make sure that you get most out of your hard earned money. And you can bet that there will be tremendous waste of money in scenario 3, no exceptions.
So my friend, tell me, why should I give my hard earned money to Government when I know that it will be wasted?
Keeping the waste argument aside, let me talk about your comment that you think you are terrible at using your own money. Have you thought that not everyone thinks that they are not good with their money? [e.g. I think I am good at managing my money]. Just because you are not, is it fair for you to suggest higher tax rate for everyone? What about my freedom to decide what should I do with my own money?
Mind you, I am not suggesting that there should not be any taxes. Only thing I am suggesting is that government taxes & their role in our day to day life should be minimum.
You're completely misunderstanding my point: A little bit beyond subsistence, my money goes towards frivolous expenditures that have a significantly diminishing ROI in terms of happiness.
I'm not running a business here. I'm just a dude. I don't have profits, I don't have shareholders, I can't issue dividends; maximizing my assets or cash on hand isn't going to make me feel a whole lot better. SO, if I am given more money, it isn't going to actually DO a whole lot for me, personally.
Also, let me rephrase what I was saying about being bad about spending money: I'm not bad about managing it. I save much of my disposable income. I don't buy more than I earn. I don't have any credit problems. But when I do spend money beyond the basic necessities, it is nearly inevitably on things that aren't bettering me or the people around me. I don't make the world a better place when I dispose of my income. And if I had more money to just SPEND, I wouldn't actually be any happier for it.
Fine, if you want to give your money to Government, please do so. But for the love of God, don't suggest that everyone else should also give their hard earned money to the government and that government should raise taxes.
Studies show that beyond making enough to covers the basics (shelter, food, etc) more money has declining marginal returns.
In fact, in the longest (and on-going) study about what makes us happy (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200906/happiness), when the experimenter is asked “What have you learned from the Grant Study men,” his response is "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people.”
White's point (from the Forbes article) is that $40M can't make the questioner happy, because happiness doesn't come from money.
I understand his point, of course. What I am objecting to is that 'no, true happiness is beyond price' does not usefully address the question asked.
The point I'm trying to make is that someone like White (who is obviously respected by someone who asks him such a question) would do better to drop the role of philosopher king and instead give the questioner the psychological push back out into the world they are so obviously asking for.
I have some first-hand experience of White's situation: what I learned was that hand-waving answers like this are not actionable. Someone who has enough decision power to be rewarded with very large amounts of money wants concrete answers and is suspicious of equivocation.
I think it was the FT who calculated that GBP 7M was the sum you needed to never need to work again (i.e. at whatever age you are now). That would buy you a nice house and provide enough of an income that you could do anything you reasonably wanted to do without eating into the capital.
Yeah, the figure was calculated such that you could be any age and still live the rest of your life on it. Obviously you could retire at 65 on a lot less.
Rich people keep working because they know they make a difference. They believe (almost without exception) that the company won't be able to function without them; that the company depends on them (only very rarely the case).
When people ask "why do the rich keep working", the implied question is "why do the rich keep working when they don't HAVE to?". But that implies that work is punishment, a thing you have to do to enjoy the other things in life. This tends not to be the case for high level executives who travel the world, meet lots of people, command thousands of people, and so on. Knowing that you make a difference trumps almost everything -- because it gives your life meaning.
A side issue is that many people, if I had to guess at least 10% of the world's population, is obsessive by nature. They don't want a balanced life, they want to focus the bulk of their time on one thing, and one thing only. Most people who are this way realize this before they're adults. I'm pretty sure that most rich people are obsessive about their work, and I think they know that if they were to quit they would end up doing something else with equal vigor, but they would contribute less to society. To continue work, given these specific assumptions, is the rational thing to do.
So you don't think it has anything to do with greed? Not even for some? Having more than those around you, "achieving higher status" if you prefer, appears to motivate a shedload of richer people.
"But that implies that work is punishment, a thing you have to do to enjoy the other things in life."
And you assume that if you work it has to be for remuneration. It's possible to work for free in very many beneficial ways. A lot of charities would welcome a highly skilled financier, say, or a world beating programmer who wanted to donate their time. One could also as CEO choose to take the same wage as the cleaner (minimum wage probably).
"Rich people keep working because they know they make a difference."
What, all of them? How about the banking leaders that just destroyed half the worlds major economies between them. They seem still to be "working" and receiving 8 figure bonuses in some cases.
"Knowing that you make a difference trumps almost everything -- because it gives your life meaning."
You sound like a motivational speaker. What difference precisely? Making people happier, more content, healthier, more fulfilled? Any westerner on greater than average pay in their country could choose to make even more of a difference and live comfortably whilst donating all their above-average income to others in need.
If it's all about making a difference then why don't the rich choose to be less rich and make more difference. Your analysis doesn't add up IMO.
You raise reasonable questions. It's a sad fact that some people get very rich by exploiting the commons and depend on zero- or negative-sum strategies to increase their wealth.
A distant uncle replied to me like this when I, being 9 years old and yet extremely curious, asked: "Why do you keep working everyday, uncle, when you have a gas station, a pharmacy and 4 other businesses?". His terse answer confounded the living hell out me: "Because working is lots of fun, kiddo. I'll keep starting businesses until there's no more fun in doing so."
Memories of our conversation are still vivid. That was 17 years ago. I finally understood what he meant when I got my first job and started making my own money. If you're passionate about your job, money will be nothing but a nice perk instead of being the reason you wake up early every morning.
"If you're passionate about your job, money will be nothing but a nice perk instead of being the reason you wake up early every morning."
I'm passionate about my job. Money is the only way my family can live, we need to eat, drink, have shelter at least.
Your statement should be "If you're passionate about your _well_paid_ job, you won't need to think about money, it won't seem like a reason to do anything ...".
You're missing the point entirely. I'm not questioning money's importance. We all have families and responsibilities. Money is the only way in which we can provide for our loved ones. However, if the first thing on your mind every morning is money, well, I don't envy you.
Also, I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I've been working nonstop since I was 17 years old. I've never stressed about money though. Maybe I'm just lucky I guess.
I don't wish any dose of poverty on anyone. Money is important and necessary, but I think the point was that the will to do a great job (better than required) is unrelated to money, it's to do with how passionate you are about it.
According to a well-known psychological research (google for it and I'm sure you'll find some links), a subject is given the following two options. (1) The subject earns 500k per year while all his friends and neighbors earn 1M. (2) Subject earns 100k per year while all his friends and neighbors earn 50k. Majority of subjects choose the second options.
This explains in part why people can't quit. Because if they do, all their friends will be making more money.
OK, but such a question carries economic implications like inflation. I know the research of which you speak, but I think it's flawed as it doesn't include an economic control such as 'the average wage in both cases remains at $30k, so you and your contemporaries all enjoy a high degree of financial security'.
Perhaps the article would be more accurately titled "Why do the rich and unhappy keep working?"
I don't think anything in this article contradicts the idea that one would choose to continue working because they find it rewarding.
If we divide the population of people wealthy enough to choose not to work into "those who find work rewarding" and "those who do not find work rewarding", I think this article is exclusively about the latter group.
I agree. For those of us who make software, spending a significant part of our day thinking about interesting problems and interacting with like-minded people is its own reward. A few years back I took a year off and spent some time coding for fun at home, but it just wasn't the same. I missed the daily interaction and the random conversations. For people like us, the question of "why keep working" has an obvious answer.
This is going to be a tedious list. I'll limit the list to things I can do without much money, because honestly given any more than a few hundred dollars the possibilities are endless. (They're endless anyway, really.)
Explore the suburbs with friends, look for parks and lakes, play frisbee at said parks, play tennis with friends, get really dizzy on the spinny things at said parks, eat at Applebee's, start conversations with Applebee's staff, organize a group pelvic thrusting session throughout Applebee's parking lot, organize late-night group exploration of Lowe's, walk through back alleys looking for interesting things, make Mario hats out of paper, buy people flowers, go to foreign restaurants and delis, stay up late at night sitting in hammocks, see bands performing, take road trips, attend music festivals and marathons and barbecues, paint, play arcade games, mess around with old consoles/computers, play tabletop games, romp through woodlands, play with pets, work out, explore houses, look for critters in woodlands/houses, wander streets at midnight, go to karaoke bars, rent movies from tiny stores, make music, go to the boardwalk, visit aquariums, watch sunsets, set off fireworks, go to cities and look for interesting people, spend excessive amounts of money on dollar menus at fast food places, walk on beaches, collect and polish rocks, build models, read up on ancient cultures, play pool, learn martial arts, play board games, sit and hold hands with people...
That's approx. 45 things that I culled from the photos I've taken in the last month alone. Obviously it's not the whole of what the last month of my life has been, nor are they the only things you can do without anything at all. The reason I had to resort to my own photo collection is that given the whole of possibility regarding just my small, few-thousand-people suburb and the several surrounding locations my mind goes nearly blank.
I spent years of my childhood exploring just one of the 3-5 parks within walking distance of my house, and I can say with authority that within that park lies a series of tall-grass areas called "mazes" that hunters go on, a pavilion complete with barbecue equipment and charcoal, series of forested areas that merge with rivers and which are ripe for building things in, two lakes - one hidden from view - a waterfall leading to a lengthy river hike with quite a few natural pools, an old abandoned chapel, a dance hall, a baseball diamond, a mountain overlook, and the entrance to a statewide hike that I've never entirely walked along. And this isn't a huge park, either: I'd say it's a few acres at most. Within several miles of that park are multiple parks that are much bigger that I've never had much of a chance to explore.
On the secluded cul-de-sac where I live there're a good 20 people, including children ranging from infancy to college age; there's a former FBI agent whose hobby is landscaping the house in which he lives; there's a devoutly religious father who travels to foreign countries to help improve lives; there are two families about whom I know nothing whatsoever, who I would get to know better if it weren't for the fact that there are a million other things I want to do first.
Every time I go to New York City, I'm staggered by the knowledge that I could spend months on a single block of the city and not run out of doors to enter, people to meet.
That's not even mentioning the Internet, which I'm rather a fan of and which has millions of communities I'd love to discover. Here we occasionally see articles on how to clamp down on noise, people complaining about reading 200-300 RSS feeds at a time. I read 13 RSS feeds because I've learned that it's impossible to read everything that appears online. Even with those 13, I'm used to spending hours and hours every day exploring new things, talking to people, getting involved in discussions. Trolling fights with lawyers from Taiwan. Arguments like this, where I feel the need to write stuff to people I've never met but still know the names/handles of. People like you.
Tomorrow the plan's to do yoga with some friends, perhaps design a web site or two, possibly go hiking, listen to an album by the Kinks that I haven't heard yet, possibly head over to the library and pick out books at random, see if any of them are worth anything. Chances are much more than that will happen, but I'm not going out of my way to plan things at 4AM. Things will happen. That's all I need to know.
If money was no object, I'd go tour the building of every company I'm infatuated with, then I'd visit all the big cities, drive across country, go to airports and bus stations and taxicabs, meeting people everywhere. I can't even begin to think of what I'd do beyond the United States. I want to see everything. I want to visit small folk villages in Mexico and hitchhike across Europe and maybe learn some languages... But that's beyond my immediate scope, because I know that within a dozen miles of where I'm sitting now, there's a place where I can learn to swing dance and ballroom dance and jazz dance and ballet, and there are jazz clubs and garage spots for screamo bands, music stores where people could tell me how to play any instrument I can get my hands on (music stores that have HARPS in them. Isn't that awesome?), pool halls and barbershops and supermarkets and florists and lots of things I've probably never even thought to think of. I could spend my life in this miniature suburb and never run out of things to do. A barber who's an old friend of my mother's and an old middle school music teacher who plays the flute both spent their lives in this town. I don't think I want to do that, but I know that's always an available option. And jeez, I haven't begun to talk about the various options available given a gorgeous girl and a full gas tank and a picnic blanket, and that's probably another few lifetimes worth of things to try out.
Haven't you ever felt these moments, where you think about everything in existence and feel, like, holy SHIT, there are six billion people in the world and if I wanted to I could meet any one of them? I'm having that feeling right now. Like, I'm writing this to you, and I don't even know you, and you don't know me, but each of us is living a completely different life and we think completely different things, and if I were to meet you we wouldn't know anybody in common or any of the same places and we'd each be talking to a person with a lifetime's worth of fascinating things to explore. That is so cool I can't quite imagine it.
I'm sorry if this was an excessive response to your inquiry, but I think it's silly to say there are only 30-40 things to do. I can think of 30-40 fun things to do without getting up from this couch alone, though I'd rather you not ask me to list all those things.
Nice reply. I agree with you. If you don't know what other things than work you could spend your time on, you either lack imagination, are passionately attracted to your kind of work or are socially inept. Life is just an endless playground of possibillities - a gigantic video game where the objective is to have a good time.
"Having a good time" can mean different things for different people. It could mean getting to know interesting people, mastering one of three hundred million practical skills (one of which is making money), having sex, doing dangerous things (dangerous is fun, incidentally: skydiving, river kayaking), overcoming personal barriers, learning stuff you haven't learned before, taking a second degree, discovering something no one else knows etc etc etc. If you wanted me to detail the list, I could go on forever.
I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives, but if you are bored and don't see any options, you have issues. You're missing out. Get a grip and try something new. Life is supposed to be rewarding.
If you're ever worried, do what I did: Make it a goal to take a picture every day of something you did. Could be as small as yardwork. Just try to make the picture interesting, even if you're not doing anything interesting. If you can't get an interesting picture doing what you're doing, try and carve out 30 minutes to do something fancy.
Lots of it is also a matter of difference of opinion. I used to read some developers' personal blogs and every time they posted a photo, I'd feel some weird envy, even when it was stupid photos. "Oh, man, he and a friend went to buy some milk! I hate that I'm inside living a boring life!" The difference between "Damn it, got to buy some groceries..." and "Voyage to the grocery store!" is more one of perspective than it's one of doing exotic things.
In some cases, I just like being part of the talk. Right now that's Hacker News and Something Awful, because Reddit people frustrate me and the idea of losing days to Metafilter scares me. I'm also a little obsessive re:design. I like clicking every link on every web site to see where it takes me.
In a lot of cases, I like going through a site's history, reading up on its culture. I've spent a day or two going through the YTMND wiki, for instance, and right now I'm looking through the Let's Play Archive, which has quite a lot of fascinating stuff. My favorite moment there so far is http://lparchive.org/LetsPlay/OregonTrail/Update%2021/index...., an Oregon Trail run where, to decide a single action at a river, people wrote a hundred or so poems stating their opinions.
> That's approx. 45 things that I culled from the photos I've taken in the last month alone.
Awesome list.
My favorite feature of iPhone software is if you are in the camera roll looking at a picture. If you hold down the backward or forward button for a few seconds, the software will speed through your photographically documented life. like a flip movie of what you've done, where you've been, who you've met.
If you have an iPhone or (better) play with a friend's iPhone, give it a play.
You may think that's a long list...but it isn't. If you had all the free time in the world, you'd get bored of it within a few years. Most of the things you mention, are things you do in the background as you live your life. You might as well say "Go to the grocery store", yeah its an activity, but that's not really the point.
The thing I see from your post is that you like to explore...which can be summed up as one thing. You might enjoy doing this for 1-2 hours in your spare time, but you'll get tired of it, if you had nothing but the free time. It's like eating ice cream, if you eat nothing but ice cream, you'd grow to hate it eventually.
So far I still find grocery stores incredibly exciting. I find it slightly bewildering that people get bored of a store with hundreds of thousands of products.
You may think that's a long list...but it isn't.
Remember when I said hundreds of thousands of things? That still stands. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life cycling through what I just posted; that's just a sampling of the last month of my life. There are hundreds of thousands of things, but it's ridiculous of you to think I'll write all hundreds thousand down in front of you. Sorry. Not a priority.
Or, put another way: So far in my life I've never gotten bored, my parents have never gotten bored, and my grandparents are still traveling the world every week and getting excited, so I'm not worrying too much.
Well what I was looking for was for you to say something like: jump out of an airplane, go scuba diving, drive an F1 car. You know a list of different things. You pretty much just said "Go exploring" a dozen times.
Again: I listed the things I did this month, from my house, with a handful of friends. I won't even try to make a list of super-exciting experiences because there are so many things. When the possibilities range from "learn to sumo wrestle" to "take a silent 10-day meditation retreat in the mountains" to "fire machine guns at things", it's stupid to name everything within that range. The point I was trying to make was that I could be satisfied even with the little exciting things for a long, long time.
Isn't jumping out of an aeroplane exploring? It is exploring a different experience and so are all the things you mentioned and I think that was the point of his post, go find out what is our there so that you may experience different things.
I used to read some developers' personal blogs and every time they posted a photo, I'd feel some weird envy, even when it was stupid photos. "Oh, man, he and a friend went to buy some milk! I hate that I'm inside living a boring life!"
There's a difference between being bored and thinking, erroneously, that your life is boring. It's much easier to complain about being bored than it is to actually be bored.
You seem to be saying that if you're bored, it doesn't mean your life is boring. But if you say your life is boring, does it mean you're bored, or only that your life is boring, or omg neither and can you even be bored if your life is not boring ooohh..
Or maybe you're saying that when someone complains about being bored, he's not actually bored but just thinks he is?
"Twist" this? I'm trying to answer your question. It's not worth cheating in an online dick-waving contest.
I'm saying, very clearly, that complaining about being bored doesn't automatically make your life boring, not when you have the choice of being bored or not. When I spent all day reading other people's blogs, I was missing the fact that they were probably spending just as much time online as I was. The instant I started walking out the door in the morning, I realized the only thing keeping my life boring was me.
Let's end this line of conversation here, as neither of us benefits from it.
> Let's end this line of conversation here, as neither of us benefits from it.
Good idea.
> I realized the only thing keeping my life boring was me.
All along, I wanted to point out that you contradicted yourself, which was most likely quite apparent to you too.
Claiming that you (and your parents etc) have never been bored in your lives when it's just not true (by your admission too) is, well, disingenuous at best, especially when you do it to embellish how magical your life supposedly is. Your chronicling of all the QuirkyMagical things you've supposedly done felt a bit off too.
We're pretty much all computer nerds here, and we've all wasted quite a bit of our lives feeling bored and sorry for ourselves.
If you've managed to turn your life around and stop wasting time, that's great for you, but to the rest of us, what you've been saying here feels too pretentious, dishonest, or like "rubbing it in", or highlighting your own awesomeness, and none of these things is very classy.
It could be that I'm all alone in thinking this, or it could be that no one else just wanted to say anything, because this is HN and we're all serious and business-like, and you're an intelligent and eloquent fellow.
I wasn't participating in a dick-waving contest though. I just couldn't help but think that you knew exactly what I meant to point out a couple of messages earlier, hence the "twist".
"I can't think of anything interesting to do" is very different than "there is nothing interesting left to do."
I will grant you "the trappings of wealth" would seem to be boring in short order. How many "exclusive resorts" can you stay in until all the ultra-master-upgrade-penthouse suites look the same? How long can you listen to the "in crowd" go on about their money and faux-philanthropy?
Bill Gates is a perfect example here. Made his money, changed the world, checked out, made a difference. Do you think Bill is bored?
How many "exclusive resorts" can you stay in until all the ultra-master-upgrade-penthouse suites look the same?
Hell, in Las Vegas alone I have no problem imagining there're a few dozen unique ultrasupersuites in existence. That's enough for a lifetime's worth of rich, excessive vacations, assuming the goal isn't to try out a suite a week or some shit.
Most of these people's wealth is a byproduct of their work. They were probably not working to get rich in the first place. They were doing it because that is what they knew best and were dedicated to it. It does not have much to do with money.
Some poor artists work just as hard and that affects other people around them too.
Hence the question should be "Why people (rich or broke) who found their passion can't stop working at it?"
Maybe we're just programmed by evolutionary forces to work? Perhaps doing something creative releases endorphins (or something) that causes us to be addicted.
Most people believe in the game -- they really buy it on a visceral level. That's true for the rich and poor alike -- it's the rare soul who "gets" that it's a fun house, and still chooses to participate. It's just a ride as Bill Hicks used to say... but most people don't get that, even if they drive a Rolls.
I have extremely specific monetary goals. Once these goals are met additional money is worth less to me than my time. it's the marginal value theory of money. each additional dollar is worth slightly less than the one before it, until you reach a point where additional dollars have no value.
If you're that dedicated to your work, it's possible that you should not have children. Why start a family if you're not going to spend any time with them? The social pressure to spawn is strong, but not insurmountable.
If you stop doing what makes you feel alive, you will die. Making a huge deal or saving/earning a ton of money are some of the most exciting things you can do, as long as you don't lose perspective. What can I say, I'm a shameless capitalist.
Reminds me of the time when I went on a Tony Robbins retreat in Hawaii with 800 other people, including several Fortune 500 CEOs. Our team had 39 people including 1 of the CEOs. We did quite a few "physical games" to build team skills, trust, and overcome personal barriers, including firewalking. One of the games was climbing a 50 foot ladder and jumping off (tethered, of course) to catch a trapeze. 38 people did it. The CEO could not. He climbed halfway up the ladder, started crying, and climbed down.
It was stunning and a little embarrassing. We had been deferring to this guy for 4 days and there he was in front of us, totally exposed, probably for the first time in years.
There were many guesses about what had happened; I never really found out. But one thing was sure in my mind; he would have never let something like that happen at work.