
Getting ahead vs. doing well - pmcpinto
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2016/01/getting-ahead-vs-doing-well.html
======
_yosefk
If you work somewhere and everyone else gets a raise because there's a new
company-wide minimum wage, but you don't get a raise because you were already
compensated above that level and you got there through hard work (or so you
think), you might quit, not because you resent the people who got the raises,
but because you figure that you'll get a better deal at a place that gives
raises to people who work harder.

As to state-wide minimum wages - "the" argument against it is that less people
are employed at a higher price of labor and that those priced out of the
market are likely to be the ones hurt the most by it, though their numbers
might be smaller than the numbers of those employed at the higher wage. (Of
course this applies to the company with the $70K minimum wage as well: that
company could have used the money it cost to implement this policy to instead
hire more people.) There are counter-arguments along the lines of the demand
for labor being inelastic and other such, but it's kinda off to not present a
sensible argument against a minimum wage while presenting a crazy strawman
argument against it, the latter implying with a high likelihood that the
author supports a high minimum wage.

~~~
deanCommie
But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate
before. If you were to leave, maybe you'll be able to get a raise at another
position, maybe not, but the other employees at your company don't change
that.

Okay so now you're in a situation where other people who don't work as hard or
as smart as you are getting paid close to you, or the same. That doesn't feel
good, but what happens next? Well, if you continue working harder than them,
you'll be promoted and get a raise, and they won't. And there, the system re-
corrects itself.

Now, I COULD buy the argument that seeing people who you know don't work as
hard suddenly make the same money as you would make you yourself get lazy and
not try as hard. Because surely they can't fire you for performing the same as
the rest. But if that's the type of person you are, maybe the company would be
better off without you anyway?

~~~
lazyjones
> _But that doesn 't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market
> rate before._

So were those who got a raise, but the company decided to hand out raises as a
gift (not as a reward) to lower performers only - of course this
discrimination will be frustrating.

~~~
darod
I don't know if you can characterize the people who got a raise as a low
performers. Some people's market rate may just be below 70k but that doesn't
mean they don't work hard. There are plenty of blue collar workers that bust
their ass everyday.

~~~
brushfoot
But performance has less to do with butt-busting than with choices in what to
learn/how to spend your time, don't you think? E.g., I could be working long
hours manually moving data around, but if you come in and script that, you're
already the higher performer. It's about where you've chosen to direct your
effort vs. where I've chosen to direct mine.

------
hartator
The $70,000 minimum wage is a bad example, the CEO of this company was in fact
a crook that basically throw this out there to distract from charges where he
is risking fines and prison for overpaying himself.

Ref:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=%2470+000+minimum+wage&oq=%2...](https://www.google.com/search?q=%2470+000+minimum+wage&oq=%2470%2C000+mi&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.6560j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8)

~~~
kelukelugames
I read your comment and felt sad. Why can't good people just do good things?
Went to verify and came across this. Ex-wife alleged that he physically abused
her.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-16/the-
video-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-16/the-video-
accusing-gravity-ceo-dan-price-of-domestic-abuse-won-t-be-published)

------
mark_l_watson
Great article that I agree 100% with.

I think that the problem is that people seek pleasure rather than joy in life.
We become desensitized to things that are pleasurable but when we feel joy
from love, helping someone, expressing ourself a creatively, etc. that kind of
happiness never gets old.

I have a friend who lives a very high life style. He gets a new Porshe every
few years and recently at a group morning coffee he was talking about getting
his wife a new car when the car she has is very nice. When he was done talking
about his upcoming car purchase I started a new conversation about our cars
being almost 10 and almost 20 years old and how wonderful it was having older
things that still provide great service. I think my buddy needs to feel
superior to people who don't have as high a life style. The funny thing is
that I have way more economic resources than my friend.

I liked Seth's point that in a networked world where things can be shared that
we lose the feeling of exclusivity, which I think is a good thing!

~~~
brookside
I myself am fully in the camp of driving old vehicles and aim to be mindful of
minimizing pointless consumption.

HOWEVER, I would argue that your humblebrag about the age of your cars, right
after your friend talks proudly about his new Porsches, is the far more odious
of the two boasts.

Conspicuous asceticism carries with it projected moral superiority, and it
seems clear you are opening judging your friend's buying choices as inferior.
It's his money, and his happiness. And I notice you can't help but add a final
coda/dig that you are much richer than your friend.

I'm only sensitive to the pitfalls of your mentality because I was raised to
handle money in the same way as you, and have to fight the urge to be
obnoxiously gleeful about, for example, my low housing costs when
conversations about rent come around.

~~~
kelukelugames
I remember reading about this in Eckhart Tolle's book. We protect our egos by
saying we are better than others in one or another. For example, if I can't
out earn my neighbor then I can feel better by being more frugal.

------
virjog
> They quit a good job, a job they liked, because other people got a raise.

> This is our culture of 'getting ahead' talking.

That's a pretty bold conclusion without any evidence. The concept of a salary
is to pay someone in return for work performed. How would Seth feel if I make
the same amount of money as him just by sitting at home (obviously an extreme
scenario from one aspect)? It would undervalue his contributions, his hard
work and dedication, the obstacles he had to overcome, etc. Any reasonable
individual would have second thoughts about working at a company that
considers a manager as an equal (financially, salary-wise) to a janitor (for
example).

It would be safe to say that those two people didn't quit because other
employees got a raise. It was probably due to the fact that their
contributions didn't hold the same value anymore.

~~~
peteretep

        > How would Seth feel if I make the same amount of
        > money as him just by sitting at home
    

Why should Seth give a shit? He's making lots of money and having fun. What
does it matter to him what/how you're doing?

That's the entire point.

~~~
matwood
In a business, particularly a small business the amount of money to go around
is a fixed pool. Giving raises to low performers means less money for the high
performer.

~~~
peteretep
The amount of money dedicated to salaries is not fixed - particularly in
regard to owner compensation, capital investment, marketing costs, team
composition, training, etc

------
muzani
It's usually about ego. It's not always bad people who have big egos.
Sometimes good people have a large ego too.

Consider the person who was told at 5 years old by his parents that he'll
never be as good as his classmates. In school, they were told the same - by
teachers, bullies, other authority figures that they'll be worthless unless
they do something a certain way. Sometimes good people get pressured into this
by friends, spouses, in-laws.

Such a kind of person would be eager to prove others wrong. This is the kind
of person who chases 'success'.

They'll want to prove they are successful as a form of revenge or a way of
impressing the in-laws. Buying expensive cars is the most obvious way. Or
suits. Clothes. Houses.

Sometimes there's insecurity and self-doubt. Everyone wants to improve, but
the line for improvement is really vague. So they make it relative - compare
progress to someone else rather than anchoring it to something solid, like
savings.

To many of these people, narrowing the minimum wage bar would be frustrating
as it proves that they are hovering on the minimum line.

~~~
vertex-four
> Such a kind of person would be eager to prove others wrong.

Honestly, that's really quite rare - and on top of that, you're bordering on
trying to say that bullying and putting people down is a good thing.

The people I know who've struggled with bullying, family issues, and similar,
tend to _want_ to do well but struggle due to insecurities and mental issues
in no small part exacerbated by this treatment throughout the first couple of
decades of their life. As a result, things like "holding down a job at the
supermarket", or even "turning up every day for volunteering", are
achievements for many people who've suffered from these issues, never mind
"succeeding" in the way that you define it.

~~~
chillacy
_When an archer is shooting for nothing, he has all his skill.

If he shoots for a brass buckle, he is already nervous.

If he shoots for a prize of gold, he goes blind or sees two targets —

He is out of his mind!

His skill has not changed. But the prize divides him.

He cares. He thinks more of winning than of shooting–

And the need to win drains him of power._

From the poet zhuang zhou. I also have friends who have extreme insecurities
brought on by bullying and family issues and have a strong drive to succeed,
and I can agree that I don't envy having these issues, because as focused as
they are, they also mentally suffer with every setback and constantly battle
anxieties as they chase their goals.

------
mcbrown
I'm pretty sure the premium-only airlines have all failed because (a) it's
hard to start an airline, (b) there are only a few routes where there is
enough demand to fill a premium-only plane (which exacerbates all kinds of
issues from competition to poor gate/crew utilization to maintenance costs and
so on), (c) most of the routes that could theoretically work are capacity-
constrained, forcing these startups to use more remote airports (e.g. Eos flew
into Stansted rather than Heathrow) which reduces their utility, and (d) did I
mention that starting an airline is hard?

Other than that quibble, I enjoyed this post.

~~~
dmethvin
As an example, the all-business SAS flight from Houston to Norway was targeted
at oil company employees [1]. It couldn't fly 7 days a week because they had
to take the plane offline once a week for cleaning/maintenance and there was
no other all-business plane to rotate into its place. They stopped the route
because the oil price slump reduced travel of oil company employees.

[1] [http://thepointsguy.com/2015/10/10-unusual-things-
sas-737-tr...](http://thepointsguy.com/2015/10/10-unusual-things-
sas-737-transatlantic/)

------
Bjartr
The only person I care about being better than, is who I was yesterday, in any
aspect.

Or rather, that's what I strive for, unconscious tendencies be damned. I think
it's a lot less stressful than comparing to all the people around you.

------
golergka
> One unspoken objection to raising the minimum wage is that people, other
> people, those people, will get paid a little more. Which might make getting
> ahead a little harder. When we raise the bottom, this thinking goes, it gets
> harder to move to the top.

What a ridiculous strawman to attack. Author didn't even try to prove that
this "unspoken objection" actually exists, he just enjoyed the fantasy of evil
man in suits so much.

~~~
enraged_camel
There are a lot of studies that prove the mentality exists. I forget where I
read it, but they did a study where they gave the participant two choices:
they get $140 and their neighbor gets $160, or they get $120 and their
neighbor gets $100. _A significant portion chose the latter option._

~~~
hodwik
And they should, the value of the dollar is relative to the total in the
economy. I suspect, _because the question was even asked_ , the participants
read into the study as a question of economics. I would have done the same
thing.

Assuming the two people make up the total economy; $120 out of a total $220 is
a greater amount of money than is $140 out of $300.

~~~
stdbrouw
That seems a little far-fetched. You ask someone about distributing cash
between them and their neighbor and _of course_ the participant will assume
that what you're talking about is their wealth relative to the sum total
wealth of the entire world or the effects of large-scale inflation?

~~~
hodwik
The inflationary nature of money is heavily tied into our subconscious
experience of it. If you ask the same question , but about _things_ rather
than dollars, people will make the rational choice.

"Would you rather have a yacht if your neighbor has two yachts, or a dingy,
and your neighbor doesn't have a boat?" Everyone will answer yachts, because
yachts aren't subconsciously inflationary.

"Would you rather have ten books and your neighbor has fifteen, or five books
and your neighbor has three?"

"Would you rather own three pairs of shoes and your neighbor owns four, or two
pairs of shoes and your neighbor owns one?"

Also, the very fact they're asking the question in a study causes people to
answer differently than they would normally -- that's the problem with this
sort of 'science' to begin with.

It's always this sort of Gotcha! science. People are used to that. As a
result, most people, when they're answering questions in a study are thinking
"These are trick questions. I won't be a guinea pig. What is the underlying
trick here?"

\---

Addendum: The study may also be dealing with a cultural difference in the use
of the phrase "your neighbor". In the southern Christian tradition "your
neighbor" is a catch-all for people that you are not related to (from Mark
12:31).

~~~
stdbrouw
You do see the irony in criticizing a study for its imperfection when you
yourself rely on nothing more than your personal guesstimate of what "most
people" think and a just-so story about the possible influence of an obscure
biblical interpretation, right?

I agree with your general point, many of these kinds of psychological studies
lack all external validity (they don't measure what they think they measure).
It just surprised me that instead of "you know, I have my doubts" your
original post went straight for "this empirical research is wrong because my
unsubstantiated theorizing is right."

~~~
hodwik
>"this empirical research is wrong because my unsubstantiated theorizing is
right."

The empirical research isn't "wrong", that doesn't even make sense. Data is
just data, it stands for nothing but itself, it must be interpreted for one to
make a grander statement about reality.

I'm saying your and enraged_camel's _interpretation_ of the data is wrong --
which is no less scientific a position, and no more unsubstantiated. We're
both examining the data, which itself has no opinion, and making predictions
about what that data represents given a number of imperfect heuristics.

That's how science works.

~~~
stdbrouw
You're creating a false equivalence. Yes, different interpretations of the
same data are possible, but that doesn't make all interpretations equally
valid. Occam's razor would prefer the simple explanation that a question asks
what it purports to ask, rather than that the question must necessarily have
been internally translated into another question by the participants to the
study.

------
barrkel
Of course, the mantra that _Life is more fun when you don 't compare_ is
exactly what well-paid people would want other people to live by. There's an
element of self-service in this attitude when you're well-paid yourself.

------
namenotrequired
This is, in my opinion, also part of the reason why we have sects, conspiracy
theories, etc. Maybe even self help books (and a lot of blogs on HN).

People need a reason to feel important, and if someone comes along and tells
them that there is some truth out there that the other suckers refuse to see
or accept, it can be a seducing tale.

~~~
Alex3917
> People need a reason to feel important, and if someone comes along and tells
> them that there is some truth out there that the other suckers refuse to see
> or accept, it can be a seducing tale.

This is why most successful mainstream movies start with the main character
waking up one day and suddenly discovering that they're not like everyone else
and they have some sort of special destiny.

It's interesting that both Hollywood and Silicon Valley are built on the same
sort of masturbatory stories, just with different facades for different
audiences.

~~~
copperx
It's disappointing to think that so many adults hold these schoolchildren
values and hopes.

------
kelukelugames
As I've become more successful, I feel increasingly more like an
underachiever.

Fortunately, I resist the urge to compare material wealth. I bought a modest
and affordable house for my income level. Going to pay it off in 5 years and
hoard the rest of my money under my bed. Don't care if someone else bought a
Tesla or went on another international trip. As a joke, I've started to brag
about mundane things on facebook. Such as eating a "fancy" Chipotle burrito or
taking an "exotic" trip across the bridge.

------
ChuckMcM
The article makes a good point but if a person is already in the 'compare'
mindset it is often impossible for them to internalize it. One of the oddest
things is finding a fact that you don't believe because if you did, it would
require you to change your whole belief structure about yourself.

The canonical example is addiction, addicts believe they can quit any time,
because if they couldn't quit then they would have to admit they were an
addict. And generally admitting that means admitting you aren't in control and
that is a scary place to be without any support.

In startups you will often see this if the company is suddenly very successful
and people are suddenly "rich" (by their own definition). I've seen two
responses to that outcome, sometimes people are grateful that they were lucky
to be in the right place at the right time, and some people develop this
internal view that they are somehow "better" than the folks who did not get
rich. In the latter case it expresses very oddly, putting down people who are
doing better work than they are, but aren't rich. The challenge of admitting
that they were just lucky, means they have to understand they are not somehow
better than the people who didn't get rich.

At least if you won the lottery its obvious you were just lucky.

------
andygcook
I remember a study from awhile ago that basically said once a top performer
gets above a certain wage threshold, in general they no longer care about the
wage itself, but just about being paid more than their peers. I'll try to find
it and post it here.

------
aianus
How are you going to attract the wife you want if you're not better than other
men (in some way, shape, or form)? That's always going to be _the_ zero-sum
game.

Edit: s/a wife/the wife you want/

~~~
vinceguidry
It's not about _being_ better, it's about _doing_ better.

I have a friend that I've been dating. She tells me all about the other guys
she dates. This past weekend for her birthday a friend flew down from another
state to hang out with her for the weekend.

This guy is loaded. Way more money than sense. Among the things he got her
that weekend was a $200 bottle of champagne that he must've paid $300 for
because he got it in a restaurant. She doesn't drink. She had half a cup and
they left the bottle on the table when they left.

He does all this for a girl he sees a few times a year. When she told me this
story, I went down to the massage place she likes, and got her a $200 gift
card for massages. She was _very_ grateful.

I don't take her to expensive restaurants, I take her to the best places in
town to eat, which are never really expensive. I take time to try to get to
know her and try to work on my issues so that the time we spend together is
better.

As a result she spends way more time with me than she does with the others.
Where other guys spend money to cover up their perceived inadequacies, I put
time and effort into making every moment I spend with her special.

That kind of effort is an order of magnitude more effective at finding and
keeping the woman of your dreams. And you don't have to have a ton of money or
a huge penis or be six feet tall to do it.

~~~
lazyjones
> _As a result she spends way more time with me than she does with the others.
> Where other guys spend money to cover up their perceived inadequacies, I put
> time and effort into making every moment I spend with her special._

But she still seems to need to meet rich guys who live in another state
despite all the quality time with you? Perhaps you're deluding yourself and
she's just spending time between the more interesting guys with you because
you're more available.

~~~
vinceguidry
> because you're more available.

The availability aspect is interesting. I used to try to play availability
games with her. They mostly just got in the way. I much prefer to be generous
with my time, and set boundaries rather than be arbitrary.

Her time is very limited too. She has a full-time job that keeps her occupied
sometimes during the weekend as well. She doesn't have a lot of available time
for dating herself. Despite this, she regularly makes time to come see me.

She shows me the text messages of the "more interesting guys" she also dates.
Nasty, ugly, controlling, the lot of them.

The impression I get from her is that she doesn't really understand guy
psychology and so doesn't really grasp why it's all a waste of time. But I can
be patient. I date other girls too. My dating life isn't as full as hers, but
I like to think my 'others' are way better quality than her 'others'.

------
copperx
The comments in this thread are extremely disappointing. I was nauseated at
the beliefs some of you hold regarding happiness. Enough HN for today.

------
eliben
"Sometimes you’re ahead, sometimes you’re behind. The race is long and, in the
end, it’s only with yourself."

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_Sunscreen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_Sunscreen)]

------
cjstewart88
This really resonates with me currently and something I try to remind myself
of as much as possible. It's something I've struggled with in my 5 years of
being a professional developer. Thanks for sharing!

~~~
CleanCoder
The salary increase part or just the constant pursuit to be better than your
coworkers? I always found development to be less competitive field than others
- what are your experiences of the past 5 years?

~~~
mclovinit
At least for me, competition has always been fierce especially early on and I
paid for it with my health. In later years, I have found that I have acquired
the tools (technical and business-oriented) and discipline to hold my own
amongst my colleagues and also recognize political patterns in organizations
without burning out. That has helped me survive this long without folding my
hand early in the game. I love coding, but not as much as my health and well-
being.

------
seiferteric
I don't think the desire to get ahead is always wrong. We still compete
against each other in many ways. How would the author feel if instead of being
able to afford the nice house 5 minutes from work, he had to buy one 45
minutes away because he was priced out? How do you decide who gets the nice
house if not for money?

------
hanoz
If everyone in the land somehow had their wage adjusted to no less than the
author's, I don't think he'd be so blasé about it, finding himself outbid for
his current share of the world's finite resources, notably land and housing. I
appreciate the sentiment that envy is to be avoided, but it's ridiculous to
ignore the relative nature of wealth.

------
rphlx
This post shows a naive, or intentionally distorted, understanding of animal
behavior. Relative social status exists and will be pursued and aggressively
defended in every sexual species. If you want that to stop, you better get rid
of males and/or females (reader's choice). Barring that, I'd suggest
acceptance.

~~~
wordbank
Or we can be mindful and do not follow our ancient "animal" behavioral
patterns.

~~~
chillacy
Just to add on, there is evidence that this is attainable. Mindful meditation
has been shown to reduce "animal behavior" and increased self regulation on a
physical level with measurable changes to the brain.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_mechanisms_of_mindfulne...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_mechanisms_of_mindfulness_meditation)

------
TheLogothete
I can't believe I see a Seth Godin post on HN. Tomorrow, Charles Ngo, perhaps.

~~~
krallja
[https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sethgodin.typepad.com](https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sethgodin.typepad.com)

~~~
TheLogothete
Seems like most did not get a single upvote, a handful got 4 or 5.

