

Do you really want to be rich? - maxklein
http://blog.cubeofm.com/do-you-really-want-to-be-rich

======
jxcole
I hate this article.

I hate anything that says "There are two types of people in the world, those
that x, and those that y".

I hate it because either:

1) The statements x and y are opposites and combine to be a truism. Truisms
are not interesting. (from the 2nd and 3rd matrix) "Some things change, and
others don't".

2) The generalization is demonstrably false or unknowable.

In this article in partiular, I found a sort of weird mesh. The second and
third category are clear opposites of each other. They are a truism in that
you can say "A rich person either will keep on trying to get rich, or will
stop after a while." This is roughly equivalent to what these categories
represent.

The first category is sort of contained in the second category. Or, more
accurately, if someone is going to stop trying to make money after a while,
they will either stop because they are comfortable or because they are being
looked up to. Not exactly mind blowing information.

I feel that broad categorization of people is useless. People are not either
one thing or another. People have features in quantities. Fuzzy logic rules
over binary in the world of humans. It would be nice and easy if humans were
so simple, but they are not.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_I hate anything that says "There are two types of people in the world, those
that x, and those that y".

I hate it because either:

    
    
      1) ...
      2) ...

_

Irony :)

~~~
Locke1689
I'm pretty sure he didn't rail against generalization in general, only for
people in particular ;)

------
Xurinos
Yes, of course I do, and the generalizations here are gross and condescending.
You will not convince me that I do not want this.

I lean towards the Comfort angle, but I also start tinkering and producing
when I am bored, so I could hardly be considered to walk the lazy path. I look
for freedom from lower-level concerns so as to begin address higher-level
needs. Money provides a layer of abstraction.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs>

I am sure someone can link to the study that refuted the "money can't buy
happiness" claim.

~~~
pw
"Money provides a layer of abstraction."

Wonderful way of saying it. Maybe it doesn't quite make sense, but I'm a
sucker for applying technical concepts to more domestic concerns ;-)

~~~
maximilian
It seems to make perfect sense. Its like storing and retrieving objects in a
database. You can do it by hand, but its more of a pain -- better to leave it
to something else and use the abstraction: storeData(key,value),
retreiveData(key). We can directly map this to nice shirts. Normally one has
to buy and iron shirts, which is a pain. (assuming you don't like buying or
ironing). Now if you have a lot of money, you can pay someone to abstract that
all away. You just look in your closet and grab whatever shirt you want. At
the end of the day you just put it in the dirty clothes bin, and _poof_
magically it will appear clean and ironed again in the closet. Money provides
the person who abstracts the mechanisms that allow the shirt to exist. We
could even do this experiment to harvesting the cotton, producing the shirt
etc, which is abstracted away using money as trade for the various levels in
the manufacturing.. mmm.

------
mediaman
People here are showing a lot of dislike for the third category, those who
want to make money. I think that's because of how the author describes them,
not how they actually are.

People who want to make money for money's sake love building things. They
can't stand to sit still. They understand long-term relationships, and the
smart ones learn that trust and inspiring leaders within your own and other
organizations is the only way to keep building.

They love competing, and they love winning. But that doesn't mean they lack
integrity, or think lying or cheating is the way to win. They understand that
at best that gets you a win in the very short run.

They are the tinkerers of capitalism. And that's why they don't fail you once
they can afford a Porsche, why they don't constantly try to impress people
because of their insecurities, and why they don't stop thinking about
improving their business once they "have enough". Not everyone is like that,
but that's not a reason to disrespect those who are.

~~~
JohnnyBrown
"I'm reasonably happy, but the money's not the point. It's an indication that
I've succeeded in the grand adventure of understanding reality." -George Soros

The way I look at it, making money is a great competition because it has the
largest and most talented pool of competitors you will ever find. You get to
measure yourself against the world, give or take a few people.

------
froo
I disagree. I think that there are not enough categories.

For example, I've got a comfortable lifestyle, I earn a decent passive income
(~18k a month) and it affords me time to work on the stuff that I want to work
on.

I'm working on something now because I look at the industry that I'm targeting
and I all I see is flaws. The products don't match the consumers wants. I want
to fix that and I see a big opportunity eventually.

So I don't match the "don't want to be poor" crowd, because I'm not poor (I'm
not rich either) and yet I'm still working on making more.

I don't really care if anyone knows my name. I'm not that vain.

Lastly, while I like the idea of making more money - that in itself is not the
big motivator for what I'm doing. I want to build something that changes the
game, not because of any external factor other than a personal goal.

Maybe I'm just an edge case, but I don't think you can quite classify everyone
into 3 categories.

~~~
run4yourlives
For most people, an 18K monthly income ($216K annualized) that is passive is
most definitely considered "being rich".

~~~
froo
Except that given it could potentially end tomorrow, I am motivated to work on
something different.

Sure I have a comfortable position at the moment, but resting on my laurels
could be a costly mistake. I am just using this breathing room to work on
something that has more potential rather than having to hustle for income...
basically forgoing short term gains for long term ones.

~~~
run4yourlives
Fair enough, nothing wrong with that and I agree with your first comment too,
just wanted to introduce perspective, because sometimes we all get caught up
in where we are and forget that a lot of people are still where we were. :-)

~~~
froo
That's a fair point too. I often think of where I was a couple years ago (very
broke) and it puts everything into perspective for me too.

------
drunkpotato
I'm sensing a theme from this blog: admiration of narcissists.

There are successful people I admire and emulate, and they are nothing like
the "successful" people heaped praise upon by this blog.

------
gamble
Yikes. If there's anything I've learned, it's to avoid people in the third
category at all costs. These are the guys who see every transaction as a zero-
sum game, and the people who will stick a knife in you the moment an
opportunity presents itself.

~~~
mediaman
Not true. Warren Buffett fits in that category. Many people in that third
category care about making money in an abstract sense -- it's a game, but it
can be a long-term game. They don't care about the cars or the status symbols.
They love building wealth, but not for wealth's sake.

People who don't understand long-term relationships are not actually in the
long-term game to make money. Usually they just lack some emotional
intelligence. People who 'get it' develop good, long-term business
relationships, because they know that to be a successful businessperson and
make lots of money you can't just rely on short-term contract-type thinking.
You rely on relationships.

~~~
lukev
Treating finance as a game is only an option for those who are already wealthy
enough to never worry about being comfortable.

Plus, I sincerely doubt Warren Buffet is likely to give up finance in favor of
Chess anytime soon, even if he came to the conclusion it was more interesting
(not saying it is, just drawing a comparison.)

------
fnid2
I'll never do business with someone who doesn't know when enough is enough.
This post is saying to do business with greedy people. Kind of sad really, but
I'm glad I'm the kind of person the author doesn't want to do business with.

I look on people like this with pity. For them, money is an addiction. They'll
do anything for their fix. They'll lie, cheat, steal. Those aren't the kinds
of people to do business with, because eventually they'll look to get their
fix from _you_.

~~~
migpwr
You do business with the people that will bring you a profit. In theory, it
doesn't matter what personal views the person across the table has if they
adequately provide the services you need. Learn to identify the wants/needs of
those people that operate around you and plan accordingly.

Business is about profit, not feeling good about the people you buy/sell
services from/to.

Defend yourself if you see a need. Don't avoid people just because you don't
get a warm feeling when you exchange services with them.

~~~
fnid2
I'm of the opposite opinion. I have the freedom to choose who I work with, who
I buy products from, and who I sell my products to. There is a lot of room in
the world to do business with people who are considerate, responsible, and of
a mindset that I think makes the world a better place.

I've refused to create accounts for other types of individuals on more than
one occasion. If they want to use a competing product, that's okay with me. I
don't mind losing business from customers I don't appreciate. If someone is a
nasty person I don't want them to benefit from the use of my product. Check
out some of the firing bad clients threads. Best just not to do business with
them in the first place.

It's my little way to shape _my_ world and surround myself with people _I_
appreciate -- that's more important to me than money.

------
maxwin
This article getting to the front page is either an indication of the
weaknesses of HN algorithms or the drop of quality of HN users who voted it
up.

~~~
telemachos
Why do you think that the article's popularity reflects badly on HN or HN's
current users?

Sure it's provocative (maybe deliberately so, maybe not), but it's also well-
written and engaging. I won't argue about the writing, but engaging should be
pretty obvious: almost everyone involved in this thread disagrees with the
author, but they're all clearly _involved_ in the debate, right?

~~~
maxwin
So if I write an article about how to torture a dog for fun making most to
engage in the conversation to voice their disagreement,does this article
become a worthy one?is this article suited for this audience?do people gain
any insights ?

~~~
telemachos
I don't think that your analogy is fair. The blog post talks about different
approaches to "getting rich." A lot of people here are interested in this
issue. So, the article gets voted up.

For whatever it's worth, I'm have zero interest in getting rich. I wish HN
were more about tech & code and less about the money and success. But that
isn't a decision I get to make. Having said that, the article engaged me
because it made me think about the psychology of people who do care that much
about wealth.

------
wynand
I got really angry when I first read this blog post (see my other comment
here) and I was thrilled that most people here are as annoyed.

I read maxklein's other story (about how programming is procrastination).

I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt now. To be blunt, he needs to work
on how he communicates.

But, I think the gist of what he's trying to say is: there are certain things
you need to do if you want to succeed well in business. You have to want to do
business (the making money part), but that includes things far beyond
programming (for example).

I think I see what he means about working with people who want to make money:
they have to be in it for the long haul. But even people who would lose
interest when they're rich have a long way to go while they're still
(relatively speaking) poor.

You don't want to discount the Woz's of the world just because their hearts
are in the tech. If you do, you lose.

------
telemachos
_It's a lesson that some people will understand, and some won't ever._

I'm curious about this: does anyone who doesn't want to be rich - at all, or
not in the correct third way - fall into the group of "those who don't
understand"?

I think I understand that if I had a desire to be rich - endlessly, endlessly
rich - and not for the things it brought me or for comfort, then I might
prefer to work with other people with the same attitude. But is it necessarily
the case that if you understand this lesson, then your desires fall into line?

Socrates thought this about being good: if you understand what goodness really
is, then you immediately have the appropriate desires. I don't think desire
and understanding work this way, generally speaking.

I certainly don't see any attraction in "being rich" as described in the
piece, but I don't think that means I failed to understand something.

~~~
Retric
I know several people in the 5 to 100 million range and I don't really want to
be that rich. A close friend growing up had 6-7 million in trust fund + a lot
more on the way and it was a lot harder than you might think. You don't have
enough to "change the world" but working is _almost_ pointless etc. So he took
a lot of stupid risks to feel alive and died at 30.

I have that type of personality and while I like taking 6 months off, it gets
old and I want something meaningful to do.

~~~
pw0ncakes
_A close friend growing up had 6-7 million in trust fund + a lot more on the
way and it was a lot harder than you might think. You don't have enough to
"change the world" but working is almost pointless etc._

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but if you ask me, the "almost pointless"
excuse is pretty pathetic.

All else equal, being rich gives you strictly _more_ options, and therefore
the means to make work _more_ meaningful. At $6m net worth, you own your own
time and can work or play at will, in pretty much any industry you desire.
Also, your career is going to be much better if you're rich because 1) upper
management assumes you work hard because you actually _want_ to do so rather
than have to, 2) you get better jobs and projects because people want to buy
your family's connections, and 3) most importantly, you don't have the "fear
of the boss" that middle-class people do, so upper management sees you as more
independent and confident. I've worked on Wall Street at desks that send more
money across the table every day than most rich kids' trust funds, and even
there, rich kids advance faster, primarily for reason #3.

In the for-profit sector, working is _actually_ pointless for 90+% of people
in it, who will never appreciably advance and only go to work because they
have to. Being unusually talented or wealthy gives one a chance to not be
caught in that trap and to do "pointful" work. So I don't buy into the
bullshit excuse that his trust fund made working "almost pointless". Not in
the least.

~~~
Retric
I am not saying he made good choices but it's hard to picture all that many
well balanced people working when they don't need to.

Let's say you are 18 and make 20k / month and that's the tip of the iceberg
you are going to get another 50+ million by the time your 40 even if you do
absolutely nothing. Do you really think you would aim for an office job?
What's your ROI for "wasting" one of the few thing you can't buy _time_? Are
you going to do a startup when you already have more income than your
lifestyle requires?

PS: As soon as you realize you don't need to live in an expensive area and
most _expensive_ items are more about status than quality you realize money
quickly has significant diminishing returns.

~~~
pw0ncakes
I wouldn't aim for a traditional office job with that kind of money, but I'd
want to be doing _something_. He could go to graduate school, write a novel,
start (or at least join) a non-profit.

With a trust fund that can support him indefinitely, he certainly has nothing
to lose in taking a job. If it turns out to be a hideous waste of time, he can
quit.

One of the intractable unfairnesses of the work world is that those who need
or rely on their jobs are destined (all else being equal) to be less
successful in their careers, because they _can_ be trapped into a dead-end and
because they _do_ have a reason to fear the boss. Your friend, on the other
hand, didn't have that problem. He can take a job and, if it turns out to be a
waste of his time, quit^ and do something else.

(^ I am not, of course, suggesting that he ought to quit just because a job
gets difficult. What I'm saying is that the biggest danger of the career
minefield is stagnation and unrecognized toil, in which case one really is
wasting one's time in going to work, and your friend had an inexhaustible "get
out of jail free" card.)

------
tome
This is really saying: "partner with people whose interests are aligned with
yours". Doesn't matter whether it's about making money, intellectual
development or playing on a sports team. The same principle applies.

------
telemachos
The post from a litle over a month ago is worth a re-read in light of this:

[http://blog.cubeofm.com/programming-is-a-way-to-
procrastinat...](http://blog.cubeofm.com/programming-is-a-way-to-
procrastinate)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1124953>

------
ZeroGravitas
What does this paragraph intend to say:

" _For these men we sat with, I spent over 10.000 yuan on the program this
evening. I took us to an expensive hotel, I paid the tips for all the girls, I
ordered really expensive food. But when we spoke to these men, they never
mentioned how much money they had. They never tried to impress me, in spite of
me doing all this._ "

That (and the dog meat) bit seem like total _non sequiturs_ to me.

------
paulbaumgart
I'm not convinced there's a significant difference between the first and third
categories. Both are means to gaining status- the difference is just in the
audience (the people they're trying to impress) and in the sophistication of
how the status is expressed.

~~~
DougBTX
Sophistication is significant.

------
callmeed
I really like Max's posts but I wish he would elaborate on the 3 types a
little further. It seems hard to pigeon-hole every type of
entrepreneur/potential partner within these 3 categories (at least as he has
described them).

I think I "get" what he's saying (and I definitely concur on type 1–seen
plenty of those in my day) but I think it would benefit from more
details/examples.

------
protomyth
Yes, yes I do, but it is really not for the reasons given. I want to control
my own schedule. My brother pointed this one out to me, and it makes perfect
sense. Having a lot of money, but being bound to the clock doesn't quite sound
as fun.

------
jfarmer
You should read "Enough" by John Bogle, founder and former CEO of the Vanguard
Group.

------
Confusion
How strange: the post does not actually give a reason for only wanting to go
into business with people that chase money for the purpose of chasing money.
It does not explain why the reason that people want money matters. It states a
preference of the author, without a single justification.

~~~
gridspy
I thought the justification was obvious - you don't want to build a
relationship with a partner who will drop out for personal reasons.

~~~
Confusion
That is far from obvious, because a partner that's only in it for the money
will drop out as soon as he spots a more lucrative opportunity. They are just
as much a liability as the other categories: they don't give a shit about you
or your goals.

------
pw0ncakes
I don't like any of those categories.

1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to
serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to
those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants .

2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly
portrayed by OP.

3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are
responsible for the "next quarter" mentality that has ruined the US and shaken
the world economy.

What unifies types I and III is the narcissistic character of a toxic and
dangerous personality. What differentiates them is low (I) vs. high (III)
self-image. The stronger self-image of the third set makes these people more
dangerous, IMO.

What about?

Group 2+: Those who want to be comfortable, _so they can spend their mental
energy on things that are actually interesting and useful_. These are people
who wouldn't mind getting rich, but are more interested in solving interesting
problems and making the world a better place than in having toy X at age Y.

~~~
angelbob
I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either.
They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard
enough you can't do it accidentally."

~~~
froo
Not necessarily, a couple of the web's biggest properties came to be from it's
founders other priorities.

Google (backrub) started as a research project.

Craigslist started out as a way for Craig Newmark to not feel so isolated.

Wikipedia... the list goes on.

~~~
callmeed
How does Wikipedia relate to this at all? It's a non-profit.

~~~
aarongough
It may be a non-profit but it does still have people on the payroll, people
who get paid to do what they love...

~~~
ZeroGravitas
And could be raking in millions in advertising dollars, like the non-profit
Mozilla, if it chose to.

~~~
robin_reala
The Mozilla situation is rather different. It’s actually two entities: the
non-profit Mozilla Foundation ( <http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/> ) and the
for-profit Mozilla Corporation ( <http://www.mozilla.com/> ). MoFo shepherd
the code, but MoCo do a lot of the business arrangements.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I think it's more MoFo sets the direction, MoCo pays the tax.

 _"The creation of the Mozilla Corporation should eliminate some of the thorny
legal and tax issues that have been caused by the revenue-generating potential
of Firefox and Thunderbird. The Mozilla Corporation will now handle all
relationships with commercial companies and its status should allow more
flexibility in this area. It is hoped that the income from the Mozilla
Corporation will help the Mozilla project (including both the Foundation and
the Corporation) to be more self-supporting, though donations will still be
welcome."_

[http://web.archive.org/web/20060907025204/http://www.mozilla...](http://web.archive.org/web/20060907025204/http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=7085)

------
swah
YES!

