
America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable - ojbyrne
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/21/magazine/elite-professionals-jobs-happiness.html
======
QualityReboot
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.

Am I in the minority here?

~~~
ip26
Have you actually dug ditches for a few weeks? It's a popular rhetorical
device but I wonder how many engineers have actually done stints of hard
labor.

~~~
scruple
I have, yes. I've also framed homes, roofed homes, and water proofed
basements. I spent some time landscaping. I've held a variety of manual labor
jobs, from working fields to construction to warehouses and factory floors to
the military. Today, I'm a team lead and senior software engineer.

I'd also rather be outside again all day, working with and alongside people,
physically and towards goals we can visualize, doing tasks that we all
understand well and can articulate in an accurate way, and cultivating a
genuine sense of camaraderie. Not the sort of weird brogrammer nonsense that
is frequently encountered in our industry and which is oftentimes confused
with camaraderie.

I pull a lot of my previous lives experience in to my work today and I spend a
lot of time working very closely with my colleagues, but it's not the same. I
don't end a day with the same sense of purpose or belonging that I experienced
with physically demanding jobs. I got close, once, but it was a shared
experience between myself and one colleague, as opposed to a team, and it was
because of circumstances that aren't exactly repeatable in a meaningful way.

edit/ Of course, the above is making some assumptions that probably don't
hold. There is genuinely something that I miss from physically demanding work
that can't be found or replicated with the work that I do today (or, perhaps
it's just that I have failed to find or replicate it). But, I'm also
dramatically better compensated and live a nearly fully autonomous life today,
too. These are just the trade-offs that we make, I suppose.

~~~
axaxs
Almost in the -exact- same boat, as if I could have written this comment
myself. My favorite job, by far, was landscaping. Being outside all day,
getting sun and exercise, and seeing your completed project were all very
rewarding/valuable. I was in great shape, left work at work, and had no
problem sleeping at night. It just doesn't pay well. I find working at
computers all day rather depressing, at times pointless, and I can watch my
health slipping. I really wish there was some kind of middle ground.

~~~
itronitron
>> I really wish there was some kind of middle ground.

I think there is a market for a large, physically demanding computer keyboard.
The keyboard 'keys' would require pressure from a full hand to activate, and
the return and backspace keys could have a different type of lever action
(pull to the side maybe). The operator would have to stand, which seems like a
trend these days, and the PRO-version could come with a large inverted water
bottle. Not joking about the keyboard, only half-joking about the bottle.

~~~
gizmo686
Repetative strain injury is already a common hazard of typing heavy
proffesions. I'm not sure adding keyboard resistance is a good health move

------
seem_2211
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.

~~~
alexhutcheson
"Lifestyle inflation" doesn't necessarily just mean nice vacations and fancy
cars - education expenses for children are often a _huge_ part of it.

In the major coastal metros, living in a great school district or paying for
an equivalent-quality private school is a tremendous expense. Parents also
feel pressure to save enough to send their children to the best college or
university that they can get into, which can be a $300,000+ expense.

For many parents, these expenses are non-negotiable - "downsizing" in this
area is off the table.

I think there's a fair case that these parents are locked in a society-wide
arms race: everyone would be better off if the kids were under less pressure
to get the "best" education credentials possible, but almost everyone thinks
they would be worse off if they unilaterally "disarmed".

~~~
abrahamepton
Granted I don't have kids - but that parents act like this seems utterly
delusional to me.

Frankly, I think you're getting a below-average education if you're spending
tens of thousands a year on it (before college). Private school, getting a
seat at a public school in an expensive suburb - fuuuuuuuuck that. Those
experiences are nowhere close to worth all that money, and honestly prevent
the students involved from learning about the real world in important ways
that they'll pay dearly for later.

Honestly, this is insane. Those parents are spending tens, hundreds of
thousands of dollars on making their children worse-off. I know they'd
probably disagree with me.

~~~
clairity
yes, the marginal utility of the "better" education is not generally worth the
tens of thousands of extra dollars, whether it be novel instructional methods,
extra time/attention, better credentials, or nicer, more advanced facilities.

but like most such situations, i suspect wealthy families are not simply
buying better instruction, but rather exclusivity and esteem. the treadmill
they're on is an attempt to maintain and improve their (apparent) social
status.

money doesn't buy you a ticket off the treadmill. even the richest people
jockey with each other for status. jumping off the treadmill means _social
isolation_ and most folks can't stand that.

~~~
_jal
It is more that they're buying their kids a social circle that includes the
kids of other elite families. They're not buying better math instruction,
they're buying access.

------
strikelaserclaw
\- 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.

~~~
naravara
>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.

~~~
maps
To consume $100k a month we need a $10-20 million dollar mortgage (50-100k/mo
depending on years and rate). I have to assume a few cars, dining, etc would
probably end up being $10-20k/mo so the mortgage is probably around $15 mil.
So in NY or SF you are looking at something like a 1-2k sq/ft 2 bed 1 bathroom
shithole apartment. Not so luxurious after all really.

~~~
kurthr
I assume you're being sarcastic... a $15M shithole apartment! X^D

~~~
maps
Yeah looks like I obviously touched a nerve with some people here I guess?

~~~
vonmoltke
You didn't touch a nerve. You're out in bizzaro-land. $15MM in Manhattan will
get you a brownstone on the Upper West Side.

------
Murdoch
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.

~~~
nimonian
> maybe people need some religion in their lives to give direction and meaning

I can't just accept dogma because I'm miserable. I can't just say 2+2=5 even
if it would make me feel better. Religion isn't something you can just pick up
like pilates. If life is inherently without meaning or direction, I'd rather
go with that and be true to myself than refract the universe through some
doctrine I understand to be false.

Self-knowledge, mindfulness, wisdom, spirituality, reflectiveness - I can make
my peace with these. But I think it is bordering on unfair to proffer a deity
as a solution to depression and anxiety.

~~~
kough
Practicing regularly to increase self-knowledge, thinking spiritually,
reflecting on your relation to the world – do you not consider that a
religion? Organized Christianity is just one flavor.

~~~
nostromo
> Practicing regularly to increase self-knowledge, thinking spiritually,
> reflecting on your relation to the world – do you not consider that a
> religion?

I'd call that mindfulness not religion.

~~~
germinalphrase
Religion has been the guiding force for this kind of internal reflection and
family/community thought. As religion has declined in many west societies, we
haven’t replaced them effectively.

We may not need more religion, but it sure seems like we need _something_.
Building our society so heavily on economic expediency can’t be healthy long
term.

~~~
munk-a
I'm in favor of more prolific philosophy circles. There is probably a group in
your area that gets together regularly to discuss the works of different
philosophers, join in and study up on some Kierkegaard and I think you'll find
it gives you a lot of the same pay off.

~~~
germinalphrase
I’m familiar with those kinds of meetings and family members that attend. I’m
fortunate in that I work in a field that is very much service oriented (from a
humanism point of view) that offers a lot of fulfillment and the opportunity
to consider & and demonstrate my personal values.

My comments - I guess - are more generally focused. I feel similarly about
male identify. We’ve walked back many aspects of traditional masculinity
(often for good reason and for positive social benefits) but haven’t - as a
society - replaces them with alternatives. I think it leaves many young men
without a positive vision for “what it means to be a man”. These are
opportunities, but I don’t know how we can work through them without a
distinct shared cultural vision for what we all want to be. Individualism has
its downsides too.

------
cletus
So there are a few things to unpack here.

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
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

------
Gpetrium
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.

------
graeme
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?

~~~
snarf21
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.

~~~
graeme
Yeah that's what I'm referencing. I'm just wondering if there'd be any
difference if they measured wealth/surplus income. Like, is someone with a
$40,000/year lifestyle happier with $150,000 salary than $80,000?

If you have that kind of surplus you experience a great freedom. You can seek
a better job, you can retire early, etc

------
akavi
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).

~~~
JohnFen
> 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.

~~~
dragonwriter
I saw right around $200k in then current dollars around 1990ish, and you
weren't sacrificing above that, on average, it's just that increasing income
above that point had no further correlation with happiness/satisfaction
measures.

~~~
runako
Per www.usinflationcalculator.com, that would be ~$385k in today's dollars.

~~~
pureliquidhw
$200k for a happier life, and more realistically $385k, make a lot more sense
to me than the $70k that I saw floating around a few years ago.

The more you make, the better you can handle the 3 versions of yourself. The
debt from the past, Food, clothes, shelter, and fun in the present, and
savings for the future.

When I rented a cheap single bedroom and made 70k in the midwest I was living
a "better life" than I do now making much more, saving much less due to a kid,
house, safer (but modest) car, more insurance(s), etc.

Sneak attack lifestyle inflation!

------
kevmo
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.

[1][https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/693393](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/](http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-
jobs/)

~~~
Wwhite
This article is like a watery, inoffensive version of Graeber for the author
and his MBA classmates in the managerial class.

------
joshuakcockrell
> 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?

~~~
entee
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.

EDIT: minor grammar/missing words

------
aglavine
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.

~~~
ttoinou
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.

~~~
aglavine
As a clear example, We lack green areas in our cities by any measure. That's
something that already have been done in many places and have 100% positive
impact. You don't really need to innovate, just copy what have worked in other
places.

------
nightski
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?

~~~
JohnFen
> 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.

~~~
nightski
That's fair and I do not disagree. But put another way - there is a large set
of emotions out there of which happy is just a single member. But for some
reason it is put on this pedestal as the holy grail. Maybe it's not? But I am
getting pretty OT from the article so I apologize.

~~~
JohnFen
I agree. I think that generally when people are using the term "happy", they
really mean "lack of misery".

I think a better term in the context of this discussion is "satisfaction" over
"happiness".

------
thorwasdfasdf
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.

~~~
seppin
> Then move out to a nice midwestern town and live happily ever after.

That would be hell to most living in the 1%

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But he's miserable in his current life, too. Maybe the problem is him, not his
circumstances?

As long as he keeps wanting what he wants and doing what he's been doing, he's
going to keep getting what he's been getting.

------
malvosenior
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:

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

~~~
stuxnet79
Century of the Self was a mind-blowing tour de force. Highly recommend.
Completely transformed my views on capitalism and consumerism.

------
randomacct3847
I think there was a Blind post a few weeks ago where 40% said they were
depressed despite most making $300k-$600k/year

~~~
StavrosK
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.

~~~
randomacct3847
The thing is I don’t think a lot of these people actually work that much. If
you’re in a mid level engineering role at a FAANG you’re not usually working
50-60+ hour weeks. You’re actually probably underutilized and working on
uninteresting tasks.

~~~
cat199
> But it's very misguided to think that having a lot of money is how you
> become happy.

still applies

------
motohagiography
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.

------
jdlyga
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.

~~~
TrackerFF
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.

------
11thEarlOfMar
"...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.

~~~
meowface
I think this is probably the biggest reason why people found startups: not
money, but to actually work a fulfilling job they find real meaning in. Even
if it fails, it's a lot more fun and interesting than being a cog in a machine
trying to react to the fickle whims of 3-12 layers of managers.

------
fromthestart
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.

~~~
JohnFen
> we don't believe in anything in this country.

I haven't seen any indication that this is true.

------
tamica
What matters more than income is wealth. When you become a high earner
especially in cities like NYC and SF, you learn about the power of inter-
generational wealth and the opportunities it affords. You see it every day.
You become acutely aware about how unfair the world is, and how it will only
become increasingly unfair as the truly wealthy entrench their power. Forget
about lifestyle creep, if you are self aware parent who wants an easy life for
their kids, you start having wealth creep. You don't just want to hit a number
where you can retire in a low cost area. You want enough wealth to buy your
kids access. Access you didn't have when you were clawing yourself up to a
high income and would have made things alot easier. Access that eliminates the
need for luck.

Inter-generational wealth could require you to leave behind 10M+ for 2-3 kids.
A property each.

For those of you who scoff and say that is ridiculous, you probably don't
share the paradigm that the world is unfair and becoming increasingly unfair
to overly benefit the wealthy. Or you are fine with letting your kids fight
for themselves in this world. I wish I didn't have the above paradigm, but I
have seen TOO much and that is the worldview I have.

------
jokoon
I was just thinking about this in the bus.

Most of the time, it's not really the fault of politics making us sway one way
or another. It's also the routine and the whole we-ve-always-done-things-this-
way. Society is not always really competent and organized in a way that brings
improvement, but it's not really the fault of anyone, it's just civilization
being too rigid by definition. It's a communication problem.

------
SZJX
I wonder if the problem is simply exaggerated. Is this really only the case
with white-collar Americans? I'd imagine that throughout the human history the
vast majority of human beings have always been working like this, or even much
worse, e.g. actual slaves who constituted a huge percentage of the population.
Maybe it's just that there isn't that much of a tradition to talk about the
problem that often, and now that our material comfort is quite advanced, we
think about such issues more and more, which is a good thing. We're not quite
there yet but at least we're rethinking our lives and trying to find
solutions, instead of just passively accepting whatever is thrown at us.

------
JDiculous
I have little sympathy for someone making $1.2m/year and complaining that
they're depressed because of their job. If you hate your job so much on that
income, just work for a year or two and leave! At that income there's no
reason why he shouldn't have enough saved up to retire in a lower cost of
living area (assuming this isn't his first job out of uni and he's not
spending like a maniac). If not (or at least if he's not on track), then he's
just being financially irresponsible and needs to cut down his expenses. You
don't need that $4m penthouse or Lamborghini.

On another note, how does one land these $1.2m/yr jobs? That's over $3k/day, I
couldn't even spend that kind of money if I tried.

------
pkaler
>> _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 it's the wife that he needs to cut. Or he needs to do a better job
of communicating his happiness to her. This is the type of marriage that ends
up in divorce.

I just finished re-reading Drive by Daniel Pink. My book notes here:
[https://parveenkaler.com/posts/drive-daniel-
pink](https://parveenkaler.com/posts/drive-daniel-pink)

Using Daniel Pink's model, the characters in this story seem to be lacking 1)
Mastery 2) Autonomy 3) Purpose in their work.

------
raybon
I grew up on less than $10 per month for all expenses, including food,
clothing and shelter. Now I'm worth $2MM+ at age 40 and an executive at
Silicon Valley. I also have an Ivy League MBA. Money doesn't buy happiness,
but it does solve for basic anxiety that arises when you don't know where your
next meal is going to come from. There are things in life that money can't
solve for, such as genuine love of a person, mental health, kid's health,
family ego clashes.

------
jondubois
>> If you spend 12 hours a day doing work you hate, at some point it doesn’t
matter what your paycheck says

Bullshit. If someone earns $1.2 million per year, they can retire after 2 or 3
years. They have no right to complain. They're weak.

$1.2 million is the definition of eternal happiness. If you earn that,
whatever emotion you feel in your life is called happiness. This emotion which
their greedy brains interpret as sadness, my brain would interpret as
euphoria.

~~~
seppin
> Bullshit. If someone earns $1.2 million per year, they can retire after 2 or
> 3 years. They have no right to complain. They're weak.

that's the point, lifestyle creep means you hang out only with people that
earn that too. it becomes normal, average even. and you can't dare step away

~~~
jondubois
If it costs so much happiness to be around such people, I would stop seeing
them because no human relationship could possibly be worth even a tiny
fraction of that kind of happiness. That is some serious happiness.

How could a relationship with a person deplete the kind of profound,
intrinsic, highly quantifiable joy that this kind of money brings? I can't
imagine any kind of relationship which could do that for me.

------
flatfilefan
1\. There will always be unhappy people regardless of their income. 2\.
Extreme population density is not for everyone. Just the sheer frequency of
daily subconscious eye contact in a megapolis must be extreme by e.g. 50-100
years ago standard. There should be some self-limiting mechanism in human
population. Maybe that’s the factor provoking the unhappiness and decline.

------
akhilcacharya
> Rather, they had learned from their own setbacks. And often they wound up
> richer, more powerful and more content than everyone else.

This seems like wish fulfillment to me. Either things change a lot more than I
think over 15 years but the so-called "gunners" that I know in their 30's are
exceptionally more happy, well adjusted and wealthy than the non-gunners.

------
justfor1comment
I think the struggle to find meaning in jobs is correlated with just how
abstract the jobs have become nowadays. Most people don't directly interact
with their customers or they don't see any tangible effect of their work.
Their work is so specialized and niche that they cannot figure out why the
economic machine needs them doing this.

------
TomVDB
It makes me smile that the janitorial staff at some large hospital can be so
satisfied with their job.

------
jtdev
I often encounter this “wealth doesn’t make you happy” sentiment... and I find
it to be ridiculous. Of course wealth doesn’t make you happy. Poverty however
has a tendancy to wreak havoc on the mental health and well being of those who
live under its oppression.

------
chicagoscott
Interesting that this article and the one below, about living a good enough
life, were posted on the same day:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19218947](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19218947)

------
throwanem
Relevant: [https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/money-can-buy-happiness-
but-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/money-can-buy-happiness-but-only-to-
a-point.html)

------
sevensor
I think the article dances around the point a bit, with its discussion of the
greater satisfaction that comes from meaningful work. The implication is that
finance is fundamentally meaningless, and it makes people miserable.

------
subpixel
How does the design of that page do anything but detract from the content and
the reading experience? The NYTimes has a pretty decent boilerplate article
template, they should just stick to it.

------
arcaster
This title seems to amply describe most of the people I met while living in
the Bay Area - both around the Peninsula (MTV ~ Los Altos) where I lived and
in SF.

------
towaway1138
> The upper echelon is hoarding money and privilege to a degree not seen in
> decades.

Is this another way of saying they're being offered high salaries and taking
them?

------
somberi
On a side note, I thought I stumbled on to Financial Times. This was the first
article I read in NY Times in pink canvas.

------
ceohockey60
One of the best nuggets in this article, IMHO.

"There’s no magic salary at which a bad job becomes good."

------
dshuang
[https://outline.com/hS54Lp](https://outline.com/hS54Lp)

------
_bxg1
"he felt locked into a lifestyle that made this pay cut impossible"

That's all there is to it.

------
gdgtfiend
This just in: "Money doesn't buy happiness"

Is this truly new or even newsworthy information?

------
throwaway-1283
Everything is much easier if you decide not to have kids.

------
onetimemanytime
if you can control your urges: make the $1.2Mil, live as you're making $150K
and do it for x years. After that find a job you love.

------
JohnFen
If the entire point of your work is to make money, your work is ultimately
pointless.

(Not saying making money isn't important, but that it's not good for you if
that's the primary goal.)

------
epx
People lost their spines. If your wife laughs if you want to take a hit in
salary, consider a divorce, and so on.

------
pandeiro
So just imagine their kids...

------
thisisweirdok
This kind of thing blows my mind. If I were making that much money I'd work
for 5 years and retire.

I sometimes wonder if that's why I don't make that much? Has anyone here done
this and retired?

~~~
stagger87
There are online communities and websites based on this idea. They call it
FIRE, Financial Independence, Retire Early.

------
minikites
>“I feel like I’m wasting my life,” he told me. “When I die, is anyone going
to care that I earned an extra percentage point of return? My work feels
totally meaningless.”

Capitalists are realizing the fundamental emptiness of capitalism. It's hard
to have a sense of purpose when your entire life is spent making a number on a
spreadsheet into a slightly larger number for the benefit of someone even more
elite than you.

~~~
jblow
If this is your thesis you’ll have to explain how e.g. Communism totally did
not have this problem.

~~~
minikites
I don't see how that follows but I'll answer anyway. One main difference is
that the economic gains in a hypothetical alternate economic system could be
distributed to you, your peers, and the needy in a more humane fashion instead
of the majority of the gains concentrating to the elite.

~~~
jblow
What is this hypothetical system like, and how is it different from the ones
that have been tried, whose proponents would describe in a way similar to what
you just said, but have been shown to have the same emptiness problem you
attribute to capitalism (as well as some others, like mass murder and economic
collapse)?

------
jdhn
So just now the NYTimes is finding out that money can't outright buy
happiness?

~~~
hanniabu
It can most certainly buy happiness if money was the only issues. Many other
issues are usually introduced such as being a workaholic and making yourself
miserable, love issues, lack of wholesome friendships, etc.

~~~
that_jojo
"Money can buy happiness if money could buy happiness"

