Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulcole | Hacker News Reader

I stopped working for 2 years in my mid-20s (by choice) and only started again when I was running low on money. If I was rich, "working" would never be on my mind.

Run, bike, hike, camp, cook, read, walk, have coffee, relax, etc.

View on HN

Of course. That's what people do when they retire, they don't "do" nothing, but they don't "work" either.

But it's possible there's a sample bias; people who get rich are the kind of people who can't stop working, even if/when they can. Other people would totally stop working if they got rich but it's hard to prove, because they never do get rich.

Totally agreed. I know a few people who (financially) don't need to work for a living but still do, a couple of them regularly putting in 12 hour days 6 days per week. Of course, that's how they got "rich" in the first place.

In their case, making a lot of money was a pleasant side effect of their preexisting strong work ethic, not the driving force.

(...and don't get me wrong, these guys also play hard when they're not working)

"regularly putting in 12 hour days 6 days per week"

"Play hard" after 72 hours of working? They must be super-human. What about, you know, er, human contact? Like spending time with your family and friends?

The kind of people I know of that do 72-80 hours a week and are wealthy enough to do less, generally the circle of friends are the people you worked with/your clients. Doing good work for people at your own leisure and participating in the community in that fashion is actually something I see those type of people really get a lot of satisfaction out of- like the article says a status thing. Going to local Chamber of Commerce style events, sponsoring/participating in parades, events, youth leagues and so on. Being able to write the check to send the school science team to a national competition as just a generous member of the community at large can mean a lot.

Family gets neglected in that case, or nepotism'd so you can see them.

The act of doing business for those sorts of people is play.

Hmm, I did not know "going to parades, events... and so on" was considered working?

That's probably how Marissa Mayer was "working" 130 hrs/week :-)

That's certainly work when you're the spokesperson of a company. Though we can debate about priorities of course.

Planning and participating in events is actually quite a bit of logistics work. It isn't just showing up to consume, it's presenting/booth stuff and so on. There's a difference between showing up to an event and participating/running the event that often gets put on the better planner types.

I wonder how many hours "emailing at midnight" counts for, does the workday extend to the last activity?

There's plenty of entry level employees "read single males" who are putting in 12 x 5 at work then, going home and pursue whatever hobby they now suddenly have money to pursue until 1am every day. It's still less of a time commitment than raising young kids.

Yeah. Raising kids is not a matter of time, it's a matter of energy. When you have kid you have to (and, hell, of course, you want to), be 100% with them when they want you to be with them. You don't postpone them, you don't schedule them. So that's much more energy draining than time-eating

Working 72 hours a week doesn't leave much time for non-work relationships.

It really depends how you define "work". Remember 4HWW?

This is where I think a basic income becomes interesting. The threshold for what each person requires to decide how to allocate their waking hours when their basic expenses are paid varies. But maybe being rich isn't the point, and it's actually about reducing the risk of not working. I think we'd see more founders emerge.

> people who get rich are the kind of people who can't stop working, even if/when they can. Other people would totally stop working if they got rich but it's hard to prove, because they never do get rich

That's exactly the problem I think. If you're driven enough to get rich you're too driven to stop. If you'd be happy stopping, you're not driven enough to get rich.

You are also able to reduce your cost of living significantly by always having free time. Not having a car (or at least having one but using it rarely), not eating out (cooking yourself), growing your vegetables, doing home DIY stuff, not dressing formally to show off social status, etc.

Spending on these things pretty much comes together with being "employed".

Climbing/ski/surfing bums and dirtbags live out of their cars. They probably spend more actual time engaged working (as opposed to meetings, distractions, commuting, breaks, administrative overhead, etc) at their sports than the 12-hours-a-day-6-days-a-week office workers do.

A lot of free time on your hands can easily end up costing more. While working you can't spend. But not working...spending opportunities everywhere.

This. "Time is money" is a two way street.

I would never be going through the hell of getting a pH.d without the end goal being to find "work". I'd still be interested in the same stuff, but never would have had the motivation to drive down to this level of detail on my own.

Thanks for your perspective.

In trying to rationalize the article to myself, it occurs to me that, after a lifetime of measuring your own success/pride in dollar-denominations, a complete, instantaneous loss of income represents a likewise complete collapse of pride and an ensuing inability to even measure one's own perceived happiness.

Perhaps the restless retiree from the original story could use his dissatisfaction as a driver to find another means of self-fulfillment, rather than allow it to shock him back into (imo) tycoon-esque distraction.

George Best:

> I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.

I did the same thing. I didn't miss "work" in the slightest.

And sex

Reply on news.ycombinator.com