Hacker News Reader

Comment by ttul | Hacker News Reader

The author missed a prerequisite: have rich parents. Because the low stress life is made far more effortless via the provision of unlimited leisure capital.

View on HN

Meh I'd say having middle class parents is probably better.

Anybody who's in the US middle class can have a low stress life. Most don't because they want things. (Mostly they want to compete with people they view as their peers.)

I know plenty of people in the lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and the rich. You’re deeply out of touch with what it’s like to be in the middle class and the rich if you think it’s lower stress to be in the middle class. The rich self-impose their stress and could give it up if they wanted to. (And I watch those who do and they take it very easy) The middle class don’t impose their stress, it’s an externality they cannot control.

Working class and middle class kids don’t go around being stressed out by their parents’ finances, you can tell by living with them.

If it were really about stress you’d see a difference in kids who have a parent working in the public sector.

Might be more of ignorance than anything else. Certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up. I was acutely aware of my parents financial situations and how they were making poor choices coupled with lack of ability to increase income.

What specifically makes you say that middle class people have highly stressful lives? I don't have that association, personally, but maybe I'm out of touch.

I'd figure this last year would make it kinda obvious but ok. Maybe: Living paycheck to paycheck - risk of eviction - foreclosure moratorium - no job due to COVID? That's basically not something that happens to people who are rich because they don't work in restaurants, retail, tourism, etc. unless they're the ones running it... which means they have significant capital and don't really risk being thrown out of their home or having to sell their home, etc.

There's lots more but I mean - surely that's sufficient to get the idea across?

Hey, no need to have an attitude. The source of the discrepancy turns out to be that we define "middle class" differently, which was one of my leading suspicions.

Not sure what country your experiences are based on, but I consider American middle class to usually be salaried people who are homeowners (maybe with mortgage, fair enough), so several of the points you raised don't apply. That said, of course, it's a pretty fuzzy category.

Please try to behave nicely on HN. There is no need to insult others here (for instance, by saying that they don't get something that is "obvious").

> Anybody who's in the US middle class

In other words, "rich" (from the global perspective).

This is why self-guided, passion-interest driven based learning without pressure to perform (test) or work is one underrated aspect of what UBI tied to inflation will allow for; if even just 1 out of 1,000 people choose this path of lifelong learning via non-laid out path avoiding relative indoctrination could lead to profoundly stronger society and insights.

I think this is balanced by the trust-fund dumbass

Idle brains rot.

It's spot on tho that comfort & saftey provides the opportunity for genius to develop.

Safety, but not comfort, is what nurtures genius. It allows the individual to see the value of fruitful effort. Total destitute feels totally hopeless. A safe existence with a visible path upward acts as a guiding light.

The thing is you can't see a trust fund by looking at people. It's a trope that people who have trust funds don't work but is there any evidence that is a common outcome?

It’s common in my circle. They don’t take up the normal jobs they would’ve otherwise. Instead of high pressure roles that would resemble their background better they role play as a middle class earner while being FI.

There is a reversion to mean among the children of highly successful people. Just because your dad made $100M in business doesn't mean you are that capable; you probably aren't (statistically speaking). Taking a "middle class job" is probably the best that some children of the rich can do.

The author didn't miss anything. It's a practical guide, not a social commentary.

Why do you have to insert social commentary? It's off topic.

I suppose because it’s relevant. I truly believe the author missed a step.

The empathetic wealthy father is always left out of the speeches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com