There's something about the way that money is discussed on HN that I find odd, but I haven't quite put my finger on it yet. Maybe it's that there can sometimes feel like a larger emphasis on politics or money than the things people have actually created... maybe. I'm not sure. I'm still working on figuring it out. Anyways, cheers to you!
Having gone through several large pay increases in my life, the really strange thing is that salary doesn't really affect that much. It slightly reduces stress about 'having enough' though most middle class (upper and lower) people can always be wiped out by disasters, and it only slightly improves your day to day life. When I was younger I'm sure I dreamed about making what I do today, but having gotten there I realize that if I were ever to arrive at my revised dream salary today it probably wouldn't change all that much.
Indeed, in the game of business, it does seem the most appropriate way to keep score. That doesn't mean business is the only game in town.
...or happiness.
I recently read "Stumbling on Happiness" which had an interesting discussion on the fact that there are several studies that show that pay raises up to around $45k per year result in an increase in happiness. But after that, an increases in salary brings only a marginal increase in happiness, if that.
So the question he raised is that if one doesn't receive additional happiness from earning more than $45k, what is the reason for doing so? Most other human actions are geared towards happiness. It really got me thinking about the subject.
I think the point of the $45k/year figure, though, is that you get no extra happiness from spending more than $45k/year. But being paid more than that helps 'keep score' in the sense that you know that someone really values your work -- particularly if you're able to compare with what other people are being paid.
Edit: I also sometimes wonder if there are differences related to social safety nets, and particularly health. It seems in the US that you need $millions to be completely certain that health issues couldn't financially ruin (or kill) you, so more money provides more security even when you're already fabulously rich. Whereas in most of Europe, if you're sick, you get treatment, so if you have a million euros in the bank you basically can't get any more security from money.
* There's a whirlwind introduction in my TEDx talk (http://mappin.es/TEDx), and I've published a survey paper on the topic (http://personal.lse.ac.uk/mackerro/happiness35000ft.pdf).
* I'd highly recommend the transcripts of 3 lectures by Richard Layard from 2003 (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2003/20030106t1439...). They're what got me interested in the area.
It seems like it should be possible to convince people with some disposable income to put a substantial fraction of their extra money into actually saving the world. Giving What We Can (http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/) is one of the organizations trying to do this. Givewell (http://givewell.org) is doing research on cost-effectiveness -- and there's a HUGE range of cost-effectiveness among charities.
But yeah, having a savings cushion while unemployment is rampant is satisfying.
The most depressing comment I read on HN was one guy telling a story about a sales manager he knew that encouraged his sales people to go into debt so they would be more motivated to earn more and therefore, make more sales.
But that's exactly what your parent is criticizing. There are genius people in the startup scene whose talents would be better applied to solve problems that actually matter, and not "optimize coupons".
The community could do so much more if it first asked, "what does this do for people?" rather than "does it make us a billion dollars?" There's plenty of opportunity out there -- especially if you focus on delighting your customers.
I haven't frequented Slashdot in years, but this is definitely the most striking difference between it (as I remember it) an HN.