[danssig]

>One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that.

Excerpt from the original post:

"Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource. Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement."

I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.

>it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.

If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere? Then who cares?

>Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this

There is nothing to call the article out for here. The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value. Now he has to take action. Of course a part of him wishes this uncomfortable situation wasn't in front of him, but to claim he "wants money for money's sake" is pretty judgmental. Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?

>If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement.

This is illogical. Let me try again; we sell our time for a market price. Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother? I have things I'd much rather be doing. I don't want to sell my time. I need money so I sell it at the best market rate I can (complimented with other factors, of course). This isn't entitlement anymore than selling any other product is.

>finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.

Of course it should. You were happy before because you thought you were getting acceptable value. Now you just found out you're getting ripped off.

If you bought a nice car for $5k, of course you'd be happy about such a great deal... until you found out they actually cost $1k new and you just bought it from someone who exploited your market ignorance to get an extra $4k of your money for nothing.

>we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate

Highest possible rate within bounds. There are jobs I'm not willing to do for anything less than FU money. But what you're missing here is that a portion of the market value is what you're willing to do. Willing to travel? Then your market rate is higher than those who aren't. Willing to spend every waking moment on the job? Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that. I just want the best market rate I can get for what I'm offering.

>It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.

I really think the "irrationality" you're seeing is coming from assuming someone (who ever it is) is unhappy about not getting money "for money's sake". I don't see anyone doing that and don't see that as a valid concept. I think it's about market value and companies using their advantages to exploit people's market rate ignorance.

[masterzora]

> I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.

I put the 'all' into my response because I'm tired of you forcing everything to extremes. I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.

> If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere?

Once again, you keep forcing things to extremes. Most of life, including this, is not all-or-nothing, yet you seem to keep insisting that this is for some bizarre reason. We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.

> The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value.

But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless. He could potentially get more, but he was happy with what he had before he learned of the difference.

> Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?

The previous combined with the fact that he was unhappy with the amount he received after learning he could receive more. The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.

> Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother?

I said nothing about the time; it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money. Selling my time may not be my greatest desire, but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.

> Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that.

How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?

> I think it's about market value

If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake? If that's not what you mean, what the hell do you mean such that it's still possible to be less happy with the exact same buying power?

[danssig]

>I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.

So again, you're judging some of the people on HN in a very harsh manner based on pure assumptions of your own.

>We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.

I give extreme examples to illustrate the point more clearly.

>But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless.

Again, he was happy because he thought was getting a good deal. Once he found out he was actually being exploited, of course he was upset!

>The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.

It's not about utility. He took place in a market transaction by selling his time. He was happy because he liked the arrangement. Then he found out his happiness was based on a lie; he wasn't getting market rate for his "product", far from it. It is not even remotely irrational to suddenly be angry when you find out you were tricked. I'm begging to wonder if you actually know what "rational" means.

>it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money.

Fine, and I would say it isn't in this case. Being treated fairly is.

>but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.

But most people are only "happy with the price" when they believe they are getting at or close to market rate. Not being happy anymore when you discover the deception doesn't mean your happiness is "tied intricately to money". Your happiness stemmed from trust and now a betrayal has been discovered. It would be very odd to not be upset.

>How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?

I'm not leaving money on the table because I'm getting market rate for what I'm offering. I don't need to get every penny I possibly can, only every penny my offering is worth.

>If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake?

This is how the free market works. You have to work in your own best interest or you negatively impact others. For example, if you happily donate your time at 10% of the market rate then you've lowered the value of that job and now others may get paid less.

And why is it that you only call out workers? What about Google? They've got billions, surely they could charge less for their advertising? What about CEO's? They make more than they could spend in a lifetime. Why don't you call them out for "wanting money for the sake of money" as if this is the case they're clearly more guilty of it than I am.