[sirsinsalot]

Making a value judgement on someones financial ambition is a little ... weak.

Does it really matter? I'm on £200k gross in the UK, outside London ... but i'm not done climbing that mountain. Of course £200k is "enough" for anyone, but that doesn't mean you can't aim higher.

Ambition should be celebrated

[giantg2]

"Ambition should be celebrated"

I might agree with this depending on what the specific goal is. But why should ambition be generally celebrated?

There is certainly ambition that has brought about improvement in life. There has also been ambition applied to the wrong ends or failing that has brought suffering. I'm not sold on the idea that the goal of continually increasing comp above an already luxurious level is meaningful or worth a third party celebrating. I especially feel this way about our industry where comp seems detached from the contributions are not easily attributed/calculated.

[nerdponx]

It is perfectly valid to believe that OP is probably overpaid in their day job, and also to believe that they are entitled to seek a side gig if they prefer.

[giantg2]

Ok... that has nothing to do with my comment. Of course they're entitled to want a side gig. But why is ambition something to be celebrated, especially in the context of this example?

[ghaff]

>Of course they're entitled to seek a side gig.

With the caveat that no small number of companies are not OK with that if it could be perceived as competitive in any way.

[giantg2]

Thanks, I changed it to "want".

[sokoloff]

From 168 hours that we all start with in a week, if someone wants to spend 20 of them making their and their family's lives better, why wouldn't we generally encourage that? I certainly wouldn't discourage it and I could be neutral on it, but if I think about, I'd rather they work on a side gig than watch Netflix, doom-scroll, or watch TikToks.

[giantg2]

I think the part we're disconnected on is "better". Will a couple extra grand a year make their family's life better beyond the amount they already have? Perhaps physical exercise or relaxing provides more benefit. Of course we probably can't answer this as it's specific to each individual.

I suppose I'm in the camp that finds it skeptical that it would be much benefit at that level. I might also view it as a negative to society as that gig could go to someone who needs it more. Granted we would then be admiring the ambition of the lower earner, which brings me back to me saying that the specifics matter more than generally celebrating ambition.

[sokoloff]

Most every tech job in the world could go to someone who needs it more. That doesn't make me discourage people from taking tech jobs, nor do I plan to retire when I have the minimum amount needed for a modest retirement.

[giantg2]

"Most every tech job in the world could go to someone who needs it more."

Based on the struggle to hire qualified candidates, it seems this is an unrealistic view. Also, there is a difference between someone having a single job, and someone double dipping.

[yojo]

In theory (and in a well functioning system), ambition in a populace leads to GDP growth as ambitious people seek ways to make more money by doing higher value work. This in turn leads to a higher standard of living, possibly for everyone if you redistribute some of the surplus via taxation schemes.

Personally (and more selfishly), I tried to raise my salary to be able to afford not working for extended periods of time.

[giantg2]

That makes sense. I'm wondering more about net benefit. Is it really a benefit if our GDP rose if we spend increasing amounts on stuff like healthcare and have shorter lives due to the constant grind of work? I'm not sure we can answer these questions, but I agree with you that as long as the ambition is properly placed and the system works well that it would be good.

[yojo]

It’s a fair question. There is evidence that working increases your life expectancy, at least among men[1], and under the regime of western societal norms.

Working with “ambition” could result in more stresses that counteract this gain. Hard to say.

Also possible that the gain would disappear outside of a culture that places so much value on jobs and wealth.

1: https://crr.bc.edu/briefs/do-men-who-work-longer-live-longer...

[sirsinsalot]

Personally, I enjoy doing any activity that makes my bank balance increase. I see it as a puzzle. I enjoy puzzles.

[Joeboy]

I'm just genuinely intrigued as to why someone on £200k would want to work more. maybe there's a good reason, like they're an "earn to give" person, or some actual ambition the money will help fulfill, or some expensive health need etc. Maybe they'd like to spend less time with their family. Just wanting to exchange more of your life for more money seems weird to me, if you're already in a position to be able to live in luxury.

[returningfory2]

In the neighborhood of New York City I live in, buying a 2 bedroom apartment requires you to have a higher yearly income than $250k (~= £200k). The simple desires of (a) wanting space for family and (b) wanting to live in a specific place, can push you to want to earn higher salaries.

[Joeboy]

Yeah you're right actually, glancing at Rightmove (UK property site), and going by the standard 4.5x mortgage test, you're probably not going to get a decent family home in Central-ish London on £200k. Shit's fucked up.

Edit: To be clear the repayments on a £1m mortgage would "only" be like £60k a year, you only need £>200k to initially buy the place.

[eliseumds]

Yep. And £200k/y is about £120k/y net. That'd be tough for a family with kids.

[porker]

Rubbish. The average UK family with kids is on sub-£30k net. That's tough. 4x the average isn't.

[aaaaaaaaata]

Two viable possibilities:

1. It's about the money, because you never know when you may have a 5-10 year underproductive period due to health/other unforeseen emergency.

2. It's not about the money, it's about the experience/knowledge gained/distraction/self-worth of accomplishing more.

[Joeboy]

> it's about the experience/knowledge gained/distraction/self-worth of accomplishing more

To me, a side gig means accomplishing more of what someone else wants, with the trade-off of being less able to accomplish (or learn about, or distract yourself with) what you want. Which seems like an odd thing to want unless you need the money. I suppose for some people having a £200k income and not needing the money seem less synonymous than they do to me.

[aaaaaaaaata]

Sometimes people see others' goals as helpful to their own.

See: John Carmack at FB.

[castlecrasher2]

>I'm just genuinely intrigued as to why someone on £200k would want to work more.

The money outcome isn't a zero-sum game. If someone works more, they can put that towards their children's education fund, retirement or other investments, or anything else at all.

[goodpoint]

> Ambition should be celebrated

Only if you mean skill growth and self improvement.

But pure greed - no, we have more than enough of that.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

I want to work hard at my axe throwing skills so I can hit targets more accurately.

That will help me become a better axe murderer since people are less likely to see me. Still wanna celebrate my skill growth?

[goodpoint]

You are confusing skills vs intentions. They are, obviously, two completely different things.

[porker]

Share the secret of "£200k gross in the UK, outside London" please because I've never found that outside London and I hate that city :)

[sirsinsalot]

Be a contractor charging high day rates in a niche nobody else wants to work in.

[xwdv]

Ambition is the enemy of consistency.

[sokoloff]

10s of thousands of years of integrated ambition have helped ensure that we are not consistently living outdoors.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

So?

[rhn_mk1]

I can get behind celebrating ambition, but only if it doesn't as a side effect involve widening wage inequality in the society.

[CrazyPyroLinux]

I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's response to this: "He'd rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were less rich."[1]

Every ethical dollar earned is a byproduct of value creation. Maybe you meant something more like "as long as he's not ripping off his customers," but otherwise that's an odd thing to say in response to someone who makes good money but is still looking for side jobs.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&t=48s

[tdehnel]

Oh stop it. Every time we make progress there will be some unequal effect. Some people will benefit and others will lose out. We should do our best to balance the trade offs, but to say someone shouldn’t be ambitious if there is some unequal effect is preposterous and pessimistic.

[impossiblefork]

Why does wage inequality matter? Inequality isn't strongly driven by wages, but is by capital income.

Personally, the way I see it, the more money goes to wages, the better, and if that's because some guy is earning millions a year, I still think it's good.

Income from people starting new companies, that's fine too. What's bad is rent extraction, ossification, monopolies and private institutions that have power over people.