[The_Colonel]

> I want to do more. Launch projects, earn more money, live more experiences.

The only thing you need is to stop this idea that living a richer life means earning/spending a lot of money / reaources. There's so much personal development you can do without participating in the materialistic rat race.

[dakiol]

> There's so much personal development you can do without participating in the materialistic rat race.

That takes money, although in a different form: time. I can only enjoy those experiences if I have time for them (and I’m not talking about enjoying them after working 8h during the day, because I end up exhausted and cannot enjoy anything at all). So, in order to enjoy things I need to work less, which means less money. That’s the price. It’s always money

[jwells89]

This exactly. I’d love to not have to work for a living so I could spend my days tinkering on projects, drawing, learning an instrument, etc. There’s so much to learn and resources to do so have never been more abundant or readily available. There’s enough to keep a person busy for several lifetimes.

But that requires money. A lot of it, if that’s what I want to do from today in my mid-30s onward.

I’m already doing some of this in my spare time and I’m grateful for the ability and opportunity to do so — having come from a poor background it’s absolutely not taken for granted — but having to work to live means everything else is pushed off into the margins with whatever energy and passion is leftover. I want to be able to get obsessed with and lost in whatever I’m pursuing like I did as a teenager, and that’s not feasible as long as a job is commanding most of my waking productive hours.

[hereonout2]

This is true for almost all of us though? Nearly everyone has to work at least 5x 8 hour days a week - some much more. Some have complex family needs that must be attended to before any personal time can even be considered.

There is always some time though, it just needs to be made and scheduled and worked on. We can choose to veg out in front of Netflix, or doom scroll, or peruse hacker news, but we can also choose to do something else possibly more fulfilling.

Of course not as good as having more disposable money and fewer work commitments but painting it as an all or nothing situation feels very defeatist.

[vundercind]

Staring at screens all day is weirdly taxing.

My wife used to have a much harder job than mine. Social, active, moving around, thinking on her feet, lots of prep, high stakes sometimes, somewhat abusive environment. She left it for WFH and a non-programming computer-heavy office job.

After a couple weeks, one day she said to me, “Now I understand why you’re so worn-out after work hours”

I’ve felt a lot more refreshed and ready to do stuff after working physical jobs or (especially) lightly-physical jobs that involve little or no computer use, than after a day of cushy office work.

It’s not the sitting. Standing desks and walking breaks don’t help much. Computer work is just bizarrely draining.

[lumost]

I spent many years feeling guilty about this. Particularly during covid when, on paper, there wasn't a lot else going on.

Anecdotally, the thing to remember is that you brain is an organ - Even professional trainers can't do their workouts more then 3-4 hours a day. Why would one expect that the brain can magically work 8-10 hours at max intensity?

If you observe any job, workers have downtime - in the office, this would happen organically. Teams would get bored and chit chat, hallway conversations would go on too long etc.

With WFH - it's entirely possible to work 8-12 hours a day. This is the mental equivalent of endurance racing, burnout is inevitable at this pace - just like injury would be for athletes trying to train at that schedule.

[bigstrat2003]

That's the exact opposite of my experience. I grew up on a farm, and as you might imagine it involved hard physical labor daily. I would 100x rather do my current job as a systems engineer. It's so much easier than working on the farm that I feel guilty sometimes, because I know that I work 1/10 as hard as people making 1/5 of what I do.

[kbenson]

They're not saying it's harder, just that it leaves you not wanting to do other things when you're done, and in a way that doesn't map to traditional physical fatigue, which is why it's "weirdly" taxing and not just taxing.

Mental and emotional fatigue accrue and exhibit themselves differently sometimes, but often matter quite a bit in the end. Plenty of people choose to leave well paid office jobs for more physical jobs that pay less. Unless you think they have a mental illness or are stupid, presumably they did it for a good reason.

[bigstrat2003]

I realize what they're saying. I'm saying I don't have the same experience.

[hereonout2]

I just paid to get my lawn cleared for a new patio. A guy single handedly shovelled 8 tonnes of clay soil into a skip over two days.

He charged much less than I earned in the same two days configuring AWS lambda functions. It's hard to imagine I had the more exhausting job.

[krumpet]

I used to be a high school teacher and, though not as physically taxing as working on a farm, I feel the same about how much easier my current tech job is.

Teaching is just sooooo exhausting.

[mlyle]

It depends upon the person and the exact situation, but it's a fundamentally different kind of tired. My students marvel at this.

They can tinker with mechanical things for a 12 hour crunch session before a robotics competition, and end up achy, hangry, and physically tired. But it might not be as exhausting as as an intense 1.5 hour math class or chasing a bug staring at screens for a couple of hours.

[hesviiggvv]

Computer work is so far outside the realm of what we as humans have been doing as “work” since the dawn of time. I wonder how significant that is? Could we be evolutionarily or culturally ill-suited to working this way?

[Kubrick2001]

Yes

[polishdude20]

I wonder if it's to do with always focusing on the same distance. When doing a job where you're walking, your eyes are constantly focusing at different distances and taking in lots of information that's more rich than any website can give you.

Maybe constant screen time just tells your body "hey you can relax, nothing is around to attack you"

[hollerith]

Why would "hey you can relax, nothing is around to attack you" wear you out?

[polishdude20]

It signals to your body that you can sleep? So you stop producing whatever it is that makes you alert, attentive, energized.

[blackSnake]

I've noticed that too. Its an unnatural thing for the body to do, interacting with a computer or other digital device for that length of time. I've never walked away from using the computer feeling charged and rejuvenated, even when working on something I enjoy. Not mentally, I am referring to a whole body feeling.

I believe the vibrations emanating from digital devices is partly incompatible with human biology, so the body spends significant energy trying to maintain its default "state" so to speak, which is why it feels draining to use computer for long stretches of time. If you read a book for hours on end, it would not have the same effect so its not purely the sedentary nature of it.

In qi-gong practice, there is a concept known as "drawing" where you can increase your strength and vitality from being in proximity to different objects. For example, if I put you in a room full of plants and natural sunlight, you WILL become physically stronger instantly. If I put you in a server computer room, you will become physically weaker instantly. The body is constantly adjusting its "aura".

I don't know the science behind it, but it is easy to experiment with. Have someone resist a push while in a wide stance while holding in their left hand

1. a phone in their hand turned on

2. hold a living plant

3. glass of water

4. a battery

See if you can feel the difference in your ability to resist the push. It will change based on the object in your hand.

There is some challenges:

1. the pusher has to have correct form and measured strength. By correct form, it means you know how to correctly use your body to create an effective push (standing too close to not engage your legs, only using your arms to push, etc) Measured strength means similar force each time to have a base to compare to.

2. the pushee has to maintain a "neutral" state and provide the same amount of resistance on every push, to maintain the "control" group.

3. enough sensitivity as the pusher to feel the different levels of resistance provided by the pushee. On some pushes, the pushee might feel "heavier" or "lighter"

4. Patience. Whatever object you are holding has an effect on your body and most people cannot feel it initially. In fact, it takes years to cultivate enough sensitivity to feel subtle changes.

I think there has been some research on this topic in regards to wearing synthetic clothing made of nylon or polyester.

[beryilma]

This is absolute nonsense.

Plants, nature, etc. will for sure make people feel better compared to sitting in front of a computer. They will not make you instantly stronger or weaker... I guarantee that no double-blind experiment will ever show such effects.

[wrycoder]

Well, not entirely. What you hold subtly affects your response to a push, and the effect can be dramatic. The pusher, with eyes closed, will notice the difference.

[mlyle]

It kind of comes down to money, but...

My wife and I work as teachers now after successful paths in tech. I do some consulting, choosing the most interesting problems instead of money.

We seek fulfillment and meaning and personal growth instead of papering over suck buying nice things.

Of course, having a big pile of capital as a backup makes this a lot safer to do.

[afpx]

In 1999, I started my first job out of college with a salary of $30,000 per year. I spent most of the day coding in a cubicle. It was analytically satisfying but not what I truly wanted to do. It was also quite stressful, and the hours were long. I had chosen computer science because I was moderately good at it, and I hoped it would help me pay off my $50,000 in college loans.

In my first week of work, I realized I needed to find a way out. I had a hunch that the path I was on would not end well. I found an online group of people with similar thoughts. They were into "simple living," inspired by a book called "Your Money or Your Life." After reading it, I created a spreadsheet and started plotting numbers. I calculated that by continuously reducing my expenses and saving everything beyond a minimal lifestyle, and investing it in index funds, I could reach a point where my investments matched my spending.

For the next 25 years, I kept reducing my spending and invested the surplus into the S&P 500. At the time, that was considered a very aggressive move, as a more conservative strategy was recommended. But, I decided to give it a try. I forwent a consumer lifestyle. I didn't travel much and spent most of my free time reading. When I eventually started a family, I devoted time to them. I had to put on blinders, though. The cars, houses, lavish vacations, fancy dining, clothes, gadgets—I ignored all that. I bought houses in the poorest neighborhoods and fixed them up. I drove the cheapest cars that were reliable. I adopted a simple wardrobe. I bought second hand. I figured out how to make nutritious, delicious meals from the least expensive ingredients. Often, I felt like I was missing out compared to my peers, especially as wages in the industry grew. But, I endured and stuck to the plan.

These days, this movement seems to have evolved into FI/RE. Although it's not quite the same, it probably has similar goals.

I saw a few people make huge payoffs from startups and IPOs, so I tried that too. But it was terrible for my mental health, and I quickly learned that the board and the CEO were not on the side of the common worker—they had no intention of sharing their payouts. I worked for four failed startups with some more steady work in between. In hindsight, I don't recommend it. It wasn't worth it. I made less money than my peers, and I put too much of myself into the products I helped build. In the end, only those with money made more money. The rest of us got shafted.

But the moral of the story is, if you have 25 years, you might also be able to do it. Times have changed, though. But there's still probably an intersection point. The opportunities are greater than they ever have been. Given today's wages, I could have probably reached my goals 10 years earlier.

The transition to retiring early wasn't without its pains. I hadn't fully envisioned a future, and when I finally met my goals, I realized time had changed. In the years that followed, I experienced significant anguish because the dreams I once had (becoming an artist, going into academia) were no longer realistic. I needed over two years just to recover from burnout. But now, I'm finally somewhat satisfied but still quite lost and with anxiety. But, I feel the best I've felt since my 20s, and things get better every day.

[Archelaos]

> it would help me pay off my $50,000 in college loans

If you have teenagers who want to go to university, consider encouraging them to learn German and then study in Germany. In 2021, the average monthly spendings of a student at a German public university were between 783 - 1.896 €, depending on the location.[1] (University fees are included in this number and range between 14 and 136 € per month. Sometimes there apply moderate additional fees for non-EU students, depending on their nationality.) Non-EU students are at least eledgible for working at the university as research assistants and thus, if they are clever, can earn an income to cover some of these costs.

[1] Source: https://www.studis-online.de/studienkosten/ (in German)

[tycho-newman]

German schools also ruthlessly cull students beginning in grade 4 or 5. Only a small number ever get the opportunity to go to university at all, let alone at those fees.

German universities are relatively cheap because they keep the eligibility pool small. That reduces the cost to the state.

[Archelaos]

> Only a small number ever get the opportunity to go to university at all

In 2022, 56.4% of people living in Germany of a yearly cohort started university (including universities of higher education/Fachhochschule). 51.7% of males, 61.5% of females. 473,665 people (this number includes some foreign students, though) out of a population of aprox. 84 million. All in all, 2,915,700 people studied in Germany. I would not call that number "small".

The student quotient for the US is somewhat higher, but German and foreign systems are often not well comparable, because there are a lot of advanced vocational training programs in Germany outside of university that are equivalent or even better than many university programs in other countries.

[1] Source: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildun...

[vondur]

Here's the stats for California (population 39 million):

California has the highest number of college students in the United States, with 2.58 million enrolled in 2023.

[goodpoint]

> That takes money, although in a different form: time

> That’s the price. It’s always money

Tell that to unemployed people. To children. To retired people. To people with serious sickness.

Time is not money.

[dartos]

It isn’t, but it has similar uses.

With more money you have more time.

not needing to wait in line at a check cashing or payday loan office, not needing to wait in the ER because you can’t afford primary care, not needing to get your car fixed every year because you can afford one with fewer miles.

There’s a lot of hidden time costs if you’re not well off.

[magicpin]

Hell just the time sink of using a laundromat with defective machines vs filling up your own machine and moving over loads when it’s convenient for you

[dartos]

Wow yes exactly this. Didn’t even think about laundromats

[goodpoint]

> There’s a lot of hidden time costs if you’re not well off.

Of course and that's my point.

[felipefar]

> The only thing you need is to stop this idea that living a richer life means earning/spending a lot of money / reaources. There's so much personal development you can do without participating in the materialistic rat race.

If you launch projects to gain fame, sure it is materialistic. But you can work on projects that help you understand things better, or to build the personality you want to have, both of which are the opposite of materialism.

They aren't egoistic as well, because you can then share your solutions with others, which are also going to benefit from it.

[The_Colonel]

> But you can work on projects that help you understand things better

Sure. Although it seemed OP mentioned this in a different context since it was immediately followed by "earn more money".

I think the real distinction whether these projects are outwards oriented or inwards. How do you measure the success? Is it by the adoption numbers or by the things you've learned and the time you enjoyed?

[krumpet]

This is my focus. Though admittedly selfish, I'm spending time learning more songs on the guitar, improving my cooking skills, mastering a new language, etc. Once our children are out of the house, I plan to also become more involved in supporting our community.

It took time to understand that my time is better spent supporting our kids' activities and maintaining an organized home than chasing another promotion.

[amarcheschi]

As a young cs students where even the uni professors tell us there's more about it than just money, what would you say is something regarding personal development to do?

[elros]

Learning things for fun and not just for profit. Physical development, learning a new sport. Spiritual development, meditating, observing. Engaging in arts, creating, exploring. Helping the less fortunate, volunteering, teaching. Traveling, learning about different cultures, different languages. Cooking. Spending time in nature, watching animals, birds, mushrooms, sunsets. Photography. These are just some examples, the list is endless :-)

Personally I’ve grown a lot from gardening and weightlifting. Having children made me more human.

[hereonout2]

During my late 20s I realised I was very good at my programming job but not much use at anything else. It was quite a disappointing realisation.

I started to do less and eventually no programming outside of office hours and instead invest my spare time in different hobbies and experiences.

I found gaining these new skills really helped build my confidence. 15 years later I'm not just a programmer, I'm a also a motorcyclist, experienced carpenter, been a member of certain meet up groups for over a decade, travelled to a few exotic locations, flown upside down in a plane, the list goes on.

None of these things are exceptional but doing this extra stuff has given me enough dimensions that I kind of feel comfortable with the way I've done the last 15 years. This along with starting a relationship and building a family is enough for me now.

Sure, I could have done more but compared to the corporate quagmire of my 20s things are very different.

[dotnet00]

I can relate to this pretty strongly, although on a slightly earlier timeline. Went through a similar period of focusing entirely on coding in my teens and early 20s, always occupied by personal projects when not studying etc. Realized how much of myself I had cut off for that (and how little value it'd hold on its own) and started diversifying what I did in downtime, and now I seldom code outside of work.

I haven't outright dropped coding for personal projects, rather just that the singular task of coding doesn't define my down time. Instead I've picked up tinkering with electronics, building and playing with 3d printers, learning languages and drawing. I feel like as a result I've become closer to my idea of the kind of person I'd find interesting and attractive, someone who has a variety of aspects to themselves rather than just being defined by being a 'rockstar' at their job.

Initially I had worried that this would cause me to fall behind professionally, but so far that hasn't really been an issue, I still typically end up having tinkered with some new technology well before it becomes relevant professionally.

[sebastiansm]

Programmers and wood. Best friends forever.

[hereonout2]

Indeed, it's almost a cliche.

I believe it satisfies some sort of primeval urge magnified by sitting in front of a screen for decades.

[orthoxerox]

Get a hobby that you can do outdoors with other people. Hiking, hunting, paddling, sailing, bouldering, volunteering, playing sports, LARPing, reenacting...

Embed yourself into the local community, become a pillar of it.

Start a family and support your children, don't try to mould them into what you wish you could have been.

[xvilka]

I would disagree. If you think only about yourself - yes, it's not about the money. But if you want make life of your children, grandchildren, etc better, the only answer is money, building generational wealth.

[vasco]

You can work a whole life for generation wealth only to have your kid spend it all in one month as soon as you die. Or to waste away not doing anything while receiving monthly from a trust fund.

Everyone decides what their life to be about, but I'd reflect on leaving too much of your life's meaning to "kick in" only when you're dead. If your whole purpose is to "set your family up forever", a lot of that is out of your control. Whereas if your purpose is to hang out have fun and support each other's goals, usually you can do that right away

[soufron]

Absolutely not. Children and grandchildren are their own persons. The world is full of people who got rich through heritage and who live miserable lives - even when being materially fulfilled.

I would add that this state of mind denotes a characteristic control anguish.

When you're dead, you're dead. You need to let go.

[xvilka]

Of course it doesn't guarantee the success, but it helps a lot.

[ricardobeat]

Depends on the definition of “success”. If it’s about raising good people, with decent values and a drive to make the world better, a fat inheritance is probably not a good predictor.

[idiotsecant]

Very nearly without exception children who come from backgrounds of generational wealth are terrible people, in my experience.

[The_Colonel]

The single most impactful thing for making your children's life better is being a present parent. Be part of their life, be there when they have fun and when they have worries. Listen to them, help them navigate life. I've seen many parents chasing wealth, leaving their kids lonely and psychologically marked.

[robocat]

The obituary does not show Ray had any modern obsession with money - the article does allude to a couple of Ray's jobs.

  “We’ve had a good life,” he said to me nearly every time I visited in his final year, and I knew it to be true even if it might have seemed odd from a distance. On paper, this small life above Clear Creek should have left a long list of regrets, of what ifs. But this life was the life, the very thing he and my grandmother Grace set out to make when they married in the little church up the road in 1954.

  The best time of his life was when his girls were little, Ray said as he neared the end. He and Grace raised two daughters: Joy (pictured left) and Debbie.

The modern disease of setting money as a primary goal is missing the point of life. We use money for the things we want. Concentrate on the wants and consider why you want those things. Keep your eye on the ball.

> generational wealth.

What do your kids want that means they need your money? To go to university and join the same treadmill as you? Personally I wanted to earn my own way in life - I didn't want to live off my parents (although I probably could have). Independence is another modern goal. I have retired early, but money in itself brings many many unobvious problems. It doesn't magically give me an obviously better life than my friends (who are on a very wide range of incomes).

We are all given approximately 70 years - be very very careful how you spend yours. Perhaps listen to a few good people that have spent more of their 70 years than you have, and learn what they have learned over time.