Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by FooBarBizBazz 699 days ago
I think people are beginning to see work as a sucker's game. The assets you hold are much more important. You can bust your ass and get a nice little startup exit -- and then look around at what real estate this massive windfall will buy you, only to realize that it's all gone up in price by the same amount. It would have been better to have bought a house, kept the easy job, and gone home at 4:30 each day.

People see this. They see that wealth is handed out, arbitrarily, to the people who are connected to the issuance of currency and the banking system. That homeowners make more in a year from asset appreciation than well paid engineers do.

At one level, the answer is obvious -- just keep buying assets, any assets. Do not hold cash. The end.

And at one level that feels great. You look at your brokerage account and go "I have how much in unrealized gains?!" More than you make in many years working a pretty-good job.

But it's precisely this that causes the problem. When "dvalue/dt" >> "salary" for a long enough time, eventually it comes to feel that "salary" is just a bullshit term in the equation that you can neglect. A distraction for the schmucks who don't have their eye on the ball. Every hour I spend debugging something is an hour I haven't spent finding a deal on some asset.

This is the source of the vibe shift. There is a growing belief that, well, if money can be handed out arbitrarily in one fashion, then why can't it be handed out arbitrarily in another? This reflects a widespread collapse of belief that things are natural, inevitable, or just. It is a rational change to belief.

But it's a slow disease for the society as a whole. Because work is necessary, and we have real work to do. We complain here so much -- that there are not enough houses, not enough walkable cities, problems in healthcare and the environment, too much centralization and bloat in our own software industry. "Be the change you want to see in the world", right? These are things we need to work on, and we don't really have that much time; the decades pass quickly. We do have to work.

So, when so much work is necessary, it's a problem when the entire idea of work begins to seem pointless.

Maybe the other reason it seems so pointless is that the work we are paid to do so often does not push in the direction we would really like to be moving in. We're doing it for the money, the money-math increasingly makes it look pointless, and it does not have some other deep meaning for us, because what money wants isn't what we want.

4 comments

> It would have been better to have bought a house, kept the easy job, and gone home at 4:30 each day. People see this. They see that wealth is handed out, arbitrarily, to the people who are connected to the issuance of currency and the banking system. That homeowners make more in a year from asset appreciation than well paid engineers do.

This is an oversimplification naturally but the gist of it is spot on. Based on this dynamic, you should absolutely buy a 2nd home before the first is paid off, assume things continue as they have been so you can contribute to and benefit from rising prices everywhere. One thing leads to another, and that's how most wealth is created by robbing the future. But the future actually arrives some day, and we're seeing some of that now.

There's no exit strategy for this behaviour though. Since so many people did exactly what they were incentivized to do, they of course don't want the rules to change now. The current generation will always need to pay 10x whatever a house is worth, because otherwise all of the people in the last generation can't afford to settle debts / retire / pay unreasonable amounts for healthcare. This puts the current generation in debt, so that they have to rob the next, and so on until there's some collapse. Most millennials have had a rough time waiting for that collapse though, so lots have bought something on credit to build equity rather than continuing to throw away money on rent. Soon instead of cheering on any kind of collapse in the housing market, they also will want it postponed because they will need to rob the next generation. But each iteration of this same game isn't exactly the same, because every generation does a little worse while more wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the already-wealthy.

> Based on this dynamic, you should absolutely buy a 2nd home before the first is paid off, assume things continue as they have been so you can contribute to and benefit from rising prices everywhere.

2008 showed that to be a very unsafe assumption.

Much more generally: Think in terms of supply and demand. If nobody is going to work any more, then the price of work goes way up. So does the price of things that work produces.

> 2008 showed that to be a very unsafe assumption.

Totally. Just because it's the game that capital wants us to play doesn't mean that there's any guarantee that you win. It's just also that it's the only way to maybe win. This supports parent's argument that wealth distribution is arbitrary. One person wins and another loses, playing the same game the same way, just because they entered the market at different times. The uncomfortable contradiction that we're supposed to generally agree with is that the first person is "smart and hardworking", and the second person "is financially irresponsible, obviously living outside their means".

> So does the price of things that work produces.

Not sure if this a comment re: UBI, antiwork, or housing costs, but housing in particular is always a special kind of crazy because we've insisted on looking at it as a financial vehicle instead of you know, a place to live and work from. Prefab things that could cut costs are illegal most places. In Florida they build labor-intensive houses out of match-sticks even though the next hurricane is always coming, because that's what's easy to permit, that's what people historically wanted to insure, and it keeps construction rackets and developers in business. Further from the coasts, even in the more sparsely populated mountain/desert states, you can go to the edge of any larger town and look out at the "supply" of hundreds of miles of empty, and still get forced into paying half a million for a crappy place on half an acre. Supply and demand is certainly some kind of a factor, but like parents point about wealth-from-work vs wealth-from-asset-appreciation, it's a small factor and getting smaller. The market's already intensely manipulated.. it's just done in a way that makes problems worse instead of better.

Sir, you write so well! I read it twice and then I had to literally put the phone away and walk around, letting your thoughts bounce around in my little brain. Just felt I needed to thank you for taking the time. Thanks.
The only tweak I would make is to disregard financial assets as assets in this context. Holding money isn't really that different than holding IOUs for a share of stock that you'll never actually own.

If a person is really does view money as smoke and mirrors, and is concerned that it can be printed whenever it's needed, tangible assets like land or tools at least useful if you no longer see value on money.

That said, I'm not advocating for that view necessarily and very much agree with your take here. People do seem to be losing faith in money, at least a bit, and that can be very dangerous if the faith continues to erode.

Does anybody have advice for finding appropriate assets to purchase for individuals of very low net worth? Suitable here means:

- affordable to begin with (max 3-4 figures)

- not mass produced (so they’re not already hyper-efficiently distributed to market)

- demand for them will continue to exist (so you can be assured to liquidate them when necessary)

- their value is likely to appreciate (at the very least in line with inflation).

The only example I could come up with is hand-crafted (unique) collectibles, like figurines and such.