[sneak]

Making more money allows you to donate more to organizations that hire full time staff to achieve your broader goals for the world.

Trying to do that with your own work has inherent maximum scaling limits. Earning money that you can then donate to those causes does not.

More money means more options, more wiggle room.

Also, to me personally, the choice between hybrid and full remote isn’t even a choice.

[bayindirh]

> Making more money allows you to donate more to organizations that hire full time staff to achieve your broader goals for the world.

> More money means more options, more wiggle room.

Generally while having less time for yourself and suffering more.

That's brilliant. I'll take a dozen.

> Also, to me personally, the choice between hybrid and full remote isn’t even a choice.

Exactly. Being able (have) to commute to a campus which has a forest inside and ample place to walk with fresh air beats having to stay in a flat 9 hours 5 days a week by a mile.

[Thorrez]

>Generally while having less time for yourself and suffering more.

The article is talking about a fusion startup that pays less vs a "normal sort of business" that pays more. I would expect the startup to require more work.

And other example is videogame development. Videogame developers get paid less and have to work more compared to other software developers.

[bayindirh]

Working in an area you're passionate about doesn't mean you have to work more, even if it's a startup.

I know people who work in startups do great work, but no overtime, and finish what they have to finish on time. On the other hand, I have seen established companies which expect you do overtime with no overpay, because they pay you more than competitors already.

While I'm not working in a startup, I turned down numerous job offers just because I love my job and money is not my primary motivation, like the author of the post. I also did my share of overtime and oft-glorified all-nighters for a long period of time. On the other hand, I'll argue that all-nighters are unnecessary most of the time, and a good indicator of mismanagement.

Game developers love their job and I respect them with all my being, but they are exploited far too often. This still rings in my head from time to time: https://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html

[sneak]

> Generally while having less time for yourself and suffering more.

I don’t find that to be the case at all, though I own and operate my own company and haven’t done W2 work for decades. You’re probably right when it comes to standard employment.

[_heimdall]

If you're able to work from home, why not live inside a forest with fresh air and walking space?

[bayindirh]

I don't live alone?

[marcodena]

"the choice between hybrid and full remote isn’t even a choice"

especially if you do not wanna move to a different city bc of personal reasons.

[ori_b]

I haven't yet found a way to hire someone find work interesting on my behalf.

[qwertytyyuu]

Depends on what you want to do. For example if you are a really good ai engineer and want to influence ai safety for example getting a lead role at a bug company will probably get you more influence than donating.

[sixdimensional]

I'm not sure I totally agree.

Personal profit maximization only works to a point - for example, if you get too old, sick or the system rejects you early and curtails or limits your ability to make money.

I don't disagree that money gives you options, but, far too many people wait until they have enough money to give back.

If you give back while you are working (e.g. balancing working for profit vs working for nonprofit, altruistic reasons, etc.) - that's awesome. The challenge there is maximizing the good you can do if you're giving too much time and energy to your profit maximization.

At some point, someone has do physically do the needed good work.

For myself, the calculus has shifted. I personally decided I cannot wait until I have enough money, or I am maximizing my profit, to go out and help people.

I also cannot wait until I am physically or mentally unable to help beyond financial contributions. Also, I cannot afford to work in the current system that drains everything from you and leaves you no energy or time left, only money (if that).

Regarding the inherent maximum scaling limits of one person- I would challenge your thinking.

Power laws of networks may demonstrate that helping a small number of the right people might be enough to unleash the butterfly effect or play into ongoing changes.

Also, the physical limits of humanity on one person apply to a billionaire as much as a person with little money. I'm not saying a billionaire, millionaire, or person with significant finances isn't more mobile/capable, but it's not a given.

I am for reasonable profit and balance. There is nothing inherently wrong with maximizing profit if someone chooses.

But if we all spend our time on maximizing profit, there still, for the time being and probably well into the future, still needs to be boots on the ground doing work that is not for profit.