[markbnj]

I get your point and agree with it. I've said it many times myself. But people don't think in terms of mastering a craft and spending a productive life practicing it. In the modern world if you're not on a trajectory toward the 1% you're losing. In that sense most engineering fields are "traps" because if you stay an engineer you aren't going any further up the ladder. I'm a craftsperson, and I still practice the craft of building software systems professionally, every day, even though I've been doing it for twenty years. That's one thing that hasn't changed. Another thing that hasn't really changed in twenty years is my salary. I understand and accept that, but if you don't know that will be a consequence of being essentially in a trade then I can understand how you might come to feel stuck.

[fennecfoxen]

> In the modern world if you're not on a trajectory toward the 1% you're losing.

And what, exactly, is it that you're losing? You can have a pretty damn fine life without getting anywhere near the 1%.

[derefr]

The respect of your peers, presumably.

The best gift I was ever given was to grow up on a farm. I'm doing way better than my peers.

[marktangotango]

I always say shoveling manure was good preparation for the corporate world.

[diminoten]

Legacy. Empire. Providing for your children's children. Giving your loved ones the kind of life they've never even considered possible. Seeing the smile on your mother's face when you get to tell her she can stop working, that you've taken care of her and your father, and your brothers and sisters.

The 1% are living in a way that will last longer than they will, on a scale that the rest of us won't achieve in our lifetimes. That's okay, certainly, but to pretend like there's no reason to work towards the 1% is silly.

[cfmcdonald]

Maybe you are thinking of the 0.01%. The 1% income threshold in the U.S. is about $380K. That's wealthy but it's not empire-building. Most senior software engineers are probably in the top 5% of income earners in the U.S. already, they could easily be in the top 1% with a high earning spouse.

[diminoten]

> The 1% income threshold in the U.S. is about $380K.

It's $521,411 per household[0] (the household bit is probably where we're getting confused).

$500k, $400k, either way, the goal is as I've stated; once you've taken care of yourself, you start wanting to take care of others. There is always motivation to make more, until everyone is provided for, and even when you've provided for everyone you care about, providing for the general wellbeing of humanity becomes a priority (Gates, Buffet, et al).

    [0] -- http://www.usfunds.com/investor-library/frank-talk/what-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-percent-not-as-much-as-you-think/#.VUqZYtpViko

[slavik81]

> Legacy. Empire.

  'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
  Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
  Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
  Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
  The lone and level sands stretch far away.

[markbnj]

It was not a statement about my personal feelings, but rather what I think the common perception is.

[nostrademons]

One possible explanation for that is that there are two kind of people, some who believe that everybody is working towards the same goal and some who believe that everybody should decide what their own individual goals are. The former group settle on money and social status as those universal goals, because they are reasonably common and can often (though not always) be exchanged for what you really want. The latter don't believe in telling other people what their personal goals are, because if they are different for every person, what's the point?

Under this model, 100% of the public discourse would be devoted towards achieving money and status. That does not mean that everybody (or even a majority of people) pursue those goals, only that people who do talk about it a whole lot more than people who don't.

[vectorjohn]

My perception is that is not the common perception.