You can think this through a few ways. One is that they see finance jobs as desirable jobs, focus their whole lives up to that point on getting the job, get it - and find it's horrible. What do you do then? Do you go back to all the people who were really proud at your achievements and tell them you're a failure?

Another is that they really do think it gets better. If they can just make it through the first four or five years, they can go from 80 to 50 hours, and then if they get to MD, they can get down to 40-50. In the meantime, they're making great money, they can enjoy what exists of their personal lives, if they just get past that first couple years.

Characterizing these folks as "spineless" is perhaps accurate for some, but in the end, reductionist. A better conversation to have would be to ask:

- Are the same number (proportionally) of people committing suicide in finance today the same as 15 years ago?

- If not, why today? What's different about today?

- What's to be done about it?

> get it - and find it's horrible. What do you do then?

There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it.

Except, here's a situation that doubles up the tragedy.

You start off your youth, determined that the lack of money is what's stopping you from doing things that you really care about - things you would do in leisure. Pursuits of pleasure - art, music, altruism, atavistic quests (become a farmer?) and even hedonism.

But the sacrifice at the altar isn't entirely possible for everyone - the process demands that you survive a psychosis of sleeplessness, mixed with a caffeine dehydration, in an air-conditioned room, filled with fluorescent light with no hint of a dawn.

And then there's the superficial solidarity of everyone around you surviving this, without even a hint of complaints (furiously "ducking" as they call it).

Breaking out of it demands failure. And failure is hard to swallow for the best of the best, who are hit the hardest. Not having dealt with failure for 20 years makes it even harder to face up to failure & quit.

Attracting the brightest into the fold will naturally push up the numbers of those who'd rather die than fail.

>One is that they see finance jobs as desirable jobs, focus their whole lives up to that point on getting the job, get it - and find it's horrible. What do you do then? Do you go back to all the people who were really proud at your achievements and tell them you're a failure?

Is it a surprise to those on that career path? I work with people applying to law school, and it's widely known that major firm jobs demand an incredible amount of your time.

I think people might, mistakenly, expect "I can handle it, I like a challenge", but the gist of what a job at biglaw requires is pretty well known.

I'd be surprised if finance is different.

I agree spineless isn't the word, though. Motivations for entering that type of job are simply very different from what motivates people who wouldn't even consider it. I can't say exactly what it is, because I'm very far from that type. But the people I know on that path (in law) certainly are quite able to stand up for themselves. They're very confident, capable people.

As someone who knows many who went into this field, some who burned out and some who didn't, it's one thing to describe the challenge of 100 hour weeks, and another to live it.

Biglaw is similar, but the gulf from 80 hours to 100 hours is very large.

I meant to imply that, but I guess I wasn't clear enough.

I hadn't realized 100 hours was the norm though. That is a significant increase over 80.

Spineless is the word.

This is all about the psychology of pride and envy. You go to Princeton, buy into the whole mindset and at the end of the day, when you figure it out, pride and greed prevent you from making a decision in your interest.

There's a reason why those things were categorized as Cardinal sins in the old days.

> One is that they see finance jobs as desirable jobs, focus their whole lives up to that point on getting the job, get it - and find it's horrible. What do you do then? Do you go back to all the people who were really proud at your achievements and tell them you're a failure?

One would hope that people in finance would understand the concept of sunk costs. Today is always the first day of the rest of your life. It's better to fail fast than to fail later, because you can get back to success and happiness faster.

Wow, you can't even 'muster empathy' for people like this? I can understand how you wouldn't want to work these hours, but when the article is detailing someone who dies and your first comment is 'Meh.', that's absolutely abhorrent to me.

Not the OP but I struggle to sympathize with someone who takes that kind of job. I can't think up any other motivation other than greed or addiction to money/power.

A friend of mine just turned down an insanely high paying Wall Street job. She told me that there was no way they could pay her that kind of salary without taking every second of her existence and every joule of her energy. A couple of week ago she went to London for less than half that salary (but still a crazy high salary considering how young she is).

Only a fool would think that a WS job at twice the salary of a top London law firm did not come with ridiculous sacrifices.

You can't think of any other motivation besides greed or addiction to power?

Consider 1st generation college graduates from immigrant families who have the chance to singlehandedly lift their families out of poverty by accepting these jobs. That's not greed.

This in all likelihood describes 1%of the 1%. Just adding in a little perspective.

> This in all likelihood describes 1%of the 1%. Just adding in a little perspective.

It's way more than 1% of the young people slaving away in finance. Especially as finance has gotten less racist, a lot of high-achieving immigrant students go into it under pressure from their family.

Yes, but just because someone is an immigrant doesn't mean their motivation for working those jobs is to lift their family up. Immigrants can be selfish too. And they, too, can simply get addicted to money and power.

Sure, but my original point is that greed/power are not the only reason to take these finance jobs.

> I can't think up any other motivation other than greed or addiction to money/power.

A lot of people have been conditioned to achieve. In my foolish youth I spent a few years doing tech for financial traders and a number of my colleagues were former Olympic athletes. It was natural for them to jump into another demanding and competitive field.

Other people I worked with were indeed addicts of various sorts. Finance is great for workaholics, adrenaline junkies, and thoroughly broken people. The intensity and the pace leave you little time or energy to think about the things inside you that you're dodging. And the money lets you paper over the holes in your life.

I agree it's a struggle to find compassion for people pulling down a lot of money. But I think it's worth the struggle. If there were fewer fucked up people in the world, we'd have a smaller, saner financial industry.

> I agree it's a struggle to find compassion for people pulling down a lot of money. But I think it's worth the struggle. If there were fewer fucked up people in the world, we'd have a smaller, saner financial industry.

I totally agree. Especially since "fucked-up-ness" (e.g. alienation and narcissism/fleas) can be so infectious; abuse does breed abuse. Basically, the inability to have a fulfilling life without destroying self and/or others, and to even relate, think or talk about anything without some kind of stilted, shrill "corset" of euphemisms and rationalizations. I think it's all a matter of degree, too, it's not like "they" are fundamentally different from anyone else.

> [..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did.

> I don't think, that if we are really in touch with the inner reality of ourselves, that there is any crime, or perhaps any virtue, which we cannot discover in ourselves. We shut ourselves [off] from the awareness of our inner reality, we project the evil to our opponents and enemies, and believe that the good is in ourselves; indidivually, nationally, and group-wise in general.

> But if you can really see that every one of us, carries all of humanity, the good and the evil, within himself, then indeed is very hard to be a fanatic, then indeed it's very hard to be a judge, then indeed would follow, a deep understanding, if not love, of your fellow man. Which is part of being truly a person.

-- Erich Fromm, lecture called "The Automaton Citizen"

I do think self-defense is also important, but there is something to be said for calm and non-hateful self-defence... being firm and focused doesn't mean you can't still have compassion with whom you're disarming. But by the same token: when we react differently, when we get angry, whether righteously or self-righteously, that may not be ideal, but it's also something to have compassion with, surely.

There is a window of opportunity; if what people turning themselves and others into robots, as age-old as that may be, doesn't get nipped in the bud before we can "grow" whatever robots we want orders of magnitude more cheaply than we are growing humans, then life on this planet will become infinitely more poor. When nobody gets fucking mad over this stuff anymore, it will be so much worse. I'm not saying getting mad is constructive, but it's understandable and secondary in the big scheme of things. Worker's rights weren't won for by people making polite suggestions, neither will be any future worth a thing. Apart from the people who have a change of heart or collapse, there are a lot who don't, and they play for keeps, while the people that die every few seconds don't even get to complain. It's not as if any of this happens in a vacuum.

How about financial security/early retirement? Many people take jobs like this for 5-10 years, then quit with a little bit of security and freedom to do what they want. It's really not unlike what PG has advocated before for starting your own company.

I'm glad that your friend made that call, and I'm definitely not in the wall street camp, but I can see reasons for working there.

> I can't think up any other motivation other than greed or addiction to money/power.

Here's some possibilities:

-The desire to please others?

-Not knowing what else to do (Often the jobs are filled by kids who only know how to jump through hoops that others have set up for them)

-The hope that it's only going to be a few yers of grinding?

Whether you sympathize or not, saying "meh" to someone's death is a slippery slope with psychopathy at the bottom.

> Whether you sympathize or not, saying "meh" to someone's death is a slippery slope with psychopathy at the bottom.

You literally made a "slippery slope argument". You might not be aware of it, but this is a logical fallacy [1]. Psychopathy is not the end result of lacking empathy to a certain person's death.

[1] http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

So... does anyone else finds it funny that on that list, (2) is true and (1) is getting close?

Heh, yes, I noticed that. That's a good example for invalid reasoning leading to a correct conclusion.

Perhaps you are mistaking empathy for sympathy? I too cannot empathize with the people they are describing. Not only would I not let it get to that point, I could not. My personality is such that when overworked and over-stressed I naturally screw-off for a while to release stress. It doesn't always help my deadlines (which is sometimes a good thing. Sometimes you just need to say "I need more time"), but it does keep me from getting overworked for the most part.

So, I feel bad for these people (I sympathize), but I don't understand them (I don't empathize).

These people don't make an active choice to give their life to the company/firm. It's a series of small decisions that add up to a huge sacrifice. It's like boiling a frog. Nobody ever says when you sign up, oh, you'll have to skip Easter Dinner because you can't afford two hours off that week.

The trick is to create a culture where it is not only normal, but taken for granted, that you work all the time. They work with a bunch of other smart, capable people. They can't all be wrong can they? (yes, but it's easy to see why they can't see it).

So the mechanism of the slave driving isn't just someone sitting there telling you--work 100 hours a week or you are fired. It's by assigning you almost unlimited work and having a competitive environment where you look bad if you can't complete it.

So these people become their own slave drivers. They stay at work late without having to be asked. They make the choice themselves. It's a sick culture, but it makes their stockholders money. You actually feel bad when taking time off because you feel like you are falling behind.

Part of it is definitely the striver culture that elite education often encourages. You are supported to give full intensity and take any abuse to succeed.

However, I wouldn't write off all people like this off as sheep. I bet you'd be very surprised how you react under similar pressures. And certainly some tech companies employ similar tactics and have similar cultures of encouraging people to give 100% effort.

Another big factor in these sorts of jobs is that it's view as a temporary hardship. You do a stint and exit into the "good jobs" that aren't this insane. That causes people to try to tough it out. And they end up breaking before they bend.

This sentiment is shared by many displaced blue collar workers in SV and NYC. They see finance and big tech taking jobs and ruining the economy. In the bubble, status driven workers push themselves hard until completely burned out and jaded they are stuck in a depressing cycle. On the otherside of the spectrum, I find myself markedly depressed at having no legitimate career or contributions. One can only hope to find something fulfilling and find balance.

> I can't imagine the mindset that would lead someone to sacrifice their entire existence on the pyre of working; what's the point of making big cash if you've got no time or people to enjoy it with?

For most people who do it, it's a few-year long stint that will leave them with a chunk of money in the bank, a top business school admission, and a resume line-item that will parlay into a nice corporate finance or management gig. And if you're good at the job, working at a top bank or consulting firm is still the most direct route into the C-suite at an established company.

Double meh.

I think you're pretty much on point, until your last paragraph, which seems pretty childish itself if you ask me.

Lots of people make all sorts of bad choices, and yes, sometimes they result in terrible outcomes. It's important to analyze the choices of others (which you have done, fairly well) to learn from them but it's also always important to muster empathy regardless of whatever path they have taken.

Choose not to do so and you may find yourself blinded by the allure of logical oversimplification as you walk a path down towards some pretty maladaptive behaviors yourself.

I can't escape the odour of sour grapes in discussions like these, where people who could have gone into finance reassure themselves and each other that they made the right decision to take a less lucrative path through life.

Naturally I agree.

The question is better framed thus: who has taken the more lucrative path in living their life? Who has found burgeoning vitality rather than pecuniary richness? Who has traded what is priceless for what can be used to pay other prices?

"Better framed" in the sense "tells you what you want to hear"?

"focuses on actually important things rather than mere money"

If you disagree with something in that comment, argue against it. Just implying baseless things about the poster instead, much less talking about "discussions like these" doesn't have the effect you may be seeking to convey.

Absolutely on point.

What always amazes me about these "super-lemmings" is that they are so unaware that they are being thoroughly exploited. They don't understand basic economics, that if you have zero leisure time, all of your earnings are for nothing.

I'm sure their goals are some variation of: "I'll work 120 hour weeks for 5 years straight to make a seven figure nest egg, then retire off the interest forever."

This single variable optimization is very childish for somebody supposedly schooled in economics. Very few human decisions are based on a single variable, as we are fragile creatures with a large number of physical, emotional and mental needs that need to be satisfied on a daily basis.

Let this be a warning to all the SV hopefuls: don't be a lemming. Don't sacrifice rationality for idealism. There are severe consequences.

For the most part the financial industry doesn't give its people much of a choice. Finance is much more hierarchical than tech. You either work 120 hour weeks for 5 years straight and make it up to the VP/Director level or you stay as an analyst/associate (or burn out).

>don't be a lemming. Don't sacrifice rationality for idealism. There are severe consequences.

this should be wrapped in <h1> and displayed on every page on YC.

like: DISCLAIMER: MAY BE FATAL TO STARTUP FOUNDERS WHEN FORGETTING TO BE A HUMAN.

'Meh' this comment sequence. If I overreact, it's because these were at the top of comment thread when I caught the post, and (at the risk going Reddit on HN) this is pure Reddit ad hominem BS. Self-proclaimed übermenschen defy gravity in their own minds. Great. Have at it.

Edit: Sorry, should have said 'self-imagined' rather than 'self-proclaimed.' Regardless, login in 20 years and let me know how it's worked out.

Even with your edit, I'm still confused as to what point you're trying to make. You seem to be calling out the parent comments on behavior, but your ending sentence makes it seem like you agree. The kicker is that you appear to do both in a fairly negative way, so proponents of either side of the argument might find something to disagree with in both tone and message, which is probably netting you some down votes.

You're right. I was trying to moderate my own overreaction. Tl;dr: Stupid greedy bitches! No, you're a stupid bitch, can't wait to see your unemployment app--because arrogant heartless bastards tend to do well, so what happened?

But I didn't want the down votes. So I didn't go there. I need to stay off HN on the weekends.

Luv ya!

In some ways these people don't begin this way it don't imagine becoming what they do become and what they become is a product of the organizations they work for themselves. That is, outside of working for these organizations, these people would likely behave differently, so it's not something you can lay at their feet entirely.

They are making big cash FOR those above them. The attitude of those above is "fuck the slaves"- even if these "slaves" make far more than the average American...

So these firms don't care.

Wall Street is cancer.