Then yeah, that makes sense. Except that this isn’t for everyone and these opportunities are not even common to begin with.

So for regular jobs demanding that the average worker put in 60+ hours a week, with no share of the profits, while senior members of the firm take in millions or more, with intrusive weekends and lack of friends&family time?

The correct response is an honest Glassdoor review and a go-fuck-yourself to management.

A big part of that is the subject matter, and getting to work with (build software tools for) artists and sound designers. It probably helps that the work is a well rounded social-creative-technical experience much of the time. Once I stopped seeing myself as a repository of generic, commoditized skills for sale, and found an actual purpose, the sort of ‘employee mentality’ I used to have vanished and my relationship to work became simpler and more gratifying...and I work a lot harder. And yes, I also get paid a lot more, although that came later and I don’t regard that as a requirement - would much sooner give up the money than the passion. I’ve seen a similar transition happen in others.

To some of the downvoters: we all admire artists and musicians who have totally devoted themselves to their craft, and we don’t condescendingly pity their “unhealthy work life balance”. My hero growing up was Feynman, who was doing physics every waking hour (or so I’ve read). It’s not like his estate is going to reap the economic benefits of his work; so was Feynman a pitiful sucker, abused by his university employers? Why does someone else’s ambition anger you so much?

You were the winners of a World War that left your competitors in scorched ruins, while you hadn't suffered much physical damage.

In the multi-stranded bundle of reasons for American dominance, this is the big one.

If a competitor to Facebook started at the same time in Switzerland, Facebook would have spread dozens of times faster in the states, then given that the internet is global, the network effect would see it defeat competitors one by one.

(You could argue, also, that the immigration situation leads to the US' success, a big chunk of the world's best and brightest migrate to the US. From CNBC: Apple founder Steve Jobs is the son of a Syrian immigrant, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is a second generation Cuban immigrant, Google founder Sergey Brin was born in Russia, and Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin is a Brazilian native.)

I think the VC situation is the other big reason American tech dominates. I don't know enough about how that all works too know why the US succeeds there, but I understand other countries don't have anywhere near the same amount of VC money

At some point it becomes less and less about WW2 and more about the USA’s relentless optimization for economic growth at all costs, often over other things that would make this country more civilized and humane.

For example, a brain drain to the states because it's seen as wealthy and powerful would only compound that wealth.

But also if you're starting with the best technology and a lot of money, you get ahead of others faster.

I'm not about to say that the non aggression pact wasn't a problem, but WW2 finds lots of organizations in the same boat that we can attack in the same way. It was an old system where bodies and land meant power, a system that is really dying.

The US was hardly hurt by the war at all, suffering comparatively few casualties; as their states were never actually attacked their primary contribution in Europe was to ship material from their factories to Russia and the other allies. Factories which after the war switched back to making commercial goods.

The war in the Pacific was a different matter, but again, only some US colonies were attacked and civilian suffering even in those territories was nothing compared to what other countries had to deal with.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworl...

Wall Street also supported hitler until 1941. Hitler wanted to invade America mostly so that he would have to repay wall street.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united-st...

I’m sorry if this seems pedantic since it doesn’t affect your point, but I feel like it deserves some clarification.

Empires and Federations are cool that way - the member states don’t waste resources fighting each other endlessly.

WW2 left us as one of two superpowers, but we have been highly productive for a while, and a lot of that is due to our 'protestant work ethic' that keeps us wealthy but also overworked.

This seems at odds with "I want to kill myself for the firm, and work as hard as humanly possible". That is losing, not winning.

The US does have the highest GDP (by a large margin).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...

GDP per capita is not the same as GDP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The US, as a nation, has the highest GDP, and therefore is the wealthiest nation in the world. The individual wealth of Americans is lower than some other countries (but not many), but that is hardly relevant in a discussion about the wealthiest country. If OC had said "Americans are the richest people in the world", you would be right. But OC did not, and being deliberately obtuse does not change that.

I realize you were provoked, but please don't break the site guidelines even when another account is doing so. That's the only way to prevent a downward spiral.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You can be highly ambitious and work in a balanced culture and still be successful. The fact that you think ambition and work-life balance are mutually exclusive is pretty sad.

This was really sad to read.

You have confused your carefully selected sample (assorted by profession, employee preferences, and employer preferences) for the general population.

That is a mistake.

He certainly won't complain that your sense of worth is defined by the firm. It's a lopsided semi-co-dependent relationship and kinda weird. I know people like yourself and respect the ethic but there's surely a way to direct that to your own life instead of defining the satisfaction by how well you make another guy money.

Also, the exceptionalism is needless, generalized and is talking down to foreigners as if they don't have similar work ethics. You're not making us look good as Americans by claiming that you'll bend over backwards for bossman and break your back doing so in order to spend an extra dollar at the company store.

I really don’t understand the logic of your comment and most of the others downvoters. He never said his ambition was to make another guy money; perhaps he’s making a lot of it himself, or regards the money as to some extent incidental. The comments about America aren’t in the best taste, but that doesn’t make it okay to put words in his mouth.

There's a distinction to be made in the nature of the output. Feynman's physics work was investigating nature on behalf of humanity. What artists produce is spiritually/intellectually/emotionally edifying for other people. Contrast this with OP's [killing themselves to make a rich banker richer][0], or, say, working on the next addictive mobile game.

This is putting things in the strongest possible light, of course: Feynman also worked on the bomb. Artists can be navel-gazers. And some people break their backs working for a company that is "curing cancer". So it's not black and white.

[0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20196385

I do believe that much of the heat he’s taking is from people projecting their own insecurity and lack of fulfillment, or some other form of jealousy. I suspect that, because I used to be ashamed to feel that sickly, condescending impulse in myself, before I had found a purpose (I.e. a domain of application) for my engineering work that I believe in. I used to have the usual bifurcation of work versus life, and y’know what? Turns out it can get a lot fking better! If OP isn’t hurting anyone, more power to him.

Are you new here? A lot of us in this community have found fulfillment and happiness through the opposite mindset of OP. Compounded by his tone it’s not a surprise he’s taking heat.

> If OP isn’t hurting anyone, more power to him.

OP wants to “win”, which is usually a way to say he wants to be above others.

But I can understand how working as a derivative trader with one big number to increase like in a video game can narrow your perspectives, to the point of having the pretention of being a winner on top of that.

Anyway, speaking of projection. I'm not the one that said a single thing about domain or work-life balance. You're making up stuff in your brain based on your just-stated tendency towards a false sense of superiority. Which is funny given the point of my damned original post.

Whatever. I give up. I'm only here because the site for and by hackers doesn't have an account delete button.

Okay... Maybe it came out not as intended, or maybe I misinterpreted it, but this statement shocked me with its (in my interpretation) condescension. “So boring”, ”I feel bad for you,” being I suppose the key phrases. What I had recalled was my own former inferiority complex, of which I believed I saw an echo in your post and many others’ responses. It no longer occurs to me to feel offense (as in many other comments) or pity (as in yours) when someone else speaks in a competitive tone of a singleminded desire to “win,” whatever winning happens to mean to them, and I now regard such reactions as irrational and egocentric, whatever internal mechanism they arise from. To illustrate, I’d predict many of the commenters would to varying degrees celebrate an athlete expressing himself in a similar manner (the most famous example I guess being Muhammad Ali, but there are many other such personalities in individual and team sports), and I believe that is primarily because athletes are in a profession they don’t identify with and therefore cannot locate any basis on which to feel either psychologically threatened or in any other way contrast with their own choices. But I may still be missing nuance in your individual comment.

Both the OC and your assumption that he is “handing [his] life over to the guy [he] works for” seem to me to be speaking pretty squarely of the popular notion of work-life balance. Perhaps I’m again missing some nuance there.

Anyhow, it’s not important. Hope you have a nice week.

P.S. Sincere apologies to clerks, you deal with the shit and are respected. Just using as a point about perception and weird notions of what people wear as badges of honor.

Edit: I also don't believe Feynman or any other scientist would define his life by the uni he researched for just as I don't believe an artist would define himself by his job with coca-cola

Talk about emphasizing your personal narrative.

First of all, such aggressive attitude is certainly not sustainable. Once you break down, the firm will simply replace you with someone else. A professional is someone who functions reliably and efficiently, not some self-acclaimed rockstars who blindly charge into every random things. Such have never been a key factor in businesses. I would call you and your co-workers mere kids in that sense. facepalm

America became rich mainly because of its geopolitical advantages. Were you sleeping in your history class? America isn't tech dominant if you're talking outside IT. Protestant work ethic? Americans are lazy cockroaches compared to Asians. Greatness? Nazi was also after its own greatness.

Ambitious? People like you are merely covering up their own existential crisis with something fancy, like being rich, being a winner, being better, living up to others' expectation, etc. Ambition became such a low thing these days, eh?

You lack vision, kiddo. You don't have clear vision of your life. All you're saying is, if you try hard, you'll live a good life. That's the last thing you should believe.