But "solving the money problem" is about gaining the freedom to do what you love, without having to worry about putting food on the table. The problem is really a problem of freedom, which it just so happens can be solved by acquiring a load of dosh. So it's only about making money as a means to the end of freedom.

Why would you gamble with your freedom? Most of Paul Graham's fans could easily do 3 years of lawschool at a top tier school and could then work 5 years and retire for life.

5 years is a bit unreasonable. Take a look at the salary chart on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_firm#Salaries

Typically, you're about $160k in debt from law school, so the first year is spent paying that back. The next 4 years taken together is only $795k, nowhere near enough to retire for life. All the associate years together is only about $1.6M, still not enough to retire after 11 years.

Then you have to make partner; if you don't, you're out of the firm and usually have to set yourself up as a sole proprietor. If you do make partner, you're set for life, but at 11 years getting there, the road is nearly as long as becoming a tenured professor and usually longer than becoming a successful entrepreneur.

In your search did you find any other examples? The original comment said "all the time". That's a very different reading from mine and I'm frankly not sure where it comes from. Even that essay you cite, the quote is a tangent. It's not the central thesis.

To a hacker's mind, solving the money problem is less about money in and of itself and more about making efficient use of our time. Wasting time is the worst of sins.