Good post, I definitely agree with most of what you said. I do think that the entitlement applies across the board, even among hard working bankers and the like. I think too much individualism/entitlement is a problem for modern society as a whole. It's amazing that we wake up every morning to running water, that we can go to work, and be paid for that work.
Couldnt agree more. My freinds I grew up with either work in vanilla jobs or with their parents companies. Suffice to say, NONE of them have any ambition to do anything. They have zero comprehension of what it takes to get jobs in finance. Two if my freinds once had an intervention with me in 4th year telling me that I should quit my unpaid internship and drop all my case competitions and enjoy life. My parents went threw a divorce in 1st year and it fucked my shit up hard so I had a huge uphill climb to be even noticed by guys in target schools and 3.0+ GPAs. I couldnt afford to drop anything I was doing because I didnt want to end up like them, doing shit all with my life. I went from a 1.2 CGPA and getting kicked out for a year to getting interviews with bulge brackets for banking, PE and corporate banking by eattting shit while having a smile on my face. Now, they think I performed some sort of witch craft to be able to make what I make and they sit down and bitch at me about how they only make 30-40k. In the words of Will Emerson from Margin Call "Fuck normal people".
Congratulations for overcoming adversity but let's drop the ego-mania. Claiming your friends have "no ambition to do anything" because they work in what you consider to be vanilla jobs is just ridiculous.
There is nothing wrong with the individual that works their way up from 30K/year and retires at 70K/year. Working middle-class jobs isn't indicative of ambition, nor would I describe it as "doing shit." No matter what the salary discrepancy is, I will always respect the math teacher, fire fighter, or even corporate grinder just as much as the PE-guy.
Fuck normal people? No. Do what makes you happy and if it's finance or nursing, so be it.
Also, there have been several posts that seemed to suggest that marital success is somehow related to career ambition or something. I couldn't disagree more. Who you marry is by far the most important decision you will ever make and it is ultimately what will drive your happiness. It doesn't matter if you make 20K or 2MM... if you hate your wife, you will hate your life.
Agree in terms that there is plenty of respect for working middle class jobs. But I will get upset when these people vote to raise taxes on anyone who makes more than them... But I guess everyone will look out for themselves, so I must do the same.
Congratulations for overcoming adversity but let's drop the ego-mania. Claiming your friends have "no ambition to do anything" because they work in what you consider to be vanilla jobs is just ridiculous.
There is nothing wrong with the individual that works their way up from 30K/year and retires at 70K/year. Working middle-class jobs isn't indicative of ambition, nor would I describe it as "doing shit." No matter what the salary discrepancy is, I will always respect the math teacher, fire fighter, or even corporate grinder just as much as the PE-guy.
Fuck normal people? No. Do what makes you happy and if it's finance or nursing, so be it.
Also, there have been several posts that seemed to suggest that marital success is somehow related to career ambition or something. I couldn't disagree more. Who you marry is by far the most important decision you will ever make and it is ultimately what will drive your happiness. It doesn't matter if you make 20K or 2MM... if you hate your wife, you will hate your life.
Reading comprehension fail, you idiot. Read the original post again.
SB'd. I think one of the saddest thing that will happen in most people's lives ( I include everyone on this board, we aren't immune to this) is waking up and realize we did not do anything worthwhile and will never have the chance to correct it. I speak to the lazy unambitious people who go home and watch TV 5-6 hours a day and to the high finance crowd. ( I doubt anyone on their deathbeds will have a burning desire that they spent more time in the office or got into HBS over Wharton)
Old thread but what the hell. I agree it would be terrible to wake up and realize you've lost the chance to do something worthwhile, however the definition of worthwhile wildly varies depending on the individual. Some people prioritize time with family, free time etc. over work. Granted, it can take a lot of hard work to get that free time. It's important to remember to find something that moves you and move it :).
One of the saddest things in my mind would be not living a deliberate life, and not aggressively seeking out what will make you happy. For some that could be developing good friends, making tons of money, doing service work, hanging out at the beach.... whatever. Life is really short. For those that get a huge rush out of doing deals and crushing spreadsheets.. i say do it with gusto and don't let your TV watching friends tell you otherwise. The converse applies as well.
I went to one of the HSW and I have to say that it was hands down best experience of my life. Most fulfilling. Most fun. Most meaningful personal growth. Incredible friends. It was worth every pound of shit I ate to get there and then some.
I suspect some readers may feel the same way about working at a bank or in PE. I say more power to you!
@Marcus_Halberstram - I'm with you on the general tone of what you're getting at, but the structure that it's being presented with is a tad peculiar. Your main gripe, from what I can tell (one I absolutely agree with), is that entitlement causes tons of problems and that entitled people are horrible. However, your title lines and lead in sentences seem to address laziness and a lack of ambition first and foremost, with entitlement being tangential to both rather than an independent problem. Additionally, you seem to treat those who are merely lazy and/or unambitious (sans entitlement) as acceptable despite your initial framing of the two maladies which, gives rise to a couple questions.
Do you think that entitlement, laziness, or a lack of ambition can exist mutually exclusively? Or do they follow each other?
If they follow each other, which one, in your opinion, do you think holds primacy? Are lazy, unambitious people prone to entitlement? Or are entitled people prone to laziness and a lack of ambition?
I'm sure that since this was originally a comment, it was put together more quickly than a post/article would've been, perhaps resulting in a less than complete point. I'm geniunely interested in your thoughts here as you seem to have given this topic some consideration (tone doesn't come across well on internet boards and I don't want you to think I'm being a douchebag). Thanks!
"My caddie's chauffeur informs me that a bank is a place where people put money that isn't properly invested."
On a more serious note: finance is a business that pays out either on commission or revenue sharing. Honestly, I believe more jobs should be structured this way. Not all jobs, but more jobs. People would be motivated more and would make more money.
For me, I see the work world the way I did bartending back when I did that for a living. The non owner and non kitchen jobs were:
1. host for $8 an hour and stand around bored
2. waiter making $2 an hour + $100 to $200 a shift and hustle a bit
3. bartender making $2 an hour + $150 to $500+ a shift and run around like a crazy person
4. manager making $15 an hour standing around bored, but having a bit more 'status'.
I found that job #3 worked best for me. I'd really prefer to be surfing but if I have to work....then fuck you, pay me. My time is precious to me. I'm not currently in a job that will make me rich but it's really just a matter of time before I find my gravy train. The 2% annual raise and retirement package isn't what I signed up for. That's the mindset in finance: work hard and the payoff is better than most. Honestly, most people just don't care to work that type of job, and are better suited for jobs like type #2 or #1. Unfortunately, there are very few type #2 jobs in the rest of the labor force, if you carry out this analogy.
Most real world jobs are either 1. hourly/salary or 2. commission. There are very, very, very few decent jobs outside of finance that pay a decent base and also tie some amount of compensation to performance in any meaningful way. It's a systemic problem. I blame Morganization, you can blame who you want, I'm not going to argue. When this incentive structure is addressed, then I think America will dramatically change for the better. In fact, I'm making it my goal in life to bring exactly that type of paygrade+bonus to the public for jobs outside of finance. How, I don't know, but I think there's a way given computers are so handy nowadays.
@UFO: Great views. This is certainly true and runs to the core as to why certain jobs attract more people even from other fields. For instance, I've seen people from nuclear engineering and other similar fields attracted to Finance because in Finance, people are actually paid based on "production" and contribution rather than simply being on retainer. There is risk, but there are great rewards without having to wait until you're gray to enjoy the benefits of the corresponding hard work.
I used to work 60 hour weeks in the corporate world. One year I got a whopping $600 bonus. career high in fact at that point (pre bschool). I used to get so frustrated. I would LOVE to get paid my fair comp in the form of a meaningful bonus. Sadly your analogy rings true for just about every job not on wall street.
Even in tech or consulting, the performance-based portion of the bonus is peanuts
Long time lurker here, but this post really resonates with my perspective of peers and old friends. Regarding the population subset that you explained, there's always stupid people saying stupid things. It's like children asking their parents why they enjoy watching the news rather than cartoons, they're just missing a level of understanding in their head.
Long time lurker here, but this post really resonates with my perspective of peers and old friends. Regarding the population subset that you explained, there's always stupid people saying stupid things. It's like children asking their parents why they enjoy watching the news rather than cartoons, they're just missing a level of understanding in their head.
Call me socialist (and throw monkey shit at me if you want) but a LOT of success on Wall Street and elsewhere is attributable to being part of the lucky sperm club. I take no great pleasure saying this. I'm reasonably successful by any normal person's definition but let's be honest - being born in an upper middle class background helped with that. This Ayn Rand / free market / Ron Paul version of capitalism is just not the real world. Very very few people truly start from the bottom and make it to the top.
I like to say that yes, the world is a better place for people who are born rich and the world is a better place for those that are born pretty. Unfortunately, I was born neither so I have to work harder to make my world a better place.
Is that to say that the rich and pretty don't work hard? Some do, some don't. Or is it to say that those that have success don't deserve it? Not at all. My peers on Wall Street may have come from more privilege but they still worked hard to get to where they were. The only difference is that doors steps they came upon they were often invited to, as opposed to the ones I came to I often times had to snake open with a credit card.
After a few years in the industry, their parents made their down payment and they bought a $2m apartment, which I couldn't do. But you know... life's a bitch. Without trying to sound too dogmatic, much like poker, its not about the cards you're dealt, its how you play them.
In the grand scheme of things, my Wall Street peers didn't have any more of a say in being born into privilege as I did in being born into disadvantage. At the end of the day, life is a bitch and you either learn to deal with it and take what you want regardless of the circumstances you're dealt or you become another statistic that could have done if not for [family baggage / the financial crisis / dyslexia / poor self control / etc].
While I believe the world is a better place if you're born rich and if you're born pretty, its also a better place for winners. And while you can't control your genetic destiny, you can control that last "advantage".
"Or is it to say that those that have success don't deserve it? "
-- I think this is where we disagree. I don't believe people (including you and me) 'deserve' as much of their success as they think they do. Again, this is a completely subjective evaluation so neither of us is wrong / right but I find it hard to take the results of a poker game with a stacked deck too seriously.
Yes, but isn't everyone born in america in the lucky sperm club. Aren't all pro athletes in the lucky sperm club. Aren't all great singers in lucky sperm club. I would love to have been born with a million dollar voice, I would love to have been born 6'4" with genes to run a 4.3 40 yard dash. Question is, so what? Isn't that part of why we have escalating tax brackets? Is paying 50% of your salary not enough while 50% pays nothing? The world/universe is not fair. Can a father not leave a business, wealth, or a job to his son? That's just not allowed?
"Yes, but isn't everyone born in america in the lucky sperm club."
-- I wasn't born in the US. I was born in a third world country where most rich people got that way by crony capitalism. Perhaps this explains our different viewpoints.
Yes, but isn't everyone born in america in the lucky sperm club. Aren't all pro athletes in the lucky sperm club. Aren't all great singers in lucky sperm club. I would love to have been born with a million dollar voice, I would love to have been born 6'4" with genes to run a 4.3 40 yard dash. Question is, so what? Isn't that part of why we have escalating tax brackets? Is paying 50% of your salary not enough while 50% pays nothing? The world/universe is not fair. Can a father not leave a business, wealth, or a job to his son? That's just not allowed?
Now don't take this me as coming off as a socialist.
I wouldn't go as far as saying every person born in America is in the lucky sperm club, Do you consider people born in Southside Chicago lucky? We always say we have it better than those people born in third world countries which is true, however there is room for improvements.
The reality is if you're born poor you are more likely to die poor. There are tons of study that support this claim, that the social mobility is a lot harder than we think. Now I am not going say its impossible to go from rigs to riches, but the likely hood is very small.
Call me socialist (and throw monkey shit at me if you want) but a LOT of success on Wall Street and elsewhere is attributable to being part of the lucky sperm club. I take no great pleasure saying this. I'm reasonably successful by any normal person's definition but let's be honest - being born in an upper middle class background helped with that. This Ayn Rand / free market / Ron Paul version of capitalism is just not the real world. Very very few people truly start from the bottom and make it to the top.
Of course that's true. The observation that children of affluent, talented, connected, influential, educated or hard working parents receive biological and environmental advantages is a prosaic one, indeed.
I've always been confounded that we should so affable and understanding of parents whose talents or education offer their children enormous advantages, while at once being repulsed by the idea that parents might use their hard-earned wealth to confer benefits to their progeny. Certainly, it's no coincidence that Peyton and Eli Manning should have become such prodigious quarterbacks (indeed, children of NFL players are statistically ~100x more likely to play in the NFL than their peers), nor should it be surprising that the world's most prestigious music conservatories are chock full of the children of professional violinists and flautists.
Parents - thankfully - are generally endowed with an overwhelming care for the outcomes of their children. At every bend of life's road, they endeavor to subsidize the development of their young ones. The cellist nurses his daughter's musical ability, the professor edifies the mind of his son, the doctor tutors his child in science, the college administrator introduces her son to the dean, the politician spearheads his daughters' journalism career by exposing her to TV anchors, the entrepreneur evokes ambition in his child, the affluent spares no expense in providing an education to his son - why is it that some of these narratives arouse a warm smile while others a scornful raised brow?
For all of our focus on egalitarianism, we make two quite treacherous assumptions: 1) that there is some fixed pool of success to be obtained in the world, such that the accomplishment of one child necessitates the failure of another and 2) that our society would be improved by policy that retrospectively redistributes resources to compensate for biological or environmental disadvantage. Both, of course, are misguided.
It's a trivial observation that, for example, Charles Darwin's contribution to the cumulative base of biological knowledge and the reverence that he has subsequently received did not come at the expense of other academic failures. Nor should it be diminished because he was born of a wealthy doctor and financier. Indeed, it's clear that Darwin's prosperous mind was attendant to many of the medical and scientific innovations of his successors. That is, Darwin's success doubtlessly increased the achievement of his academic scions; and, in that sense, he supplied to, rather than siphoned from, the pool of potential accomplishment.
Should it be any more trivial to observe that Bill Gates' incomprehensible success yielded a vastly greater quantity of prosperity than he himself consumed? Beyond the hundreds of billions in salaries paid to Microsoft employees, the magnitude of advances that were prompted by modern Silicon Valley icons who were raised on Windows computers is inestimable.
If such observations are so simple, why should we be brought to believe that similar, but less marvelous successes of less-notable academics or less-publicized entrepreneurs were deleterious to the prosperity of others?
We should never turn a blind eye to the suffering or hardship of those less fortunate, but history has demonstrated so clearly that economic freedom is the key ingredient to the most rewarding declines in poverty. The "developed world" today achieved that status not by coercively redistributing the triumphs of their fruitful entrepreneurs and artists, but rather by providing platforms upon which an entire civilization participates in the work of each citizen and each individual is granted the opportunity to exceed the prosperity of their parents. And, more fortunate still, with the evolution of a global economy has come a worldwide enfranchisement of the previously destitute in what is unquestionably the most precipitous decline in poverty in the history of human civilization.
In such a society, there will - of course - be enormous differences in affluence, talent, influence, education and ambition among different people, but the plight of the common man on the average income will be far greater than could be contemplated in a more restrictive economy.
"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
How can you say that? It's never been tried. We've never really had a truly free market. The federal government has been becoming more and more oppressive every year since the Civil War. And the whole luck thing...you can continue to believe it if it makes you feel better, but it's not true. Highschool isn't that hard. If you actually really cared you could get into a target school...and let's be honest, if you worked hard enough there, you could really do whatever you want with your life. A large majority of the people on the Forbes 400 are self-made. Started from nothing. That's not luck. Hard work always pays off. But not tomorrow, maybe not next month, maybe even not in a year. But in the long run, it does.
"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."
Nice pat on the back with #3 but I am unsure the majority of people on this blog work in the industry. Besides the point though, great contribution. I also have many friends with the "cheated" mentality, unsurprisingly due to a lack of understanding.
Rarely will any of my posts have enough forethought/structure to be taken seriously.
I am a senior at a sub-par private school and this post represents about 95% of the kids in my classes and about 98% of the people I graduated high school with.
"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
The reason that this resonates so deeply with me is not because I look down upon the people that you label as "average", but because I see so much of that in myself. I have always believed that I'm somehow different and that I will be successful, despite lacking the necessary grit to actually yield great results in any endeavor. In fact, I have angrily blamed others for some of my failures over the past several years, and reading that second to last paragraph put this "blame game" to rest. I have finally taken personal responsibility for my failures. It sounds sad, but its true. Thank you, so god damn much. I am finally moving on from my entitled, lazy, average idiocy.
@qbison to provide some clarity as to why i think they're unambitious, its not because they are firefighters or teachers. Its because they always take the easy way out. I have the upmost respect to anyone who works a job they hate to support their family, whether its a banker or the janitor at the mcdonalds across the street. These guys however don't have that problem. They prefer to sit at home and smoke all day and let their parents give them money. Its not like they're rich either, they're maybe upper middle class if anything. They sit around all week with their biggest problems in life being where they're going on saturday to drink. Nothing wrong with that, but telling me you shouldn't be taking CFA prep courses and should be thinking more like them because "I'm not living properly" is the stupidest thing I've heard any human being say.
While there is no shame in those who start at 30k and work their ass off to retire at 70k, those people should not be trying to handicap the ones who start at 100K+ trying to make $1M+. To use a sports analogy, you need both A players and B players for a team to do well. But when the B players start to throw off the A players who score all the goals because all they do is grind it out in the corners, thats when things go wrong. And thats the problem in the situation, they are happy to see me run the race along side them but God forbid I get a step ahead of them.
This is passionate and almost touching. When I read it, I was thinking about the young kid in Margin Call who gets fired.
I always try to work less and try to get more. I never work for the sake of it. You can work 100 hours a week. If you don't close the deal, you won't get paid.
One 45 mins call is sometimes more important than 10,000 hours of financial modelling.
I hate to interrupt this Ayn Rand pep rally going on here, built on resurrecting old posts from the coffers, but the sheer downplaying of chance and circumstance in this thread is stunning. In social psychology circles this is what's known as fundamental attribution error. I agree you should play the hand you're dealt as best you can, but that can only take you so far if you're dealt 7-2-offsuit. I think people succeed when preparation and fortunate situation happen to meet. Of course there are plenty of people who had one without the other, but just because one is somewhat in your control does not make it any more necessary for any type of success.
Chance and luck are just part of the equation. Personally, I've been the beneficiary of luck and I've also been the victim of it.
Fundamental to not falling too much in love with yourself is the acknowledgment that atleast 50% of what you achieve is being in the right place at the right time. But by the same token, I believe that there are people out there that no matter what circumstances they are dealt, they will always prevail because that's just the type of people they are.
You look at someone like Bloomberg or Blankfein or basically anyone who comes from a modest background and goes on to achieve extraordinary success (not just in the finance world) and my view is that there are some people (very few) that are so far above the mean that the margin of error called fortune/misfortune simply does not apply to them.
That is to say that when they are dealt the blow of bad luck the impact is minimized and when they are dealt a good hand, they have the awareness to recognize it as such and the tenacity to capitalize off of it disproportionately. If you were looking at it like a probability curve you'd see the shit end of the tail with a pay off of something like –0.1x and the payoff on the tail end of the good side at 15x. Going back to the poker analogy, thats when you fold on a 7-2 unsuited, and push your luck when you don't have much but are on the cusp of having a monster hand. Yes, sometimes you have a diesel hand and get caught on the wrong side of the river and sometimes on the right side of it. That's where luck, and to a lesser degree instincts come into play. But the key point is that there are some people who do not succumb to bad luck like the rest of us and rise to the occasion when they are the beneficiaries of chance.
You see this with these types of people who seemingly look like everything they touch turns to gold and they can do no wrong. But when you examine their track record more closely, you see that it is marked with failures just like anyone else. But they (a) don't get bogged down and dwell on their inadequacies and (b) they somehow figure out a way to turn a negative into a positive.
If you've ever competed athletically you know that there is a certain band of chance that has nothing to do with ability. Refs blowing calls is a great example. Lets say the margin of error is +/– 8 landed punches per round in a boxing match. If you're someone like Floyd Mayweather that is 2-3 standard deviations above the mean and is handily landing 30-40 blows more than his opponent in each round, that margin of error is irrelevant. If you're a more moderate all-star, while you may beat 80% of your opponents more handily, 20% of the time it comes down to 8 or so landed punches and so your successes and failures are subject to the whims of chance.
Am I saying that people of this caliber are common? Absolutely not. But that's not to say that you shouldn't strive to be performing at a level above the atmosphere of luck.
I wouldn't underwrite being lucky as a deciding factor in my life goals, I don't expect that my life goals will be inhibited by being unlucky.
Ok fair enough. But I will add that just as there might be people on one tail who have "positive convexity" when it comes to limiting downside from their afflictions and maximizing upside from their windfalls (just like poker), there are also those on the other hand who have the opposite situation. I guess my point is that like anything else in life it's not always so black and white. I don't disagree that one should always uphold the attitude of personal responsibility but sometimes that just doesn't get actualized due to external factors.
Good read. What it really boils down to for me is ambition, I simply don't enjoy being around people who lack that drive. Regardless of what the person chooses to focus on, along as they are ambitious in what they want to achieve, and want to be their best at what they do, I will respect and admire that individual.
The error of confirmation: we confirm our knowledge and scorn our ignorance.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But let me tell you something, in this world there's always gonna be the winners and losers and the complainers. The difference between the losers and the complainers is that theres a portion of the loser subset that realize that they failed and need to work harder and smarter to become a winner. However, the other subset are the people that fail and bitch and whine and cry. But that's life. Unfortunately, in America, there are a decent amount of people who are too damn spoiled. Sometimes you have to look back at what you have achieved and be grateful about that. If you have failed, don't complain. Try again. and keep trying. At the end of the end, everyone including you know you tried and you gave a damn. However, unlike the complainers...they just bitch and complain. They want to be entitled. That is why we have doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, financial specialists (this includes the financial sector), business owners, etc. After a certain portion of your life, you will realize your talent is only capable of taking you to a certain level/threshold and the rest you will have to rely on working hard and working smart. It's like Darwin's principle, survival of the fittest. This is life. Life is a jungle. If you are willing to work hard and put some brain power into it (not just grunt work), and if you fail, there are people out that there that will notice it and will try to help you. But at the end of the day, it comes down to you to make the move. You have to make the initiation. And always be humble that way you open more doors. good post nonetheless. if you have a chance, read Christopher Gardner's book Pursuit of Happyness (book>>>>>movie).
I think one solution is to actually fail and realize why you fail. I'll be honest, not too long ago I hit rock bottom, or at least I felt like I hit rock bottom. I had the same disease as you mentioned: Arrogance, self entitlement, a little bit lazy, anger, frustration, the whole loser attitude. Fast forward a year, I put 110% strength into my goals and I worked extremely hard and I finally tasted success. That feeling of succeeding despite your failures is the best gift I ever got in mylife. It told me I can actually do it. But with that reward came a valuable lesson. You have to work hard and be humble and be grateful. And I will carry that on for the rest of my life. Life is what you make of it but sometimes, you just have to be patient
The last paragraph, when you talk about the average person really got to me. One of my biggest fears is ending up mediocre and having nothing to really show for my existence on this planet. Granted I am more ambitious than the majority of the population....but I just cant think of many things worse than not living up to potential or waking up and realizing you are actually average.
The last paragraph, when you talk about the average person really got to me. One of my biggest fears is ending up mediocre and having nothing to really show for my existence on this planet. Granted I am more ambitious than the majority of the population....but I just cant think of many things worse than not living up to potential or waking up and realizing you are actually average.
That really depends on what you mean by average. Most people have their children to show for their existence on this planet. Pretty amazing thing if you think about it. Get out of the bubble, you can be above average by just not being an asshole and helping a person or two in your life, you don't have to make $500k+ to have a meaningful life. Your post just made me feel a lot better. Among other things, I consider myself a funny guy in real life (not wso), and that is something I love and have pride in, and to be egotistical...makes me fucking awesome. Money, or even being a F500 CEO can't give you that shit. Solely chasing money or prestige is a losing game my friend, because when you get there, ya think, this is it? This is what I stressed over for x amount of years? Then you think, fuck, now what I want is x years back!. Girls, family, health, fun experiences...are usually what people want...people often think LOTS of money is the only way to get there...not true.
I spoke w an owner of a large private regional company two weekends ago, at his sick mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean (~20 million dollar house). He lives a good life and seems content. But I like my life better - living in a small apartment a block from the surfing beach (crucial for me), with my friends, my hustle, and myself. If I die here in this same spot 60 years from now with an awesome wife and some kids (maybe), I did pretty well and lived a good life. Every moment you spend on those fears listed in the quote - wasting time - before you know it it turns to years, and my friend...you only have so many, so stop that BS thinking. It truly is flawed.
First off I really enjoyed your post but let me clarify. I never specifically mentioned what I considered to be average or exactly what I was trying to achieve to avoid being average in my own eyes. I actually agree with pretty much everything you said.
The older I get the more I enjoy life's experiences and the value of friends and family. I think my point that I was trying to get at is that, I don't want to feel like I wasted my life in relation to anything. I want to make a difference for someone or something. I will admit that money seems like a good way to make an impact but I also agree it's not the only way.
My perspective is that I feel being successful financially allows me to avoid the mediocrity I fear so much. Granted I am still pretty young and my perspective is sure to change many times over the years.
The last paragraph, when you talk about the average person really got to me. One of my biggest fears is ending up mediocre and having nothing to really show for my existence on this planet. Granted I am more ambitious than the majority of the population....but I just cant think of many things worse than not living up to potential or waking up and realizing you are actually average.
That really depends on what you mean by average. Most people have their children to show for their existence on this planet. Pretty amazing thing if you think about it. Get out of the bubble, you can be above average by just not being an asshole and helping a person or two in your life, you don't have to make $500k+ to have a meaningful life. Your post just made me feel a lot better. Among other things, I consider myself a funny guy in real life (not wso), and that is something I love and have pride in, and to be egotistical...makes me fucking awesome. Money, or even being a F500 CEO can't give you that shit. Solely chasing money or prestige is a losing game my friend, because when you get there, ya think, this is it? This is what I stressed over for x amount of years? Then you think, fuck, now what I want is x years back!. Girls, family, health, fun experiences...are usually what people want...people often think LOTS of money is the only way to get there...not true.
I spoke w an owner of a large private regional company two weekends ago, at his sick mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean (~20 million dollar house). He lives a good life and seems content. But I like my life better - living in a small apartment a block from the surfing beach (crucial for me), with my friends, my hustle, and myself. If I die here in this same spot 60 years from now with an awesome wife and some kids (maybe), I did pretty well and lived a good life. Every moment you spend on those fears listed in the quote - wasting time - before you know it it turns to years, and my friend...you only have so many, so stop that BS thinking. It truly is flawed.
This and a few other posts reminded me of Eddie's story about his friend who I think really sums up the epitome of being happy with his life and may offer a different perspective than some of the circlejerk that goes on here at times. Everybody's different. People have different goals and motivations in life. Personally, I enjoy being friends with a lot of people outside of finance but that doesn't mean I don't admire the hunger that a lot of people in the industry have. The question of whether I want it badly enough or not is something I ask myself quite frequently...
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/back-door-mark-the-oracle-of-pb
Gold. Entitlement is a very dangerous thing
Good post, I definitely agree with most of what you said. I do think that the entitlement applies across the board, even among hard working bankers and the like. I think too much individualism/entitlement is a problem for modern society as a whole. It's amazing that we wake up every morning to running water, that we can go to work, and be paid for that work.
Couldnt agree more. My freinds I grew up with either work in vanilla jobs or with their parents companies. Suffice to say, NONE of them have any ambition to do anything. They have zero comprehension of what it takes to get jobs in finance. Two if my freinds once had an intervention with me in 4th year telling me that I should quit my unpaid internship and drop all my case competitions and enjoy life. My parents went threw a divorce in 1st year and it fucked my shit up hard so I had a huge uphill climb to be even noticed by guys in target schools and 3.0+ GPAs. I couldnt afford to drop anything I was doing because I didnt want to end up like them, doing shit all with my life. I went from a 1.2 CGPA and getting kicked out for a year to getting interviews with bulge brackets for banking, PE and corporate banking by eattting shit while having a smile on my face. Now, they think I performed some sort of witch craft to be able to make what I make and they sit down and bitch at me about how they only make 30-40k. In the words of Will Emerson from Margin Call "Fuck normal people".
Congratulations for overcoming adversity but let's drop the ego-mania. Claiming your friends have "no ambition to do anything" because they work in what you consider to be vanilla jobs is just ridiculous.
There is nothing wrong with the individual that works their way up from 30K/year and retires at 70K/year. Working middle-class jobs isn't indicative of ambition, nor would I describe it as "doing shit." No matter what the salary discrepancy is, I will always respect the math teacher, fire fighter, or even corporate grinder just as much as the PE-guy.
Fuck normal people? No. Do what makes you happy and if it's finance or nursing, so be it.
Also, there have been several posts that seemed to suggest that marital success is somehow related to career ambition or something. I couldn't disagree more. Who you marry is by far the most important decision you will ever make and it is ultimately what will drive your happiness. It doesn't matter if you make 20K or 2MM... if you hate your wife, you will hate your life.
Agree in terms that there is plenty of respect for working middle class jobs. But I will get upset when these people vote to raise taxes on anyone who makes more than them... But I guess everyone will look out for themselves, so I must do the same.
Reading comprehension fail, you idiot. Read the original post again.
Take notes you little coonts...
nah jk :)
Y'all needed the gov't to bail you out? What are you poor? Lol Wall Street
-Professional athletes
.....I just felt like trolling
Reality check.
SB'd. I think one of the saddest thing that will happen in most people's lives ( I include everyone on this board, we aren't immune to this) is waking up and realize we did not do anything worthwhile and will never have the chance to correct it. I speak to the lazy unambitious people who go home and watch TV 5-6 hours a day and to the high finance crowd. ( I doubt anyone on their deathbeds will have a burning desire that they spent more time in the office or got into HBS over Wharton)
Old thread but what the hell. I agree it would be terrible to wake up and realize you've lost the chance to do something worthwhile, however the definition of worthwhile wildly varies depending on the individual. Some people prioritize time with family, free time etc. over work. Granted, it can take a lot of hard work to get that free time. It's important to remember to find something that moves you and move it :).
One of the saddest things in my mind would be not living a deliberate life, and not aggressively seeking out what will make you happy. For some that could be developing good friends, making tons of money, doing service work, hanging out at the beach.... whatever. Life is really short. For those that get a huge rush out of doing deals and crushing spreadsheets.. i say do it with gusto and don't let your TV watching friends tell you otherwise. The converse applies as well.
I went to one of the HSW and I have to say that it was hands down best experience of my life. Most fulfilling. Most fun. Most meaningful personal growth. Incredible friends. It was worth every pound of shit I ate to get there and then some.
I suspect some readers may feel the same way about working at a bank or in PE. I say more power to you!
@Marcus_Halberstram - I'm with you on the general tone of what you're getting at, but the structure that it's being presented with is a tad peculiar. Your main gripe, from what I can tell (one I absolutely agree with), is that entitlement causes tons of problems and that entitled people are horrible. However, your title lines and lead in sentences seem to address laziness and a lack of ambition first and foremost, with entitlement being tangential to both rather than an independent problem. Additionally, you seem to treat those who are merely lazy and/or unambitious (sans entitlement) as acceptable despite your initial framing of the two maladies which, gives rise to a couple questions.
Do you think that entitlement, laziness, or a lack of ambition can exist mutually exclusively? Or do they follow each other? If they follow each other, which one, in your opinion, do you think holds primacy? Are lazy, unambitious people prone to entitlement? Or are entitled people prone to laziness and a lack of ambition?
I'm sure that since this was originally a comment, it was put together more quickly than a post/article would've been, perhaps resulting in a less than complete point. I'm geniunely interested in your thoughts here as you seem to have given this topic some consideration (tone doesn't come across well on internet boards and I don't want you to think I'm being a douchebag). Thanks!
On a more serious note: finance is a business that pays out either on commission or revenue sharing. Honestly, I believe more jobs should be structured this way. Not all jobs, but more jobs. People would be motivated more and would make more money.
For me, I see the work world the way I did bartending back when I did that for a living. The non owner and non kitchen jobs were: 1. host for $8 an hour and stand around bored 2. waiter making $2 an hour + $100 to $200 a shift and hustle a bit 3. bartender making $2 an hour + $150 to $500+ a shift and run around like a crazy person 4. manager making $15 an hour standing around bored, but having a bit more 'status'.
I found that job #3 worked best for me. I'd really prefer to be surfing but if I have to work....then fuck you, pay me. My time is precious to me. I'm not currently in a job that will make me rich but it's really just a matter of time before I find my gravy train. The 2% annual raise and retirement package isn't what I signed up for. That's the mindset in finance: work hard and the payoff is better than most. Honestly, most people just don't care to work that type of job, and are better suited for jobs like type #2 or #1. Unfortunately, there are very few type #2 jobs in the rest of the labor force, if you carry out this analogy.
Most real world jobs are either 1. hourly/salary or 2. commission. There are very, very, very few decent jobs outside of finance that pay a decent base and also tie some amount of compensation to performance in any meaningful way. It's a systemic problem. I blame Morganization, you can blame who you want, I'm not going to argue. When this incentive structure is addressed, then I think America will dramatically change for the better. In fact, I'm making it my goal in life to bring exactly that type of paygrade+bonus to the public for jobs outside of finance. How, I don't know, but I think there's a way given computers are so handy nowadays.
@UFO: Great views. This is certainly true and runs to the core as to why certain jobs attract more people even from other fields. For instance, I've seen people from nuclear engineering and other similar fields attracted to Finance because in Finance, people are actually paid based on "production" and contribution rather than simply being on retainer. There is risk, but there are great rewards without having to wait until you're gray to enjoy the benefits of the corresponding hard work.
I used to work 60 hour weeks in the corporate world. One year I got a whopping $600 bonus. career high in fact at that point (pre bschool). I used to get so frustrated. I would LOVE to get paid my fair comp in the form of a meaningful bonus. Sadly your analogy rings true for just about every job not on wall street.
Even in tech or consulting, the performance-based portion of the bonus is peanuts
Author of this post needs to tone it down a bit
Long time lurker here, but this post really resonates with my perspective of peers and old friends. Regarding the population subset that you explained, there's always stupid people saying stupid things. It's like children asking their parents why they enjoy watching the news rather than cartoons, they're just missing a level of understanding in their head.
Long time lurker here, but this post really resonates with my perspective of peers and old friends. Regarding the population subset that you explained, there's always stupid people saying stupid things. It's like children asking their parents why they enjoy watching the news rather than cartoons, they're just missing a level of understanding in their head.
deleted
Call me socialist (and throw monkey shit at me if you want) but a LOT of success on Wall Street and elsewhere is attributable to being part of the lucky sperm club. I take no great pleasure saying this. I'm reasonably successful by any normal person's definition but let's be honest - being born in an upper middle class background helped with that. This Ayn Rand / free market / Ron Paul version of capitalism is just not the real world. Very very few people truly start from the bottom and make it to the top.
I don't disagree with you.
I like to say that yes, the world is a better place for people who are born rich and the world is a better place for those that are born pretty. Unfortunately, I was born neither so I have to work harder to make my world a better place.
Is that to say that the rich and pretty don't work hard? Some do, some don't. Or is it to say that those that have success don't deserve it? Not at all. My peers on Wall Street may have come from more privilege but they still worked hard to get to where they were. The only difference is that doors steps they came upon they were often invited to, as opposed to the ones I came to I often times had to snake open with a credit card.
After a few years in the industry, their parents made their down payment and they bought a $2m apartment, which I couldn't do. But you know... life's a bitch. Without trying to sound too dogmatic, much like poker, its not about the cards you're dealt, its how you play them.
In the grand scheme of things, my Wall Street peers didn't have any more of a say in being born into privilege as I did in being born into disadvantage. At the end of the day, life is a bitch and you either learn to deal with it and take what you want regardless of the circumstances you're dealt or you become another statistic that could have done if not for [family baggage / the financial crisis / dyslexia / poor self control / etc].
While I believe the world is a better place if you're born rich and if you're born pretty, its also a better place for winners. And while you can't control your genetic destiny, you can control that last "advantage".
"Or is it to say that those that have success don't deserve it? "
-- I think this is where we disagree. I don't believe people (including you and me) 'deserve' as much of their success as they think they do. Again, this is a completely subjective evaluation so neither of us is wrong / right but I find it hard to take the results of a poker game with a stacked deck too seriously.
Drake begs to disagree.
//www.youtube.com/embed/TKjkht7RHuw?rel=0
Yes, but isn't everyone born in america in the lucky sperm club. Aren't all pro athletes in the lucky sperm club. Aren't all great singers in lucky sperm club. I would love to have been born with a million dollar voice, I would love to have been born 6'4" with genes to run a 4.3 40 yard dash. Question is, so what? Isn't that part of why we have escalating tax brackets? Is paying 50% of your salary not enough while 50% pays nothing? The world/universe is not fair. Can a father not leave a business, wealth, or a job to his son? That's just not allowed?
"Yes, but isn't everyone born in america in the lucky sperm club."
-- I wasn't born in the US. I was born in a third world country where most rich people got that way by crony capitalism. Perhaps this explains our different viewpoints.
Now don't take this me as coming off as a socialist.
I wouldn't go as far as saying every person born in America is in the lucky sperm club, Do you consider people born in Southside Chicago lucky? We always say we have it better than those people born in third world countries which is true, however there is room for improvements.
The reality is if you're born poor you are more likely to die poor. There are tons of study that support this claim, that the social mobility is a lot harder than we think. Now I am not going say its impossible to go from rigs to riches, but the likely hood is very small.
Here is a recent article from The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21595396-new-study-shows-just-how-slow-it-change-social-class-have-and-have-not
Of course that's true. The observation that children of affluent, talented, connected, influential, educated or hard working parents receive biological and environmental advantages is a prosaic one, indeed.
I've always been confounded that we should so affable and understanding of parents whose talents or education offer their children enormous advantages, while at once being repulsed by the idea that parents might use their hard-earned wealth to confer benefits to their progeny. Certainly, it's no coincidence that Peyton and Eli Manning should have become such prodigious quarterbacks (indeed, children of NFL players are statistically ~100x more likely to play in the NFL than their peers), nor should it be surprising that the world's most prestigious music conservatories are chock full of the children of professional violinists and flautists.
Parents - thankfully - are generally endowed with an overwhelming care for the outcomes of their children. At every bend of life's road, they endeavor to subsidize the development of their young ones. The cellist nurses his daughter's musical ability, the professor edifies the mind of his son, the doctor tutors his child in science, the college administrator introduces her son to the dean, the politician spearheads his daughters' journalism career by exposing her to TV anchors, the entrepreneur evokes ambition in his child, the affluent spares no expense in providing an education to his son - why is it that some of these narratives arouse a warm smile while others a scornful raised brow?
For all of our focus on egalitarianism, we make two quite treacherous assumptions: 1) that there is some fixed pool of success to be obtained in the world, such that the accomplishment of one child necessitates the failure of another and 2) that our society would be improved by policy that retrospectively redistributes resources to compensate for biological or environmental disadvantage. Both, of course, are misguided.
It's a trivial observation that, for example, Charles Darwin's contribution to the cumulative base of biological knowledge and the reverence that he has subsequently received did not come at the expense of other academic failures. Nor should it be diminished because he was born of a wealthy doctor and financier. Indeed, it's clear that Darwin's prosperous mind was attendant to many of the medical and scientific innovations of his successors. That is, Darwin's success doubtlessly increased the achievement of his academic scions; and, in that sense, he supplied to, rather than siphoned from, the pool of potential accomplishment.
Should it be any more trivial to observe that Bill Gates' incomprehensible success yielded a vastly greater quantity of prosperity than he himself consumed? Beyond the hundreds of billions in salaries paid to Microsoft employees, the magnitude of advances that were prompted by modern Silicon Valley icons who were raised on Windows computers is inestimable.
If such observations are so simple, why should we be brought to believe that similar, but less marvelous successes of less-notable academics or less-publicized entrepreneurs were deleterious to the prosperity of others?
We should never turn a blind eye to the suffering or hardship of those less fortunate, but history has demonstrated so clearly that economic freedom is the key ingredient to the most rewarding declines in poverty. The "developed world" today achieved that status not by coercively redistributing the triumphs of their fruitful entrepreneurs and artists, but rather by providing platforms upon which an entire civilization participates in the work of each citizen and each individual is granted the opportunity to exceed the prosperity of their parents. And, more fortunate still, with the evolution of a global economy has come a worldwide enfranchisement of the previously destitute in what is unquestionably the most precipitous decline in poverty in the history of human civilization.
In such a society, there will - of course - be enormous differences in affluence, talent, influence, education and ambition among different people, but the plight of the common man on the average income will be far greater than could be contemplated in a more restrictive economy.
I agree NorthSider. If I could have put my thoughts on this subject into an eloquently worded essay, it would have strongly resembled your comment.
How can you say that? It's never been tried. We've never really had a truly free market. The federal government has been becoming more and more oppressive every year since the Civil War. And the whole luck thing...you can continue to believe it if it makes you feel better, but it's not true. Highschool isn't that hard. If you actually really cared you could get into a target school...and let's be honest, if you worked hard enough there, you could really do whatever you want with your life. A large majority of the people on the Forbes 400 are self-made. Started from nothing. That's not luck. Hard work always pays off. But not tomorrow, maybe not next month, maybe even not in a year. But in the long run, it does.
Nice pat on the back with #3 but I am unsure the majority of people on this blog work in the industry. Besides the point though, great contribution. I also have many friends with the "cheated" mentality, unsurprisingly due to a lack of understanding.
Probably one of my favorite posts. Great story. Just the truth.
yeah amazing story... thanks
Since everyone here is probably familiar with the epicurean dealmaker, I thought this was a good read on the subject:
http://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com/2012/05/occupy-galt-gulch.html
Keep in mind this guy is MD and probably way more successful than any of us on this thread.
god this is my aunt - housewife her entire life and expects to be retired in her 50s despite marrying a custodian. Fuck you auntie
--
I am a senior at a sub-par private school and this post represents about 95% of the kids in my classes and about 98% of the people I graduated high school with.
Separately, @Marcus_Halberstram I think you would greatly enjoy Ludwig von Mises' essay "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality", linked below.
http://mises.org/etexts/mises/anticap/section1.asp
The reason that this resonates so deeply with me is not because I look down upon the people that you label as "average", but because I see so much of that in myself. I have always believed that I'm somehow different and that I will be successful, despite lacking the necessary grit to actually yield great results in any endeavor. In fact, I have angrily blamed others for some of my failures over the past several years, and reading that second to last paragraph put this "blame game" to rest. I have finally taken personal responsibility for my failures. It sounds sad, but its true. Thank you, so god damn much. I am finally moving on from my entitled, lazy, average idiocy.
@qbison to provide some clarity as to why i think they're unambitious, its not because they are firefighters or teachers. Its because they always take the easy way out. I have the upmost respect to anyone who works a job they hate to support their family, whether its a banker or the janitor at the mcdonalds across the street. These guys however don't have that problem. They prefer to sit at home and smoke all day and let their parents give them money. Its not like they're rich either, they're maybe upper middle class if anything. They sit around all week with their biggest problems in life being where they're going on saturday to drink. Nothing wrong with that, but telling me you shouldn't be taking CFA prep courses and should be thinking more like them because "I'm not living properly" is the stupidest thing I've heard any human being say.
While there is no shame in those who start at 30k and work their ass off to retire at 70k, those people should not be trying to handicap the ones who start at 100K+ trying to make $1M+. To use a sports analogy, you need both A players and B players for a team to do well. But when the B players start to throw off the A players who score all the goals because all they do is grind it out in the corners, thats when things go wrong. And thats the problem in the situation, they are happy to see me run the race along side them but God forbid I get a step ahead of them.
This is passionate and almost touching. When I read it, I was thinking about the young kid in Margin Call who gets fired.
I always try to work less and try to get more. I never work for the sake of it. You can work 100 hours a week. If you don't close the deal, you won't get paid.
One 45 mins call is sometimes more important than 10,000 hours of financial modelling.
I hate to interrupt this Ayn Rand pep rally going on here, built on resurrecting old posts from the coffers, but the sheer downplaying of chance and circumstance in this thread is stunning. In social psychology circles this is what's known as fundamental attribution error. I agree you should play the hand you're dealt as best you can, but that can only take you so far if you're dealt 7-2-offsuit. I think people succeed when preparation and fortunate situation happen to meet. Of course there are plenty of people who had one without the other, but just because one is somewhat in your control does not make it any more necessary for any type of success.
I don't disagree.
Chance and luck are just part of the equation. Personally, I've been the beneficiary of luck and I've also been the victim of it.
Fundamental to not falling too much in love with yourself is the acknowledgment that atleast 50% of what you achieve is being in the right place at the right time. But by the same token, I believe that there are people out there that no matter what circumstances they are dealt, they will always prevail because that's just the type of people they are.
You look at someone like Bloomberg or Blankfein or basically anyone who comes from a modest background and goes on to achieve extraordinary success (not just in the finance world) and my view is that there are some people (very few) that are so far above the mean that the margin of error called fortune/misfortune simply does not apply to them.
That is to say that when they are dealt the blow of bad luck the impact is minimized and when they are dealt a good hand, they have the awareness to recognize it as such and the tenacity to capitalize off of it disproportionately. If you were looking at it like a probability curve you'd see the shit end of the tail with a pay off of something like –0.1x and the payoff on the tail end of the good side at 15x. Going back to the poker analogy, thats when you fold on a 7-2 unsuited, and push your luck when you don't have much but are on the cusp of having a monster hand. Yes, sometimes you have a diesel hand and get caught on the wrong side of the river and sometimes on the right side of it. That's where luck, and to a lesser degree instincts come into play. But the key point is that there are some people who do not succumb to bad luck like the rest of us and rise to the occasion when they are the beneficiaries of chance.
You see this with these types of people who seemingly look like everything they touch turns to gold and they can do no wrong. But when you examine their track record more closely, you see that it is marked with failures just like anyone else. But they (a) don't get bogged down and dwell on their inadequacies and (b) they somehow figure out a way to turn a negative into a positive.
If you've ever competed athletically you know that there is a certain band of chance that has nothing to do with ability. Refs blowing calls is a great example. Lets say the margin of error is +/– 8 landed punches per round in a boxing match. If you're someone like Floyd Mayweather that is 2-3 standard deviations above the mean and is handily landing 30-40 blows more than his opponent in each round, that margin of error is irrelevant. If you're a more moderate all-star, while you may beat 80% of your opponents more handily, 20% of the time it comes down to 8 or so landed punches and so your successes and failures are subject to the whims of chance.
Am I saying that people of this caliber are common? Absolutely not. But that's not to say that you shouldn't strive to be performing at a level above the atmosphere of luck.
I wouldn't underwrite being lucky as a deciding factor in my life goals, I don't expect that my life goals will be inhibited by being unlucky.
Ok fair enough. But I will add that just as there might be people on one tail who have "positive convexity" when it comes to limiting downside from their afflictions and maximizing upside from their windfalls (just like poker), there are also those on the other hand who have the opposite situation. I guess my point is that like anything else in life it's not always so black and white. I don't disagree that one should always uphold the attitude of personal responsibility but sometimes that just doesn't get actualized due to external factors.
Good read. What it really boils down to for me is ambition, I simply don't enjoy being around people who lack that drive. Regardless of what the person chooses to focus on, along as they are ambitious in what they want to achieve, and want to be their best at what they do, I will respect and admire that individual.
Maybe I'm just an outlier, but I enjoy hanging out with people whose ambitions aren't held to the same standards as my own all the time.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But let me tell you something, in this world there's always gonna be the winners and losers and the complainers. The difference between the losers and the complainers is that theres a portion of the loser subset that realize that they failed and need to work harder and smarter to become a winner. However, the other subset are the people that fail and bitch and whine and cry. But that's life. Unfortunately, in America, there are a decent amount of people who are too damn spoiled. Sometimes you have to look back at what you have achieved and be grateful about that. If you have failed, don't complain. Try again. and keep trying. At the end of the end, everyone including you know you tried and you gave a damn. However, unlike the complainers...they just bitch and complain. They want to be entitled. That is why we have doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, financial specialists (this includes the financial sector), business owners, etc. After a certain portion of your life, you will realize your talent is only capable of taking you to a certain level/threshold and the rest you will have to rely on working hard and working smart. It's like Darwin's principle, survival of the fittest. This is life. Life is a jungle. If you are willing to work hard and put some brain power into it (not just grunt work), and if you fail, there are people out that there that will notice it and will try to help you. But at the end of the day, it comes down to you to make the move. You have to make the initiation. And always be humble that way you open more doors. good post nonetheless. if you have a chance, read Christopher Gardner's book Pursuit of Happyness (book>>>>>movie).
I think one solution is to actually fail and realize why you fail. I'll be honest, not too long ago I hit rock bottom, or at least I felt like I hit rock bottom. I had the same disease as you mentioned: Arrogance, self entitlement, a little bit lazy, anger, frustration, the whole loser attitude. Fast forward a year, I put 110% strength into my goals and I worked extremely hard and I finally tasted success. That feeling of succeeding despite your failures is the best gift I ever got in mylife. It told me I can actually do it. But with that reward came a valuable lesson. You have to work hard and be humble and be grateful. And I will carry that on for the rest of my life. Life is what you make of it but sometimes, you just have to be patient
The last paragraph, when you talk about the average person really got to me. One of my biggest fears is ending up mediocre and having nothing to really show for my existence on this planet. Granted I am more ambitious than the majority of the population....but I just cant think of many things worse than not living up to potential or waking up and realizing you are actually average.
That really depends on what you mean by average. Most people have their children to show for their existence on this planet. Pretty amazing thing if you think about it. Get out of the bubble, you can be above average by just not being an asshole and helping a person or two in your life, you don't have to make $500k+ to have a meaningful life. Your post just made me feel a lot better. Among other things, I consider myself a funny guy in real life (not wso), and that is something I love and have pride in, and to be egotistical...makes me fucking awesome. Money, or even being a F500 CEO can't give you that shit. Solely chasing money or prestige is a losing game my friend, because when you get there, ya think, this is it? This is what I stressed over for x amount of years? Then you think, fuck, now what I want is x years back!. Girls, family, health, fun experiences...are usually what people want...people often think LOTS of money is the only way to get there...not true.
I spoke w an owner of a large private regional company two weekends ago, at his sick mansion on a cliff overlooking the ocean (~20 million dollar house). He lives a good life and seems content. But I like my life better - living in a small apartment a block from the surfing beach (crucial for me), with my friends, my hustle, and myself. If I die here in this same spot 60 years from now with an awesome wife and some kids (maybe), I did pretty well and lived a good life. Every moment you spend on those fears listed in the quote - wasting time - before you know it it turns to years, and my friend...you only have so many, so stop that BS thinking. It truly is flawed.
Don't worry, I think you're a funny guy, even on WSO
First off I really enjoyed your post but let me clarify. I never specifically mentioned what I considered to be average or exactly what I was trying to achieve to avoid being average in my own eyes. I actually agree with pretty much everything you said.
The older I get the more I enjoy life's experiences and the value of friends and family. I think my point that I was trying to get at is that, I don't want to feel like I wasted my life in relation to anything. I want to make a difference for someone or something. I will admit that money seems like a good way to make an impact but I also agree it's not the only way.
My perspective is that I feel being successful financially allows me to avoid the mediocrity I fear so much. Granted I am still pretty young and my perspective is sure to change many times over the years.
This and a few other posts reminded me of Eddie's story about his friend who I think really sums up the epitome of being happy with his life and may offer a different perspective than some of the circlejerk that goes on here at times. Everybody's different. People have different goals and motivations in life. Personally, I enjoy being friends with a lot of people outside of finance but that doesn't mean I don't admire the hunger that a lot of people in the industry have. The question of whether I want it badly enough or not is something I ask myself quite frequently... //www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/back-door-mark-the-oracle-of-pb