The Whole Shooting Match (Life) per Scott Galloway

[Midpack]

Just finished The Algebra of Wealth by Scott Galloway. Not a great read for retirees (too late), but might be a good option for our kids or grandkids just starting their financial journey.

As a sucker for clever, concise quotes, I enjoyed this near the end of his book. Key to life in a couple sentences.

Everything meaningful in life is about others. Your ability to support and love others and your willingness to let them love you. Nothing profound is achieved in isolation.

Find something you're good at (not necessarily "what you love") that people will pay you for and go hard, really hard, at it. Spend less than you make so you can deploy a platoon, then a division, then an army of capital that fights for you and your loved ones while you sleep. Diversify so you can endure the unknown that surrounds us. And have a long-term perspective: embrace the wisdom to recognize time will go faster than you think.

 

[audreyh1]

Hmmm, I would say he was an extrovert rather than an introvert. People are wired differently.

 

[marko]

Man! Talk about everything you need to know about "life" in two paragraphs!

I think it was Buffet who said " if you don't make money while you sleep, you'll work for rest of your life"

 

[Gumby]

I'm glad he addressed the "do what you love" canard.

 

[Diogenes]

Going "really hard" is a smarmy Americanism. Fine for those of that particular mindset, or cultural baggage; excessive or even counterproductive, for others. As I grow older, I more admire the laid-back cultures, where promptness isn't highly expected, and labor is more of a necessity than a virtue. Is that essentially the premise behind early retirement?

 

[marko]

Going "really hard" is a smarmy Americanism. Fine for those of that particular mindset, or cultural baggage; excessive or even counterproductive, for others. As I grow older, I more admire the laid-back cultures, where promptness isn't highly expected, and labor is more of a necessity than a virtue. Is that essentially the premise behind early retirement?

I'd venture that those for whom "promptness isn't expected and labor is more of a necessity than a virtue" rarely get to retire comfortably at 45 years old. I'll take going really hard in my youth over dying at age 62 with a shovel in my hand.

Spent a good part of my career in the third world and developing nations. It often isn't pretty, despite the laid back vibe.

Personally, having lived there, I like the European work/life balance mode but the US lacks many of the social safeties in place that enable that, so we must work within the structure that we have.

 

[Gumby]

Going "really hard" is a smarmy Americanism. Fine for those of that particular mindset, or cultural baggage; excessive or even counterproductive, for others. As I grow older, I more admire the laid-back cultures, where promptness isn't highly expected, and labor is more of a necessity than a virtue. Is that essentially the premise behind early retirement?

Perhaps you were born on third base and never had to work hard to get where you are, but I will tell you that some of us had no choice in the matter. I was not even in the ballpark when I left home at 18. Although I am as indolent as the next guy now that I am retired, it was only by working incredibly hard at difficult tasks when I was younger (and literally risking my life all day, every day for years) that I was able to put myself in this position. So scoff if you like, but there is and always has been virtue in hard work. I disdain those who think it is beneath them.

 

[Midpack]

I'm glad he addressed the "do what you love" canard.

I thought so too. It’s ideal if you love something you’re also good at that pays, but just doing what you love isn’t necessarily a good approach IME.

 

[jollystomper]

Hmmm, I would say he was an extrovert rather than an introvert. People are wired differently.

Is there some aspect of that quote that makes you call him an extrovert, or something beyond that? I do not see anything in the quote that is exclusive to extrovertism.

Going "really hard" is a smarmy Americanism. Fine for those of that particular mindset, or cultural baggage; excessive or even counterproductive, for others. As I grow older, I more admire the laid-back cultures, where promptness isn't highly expected, and labor is more of a necessity than a virtue. Is that essentially the premise behind early retirement?

I would be curious about what type of economy exists in those "laid-back" cultures. Both my parents and DW's parents grew up in those type of cultures, and in their working years they chose to leave them and come to the U.S. because of that. Their home countries were less capitalistic and more dictatorship/socialist/communist where, while you might not starve, your choices and ability to change your lot was very limited.

Also, look at the content of "going really hard" - it is in the view of first "finding something you are good at that people will pay you for". This is not just "going really hard", it is more "working smart".

 

[Midpack]

Also, look at the content of "going really hard" - it is in the view of first "finding something you are good at that people will pay you for". This is not just "going really hard", it is more "working smart".

I think it’s both working smart and really hard. Maybe not 80 hours/week, but way more than 40ish. I’d like to think I worked smart, I gladly put in long hours for most of my career, probably at least 60 hours/week for the first 20 years or so, and well more than 40 to my last days. It paid off handsomely, and I have zero regrets now 40-50 years later. Fortunately DW also believes in smart, hard work as well, so the long days, some nights and some weekend days were never an issue.

 

[Adam12]

 

[marko]

I would be curious about what type of economy exists in those "laid-back" cultures. Both my parents and DW's parents grew up in those type of cultures, and in their working years they chose to leave them and come to the U.S. because of that. Their home countries were less capitalistic and more dictatorship/socialist/communist where, while you might not starve, your choices and ability to change your lot was very limited.

Also, look at the content of "going really hard" - it is in the view of first "finding something you are good at that people will pay you for". This is not just "going really hard", it is more "working smart".

+1 My experience is that what we see as "laid back" is actually a resignation to the fact that there are few, if any options.

My take on "going hard" is giving it all you got into something you're good at. Be good at it and be better than everyone else. Be the "Tom Brady" of whatever your calling is.

 

[audreyh1]

Is there some aspect of that quote that makes you call him an extrovert, or something beyond that? I do not see anything in the quote that is exclusive to extrovertism.

“Nothing profound is achieved in isolation.”

I suppose it depends on your definition of isolation. But a lot of very creative people including scientists have done great work in isolation.

An extrovert is generally someone who gains energy from interaction with other people. An introvert is someone who gains energy from plenty of alone time and often finds interacting with other people draining. Sure it’s a matter of degree.

 

[Midpack]

“Nothing profound is achieved in isolation.”

I suppose it depends on your definition of isolation. But a lot of very creative people including scientists have done great work in isolation.

While true, I suspect most people achieve better results collaborating with others, no matter how talented they are, or not. I’ve worked with some remarkable technical people who benefited from other POVs more often than not - and they were smart enough to realize isolation wasn’t the best environment. Many times a team member has a great idea, made better by minor contributions from others.

 

[audreyh1]

While true, I suspect most people achieve better results collaborating with others, no matter how talented they are, or not. I’ve worked with some remarkable technical people who benefited from other POVs more often than not - and they were smart enough to realize isolation wasn’t the best environment. Many times a team member has a great idea, made better by minor contributions from others.

But did those people: “Everything meaningful in life is about others. Your ability to support and love others and your willingness to let them love you”

I doubt that was their mindset. Collaboration sure, and I’m sure it was valued, and even good friendships were occasionally born from it. But those relationships weren’t the focus of their lives.

 

[Midpack]

But did those people: “Everything meaningful in life is about others. Your ability to support and love others and your willingness to let them love you”

I doubt that was their mindset. Collaboration sure, and I’m sure it was valued, and even good friendships were occasionally born from it. But those relationships weren’t the focus of their lives.

The quote in the OP was a very broad reflection on life. The first statement is not in direct context of work/career - “love you” indicates same.

 

[jollystomper]

“Nothing profound is achieved in isolation.”

I suppose it depends on your definition of isolation. But a lot of very creative people including scientists have done great work in isolation.

An extrovert is generally someone who gains energy from interaction with other people. An introvert is someone who gains energy from plenty of alone time and often finds interacting with other people draining. Sure it’s a matter of degree.

While true, I suspect most people achieve better results collaborating with others, no matter how talented they are, or not. I’ve worked with some remarkable technical people who benefited from other POVs more often than not - and they were smart enough to realize isolation wasn’t the best environment. Many times a team member has a great idea, made better by minor contributions from others.

I would say that, while the actual work tasks may be done in isolation, the foundation of that work, and the refinement of that work when first completed (or along the way), requires collaboration for it to be deemed worthwhile.

When working I did many tasks in isolation - for example, writing computer programs, developing technical workshop materials, developing presentations I gave at conferences, writing technical white papers and books, etc. But the ideas and motivation for these came from collaborating with others. As an introvert, the task of mapping that collaboration to a project recharged me. But then, I then showed this work to others for review at various stages, to get criticisms and guidance on what made sense and what did not. While dealing with criticism is not always fun, it was necessary to make the work better - to either incorporate the criticism if valid, or to develop a defense/explanation if the criticism was not valid.

Now, in my view, the context of the original quote points to "isolation" in terms of what we produce has to be meaningful beyond ourselves to be worthwhile. This is not related to introvert or extrovert. In other words, it is not profound by itself (isolated), it has to have meaning to someone else.

 

[Diogenes]

My take on "going hard" is giving it all you got into something you're good at. Be good at it and be better than everyone else. Be the "Tom Brady" of whatever your calling is.

Assiduous work on average has useful benefits. There is doubtless a correlation between input and output. But examples of hard-working failures aren’t exactly pathological rarities. Or cases where concentrated and sincere efforts nevertheless result in dissatisfaction, self-questioning and drift. Statistical correlation shouldn't be taken to mean, essential logical implication.

Neither am I convinced that attempt to supersede and outdo others, the competitive drive, is preferred even as means to an end.

In the context of this Forum, were a concerted love of paid labor, an essential human attribute, fundamental to who we are, then presumably we’d need a name-change, would we not? Instead of “early retirement” it would be “enduring joy through perpetual work” – interesting, perhaps, but a bit of a topic-change, no?

Instead the trope seems to be, that by strategically working hard as young-adults, we slide into middle-age with ample success, so that we can nip our journey-of-labor earlier than usual. By being better-organized and more strategic in our teens, 20s and 30s, we can coast in our 40s, and alight from the hamster-wheel in our 50s. I don’t disagree with this… but caution all of us, to not extrapolate from such “early” effort to “go hard” – as a necessary evil! – to the lifelong sense, that hard-going is laudable and honorable and essential, as an end in itself. It is not.

 

[Aramis]

Is there some aspect of that quote that makes you call him an extrovert, or something beyond that? I do not see anything in the quote that is exclusive to extrovertism.


I would be curious about what type of economy exists in those "laid-back" cultures. Both my parents and DW's parents grew up in those type of cultures, and in their working years they chose to leave them and come to the U.S. because of that. Their home countries were less capitalistic and more dictatorship/socialist/communist where, while you might not starve, your choices and ability to change your lot was very limited.

Also, look at the content of "going really hard" - it is in the view of first "finding something you are good at that people will pay you for". This is not just "going really hard", it is more "working smart".

I think Spain and France are probably good examples of laid back countries with robust economies. There, are certainly many others that are not, but it is possible to have what could be considered a balanced approach to capital accumulation/decumulation.

 

[Gumby]

I have no data to support it, but my suspicion is that the people in the USA who advocate a more "laid-back" approach were born into the middle or higher socioeconomic classes. "Laid back" is a luxury poor people cannot afford if they hope someday to be not poor.

 

[marko]

I think Spain and France are probably good examples of laid back countries with robust economies. There, are certainly many others that are not, but it is possible to have what could be considered a balanced approach to capital accumulation/decumulation.

I lived and worked in France for many years. I would not call their work ethic "laid back". They're a lot more "easy going" which is not the same thing. But they can be quite aggressive, ambitious and in some ways work harder than in the US. I read a study somewhere where French workers actually were more productive than their US conterparts.

The difference seems to be that they tend to leave work behind when work is over and almost pretend that it didn't happen. There is a much healthier work/life balance as a result of a lot of intangibles. There's a lot more time off and lot more worker protections which deliver a certain level of comfort that we don't have. In many ways, it's more than just the same business mindset in a different language, it's a different culture altogether.

As noted, the laid back vibe in less developed countries is sometimes the result of few options to get ahead. Why exert yourself for no benefit.

 

[Diogenes]

An important difference, isn't how hard the plurality of people actually work, but to what extent, "hard work" as an abstract concept is lionized as the ultimate lifestyle of the responsible person. I am actually not persuaded that Americans as a people work especially hard, relative say to the French (in the above example). There are too many exceptions and contravening details. But we do have the Anglo-American veneration of work, as the surefire route to self-improvement. Continental Europe has culturally been suffused with belief that only the Nobles will ever own land or get rich. Peasants need not apply. Americans meanwhile have their "American dream".

There is also a white-collar and blue-collar division. In much of the world, white-collar work is an aristocratic privilege. It's easy work, comfortable and low-stress. The Proles meanwhile labor, bathed in sweat, in their blue-collar jobs. The aim of ambitious parents is to raise their kids to enter white-collar jobs. In America, it's almost the reverse. The blue-collar people have their factory clock and their guaranteed 40-hour work week. The white collar people pride themselves on unreimbursed overtime, on building their careers through self-motivated effort in the cubicle. White-collar work has become the new sweatshop. The privilege of American aristocracy has become, evidently, to spend 60 hours a week, in the oak-paneled office.

We can extend this to speculate about attitudes towards retirement.. seems appropriate on this forum, no? To the extent that I'm aware, the prevailing European attitude isn't so much a rampant desire to retire early, but to coast on the job in later-life, arriving at 62 or whatever is the canonical retirement age, then to enjoy guaranteed benefits. The FIRE approach on the contrary is to eschew reliance on such guarantees, and instead of coasting, to work hard earlier, and then to outright retire. So, whereas the 55-year-old Frenchman (just to keep picking on the French!) likely has no desire to leave the workforce until it's officially time, his American counterpart would been striving sedulously during the preceding years, so that at 55, leaving is readily possible and well-justified.

 

[Koolau]

I liked the Mike Rowe clip. I'm reminded of my DIL who is very "artistic" and loves art. So she went to art school at the college level. She's now running a day care. She owes for her college years in her early 30s. In general, art school might teach you enough to teach art, but not to become an "artist" who can make a living at doing "art." Passion only goes so far. It would be fantastic to find something you're good at AND be passionate about it as well. It doesn't always w*rk that way. Simply not "hating" what you do to make a living is a pretty good deal for a lot of people.

I did become passionate about my j*b but it didn't start that way. I got good first and then became passionate. YMMV

 

[Gumby]

I worked hard at my profession and took pride in being very good at it, but I was not passionate about it.

 

[marko]

As an aside, my dad, speaking from experience said "the worst thing in life is having to make a living from something that used to be your hobby"