One strategy I sometimes recommend to people is that early in their career they live in the place where their industry is headquartered. Bay Area for tech, New York for finance and publishing, LA for movies, Michigan for furniture and cars, Nashville for country music, etc. Soak up everyone’s expertise. Study. Learn. Even if you don’t want to start the next Google, you’ll learn a lot by way of “network intelligence” from physically living in Silicon Valley. But feel free to leave and join a lower-cost-of-living secondary market if and when you begin to feel perpetually not-quite-good-enough. This doesn’t mean moving to the boonies, but to a place where there’s plenty of industry activity but less happiness-hurting status jostling.
Here is more from Ben Casnocha. Here is an email I wrote to Ben about related themes:
Talk, though, I think is in this case deceiving.
Take non-billionaires. They (like billionaires) gossip an enormous amount. Yet it is still ultimately a self-centered activity. It is a way of processing the self. I am not saying there is *no* concern for other people involved, but talking about other people is very often mainly a way of talking about the self.
Now, if one billionaire says “isn’t XXXX a bigger billionaire than I am?,” I think this is often somewhat similar. It is still a way of consuming being a billionaire.
It’s a bit like how people enjoy complaining. When people complain about events on their vacation, that is very often (not always!) their mode of enjoying.
It’s as if being a billionaire isn’t real until you complain about it, and compare yourself to the others. Think of “manufacturing vividness” as what is going on here, in the ultimate anthropological sense, more than just mere status games.
Hi from Hunan!
I agree that status is addictive, but I do not in general think of it as zero-sum.