The thesis was "some aspects of Larry Page's life are unenviable." Not "Larry Page's life is as hard as a poor single working mother."
If you dismiss difficult aspects of a person's life because somebody else has it worse, then nobody actually has a hard life except for starving children in Africa. Maybe not even them: captives who suffer regular torture and indignity probably have it worse. Or modern-day slaves.
Even if "some aspects of Larry Page's life are unenviable", what part of "he can quit anytime" doesn't still hold?
Some parts of everyone's life are unenviable.
That said, I don't think it makes much sense to comparmentalize working lives into "enviable" and "unenviable" parts.
The end result is what matters, and the bottom line is that he has billions to show for it, can work as little or as much as he wants (the other stuff, that he's somehow "forced" is BS, he could take a decorative role in the company if he wished to), and he can retire at any time.
So what part should I show sympathy for? That, despite all these facts, he works e.g. 15-hour days? Well, so do tons of double-shifting dirt poor people, immigrants etc. Without the good parts, and despite their inclinations.
>If you dismiss difficult aspects of a person's life because somebody else has it worse, then nobody actually has a hard life
Not just "somebody else" -- 99.999% of the population. He has it better than statistically almost everyone on the planet. There are maybe 1000 or 10000 people in his position (net worth, age, etc.).
haberman's point still holds: nothing's really stopping a poor single working mom from being a starving woman in Africa, or a captive suffering torture and indignity. There are plenty of starving people elsewhere in the world who literally risk their lives to be a poor single working person in America.
My wife sometimes provides medical care to "undocumented workers". She tells me stories of folks working 3 jobs, bosses who refuse to pay (illegals can't call the cops), working through hernias and other ailments, and all the while happy to be sending money back to their families elsewhere.
It's mind-boggling how bad it must be in some places. And yet, I'm sure that most residents of these "bad" places are probably happy day-to-day, hanging out with friends and family.
>haberman's point still holds: nothing's really stopping a poor single working mom from being a starving woman in Africa, or a captive suffering torture and indignity. There are plenty of starving people elsewhere in the world who literally risk their lives to be a poor single working person in America.
That's not much of a point though.
Sure, it's a spectrum instead of being a binary "has it good/has it bad". Nobody said otherwise.
But spectrum or not, Page is on the very very very top end of the spectrum. He is in the very end of the "has it good" category, with miles to spare from the rest 99.999% of the population.
That doesn't change because an American 2-shift working 20K/year single mom has it better than an African modern-day-slave.
The point is "has it good" isn't something that can be distilled into a score, as in Larry Page's 99.999 compared to starving child #42's 1.001. Many people would rather live as a poor child on a relaxed island rather than have the life of Larry Page. One of the great things about modern life is that you don't need to be a billionaire to have the things most people want: modern medicine, meaningful work, endless entertainment, access to a supportive community. You can buy jets and eat endangered sharks, but how much does that really improve your life? The tradeoff of endless stress is only something certain people are willing to accept.
Except that if you are Larry Page but you would rather live as a poor islander you can do that, but if you are a poor islander and you would rather live as Larry Page you are still forced to live as a poor islander.
This is nowhere close to difficult to score. Larry Page 1, poor islander 0, won in regulation.
This. It's the choice part that matters. He has basically 100% control over what he does any day. He doesn't really have to do anything he doesn't want to. If he does something he hates every day, that's his choice, and he's probably very aware of this fact.
Objectively, he could drop out whenever he wants, but choice isn't always that easy. People get accustomed to their lifestyle, whether it's forced or not, enjoyable or stressful. He's connected to people who have expectations, there's social pressure, internal pressure, pressure from his employees. Many people in positions like that do drop out, but do they always make a clean break? I think the point was that it isn't only the choice that matters, the power and freedom that comes with money doesn't trump everything else that goes into a person's life. While they might bring a lot of benefits, it's not all good, and the side effects of being in a position of power often make a person more powerless than ever. Once you're playing on a higher level, the competition is fierce and the expectations are sky high. That can trap a person into a certain path, even if they seem to have the resources to do whatever they want. It often seems like the people at the highest levels of power are the least free.
Also, he has the choice, which can be very empowering. The poor don't have that choice. If they stop working, they get evicted and starve, and maybe their wife and children do as well. I have less than zero sympathy for billionaires because most of their problems at that point are problems they choose instead of problems they must face.
Hate your day job? Don't do it. Take the money and do something you'd rather be doing. Sail all day. Start a weird Russian nesting doll collecting hobby. Start a band and pay professional musicians to play with you. Whatever.
Hate cleaning? Hire staff.
Hate child care? Hire a nanny.
Hate your wife? Get a divorce and hire / find a new one.
Most people don't have any of these options. They have the option to keep the short-term highest-paying job they can sustain in order to e.g. Pay for a mortgage and food.
At that point, you could literally do almost whatever you want (except e.g. buy true love, fulfillment, etc). If working all day makes someone feel fulfilled, maybe do that, but billionaires all have the luxury of being able to not do that, or not do anything if they don't want, and be 100% fine.
If you dismiss difficult aspects of a person's life because somebody else has it worse, then nobody actually has a hard life except for starving children in Africa. Maybe not even them: captives who suffer regular torture and indignity probably have it worse. Or modern-day slaves.