Why not just say "starting a business?" I've never seen what is so magically special about "startups" that they deserve to be regarded as inhabiting a separate, higher plane of their own, beyond and above ordinary entrepreneurship as the species has heretofore known it.
Yay, more villifying "Wall Street" and fueling the "Wall Street vs. Main Street" fire, and suggesting that it's somehow noble or good to not want to be rich.
It's somehow noble or good to not want to be rich after you've become so, is the cliché.
1. Not defending the concept or execution of that wall, but the list of reasons behind its existence includes many more things than just nationalistic tendencies. If and when it's dismantled, it'll say far more about the relative functioning of the two nations' respective institutions and economies than it will about any decrease in nationalistic tendencies.
The original signatories to the Schengen Agreement were some of the most nationalistic countries on the planet, and still are, 29 years later.
2. It only feels like the Berlin Wall if you ignore the fact that the Berlin Wall was built to prevent emigration and defection.
3. You and I live on the same planet; mind if I enter and leave your home without restriction? Mind if everyone else is free to, also?
I agree with what you're saying in principal, but the application of ideals is where things become far more complex.
Also, it's worth reflecting on the fact that the federal republic of the United States has totally open borders between its 50 states, which is too often taken for granted, and basically provided the model the EU is struggling to imitate.
I think the existence of this wall is justified by economical reasons. The affluence of the western world is based on the fact that we can buy products built with the cheapest labour, say in China; but the cheapest labour can't come and compete with us for jobs they would do at a fraction of the cost.
I know I'm oversimplifying, but I think it's abhorrent that strict immigration policies go hand in hand with free trade. If you allow goods to move freely you have to allow the workforce to move as well.
Schengen doesn't only include rich Western European countries, though, but quite a bit of economic differences. Bulgaria and Romania are both poorer than Mexico, and yet there's no wall keeping them out of Germany or Scandinavia. Poland was also quite poor when it joined, though it's now slightly wealthier than Mexico.
That's why I specifically referred to the original signatories.
And it's far more complex than that. Germany faces severe demographic trends that have caused a labor shortage, and also has an economy that's highly dependent on manufacturing exports. Having an open door policy at that point makes an awful lot of sense.
The US is headed towards a similar situation, but will have a better labor pool in Mexico, and–Internet wisdom notwithstanding–the US is much better at integrating immigrant labor than Europe is.
This is only true for tourism, not true for the job market inside the EU.
If you are a French national and want to come work in Italy: no problem, you are treated exactly like an Italian (except for maybe a couple of national security jobs). If you are Romanian you still have to get a work permit.
Work permit for Romanians: Not anymore since 01.01.2014. Since Romania joined the EU in 2007, its citizens had to wait till this year to be allowed to freely work everywhere in the EU.
This led to a lot of polemic and propaganda here in Germany, especially from the right-wing.
After a country joins the EU, its citizens gain full freedom of movement after 7 years maximum. Countries can impose a 2-year transitional period, followed by a 3-year extension, and another 2-year extension, with escalating requirements for what claims need to be made to justify an extension.
For example here in Denmark there was only a 2-year transitional period, so Romanians and Bulgarians are free to work here without a permit since 1/1/2009. But a few EU countries, such as Germany and the UK, exercised an extraordinary right to delay implementation for a full 7 years, by asserting "serious labor-market disruption". Italy was in between, applying the 2+3 but not the full 2+3+2 transitional period, so Romanians/Bulgarians may work there without a permit since 1/1/2012. Since 1/1/2014 all transitional periods for Romania and Bulgaria have expired (a transitional period for Croatia is still in effect in some countries).
However I was imprecise on the terminology: Romania and Bulgaria are actually not in Schengen yet, so EU states may impose border checks. What they are part of is the free-movement-of-labor zone, which is not quite identical to Schengen.
TL;DR: He used to use drugs and booze to deal with his insecurities. Then he used money. Now he (apparently) uses the attention that comes from telling everyone how wise and honorable he has become.
This is a perfect example of the cynic snarkiness for the sake of snarkiness that plagues Hacker News; the guy of the article only has written one article besides this one[0] and that's it. He doesn't even have a profile pic or a clickable profile as most journalist in the NYT have. And he seems to spend his time as the director of something called groceryships not creating support groups for money addicts or selling self-help books. So much for an attention-seeker.
"Cynical: believing that people are motivated by self-interest." Call it a plague if you like, but I'm OK with it.
And I wasn't being sharply critical (snarky) for the sake of being sharply critical. Honest.
He's pretty actively promoting himself, his story, and his business (which is what it is) online, and he just successfully SEO-bombed his way to the top of the charts. You may think it's out of an abundance of goodness, but I think that's as naive a view as you think mine is cynically snarky. (Or snarkily cynical.)
Because his name is not clickeable it means 100% of the people that is interested in him had to google him. So it's pretty easy to measure it's impact.
So it's impact augmented by a factor of 20; if he was searched 10 times per month before it means now he is being searched 200. So not that much but even if it were your point still doesn't make sense to me because what difference would there be with anyone writing anything? I guess that your point is not that everyone should write anonymously right? So, what is it?
Well, you're partly right. I don't think he's using attention in the same way. Sure, it's a self reporting story but let's say that he has mostly handled the internal problems that made him an addict. He even admits he still buys lottey tickets. But in his case he's using his tendencies to help rather than hurt people.
I don't doubt that he's doing some real good; it's the self-aggrandizing style that opens him up to a whole host of issues.
It's a dilemma, for sure, but a guy who's so apt to talk specifics in terms of his income and bonuses doesn't present himself as operating from a place of humility. I know people who went through roughly the same evolution he claims to, but the ones who actually internalized the lesson aren't humble-bragging to the NYT under a byline, but are actually out trying to do good with as little self-aggrandizement as possible.
Like it or not, the way in which he chose to share his message completely undermines it, and it doesn't make his current situation seem too terribly different from his previous ones. Less destructive and more functional, sure, but the dynamic seems largely unchanged.
so? good for him.
I think it's an inescapable reality of the human condition:
we suffer an irresolvable emptiness. we make different choices about how to fill the unfillable hole. I think his choice to fill his by spreading hard-won wisdom and describing a path to honour is a smart solution to a problem we all face.
Gaining wisdom by way of being paid massive amounts of money is an odd definition of "hard-won". Many people find out that their career is largely unsatisfying without stockpiling a safety net that could last a lifetime in the process.
It's one rung up the ladder from the guys who make their money in ethically grey ways, find religion, preach their conversion, but keep the money. (But it's still a rung up, mind you, and that's a good thing.)
Good for him that he earned so much, and that he seems to have found meaning in things besides money, but the story is pretty clichéd.
And I'm not sure "irresolvable emptiness" and an "unfillable hole" is quite so universal as you seem to indicate, nor do I think all attempts at filling voids are of equal value. (I'm not saying you do, either, just trying to be clear.)
I'd love to have loners.org to use for a (free, non-commercial, and personally-funded) resource for introverts, and I promise not to give you a domain in return!
Why was the title changed from "Should" to "Could"?
While I don't agree with the author's argument, he's at least making a specific point.
"Could", on the other hand, reduces it to being meaningless. Your First Hire Could Be a Weirkeeper. Or a milliner. Or a janitor. Or, you know, anything.
