What Should I Do With My Life?

gse writes "I first heard about Po Bronson's What Should I Do With My Life? here on Slashdot a few weeks ago, then read more about it on NPR. I found these articles and excerpts compelling and inspiring, so I picked up the book. Before I get into the review, some quick background on me so it's clear where I'm coming from: I'm a geek. I've been programming since I was a little kid, I have a computer science degree, I contribute to open source projects, I've been coding professionally for ten years. I am "successful" in my career. But I've found my day job unfulfilling for years, and as a musician I often wonder if I should follow my heart elsewhere. I imagine I'm not the only Slashdot reader who fits this description." Read on for Scott's take on this book. What Should I Do With My Life? author Po Bronson pages 400 publisher Random House rating not perfect but worthwhile reviewer Scott Evans ISBN 0375507493 summary Dozens of "real people" refactor their lives and careers in pursuit of happiness.

Given all that, I figured What Should I Do With My Life? was pretty much written for me. The book tells the true stories of dozens of people who made hard decisions and gave up careers, educations, and lifestyles in order to give themselves reasons to get up every morning, and maybe to find true happiness. In researching the book, Po Bronson interviewed nearly a thousand people all over the US, and got to know some of them very well. He intertwines their stories with his own personal tale, and often pauses between stories to reflect on everything he saw and learned while writing the book.

So how's the book? Good and bad.

I had hoped to distill some great truth from these stories -- to leave with a clear sense of the changes I have to make, and with the resolve to make them. No dice. To be fair, Bronson never promises any such thing; in fact, he promises quite the opposite. And rightfully so. There are certainly no silver bullets here.

But my real problem with What Should I Do With My Life? is that I couldn't identify with so many of its subjects, and eventually that turned me off. It felt like four out of five people had law degrees or worked in finance or politics. Very few were geeks, or even grunt-level office 9-to-5'ers. In his introduction Bronson says "the people in this book are ordinary people," but it didn't feel that way. An ex-doctor whose father was a famous cardiologist; a Hollywood production executive; an established Hollywood screenwriter; CFOs, CEOs; guys that sold startups for millions. A PhD marine biologist who "quit and became a dentist." Wowie.

Even Bronson's generalizations alienated me. The "we" that define ourselves by our salary or possessions or career achievements -- that's not my "we." I think (hope?) Bronson has spent so much time in Silicon Valley culture that he's over-projecting. Maybe I'm not ambitious enough, but I've never been a careerist and neither have my friends. So when Bronson steps back so say we need to fight the urge to justify ourselves by our status, I think "who's 'we'? I never had that urge." I've never had anything to prove to anyone but myself; yet I still feel trapped by some of the life/career decisions I've made.

Now, the book doesn't focus solely on outstanding people. It's just that once I noticed all the med school and law degrees and sold-her-third-startup, I couldn't not notice them anymore, and I'd say to myself "maybe this book isn't for me after all. I'm nothing like these people."

But enough bitching. There's some great stuff in the book as well and some stories really connected with me: the attorney turned trucker; the husband/wife team that bought a tree farm; the would-be Olympic athlete who had to give it up for motherhood; and more. Better yet, some concepts stayed with me. For instance, the this-should-be-obvious concept that local cultures shape expectations and self-worth differently. "In Los Angeles, if you say you're a musician, you're asked ... are you, or will you be, successful? In New Orleans, if you say you're a musician, then people accept that you're a musician, even if you jam one night a week at some dive with no audience." Nice.

My favorite concept from this book is one of Bronson's closing points: the reminder that all you get is a glimmer. The rest is all you and your willingness to to see where that glimmer takes you. I've lived this -- it's true in the creation of good software, it's true in making records, it's true in any creative pursuit. Eureka moments rarely happen, so don't wait around for one.

I found myself flying through this book -- it's written in a nice, casual tone and it's an easy read. But reading quickly was a mistake. I suggest reading a chapter or two at a time, then putting the book down to digest it. Otherwise it's too easy for people and stories to blur together or be forgotten entirely. Maybe that's why the online excerpts were so compelling -- I was left with 2 pages to think about instead of 75.

Okay, so Po Bronson didn't provide the answers to all my problems. But he got me to frame my "what am I doing to do" question better, and he got me to take it seriously. That's worth $15 right there. It's also uplifting to read about people who have found their bliss. There is hope!

I'll lend this book to a lot of friends and I'll probably buy copies for a few as well. It's worth a read.

Whether or not you buy the book, I strongly recommend reading the aforementioned NPR interview and excerpted chapter. Those alone address some great points and will get you thinking.

You can purchase What Should I Do With My Life? from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. You may also want to visit Po Bronson homepage: pobronson.com."

Comments

Give up an education?

[Didion Sprague]

Good review, but I'm curious: how do you give up an "education?" I mean, you can decide not to continue with an education, but the theory is (I hope) that once you have it, education sorta -- more or less -- sticks. Although this might not apply if you're an idiot.

Now what should one do with his life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it a meaning. Do not search for one, give one, create a meaning.
Never forget: You are the center of your world. You are the reason for your decisions.

Pretty telling

[Deacon Jones]

(nice and balanced review, by the way).

An ex-doctor whose father was a famous cardiologist; a Hollywood production executive; an established Hollywood screenwriter; CFOs, CEOs; guys that sold startups for millions. A PhD marine biologist who "quit and became a dentist." Wowie.

Some of the local papers run these stories too--about people who cashed in on the "hectic dot com lifestyle" to run a bed and breakfast or some sort. Makes it a lot easier to "get out of the rat race" when you have a nice, fat bank account to fall back on.

I am much more impressed, as you note, with those who are not independently wealthy, but chunk the opportunity to become so in order to follow their dreams. Like, say, the teacher I married.

:)

And no, I don't have a problem with those pursuing wealth above all else either...as long as they are fulfilled its their own choice to make.

Simple

[AppyPappy]

Do what you love. No one wants to breathe their last with a sigh of wasted days. Live life fully daily. Life's too short to waste an entire day with a hangover. I have never heard anyone lament on their deathbed "I never should have bought that nice stereo".

I love programming, cold weather and storms. I don't have time for dread. Life is meant to be lived and I'm all over it. BANZAI!!!

Re:Simple

[dmorin]

This is true for people who get started on the right track early and never get derailed. But what happens when you're doing what you *think* you love for 10 years, you find yourself making $200k a year, have a house worth a million dollars, a wife, 3 cars, 2 kids and a third on the way, and then suddenly a layoff hits and you choose now to say "You know, I don't love it like I used to?" Is it really just that simple to chuck it all, sell the house and the cars, move the kids to Montana, and open up a general store where you might take in $50k if you're lucky? How do your wife, kids, family, friends feel about it? Surely some of them will have an effect on your decision.

People hate risk. But the longer you wait to take the risk, the more you have to gamble with, thus making it harder to take the risk.

Re:Simple

[microTodd]

I dunno. My father game me some advice one time which I will always remember. When I was in college and while at my first job (programming) I said to him that I had no idea what to do with my life. I didn't know what I enjoyed (video games don't count).

He told me, instead of doing something you enjoy, do something that pays decent and works decent hours, and pursue your hobbies. So I do. And now I've got weekends free and enough money to write short stories, scuba dive, and contribute to Open Source projects.

So maybe my job isn't the greatest in the world. I have to deal with crappy management, stupid projects, etc etc. But that's not my life focus. I spend every evening and all weekend doing exactly what I want to do.

Re:Simple

[simong_oz]

Is it really just that simple to chuck it all, sell the house and the cars, ... $50k if you're lucky?

No, it's not that simple, and it takes guts to do - as you say, most people hate risk. BUT, at least in this situation you have enough financial security to have the option to make this decision.

Re:Simple

[iocat]

When I hear about someone who makes $200,000 a year, has a nice house, nice cars, and a nice family, and then decides that it isn't enough, or they hate the job now, all I want to say to them is "shut the fuck up, you have it better than 99.999% of humanity, and your whining makes you sound like a total asshole."

I just have no sympathy for whiny, rich people who are desperate to "find themselves," which is the meme it seems that this book is enamored with.

I guess it's cool if you're rich to do something you like, but don't try to convince me that you're somehow more noble for having done it. There are lots of people who are poor or middle class who do work at what they enjoy, or have satisfying lives, but they don't make a giant federal case out of it.

As to the person who chucks the $200,000 job to open the general store in Montana, they just strike me as being selfish and immature. It's a rustic, escapist fantasy, and they force their family to live through the unpleasant reality with them. It's very unlikely that someone making $200K a year will ever be able to develop the survival skills needed to live at $50K (gross).

Re:Simple

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Rich is a $0 salary with $12M in investment income. Rich is deciding that you'd like to spend 3 months in Maui and doing it that day.

generalizations

[archen]

Even Bronson's generalizations alienated me. The "we" that define ourselves by our salary or possessions or career achievements

That probably says a lot about why he wrote the book. He probably over-generalized to everyone, but make no mistake: that's American society in a nutshell (i.e. - most people). It's these people who spend their lives never really thinking about where they're going. "I guess I'll go to college" "I guess this will be my career" "I guess I'll get married". People for the most part just never really THINK about their lives, their place in the world, about much of ANYTHING. I guess for some of us we tend to take for granted that you just sit idle some time to think about things, but it's sort of a shocker to a lot of people who are too busy selling their soul to a corporation for some menial gain in their trivial materialistic lives.

Re:generalizations

[Tackhead]

> It seems everybody's goal is to be ultra-rich and successful. I've always just wanted to be financially secure. Not having to be worried about upcoming rent or electric bill. And work as little as possible doing it. Since I don't plan on having kids or getting married anytime soon, I won't have to make much money to achieve those goals. Most people tell me I will want kids later in life. I am so set on not having them I don't think it'll change

BTW, you're ahead of 90% of the population.

The key to financial security is to be able to live beneath your means. I had to laugh at the post about the guy talking (hypothetically) about 10 years at the $200K job, house/wife/3kids/car, and "getting hit by a layoff and having to give it all up for $50K in Montana". Well, duh, whether he enjoys it or not, he needs $200K just to keep running in place.

Skip the fancy house/car/wife/kids, and it's real easy to accumulate enough savings that you can bail to Montana. (And if you've made it out of college without a wife, skipping the wife/kids crap should be automatic from that point on! :)

Even in the Bay Area, a single with no dependents can live there for $2000/month, including a car. Cut that in half if you're in Montana.

How? Little things - say, start with a $3000 used car that you own, rather than a $30,000 SUV that you owe payments on. You'll get to work in the same amount of time. (Got $1M in the bank? Same deal - go with a $50K Boxster instead of a $250K Ferrari).

Instead of eating out ($5/meal at McDonald's x 3 meals a day), learn to cook - start with the Ars Technica "Bachelor Chow" cookbook and work your way up to Cordon Bleu. You can buy a frickin' 8-oz filet mignon for $5, and cook it in less than 30 minutes. Imagine - you can chow down on filet mignon with sauteed onions and mushrooms, every day, while your cow orkers spend 15 minutes driving to McDonald's, 10 minutes waiting at the drive-thru, and 15 minutes driving back home for a Big Mac.

No kids? Dude, at least you realize that's not a bug, it's a feature! Most of the marrieds-with-children that I know are harried out of their wits, and have no time for their kids or themselves. Having kids meant they had to get a house in the "right" neighborhood with the "right" schools, and that means a longer commute, and that means - tada - less time for the family in the first place.

Sock away $1000-2000 a month in savings (a little harder in the Bay Area than Montana), and within 10 years, you'll have enough money saved to tide you over for 10+ years. (10 years x 1500 = $150K, and at $1000/month living in Montana, that's a 10-year cushion. Use that time to hunt for a decent $50K job, or use that money to start your own business. Your choice.)

Contrast that with the 20something who bogs himself down with a wife (a breakeven if she works, a big drain if she doesn't), kids ($BIGNUM, plus $BIGGERNUM in college expenses down the road, oh, and the odds that your wife will want to continue working drop pretty significantly when she breeds :-), and mortgage payments (to house the aforementioned wife/kids), who's put himself on the treadmill of wage slavery for life.

Partnering with a childfree female is a decent option - you get to split living costs, and there's a high probability that she, like you, will be cash flow positive. That'll put both of you on track to early retirement sooner than either of you could have hacked it by yourselves.

Of course, evolution has tweaked things so that childfree females are as rare as hen's teeth. Don't knock it if one falls into your lap, but I wouldn't waste any time looking for one either. YMMV.

Become a Freelance Consultant.

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

I'd say become a freelance consultant.
I worked for myself for a while. I spent a lot of
time with my youngest boy. I worked out of the house and was Mr. Mom for a while. It was cool, you
can't replace the time I had off with anything. I didn't have any worries then, no house, I rented from my in-laws. Now I've got a mortgate and an equity loan and bills bills bills. I've got to work. I hope to be able to design a widget on my own time that would allow me to retire early.. other than that my house will be paid off when I'm 65, Maybe earlier if I sneak in an extra payment per year.

What's all this whining about fulfilment anyway.
I work because I have a family and obligations.
I use my family to benchmark my life, not my job.

Re:Doesn't sound overly informative

[KludgeGrrl]

I expect to see more and more books on Careers with this economy. Look soon for a book where some author explains or studies people who left IT for other careers.

But I think that the phenomenon the author is examining (people leaving their professions to find happiness) if anything may *decrease* now that recession has hit. Remember in the 90's when we all were hearing about 30-somehtings who were "retiring" after having made millions -- they were starting new "careers" pursuing life interests, which were often not especially profitable.

There is a big difference between being forced out of a profession because there are no jobs, and leaving when the going's good.

My impression is that this is less of a "career advice book" than an inspirational, or at least eye-opening, look at various individuls who have chosen the road less traveled, although they were already on a road leading to wealth and success. If anything, i should think it is the sort of book we will be seeing *less* of as the economy worstens...

Re:It is really so simple...

[Rary]

I may just be feeding a troll here, but there's also the possibility that you're actually serious, so I'll address a few of your points.

First, men and women are not the same (surprise!), so there are two different answers.

Actually, very few people, regardless of gender, are the same, so there are actually as many different answers as there are people. What you described as the "male" answer will work for some males but not others, and also for some females but not others. What you described as the "female" answer will work for some females but not others, and also for some males but not others. It's pretty ridiculous to try to package people's wants/desires into arbitrary groupings like that.

Use your work to invest in a family, look after that with your life, and you will die a happy man surrounded by your kids and grandkids.

Believe it or not, some of us (men and women) don't want a family.

You'll get old and wrinkled like everyone does, but you'll be happy.

Again, attempts to define what will make all women happy are ridiculous. I know countless women who would go completely insane living the life you've prescribed. I also know men who dream of living that very life. And even some who are living it.

healthy communities depend on each person, each gender, playing their role to the full.

No. Healthy communities depend on each person playing their role to the fullest. Gender is irrelevant. Each person's role is slightly different, and is defined by who they are (mentally, emotionally, intellectually), not what's between their legs.

Head above water first

[Lord Grey]

It's nice when you're able to change careers (or whatever you want to call the primary source of your income) but you have to have some way of supporting yourself while you're shifting gears.

I believe that many people are truly stuck in their current jobs because they don't have the savings or support to make the leap. Hence, most of the success stories you read are about those people who sold their company, or had a high income previously, simply because those are the people who were able to make the leap.

Re:Head above water first

[vericgar]

All it really takes is setting your mind to it. I'm doing it right now and things are fortunetly falling into place for me. Put away $100 to $150 a month... setup a seperate account... save more if you can. Quit the "junk" expenses... sacrafice a little in the short term to make yourself happy in the long run. If it can work for a loser like me it can work for anyone.

Re:Don't listen to other people's criteria for...

[pubjames]

I seem to have touched a raw nerve. Sorry!

You thought he was a jerk, and with good reason: He was telling you his own view of what success is.

No he wasn't. He didn't tell me what "successful" meant, only that, according to his own criteria for success, he was successful, and screw what anyone else thought. He also told me that I didn't understand myself, and he was right about that.

The whole point of my post was that, you have to make your own criteria for success. Don't get confused by what your co-workers, or your mom, or your friends think.

Re:Don't listen to other people's criteria for...

[pubjames]

you know... its completely possible he owned three successful high tech companies and decided his 500 million in net worth entitled him to do a bit of gardening. that's the problem with making assumptions based on appearences.

I can see that the point of my story is lost on some people. Oh well...

Re:I Don't Know, But I'm Sure the Book Doesn't Eit

[micromoog]

I've read about you.

I watch TV and (gasp!) have independent thoughts. All things in moderation.

three main issues stick out in my head

[freejamesbrown]

a) what's the point of an college education when you might learn more outside of school? i note your use of quotes around education... but really that just nullifies your statement. don't we always learn? and if so, aren't we always educating ourselves?

b) what's the point of a formal education when you might not get to study exactly what you want? so, i didn't take high school as seriously as i might have. i was a B, B+ student. well that translated into not getting into a school like UCB or MIT where i could've taken a degree that was a little more out there. (i would've preferred an art-computer science hybrid.) i had to settle for a college education that centered more around CS and enrich my life on the side with artistic pursuits.

i got into grad school and dropped out midway through the first semester solely because i could've aced a master's degree but i would've totally missed out on becoming a master of what i really love.

c) and in a result of that, i now find myself with and degree in computer engineering, but no easy way to pursue a degree in art or any of these new art-computer degrees that have been around for the last few years. i have too much XP for a bachelors program, but not quite enough paper to back up my readiness for a masters. sometimes having that slip of paper is a hinderance.

of course, these are just mistakes and lessons i've learned... (which, the lessons could be mistakes on their own.)
m.

Actually...

[GooseKirk]

I'm halfway through this book now, and Po struggled with the class issues a little himself. He wondered if the whole question isn't a little bourgeois. He discovered that that isn't the case - lower and middle class people struggle with the same questions.

Maybe a person with more money has more options, but more options does not necessarily make a decision easier, either.

Also: in general, people tend to spend what they make. The guy who makes $200k might be just as leveraged and stuck as a guy who makes $30k. OK, he drives a cooler car, but does that, in itself, make him less noble?

Re:Actually...

[Deskpoet]

I'm halfway through this book now, and Po struggled with the class issues a little himself. He wondered if the whole question isn't a little bourgeois. He discovered that that isn't the case - lower and middle class people struggle with the same questions.

Maybe a person with more money has more options, but more options does not necessarily make a decision easier, either.

This is one of the wisest observations I've seen on this subject. It explains decadence and mob rage, without resorting to classifying people.

Economics is what classifies us today, with the legacy of racial xenophobia as its foundation. Strip away those wisps of maya, and the Human is laid bare: a semi-conscious being desparately struggling to understand its own existence. We can call this sylopsism "intelligence", but I don't see the haunted look in my eyes reflected back to me in my dog's eyes, and she is certainly not lacking in intelligence.

We all have the same problem, regardless of financial status. Sadly, only some--as this book attests--are given the opportunity to explore this problem, while the remainder struggle for simple sustenance. I can't help but believe that we would *all* be better if everyone was afforded the opportunity of grappling with this problem before beginning their preparations for their transition.

Yes, that's a call to revolution......

But the important thing is...

[Xevo]

you.

I think the thing that irritates me the most about these types of discussions is the insistance that there is this "perfect job" out there, or the "perfect friends", or whatever, and "if only you can find that..." We have completely externalized the idea of happiness and insist that it has to be "out there somewhere". Rather than enjoying life, we're so busy searching for it.

What I've found is that the only true path to happiness is to love yourself. Unconditionally. This is the only starting point we can go from. Sure, everyone makes mistakes, sure, no one's perfect, but we have to believe in ourselves because the world sure as hell isn't going to do that for us. That's not anyone else's job. It's our own.

Think about it. If everything in your life is taken away from you, what have you got left? Just yourself. And that has to be the most important thing. There are all sorts of support structures in life: a good job, friends, family, you name it. But if you simply can't exist without these, then you're allowing your life to be held up at the expense of these supports, without paying any attention to the foundation (you!).

There is no Question. There is only a collection of confused souls floundering about in the vastness of the world, searching for a Meaning that they themselves created!

Be happy with yourself. Do what you need to do to make money, but understand that YOU are the answer. Have a beer with some buddies from time to time, find a place to relax, get yourself moving whenever you start pondering "The Question"! (God, I hate that phrase...) Because, unfortunately, there is no Answer.

In case you're wondering, I'm working in the IT field at the moment, but I can still have fun from time to time. Life is not just fun times, anyway, it's difficulty and stress thrown in there as well. To tell the truth, I think I'd feel a bit strange if it was any other way.

The major difference, I think, between those people who are satisfied with their lives and those that aren't is a matter of personal philosophy and personality. Sometimes it's a good idea to hang around with coworkers who seem to "have it all together", not only to see that it can be done, but also to realize the humanity of these so-called "gods".

We're all in this game of life together. I, for my part, intend to have a good time ;)

Re:fish v. fishing

[etcshadow]

"Seems like all the best programmers we've hired are also musicians."

Very true. We used to joke here where I work about how we generally didn't hire programmers to program. It basicaly went like "we've got a film-maker (physicist), a poet (physicist), a jazz musician (mathematician), a DJ (english major), and one computer science guy". And that was pretty much true... forget the fact that the two physicists and the mathematician really had been trained in CS, as well, it makes a better story that way. :-D

The point is, though, that outside of a very corporate, dilbertesque world, the quality of the person makes a much bigger difference than his/her specific training. Programming languages and systems can be learned, but intelligence, creativity and passion really can't.

Not so simple

[goliard]

He told me, instead of doing something you enjoy, do something that pays decent and works decent hours, and pursue your hobbies. So I do. And now I've got weekends free and enough money to write short stories, scuba dive, and contribute to Open Source projects.

FWIW, I've been doing that for the last 11 years, and I've decided it's got to end. It's a schizophrenic existence, and I find, because my "hobbies" also require a high level of commitment and administrative/management skill, that there is a tug-of-war between them for my energy. I can only put up with so much administrative bullshit in a day, which is going to get it: my job or my volunteer work?

I find I'm mentally in a place where I want my life to "hang together" better. I don't want to have to shift so much between work-mode and play-mode.

And this is part of the value of the book under discussion: it talks about the difference between expecting your job to be fun or entertaining (on one hand) and expecting your job to be satisfying and meaningful (on the other).

I'm not looking for a job that's "fun", but I need to do work the value of which is not solely in that it funds things which are of value to me. I need, increasingly, my work to feel like it makes a positive contribution to my community/world.

To bring this home a little: I'm a web dev. I've worked on a lot of corporate brochure-ware web sites. I feel proud of the quality of my work, and the value I gave for the money I way paid -- as a good craftsman will. But that's not enough any more. I now do web dev for a edu non-profit, which is better, I suppose, but also still not enough.

Re:I Know!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute. I'm a laid-off programmer, broke, and can't find a full-time (or part-time/contract) work programming. But I am NOT depressed. In fact, I love it. Getting out of the cubical was just wat I needed.

I still write software...but it's software *I* want to write. I also go skiing, rock climbing, running.

I took me getting laid off to see what was important in my life. Bleeding into someone else's cup was NOT my thing.

Your career does NOT define you as a person. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll get out of your funk.

Best of luck.

"You drank the Cool-Aid and woke up in someone else's clothes."
-- Mark Twight

Prodigal Sons

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, these make great soundbites, the stories of people who spend years foolishly getting rich on lucrative but unsatisfying jobs and eventually decide to cash in and do something moer worthwhile. What annoys me, though, is that Bronson and the media following his story seem to have no interest in those of us who never went astray in the first place. Bronson rhapsodizes over a disillusioned investment banker who "downsizes" by buying eighty acres of farmland - how many people who've spent their lives as, say, teachers or writers can afford that? And what happened to the family farmer who used to own that land - d'ya suppose maybe he lost it to a BANKER somewhere along the line?

And then there's Bronson's trucker who quit the venal, awful music law business to spend more time with his kid...well, good for him, but I know dozens of actual creative musicians who had to ditch their dreams because of venal, awful music lawyers like the trucker admits he used to be. Many of them would LOVE to be able to afford the tuition to go to trucker school.

I'm all in favor of people reconsidering their values, and it's never too late to turn around. But the homeless shelter where I live is full of unemployed teachers, professors, network administrators, graphic designers who followed their consciences all their lives. So my admiration for people who waste half their lives getting rich enough to finally do something REAL is, shall we say, limited.

Bitter much?

[Squeamish Ossifrage]

If you think that having all that claptrap in the first place makes someone lucky, then of course you don't get it. If you beleive that being wealthy means that you have a good life, then no wonder you don't have sympathy for people in that situation. Besides which, if you think that living on $50K (gross) requires "survival skills," you're in the same absurdly wealthy class as those earning $200K, relative to that 99.999% of humanity you talk about.

Let me tell you something. Money ain't shit. Once you've got enough for food, shelter and education, there's no correlation between having more and being happier. Really. None. There are two obvious conclusions to be drawn from this:

1. Don't waste your life pursuing wealth. Follow what give you joy.
2. Don't envy the rich, or assume that they've got it better than you. I've seen happy people with little income, and wealthy people in miserable torment.

If you're awake the lesson of this book isn't "The wealthy occasionally choose to be a little less wealthy. How noble." but "Sometimes people realize that money isn't making them happy. Once you get this, you can spend your like taking care of yourself instead of chasing the Almighty Dollar."

Look at it this way: Maybe the reason you hear about whiny rich people chucking it all to "find themselves" is because they needed to have wealth before they could stop and look at it and realize that it wasn't worth going for after all. As long as you think that you're not wealthy enough yet, you can maintain the illusion that maybe the next dollar will be the one to make you happy. Someone (like you) can look at those who have $200K and figure "Hey, they must have it good. I'm jealous."

Now, you've got three choices as I see it. You can live the rest of your life not making $200K/year, but being jealous of those who do. That's just pathetic. Or, you can figure out what you have to do to make $200K/year yourself. That's a waste of your life, but at least you're not stewing with impotent envy. Or, you can realize now that having that kind of money isn't worth anything, take pity on people who've wasted their precious life on aquiring it, and put your life into something worthwhile. What'll it be?