Labor in The Lifestyle Triangle

by Stefan on May 14, 2011

This post is written for the readers of ribbonfarm, who might get here through my guest post there. I hope you like this model. It is inspired by Venkat’s writings about work, triangles and archetypes, expanding on his graphical ways of intellectual vandalism. If people like these lifestyle economics, I might further develop this model.

Wealth is the central obsession of life, as a means to homeostasis, respect, and self-actualization. The push of needs, and the pull of wants, drive us toward the work that shapes our lifestyle, because desires are satisfied by goods made of capital with labor added. Your lifestyle depends on the types of capital you work with. Over a given period you can work to get more stuff, more leisure, or more mobility, but never all three at the same time. They are fundamentally at odds.

The deep tension between the three types of capital is what makes meaningful work feel painful. When you don’t invest real effort, the balance settles; life flows toward a stable state of mediocrity, defined by the norms of the town you live in, like water fits in a puddle. You may be happy, but you will not be interesting. Those who plan to make a dent in the world must face the pain of adding labor to capital, at the edge of polite society.

  • Stuff is the most obvious kind of capital. Real estate, machines, furniture, food, etc. Stuff with high liquidity, such as money or paper assets, is used for exchange and storage of value. Labor is most visible when done to raw stuff, in order to make more valuable stuff. In the past, this type of work absorbed all the energy of most people, but nowadays technology makes stuff cheap.
  • Mobility is any change of pace and surroundings. It keeps the heart and mind fresh with excitement and wonder, in flow. Rich experiences require freedom from drag, obligation and routine. It is the opposite of “knowing the place like the back of your hand.” Mobility is capital, because those who have it can go after what they desire quickly, at the right moment, for the right price. The mobile have no single-point-of-failure. They can explore and exploit any environment to the point of diminishing returns, insured against anxiety and boredom.
  • Leisure is rest, and to busy people it will never be more than that. But a long stretch of free time allows for the reflection that breeds art, science and philosophy. True leisure is disinterested, revolving around things that are immune to change, viewed from an eternal perspective. There is no transcendent clarity without stillness.

Labor and Lifestyle Design

Hard effort applied to the world gets you two kinds of wealth, while you sacrifice another kind of wealth at the same time. Labor is characterized by its opportunity cost; any interesting lifestyle is defined by a painful lack. That tension is The Lifestyle Triangle.

The Lifestyle Triangle

This Lifestyle Triangle goes beyond standard microeconomics by adding mobility to the traditional conflict between work and leisure. It shows that self-actualization demands a painful sacrifice. You will have to let go of either time or materials.

The shape of a triangle ensures that any change of position within it creates and destroys wealth simultaneously. The whirl of work is the lifestyle within that given time interval. The center is an everyman land, and toward the edges and corners we find the more archetypal lives that are interesting enough to appear as characters in stories.

All hard work moves you closer to the edge, and with total focus you will become possessed by a corner archetype. The purest lifestyles designs fuse two kinds of wealth together at the cost of one huge sacrifice. There are three final destinations in life: Nomadic Minimalists roam around, scouting for a serendipity that allows them to catch a self-actualizing prize. Creating Careerists make deep trades with time and materials, and Jetting Aggrandizers are on the move to the next information hot-spot.

Creating Careerists

The lives of the Creating Careerists play out in the traditional economic tradeoff between material goods and leisure: they trade labor for increased access to both, while locking themselves down into a network of specialists. Each new resume- or portfolio item shapes their mind more to the task that the market demands, like a tree grows deep roots so it can reach toward the sun. Examples of lifestyles that approach this corner are corporate professionals, virtuoso artists, lawyers, and farmers. Creating Careerists are builders of lasting value. The purest cases succeed at fusing life, work and love into their next achievement.

Any valuable creation demands that they put the nose to the grindstone, swallowing boredom to stay within certain bounds of proven tradition. They put their 10.000 hours in, striving to know the place like the back of their hand. Movies about famous artists, scientists or entrepreneurs portray the achievements, while neglecting the cost of the effort invested.

Nomadic Minimalists

Nomadic Minimalists explore the tension between mobility and leisure while minimizing total cost of ownership. While most will pursue money and paper assets just like the other types, they avoid the bother of illiquid assets and real estate. As Baltasar Gracian put it, they “stroll through the open spaces of time to the center of opportunity.” Moving from place to place, weaving a web of otherwise unconnected friends, their lives are filled with deep and pleasurable experiences. Their boundary crossing keeps them fresh, but the risk of their unstable flows of capital keep poverty close by, forcing them on rough patches of social- and material discomfort.

Colorful examples are beggar monks, hippies, and the Sinti- and Roma people. The modern version of this lifestyle has recently been explored by the Minimalist movement, led by Leo Babauta of zen habits. It has since decayed into a ridiculous fight over who owned the least number of things. Steps toward this corner lead to ocean sailing, backpacking, geoarbitrage, island hopping and couch surfing.

Fictional examples include Hideous Kinky, in which Kate Winslet’s character bums around in Morocco with two young children. She hopes for enlightenment with the Sufis but finds danger and poverty. In Pulp Fiction, when Jules plans to “roam the earth,” Vincent chastises him for deciding to become a bum.

Jetting Aggrandizers

These types make fortunes by gaming the systems of stuff on a large scale. They live within electric fences and their assistants manage their flights between Aspen, Manhattan and Monaco. While they do not work in a way that is recognizable to a careerist, they are always ready for battle. They never keep still, because where the stuff-side of the triangle approaches the mobility-side, material wealth is most ephemeral. At the point of the Jetting Aggrandizer, mobility and stuff have become pure information, the resource with leverage on the future. It absorbs all the time and attention of the owner. As traffickers of nitroglycerin they cannot relax.

This kind of life is understood well from Richard Connif’s funny observations in Natural History of the Rich, which views them as a dominant subspecies with unique display behaviors and mating rituals. We cannot infer their motives from what they say, because they hide the volatile truth. Conniff discovered “the three big lies” of the subspecies. They pretend that money does not interest them, that power doesn’t matter, and that they are not trying to impress other people.

Rich people casually drop a line like that early in the conversation. We need a fictional Jetting Aggrandizer to get to the essence of their work. In Lord of War, Nicholas Cage’s character is an arms dealer who says in voice over: “The only problem with an honest buck is they’re so hard to make – the margins are too low, too many people are doin’ it.”

Be careful to not look at the wrong things when you put a tag on someone’s corner lifestyle: the pure types are distinguished by the capital they sacrifice, not by their net worth and ethics. Many rich people are Creating Careerists, such as Henry Ford and Bill Gates, and a psychopathic con man is more a Nomadic Minimalist than he is a Jetting Aggrandizer.

The labor that moves you toward the corners of the triangle also moves you away from the good at the opposing side. Your sacrifice becomes a Jungian shadow that must be managed with a minimal effective dose of that good, in order to maintain homeostasis. The careerist’s vacation is far away and crams a year of mobility into “sight-seeing” managed by a “tour guide.” Even the purest minimalist has to maintain reliable access to food, tools, clothing and health care. Aggrandizers tend to get the reflective time of leisure forced on them through nervous breakdowns, “type A”- behavior-heart attacks, and rehab clinics.

Living on the Edge

Stories are nearly always about people that move toward the edge. On the stuff-edge of the triangle live bankers, consultants and entrepreneurs. On the leisure-edge are zen students, writers and stoners, and on the mobility-edge we find expats, post-doc researchers and con artists.

In the industrial age the villains tended to be owners of stuff, as with Robin Hood vs. the sheriff of Nottingham. But the ephemerality of the information age has made villains more mobile. Screenwriters have become aware of that source of power: the villains in the early James Bond movies are captains of industry, while the later ones are information brokers, smugglers and gamblers.

Some stories are specifically about a chemistry between people with opposite corner lifestyles. In Priceless we see how gold diggers work themselves up along the mobility-edge toward the the top of the triangle, attracted to places where former aggrandizers slide back into leisure.

Drama and productivity happen when someone acts to change his or her position within the Lifestyle Triangle. All else is happy busy work and widget-cranking that no one wants to watch.

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

Venkat May 14, 2011 at 16:52

I really like the notion that you are defined by the type of capital you sacrifice, rather than the ones you accumulate.

I am not sure the constraint applies universally though. Paris Hilton seems to have all three, though via inheritance. And perhaps there are some jetsetting aggrandizers who stop accumulating at a point and enjoy leisure as well?

Your top 2 edges seem to be a refinement of the idea that as you make more money, you find more satisfaction in services/experience than in goods, and mobility is the essence of experiences.

Leisure (=free time) is perhaps not really a kind of wealth so much as a decision to not look for the other two kinds of wealth. It is the age old time-money dichotomy. But maybe the “time=money” Ben Franklin model is correct. I like to think of the two as fundamentally different though.

Reply

Stefan King May 16, 2011 at 09:52

The Paris Hilton case is tricky, but I solve it through limiting a lifestyle to a certain time period. You are what you do this quarter, not what you did last year. If Paris works hard at some song, she is a careerist. On a stretch of parties she moves to the leisure edge, but not much. She never made a dime in her life, so no aggrandizing.

The aggrandizer’s leisure starvation is what makes them less extreme, pulling them to the center. I mentioned ‘Priceless’ as what can happen then: on holiday they sleep with gold diggers who’s lifestyle is thus moving to the top of the triangle. Just like with Paris, the move toward the center makes them less interesting characters.

“Time=money” is definitely a careerist belief, as they arbitrage both in their quest toward expertise, fusing stuff and leisure. I view it as a kind of wealth, because it is something good that people want. As a default asset when you are poor, it is an harder to get for owners and the mobile. Extending Ben Franklin: time=mobility and mobility=stuff, but only for those working hard for something.

Reply

Raunak May 15, 2011 at 09:08

This is a good framework for evaluating career choices for someone like me who is just starting out.

I think “flexibility” is a better word than “mobility” for what you are trying to convey as it is broader.

Where would you put people such as Tim Ferriss, who seem to have all three in abundance?

Reply

Stefan King May 16, 2011 at 10:02

“Flexibility” is indeed broader, and it can probably be used to describe people nearer to the center, but I think that in the corner, there must be physical moving around to get the next thing you are after.

Tim Ferriss is mostly an aggrandizer. I saw someone joking somewhere that “no one works as hard as Tim Ferriss promoting his book,” which seems right on. His lifestyle is based on that supplement company he set up working 80 hours a week. He’s no minimalist either, since when he travels, he puts his Aston Martin and motorcycle in storage.

Reply

phil jones May 19, 2011 at 12:06

I normally dislike this kind of analysis intensely as it ignores the other 99% of humanity who don’t have the luxury of participating in this kind of game.

But actually, thinking a bit further, maybe your model is useful for talking about that too.

Perhaps we can say there is an original kind of wealth … let’s call it “Wealth 0″ which is the freedom to choose where to position yourself on this triangle. Most people don’t have this wealth 0 because they don’t have the money / social connections / institutional support that it depends on.

These people may have one of the kinds of wealth that you’re talking about … but we tend not to consider one by itself as wealth at all. Eg. someone with mobility but no stuff and no leisure is a refugee / economic migrant. Someone with stuff but no leisure or mobility is like a large proportion of the Western working / lower middle classes : trapped in a job they can’t afford to leave, in a house who’s mortgage they can’t pay off, surrounded by trinkets that have little resale value and bring them no happiness. Someone with leisure but neither stuff nor mobility is typically unemployed underclass.

Reply

Stefan King May 19, 2011 at 15:43

The model is intended to include all lifestyles, and wealth inequality still applies to it. I think that “Wealth 0″ is indeed both scarce and equally distributed as the “trapped in a job and mortgage”-example shows. The poor are trapped by lack of physical options, and the rich people can be trapped by sick incentives. It takes something ‘weird’ to change your life.

In my case, I could only came up with this thing by thinking intensely about my upcoming lifestyle change of becoming a location independent virtual freelancer. I have known about this possibility since reading “The 4-hour workweek” in 2008, but I have only just arrived at financial- and psychological position to even think about living like that. Probably most lifestyle changes happen from necessity, pushed by circumstance.

Reply

Ted Heistman May 20, 2011 at 16:50

To me its always seemed that the only people able to have exciting adventurers are the totally broke or independently wealthy.

I think the broke way is actually more fun because I think if you have any type of neuroticism you will use money to shield yourself from different types of experiences. If you are say..Hitchiking across the country you are up for anything!

Reply

Stefan King May 20, 2011 at 17:11

The anti-neurosis effect is behind the vow of poverty of monks. If you become a beggar monk, you get a very quick crash course in egolessness.

I have done some hitchhiking, and it is indeed as interesting as it is tiring. Besides having to deal with your own neurosis, you have to accommodate your driver too.

Reply

Ted Heistman May 20, 2011 at 17:26

I don’t know man, I had really good luck. I hitch hiked across Alaska and the Yukon. Everyone put me up for the night, fed me, even gave me money. I guess I added value to their experience by telling me story. After a while I decided to draw everyone a picture.

I had worse luck when I was 18, hitchhiking in California. It was all 40 year Gay guys cruising, that seemed to be the only ones offering me rides.

The only draw back on the Alaska trip was everyone kept offering me weed and beer, at one point I decided that drunk and stoned may not be the best way to wander through the wilderness, alone and broke. But then I got picked up by born again Christian Eskimo Evangelists wandering around Alaska having tent revivals to it was all good. They just gave me Moose ribs, pickled salmon and Eskimo Ice cream!

Reply

Ted Heistman May 20, 2011 at 17:33

After a while I knew that the $100,000 RV’s going by at 75 mph were not stopping. Usually it was old Pickups with a jury rigged topper.

So its like the rich people seemed to be paranoid and not really open to having a new unplanned spontaneous experience….by giving me a ride!

There was a retired German Engineer and his wife though that were probably upper middle class. But mostly it was adventurous types, old hippies, truck drivers, Indians. People tending toward the lower left hand corner of your chart definitely. And that’s why they moved to Alaska.

Reply

Stefan King May 20, 2011 at 17:49

My hitchhiking was through Germany. Getting rides was easy because I was with a girl. The people where not that special, but it was still good to see the chemistry between a vehicle and its owner. I learned that in a the most expensive Mercedes, the only way you can notice that you are going 200 km/h is by looking at the meter. I know what the road looks like from a truck and how much trucking sucks as a lifestyle for married guys. And the immigrant factory worker who didn’t think it strange his car was worth twice as much as his yearly salary. Normally you never meet people that different from yourself.

Reply

Ted Heistman May 20, 2011 at 17:49

One thing I just thought of though is that Hiking around mountains and stuff you do run into quite a few “trust fund babies” I mean They aren’t that common, but They do seem to have a tendency towards adventure travel. Who really can afford to hike the Appalachian trail? Somebody that just got out of college and hasn’t started a job yet( points to them being affluent)…..a person that just retired and is in shape, so probably an affluent person, since working class people tend to retire with bad backs and a smoking habit and diabetes, from eating cheap low quality food….OR somebody doing it as a lifestyle choice. They arranged their life around being able to go on adventures regularly.

Those are the three basic types I run into. But its a tendency towards affluence really. The REI set that is. Even if they are broke like me, they are fairly erudite and well read and intellectually curious. Like they have a degree in something impressive but live out of their van while teaching people how to hang glide, that way they can hang glide a lot.

Reply

ET June 19, 2011 at 06:21

As a consultant, zen student & expat I wonder where I fit in?

Reply

Stefan King June 19, 2011 at 10:20

On the left side of the triangle, and more to the aggrandizing corner with long working hours, or closer the minimalist corner if you work part time.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: