Three Ways to Get Paid (2018)
An old aphorism on “three ways to make a living”—lying to those who want lies, telling truth to those who want truth, and telling truth to those who want lies—anchors a broader debate about honesty, wealth, and how people really get paid. Commenters probe whether you can prosper while being truthful, share experiences from sales, consulting, and corporate life where clients or bosses preferred comforting fictions, and argue over whether self-deception is baked into most careers. Along the way, they touch on the ethics of “fake it till you make it,” the emotional cost of unrealistic promises, and the extent to which modern work rewards manipulation over integrity.
Core aphorism & interpretations
- Thread centers on the 3-part rule:
- Lie to people who want lies → get rich.
- Tell truth to people who want truth → make a living.
- Tell truth to people who want lies → go broke.
- Several note a tension between “make a living” and “go broke” in the phrasing.
- Multiple users extend it to a 2×2 matrix (you/they: truth vs lies); missing cell “lying to those who want truth” is placed as scams, fraud, even jail.
- Many treat the rule as an aphorism, not a literal taxonomy of all possible jobs.
Truth, lies, and money
- Repeated theme: significant wealth often comes from lying or overpromising (sales, consulting, market research, influencers, some executives).
- Some express regret that having scruples limited their earnings; others reject this as defeatist and insist you can earn well while being honest.
- View that lying to people who want lies creates a self-reinforcing, harmful dynamic.
- Debate over whether externalities and systemic harm are compatible with personal honesty.
Workplace dynamics & saying “no”
- Stories of candidates negotiating pay being criticized, and employees punished for stating “we’re here for the money,” highlighting corporate self-deception.
- Many describe pressure to “fake it until you make it,” promise unrealistic features, or pad credentials; some see this as necessary kayfabe, others as unethical.
- Practical advice: don’t say a hard “no”; instead reframe as options, trade-offs, or alternative approaches.
- Counterpoint: good clients and leaders value honest constraints and clear refusals.
Meta: article brevity, paywall, and format
- Some complain HN submissions are getting very short and paywalled; the “read the rest” link here was broken for several browsers.
- Others defend concise writing with depth, preferring it over long, fluff-padded pieces (including LLM-expanded articles).
Broader reflections
- References to religious and philosophical formulations of the “golden rule” and people seeking teachers who confirm their desires.
- Several argue modern society runs on collective lies and incentive-driven self-deception; others call the entire framing “sociopathic” or overly cynical.