The deceased Han Jong-hee was a Co-CEO and Vice-Chairman, just like Jun Young-hyun who now remains as the sole CEO.
This was not a planned transition or coincidence, Samsung usually had 3 parallel CEO's since 2013 and downsized to two CEO's in 2021, all of those being "Vice-Chairman".
On top there is still the Samsung Electronics Chairman, Lee Jae-yong...
JH Han came from Samsung's Visual Display (tvs, smart tvs) business unit which is part of Samsungs larger consumer electronics business which includes things such as home appliances. Mobile electronics such as Galaxy brand smart phones are another business, and Han was promoted to lead the businesses spanning all of those groups, which was (re)named to called "Device Experience (DX)". Samsung's semiconductor fabrication and component businesses have normally had a separate "CEO" from the consumer electronics finished products businesses (aka. "SET")
The company name of "Samsung" originates from the founder's admiration of Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi, known as "keiretsu" and their place in its economy; he hoped that his company would also endure as a shining symbol in the sky, like stars. Mitsubishi means three stars in Japanese language.
Samsung the company started as something resembling a dry goods market.
> Based on the notice Samsung published, Han's co-CEO Young-Hyun Jun is now the sole CEO of the company. Jun, who also heads Samsung's semiconductor business, was appointed as Han's co-CEO in November 2024.
I guess he had been co-CEO since November. That’s about as smooth of a transition one could hope for? (As far as the company welfare goes.) My thoughts are with his family. An abrupt loss like this must be painful.
Regardless of parent's bile, it's kinda hard to avoid Samsung products without living in a cabin in the woods.
Don't Apple phones use Samsung displays ? Doesn't the pixel phone use a Samsung processor ? Will you check if it's not Samsung RAM or SSD when buying a computer ?
It's just not a company that can be avoided that easily.
Everyone dies eventually, it's inevitable, you can't schedule your parents death when it's convenient for you. It's just how it is, and we're all adults, why try to sugarcoat it?
I don't know much about his family life, but it's very plausible that he spent more time working during his lifetime than with his family, and this is a good take. Considering the company's state of affairs, I would assume he was under a tremendous amount of work-related stress during the last few years, if not the majority of his career, peaking in this role.
I would assume he would be in work related stress for decades but daughter's wedding preparation, considering how stressful asian weddings are, pushed him over the edge.
I added this heuristic to my mind "Do not assume you will live until 90" when my dad also passed on his 60s. But he was a smoker. Until then I was thinking all my uncles that died in their 60s was because of heavy drinking (bottle of whisky a day or something)
on the flipside -- avoiding unhealthy things, especially environmental health factors like carcinogens and microplastics, often requires a certain level of wealth.
The "wellness" industry is a way to scam rich people. You want to believe you can spend your money to opt out of environmental toxins by shopping at Erewhon. But you're still going to be exposed to all of this stuff unless you live in a hermetically sealed bubble and never leave. Or if you get rid of toxins in your area, an action which affects everyone.
The hard truth is that pollution and environmental toxins affect everyone present in that environment. Taxes and government regulation are going to do far more for the wealthy than individual changes in shopping habits.
In the case of a CEO of a major South Korean company, I could believe that stress could have contributed to his heart attack. But for specifically the actors/musicians category of the rich and famous, it seems like drugs tends to be a limiting factor on lifespan.
Heart attack at 63. What a shame. Guy worked at the company longer than I’ve been alive and all he has to show for it is an inheritance and obituary. Makes you wonder what we’re working so hard for.
Maybe you're not familiar with the Chaebol system in Korea, but the leadership of Samsung is like some kind of modern-day monarchy-(not necessarily the CEO but the founding Lee family are royalty in the inheritance sense)- Samsung the company exists as a sort of independent nation-state that drives the Korean economy. (this guy was in charge of about 1/4 of the GDP of the entire economy of Korea)
Saying "all he has to show for it" is like saying all Jimmy Carter got was 4 years of stress.
My home was recently destroyed by fire (not a total loss of dwelling, but 95% of contents due to smoke and water), and I'm quitting tech to accept being a rancher and body builder.
I love tech, but tech doesn't love me. So, #yolo on to the next thing.
Ranchers make far more money than you think. They have to manage years where they are losing $100,000 per month, but the good years they make more than enough to make up for that. The hard part is getting started. You can't make a ranch work on just a little bit of land, you need thousands of acres of land in an area where you can get to all those plots every day.
Getting bank loans on that means most ranchers start at 20 with a few acres (that is a ranching/farming hobby) and a full time job to pay the bills - the ranch itself isn't even paying for the land loans, but it is close and their job pays the rest. Then they build trust with the bank and buy more land as it becomes possible. At 40 they have paid off the initial land (or at least inflation means the payments are tiny in current money) and so they are generating enough income to quit the full time job and farm. At 60 they have paid off most of the land which is now worth millions and so are rich by any measure in ways most tech jobs cannot get to (though if you happen to be one of the lucky early people in in a successful startup you are doing much better, your odds as a rancher are probably better than that).
Beware though that ranching is physically hard on the body. Farming is one of the most dangerous jobs humans do, there is a real risk you will die before you get rich. Even if you do get rich there is real risk that you will be in poor health and unable to do it. Or you could end up like my uncle who loved the ranch so much he basically never left it - he died with millions in the bank while wearing clothes he had been patching for 40 years.
I figured that the best way to own a ranch is to start a successful tech company, sell it (or parts of it), buy a bunch of ranchland, and then hire ranch hands that always wanted to get into the business but didn't have the capital for it.
That seems to be what all the tech billionaires do. Gates, Bezos, and several old-line tech company heirs are all big ranch holders.
You run into the same problem of everyone else: there is only so much land and so you compete with everyone, including those ranch hands that want to get into it (and likely have their own holdings they are working when not on your shift). That they are working their own land means they have some ability to out compete you (though their lack of capital means you will have a much larger investment).
Also many states have laws against corporate farmers that can get you.
I'm going soft ranching as a hobby. Honestly, I want to get a few cattle which I control the inputs too 100% such that get 100% grass fed beef.
My profit is primarily driving down my costs as much as possible such that I can become self sufficient.
My wife and I are carnivores, so our diet is basically beef, butter, bacon, eggs. I'll start with raising chickens such that I can produce at least a dozen a day. Then I'll get beef, and I'll just buy bacon and butter.
I'm designing my barndo right now such that it has a simple living space for me and my wife, and then a big bro science gym where we can work out.
It's the dream right now that I'm clinging too since I'm moving forward. I lost all my stuff, and I'm waiting for insurance adjuster. Fortunately, I had a very good career and I'm in my early 40s, and I'm going to different stuff. I've always wanted land, so I'm going to do it. It's going to be great! (or, I'm deeply traumatized and using optimism to deny the reality of escaping a burning building :shrug: )
Regardless, we should be friends as I love to learn more this. My hope is that I can spend a few years recreating all the 4H knowledge, network with farmers, and just learn new stuff which... isn't tech.
You can do that on 10 acres, which is affordable near a city. (possible even a reasonable commute to the suburbs. It will feed you but won't otherwise pay the bills (probably not even property taxes!) so figure out how to handle health insurance, and those other details of life.
I know enough about this to know that it isn't for me. It will sometimes be hard dangerous work. There will be late nights and early mornings. You can't take a vacation unless you find someone to cover for you. There will be years when there is a crop failure of some sort and you have nothing to work with. I'm happy working for John Deere where I get to meet and learn about the people doing this but I work my 40 hour weeks and go home.
>At 60 they have paid off most of the land which is now worth millions and so are rich by any measure in ways most tech jobs cannot get to
A person with the drive and intelligence to start ranching at 20 and put in 80 hours weeks in their youth could have done well in tech too, socking away $100k or more in tax advantaged retirement accounts, all the while having PTO and weekends.
Also, most people like to leave near urban areas with access to airports and a variety of grocery stores and kids' activities and schools filled with kids of other high achievers.
You can only put $38k/year into tax advantages accounts working for someone else - $20k in the 401k, $10k with a match (that would be a generous match, but not unrealistic), and $8k in an IRA. You can double it if you are married. Everything is is not tax advantaged. If you work for yourself there are other retirement laws.
You can of course put as much as you want into real estate (which if you rent out can give a nice return), or other investments. However the tax advantages do not apply.
Ranchers don't normally put anything into tax advantaged accounts, but they tend to put a large portion of their gross income into real estate. By 60 their take home pay is higher than tech and those large investments have grown to more than most in tech make.
Urban and rural areas allow for different life styles. I've lived both and when I'm in one I miss the other.
I think their whole point was that it's not just about the money to them. If they love being outside and working with their hands far more than being in an office and can make a living ranching it seems like a smart move to me, regardless of the salary difference.
Yes, there are people like that. Their numbers are greater than zero, but not much more.
Overwhelmingly though, people are romanticizing an existence where the only contact they have with it is through a conduit of financial security and drive by experience. They like hiking and once did an Air bnb experience weekend on a farm.
> In the US, only the poorest of the poor don't have shelter, and even they mostly have food.
Me+kids spent a decade in hunger-level poverty while staying housed. We usually got basic living expenses covered and what was left over might buy a bag of white rice - but not always.
Yeah, but I already mowed that grass. It was nice, and I could retire in the burbs... now, I'm just going to give up on civilization and become a rancher. Maybe, I'll start an egg subscription business for my friends that is 100% cash base. I don't know.
But may I ask, about the comment "I love tech, but tech doesn't love me"
Where does this really arise from?
I have some theories and feel free to tell me which one is the right one:-
1)Does this arise from the fact that tech is excessively used to create AI coder assistants to take the coders out in the first place
2)Does this arise from the fact that you feel as if you are a working machine in a cog, like most of what coders do in tech is unethical or useless in terms of human resourcefulness (asking because I saw one hackernews post about it some day where the guy was a microsoft engineer working on some project that he believed to have no impact other than surveillance)
Because these were the two theories as to why you might feel like that way. And I am genuinely interested in what you believe.
Not OP but the business of western tech places absolute minimum value on individuals and relationship building. It's all short term gain at the expense of all else. I'd expect the average tech employee to live shorter less fulfilled lives despite their wealth.
> the business of western tech places absolute minimum value on individuals and relationship building
It's not just the businesses; it's the workers as well. How many comments have you seen here of tech workers making a point that people in the office are not and will never be considered friends, and they're 100% not interested in having any kind of relationship with coworkers?
That may be true in many (even most) places, but it's not universal. I've found the most success when I'm able to build relationships, even at large well-known tech companies.
That being said, I strongly believe that it's never wise to find fulfillment solely—or even primarily—in vocation. Absolutely try to build a career that is life-giving, but there is so much joy and meaning to be found outside of work. We thrive in community.
The simple version is that I'm a perfectionist that cares about deep understanding, and I had a good career that fit me well with distributed systems. However, at core, I'm curious and passionate in a way that requires management to smooth me over.
So, I didn't want to be in big tech anymore since the game to play kind of sucks. No matter what "they" tell you, at a certain point, every company drains real creativity for one reason or another.
I love coding, and I can even play the strategy game at the higher level (I 'retired' as a 'senior principal'). So, I could have a very cushy life in big tech, but my heart is to build and tinker.
Low and behold, I decided to wander and build a thing that I cared about. I built https://www.adama-platform.com/ , but I could never really get traction without in person friends. Honestly, I wanted to wander and build, but I found myself in a field alone with a lot of ideas.
The sheer effort to promote new ideas is... exhausting. It's just a stream of failure after failure after failure, and then my home was destroyed. I literally ran out of a burning building, and my priorities changed.
Now, I could probably recover my ideas since I was preparing a new marketing push and try to meet developers where the are ( https://adamawww2.adama.games/ ). The idea was to let my ideas power the stranger topological scenarios (like cron jobs). And, given my background, I could probably have credible success raising funds around "real time infrastructure" / "pub sub" / "gateway". The problem there is then I recreate the problem I was escaping, so why bother with that.
So, now I'm going to just build a barndo with a full gym and get super duper fit. I honestly think doing pull ups will make me feel 10x better than accomplishing anything in tech.
That’s how the business world of tech is. It’s not that tech didn’t love you. You were looking for a creator centric universe.
And that is how most professions are as well. You go to school for four years learning to do this one small little thing. You practice that for ten years in a professional scope. And you trade one practice for another, say management. And then you change.
I would think in parallel to your creativity, you could find another system for monetization in education. You could also find a third system in theoretical studies.
also, to prove my feelings. I tell HN that I'm quiting tech and I get a bunch of points. I post about my shit, and I mostly got nothing. (and yes, HN wasn't the primary place I tried to market, but still... it sucks hard)
I did a 270 lb benchpress, and I felt better doing that then coding... So, I'm going from tech bro to gym bro. It's going to be wonderful.
Creators of tech vs users of tech are very different mindsets. My guess is the creators culture is not something you can just learn and work with. There is an inherent egotistical nature in the creator. And sometimes that is a difficult situation to work with .
I sold my startup and got out of tech and I’m much happier. Didn’t fully understand how miserable the whole industry and the long hours sitting at the computer were making me. Good luck with the new life!
Cliché but woodworking and working on my house! Been learning tons of new things that have nothing to do with coding. I’d probably get into rehabbing/flipping houses before I’d ever go back into tech
would love to follow your progress if you're going to be publicly blogging it (would be ironic, i know.) Also, really sorry for your loss. Was it the palisades fire?
Maybe. I was using AI via API, and I was building a tool chain to build a social network with PHP... I realized that I could focus on the product, but then I realized I was solving a problem which is social in nature rather than technical.
I am going to get in absolute peak shape, get a few cattle, raise some chickens to produce eggs, and maybe study to become a personal trainer.
It's common for Asian people, especially Asian men, to work like hell for their parents and children, and not really think about what other life choices they have.
That's caused by social values and expectations – people think you are disrespectful to your parents if you don't provide them and carry on the family name.
That happened to my dad too. He worked really hard for his family, but as his child, it is crystal clear to me that he doesn't enjoy childcare.
The situation is improving as the new generation puts more focus on their own life. But it's still a long way to go.
Is that an improvement, or is it just more of a western mentality? I was raised by asian parents (who had no life of their own), and my wife was raised by Anglo American parents (who “put more focus on their own life”). And from my perspective as a child, I’d rather have my upbringing than her’s.
And I’m happy to pay it forward and do for my kids what my parents did for me. I think “choices” are vastly overrated. I don’t think my kids would be happy if I quit my high paying job to pursue my dreams or whatever. Not that there’s anything else I would want to do! Part of what makes the Asian mentality work is that you avoid “grass is greener on the other side” thinking that will just leave you discontented. For all the talk of “choice”—Americans don’t really that happiness is itself a choice. You can choose to be happy doing what you have to do.
Raising kids well is extremely rewarding. Plus its very hard. But those rewards, you can't find them anywhere else. That happiness and fulfillment, dare I say, neither.
I've tried it before having kids - had total blast in European Alps - climbing, alpinism, ski touring, skiing, via ferratas, paragliding, but also ie diving in exotic remote places half around the world. ~5 bigger vacations per year. Traveled all continents except Antarctica backapcking style, ie 6 months in India and Nepal. Life-changing experiences, truly, but that backpacking part was the key to its intensity.
I've met folks who had way more intense lives than mine, since I was still working 100% and did all this during weekends, vacations and after work (or in-between work for long trips). Mostly they were some form of mountain guides who traveled world off-season. But even those folks, when they see me now with what seems like well raised kids so far, damn are they envious. I mean life that you hardly see on some 'influencer' instagram, those folks have no reason to brag about it publicly to compensate for something bad or trying to milk users for money. And most of them ends up in parenthood anyway for better or worse.
All those experiences means very little to nothing compared to experiencing my kids and see them growing up. Yes the hard parts are very hard and you question yourself and your whole life, but the amazing parts... mere words can't describe them. They give life to one's meaning that nothing else does, not even close. There is nobility to take hits for closest ones you love, to endure hardships, it builds and keeps character strong. Overcoming all properly hard challenges does that, do it for 2+ decades and it shows.
I am not claiming everybody should have kids, far from it, maybe not even half of population IMHO (I know, not sustainable, but we have overpopulation now so thats an afterthought). Plenty of broken people around, either inherited mental issues or ones acquired during childhood or even adulthood via traumas or drugs. Some could raise kids somehow but most are bad parents and then it propagates further down the line.
What do you “enjoy”—and more importantly, why do you think you enjoy it? I suspect enjoyment is mostly socialized, and we enjoy or don’t enjoy what our culture tells us should be enjoyable or not enjoyable.
Prior to my dad’s generation, virtually everyone in my home country was a subsistence farmer. Most people still are. Are their lives less “enjoyable” than some childless millennial pursing his dreams of traveling the world?
I don’t think that, on average, the asians I know (south asians, to be fair) are less happy than the Americans I know. They just derive enjoyment and contentment from different sources.
I'm from a similar bicultural household as rayiner, though from comment history I'm guessing I come down more on the American side. I've got enough of a background in both cultures to parse out and explain the differences though.
It's not perceived as "wasting a life" or "not enjoying it" by the parent, and oftentimes not by the child either. Rather, it's different values, different time preferences, and different conceptions of self. Western cultures have a conception of self that is very rigid and individualistic. There's a hard boundary between your wants and everyone else's wants, and you're responsible only for your own desire. This is encoded in our structures of law, in contemporary business culture, in the concept of individual rights, in the goals of Western psychotherapy, and in the relationships between family members that we view as normal.
In most traditional Asian cultures, there is much more of a soft boundary between members of the same family. You are expected to consider the welfare of everyone in the family. And that leads to a sense of obligation between parent and child, and then between child and parent as they get older, and between sibling to sibling when it comes to dealing with the outside world. There is a comparatively stronger boundary between the family and the state, eg. many Asian cultures feel like it's okay to snub the rules of the wider society for the benefit of the family, while in American society this is considered grift, nepotism, and corruption.
Likewise, there is a difference in time perception. Americans have a hard boundary between the present and the future or past. This shows up in popular culture through lines like in Rent ("No day but today", "How do you feel today?
Then why choose fear?", "Forget regret, your life is yours to live") or through popular aphorisms to "Let go of the past", "Live for the present", "The future is yours to write", etc. Asian cultures often consider the past, present, and future as one: the past informs the present, which becomes the future, and the "you" of today will soon become the you of tomorrow. As a result, it is perfectly natural to preference "future you" over "present you". And that shows up through things like savings rates (where Asians are consistently higher than Americans), long-term investments, business continuity, and willingness to invest in family and raise the next generation. Denying present pleasures for future gains is not a lifestyle that they don't enjoy; it's simply being smart, and the enjoyment comes from the anticipation of the future payoff.
There's a good illustration of the difference in the two cultures from two movies that both came out in 2018/2019, Crazy Rich Asians vs. The Farewell. Crazy Rich Asians is foremost a Chinese-American film. When the grandmother (who is considered the villain in the film) smugly says "We know how to build things that last", she's exemplifying the values and time preferences of Old China. And the film's climax and resolution is all about choosing present happiness over an indeterminate future, basically a victory of American values over traditional Chinese ones. The Farewell, however, more closely depicts the web of obligations in a traditional Chinese family, and is comedic to American audiences simply because the farces that the family goes through to preserve the feelings of the matriarch make no sense to Americans. Sure enough, Crazy Rich Asians was a smash hit in the U.S. but an utter flop in China, while The Farewell was a sleeper hit in America but did very well with Chinese audiences.
The emphasis on filial piety in east Asian cultures is undeniable, but I think this thread is overlooking the significant complication that east Asian countries also have some of the lowest birth rates in the world. Americans have more kids than the Japanese, for instance--not fewer--and birth rates across southeast Asia are collapsing, including in China.
I am probably one of the very few people on HN who came from a very similar household to rayiner but descended from pre-1965 south Asians in the US so I can tell you that all his suppositions do not necessarily hold for that group
Stowed away in 1929 to NYC. A lot of Bengali and Punjabi Muslim sailors jumped ship there and in New Orleans to some extent (Google Fatima Shaik) and tended to marry Blacks and Latinos. On the west coast it tended to be more Sikh farmers.
> Not that there’s anything else I would want to do!
That's the key part IMHO. If you're happy with the balance you landed on, why not.
I think some kids really benefit from the traditional Asian style, and they reach levels that would be hard to reach otherwise. The main issue is not all kids are in that boat, and they'll need to be miserable for a pretty long time before the parents change course and try alternative approaches (if they ever do).
Only the parents can decide if they want to force the square peg into a perfect round hole, and if the kid will thank them later or hate them for life (or jump through a window, shortening the waiting time). Even in Asia not all parents want to take that risk.
> That's the key part IMHO. If you're happy with the balance you landed on, why not.
But I would go further and say that lots of american kids who feel aimless would be happier if they were raised in a culture that tells them what to do and then socially rewards them for doing it. The efficient market fairy is a bad way of thinking about how the economy works, but it’s also a bad way of thinking about how people work.
I agree that, in asian society, some portion of kids suffer from being a square peg that parents try to shove in a round hole. But I think Americans overestimate the share of the population that’s square pegs, and underestimate the share of the population that would be happier being told what shape they are and what hole they fit into.
Where do you get the idea that "have kids and treat them as a side thought" is a Western mentality? In the West, we usually use prophylactics to avoid kids until we want them. That's why the birth rate is so low.
Having seen both perspectives I think a happy medium is possible. The self centered nature of some parents of the western societies doesn't really end up helping out the children whereas the complete abandonment of self for the sake of family also has limitation.
The contradiction of those traditional life goals: providing for parents and having descendents, isn't about abandoning one's children. Rather, it's about making those choices willingly and consciously, and without sacrificing your own well-being.
Many Asian parents treat their children as their "retirement plan", which places a significant "debt" on those children after they graduate from college (or high school). They're also often expected to have at least one male descendant to carry on the family name, who, in return, is expected to ensure their financial support after they retire, just like how they did to their parents.
This system is an infinite loop that places a massive financial burden on everyone in society, consuming their lives, and ultimately benefiting no one. It's good to provide for loved ones and raise children, but both are significant commitments and should be considered choices, not obligations.
>For all the talk of “choice”—Americans don’t really that happiness is itself a choice.
Dead on. This is the end state of materialism. An mindset where happiness is not something to be created internally, but externally bought or acquired.
Jong-Hee was self-made, and did not come from a Chaebol family. Samsung is controlled by the (founding) Lee family, and as of 2025, Samsung's executive chairman (Lee Jae-yong) is the family patriarch.
Samsung might not have been his baby, but glad he could taste the very pinnacle of power in SK before death came knocking.
Building and growing a business of any size is probably one of the most intellectually stimulating lives possible. People work for years without any where close to his amount of engagement with the world.
What do you mean 'all he has to show for it is an inheritance and obituary'? What else was he supposed to have or anyone else for that matter? I'd think inheritance covers a lot at the very least.
I mean, maybe he meant to point out that south korea as a country focuses way too much on this work culture and he might've sacrificed his precious family time / just became a "well off cog" in this huge machine.
Maybe he was passionate.
Maybe he felt obliged / motivated even to prove to others who helped him get to CEO that he was the right choice.
But in the end , like all people , he died.
In the end , all he had after all his efforts were inheritance and obituary.
We might never know if his final moments were full of regret or full of acceptance & happiness.
Death is just one breath away. Knocking on our doors. Our fragile egos can't understand death but it very desperately tries to.
I am not sure why but I really wish to end my comment with the famous quote by Albert Camus, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." (Not sure, if it really relates to the other paragraphs in this comment but I for one felt like that so I am just writing it out here)
Not SK in particular but the point of all of this in general, especially for those who have reached such heights.
63 is a young age to die in a rich country, especially for a corporate titan. Warren Buffett has been at the helm of Berkshire Hathaway an entire-my-lifetime of years between him and Jong-hee Han.
Gabe Newell famously has yachts around the world, explores the oceans and seems to be enjoying the fruits of his labor without kicking the bucket immediately after the release of Half Life 2.
Chuck Feeney made himself a multi billionaire and impressively gave it all away to charity within his lifetime. While so many plutocrats would “pledge” their wealth after death, Feeney had the stones to do it while he drew breath, earning him a high seat in the pantheon of philanthropy.
So what’s the point of all this work if it buys you an early grave? I’m sure he would have enjoyed a comfortable and lengthy retirement with his family, if he could’ve gotten there.
Beautifully Written!
I think this was sort of what I was also saying, though you wrote it out more succint.
In fact, I might argue that why not take this step further! Like yes, gabe newell has his yachts and he's having fun.
But I might argue that its not his yachts that we aspire. Its his freedom.
And I think its this freedom of having fun which we need to maximize (let's try to df/dx it ,jk) and in my opinion, you don't need tooo much money (100 Million-esque) to do that.
I think even a million - 10 Mill can be great, but even better could be something like how the 4 hour work week recommends. Though, to be honest, my issue with the 4h work week is that you are forced to leave the comfort of job security for once and he says that you can enter any time soon but I genuinely believe that the current job market is rough, so that's the only caveat I have.
For that, I think that you have to be frugal and have a huge emergency fund. Something which suits me quite well actually.
I've also worked with people with an entirely different viewpoint and I highly respected them and don't think they lived any less of a life, in fact they are greatly missed and leave behind a legacy.
The architype of those people, "I'm not slowing down, while I can still do my work I'll go on until they take me out of here feet first. That's why you guys are around me, I expect you to call me out when you see me slipping." And they really did get carried out feet first. Their memorials were attend by thousands willingly and they are still respected and an inspiration to those that worked with them.
Neither is wrong. Life isn't binary either. If someone is happy who are we to judge their life.
> I've also worked with people with an entirely different viewpoint and I highly respected them and don't think they lived any less of a life, in fact they are greatly missed and leave behind a legacy.
> The architype of those people, "I'm not slowing down, while I can still do my work I'll go on until they take me out of here feet first. That's why you guys are around me, I expect you to call me out when you see me slipping." And they really did get carried out feet first. Their memorials were attend by thousands willingly and they are still respected and an inspiration to those that worked with them.
> Neither is wrong. Life isn't binary either. If someone is happy who are we to judge their life.
> Their memorials were attend by thousands willingly and they are still respected and an inspiration to those that worked with them.
More like you are pushing your perspective out here. You think he didn't enjoy being in charge of an organization that was building some remarkable products and pushing the possibility of what humanity can build?
I think maybe you would prefer sitting on a beach doing nothing but I bet you this person enjoyed what they were doing on the whole.
>but I bet you this person enjoyed what they were doing on the whole.
well given that the man just dropped dead of a heart attack at his daughters wedding at a relatively young age I'd maybe take that bet.
I'm currently reading Evan Dou's book on Huawei and one constant among the leaders in that company seems to be mental and physical exhaustion, up to depression, chronic illness and suicide, virtually no time spent with family, and not enjoyment but an almost martial sense of loyalty to the company.
Running Western companies already doesn't seem to do wonders for one's mental health judging by some of the prominent figures, but East Asian giants sound even worse. I'll take the beach and my family over either one
Some people are working as hard as they can for humanity in general. It's still "for them" in the sense that this is what drives and motivates them. But we're all the winners. These are the folks that work long hours at the expense of their own health and family relationships. These are the folks that people ask about "don't they already have enough money" - when it's not about the money at all. It's about doing and creating and building something better for humanity. Sometimes these are our best corporate leaders, or government officials, or scientists, or even revolutionaries and cultural leaders.
Status seeking, cultural conditioning, an innate desire to be valuable to your community/loved ones. Certainly don't do it to consume more, which is what basically all economic models assume.
That's a very pessimistic view on the role of work. Whilst possibly true, it's equally possible that his decent choices allowed Samsung to succeed in areas, and in turn recently employ more people, who in turn could live safe, stable fulfilling lives. I think people forget how bad a chaotic life without safety nets is for most people.
Of course, this is all a hunch, I hear Samsung is quite a good company.
You're working for the life you get to live in the hours inbetween that you're not working.
The world judges the guy by being the CEO of Samsung. However he judges his life by what he got on the in between. Hopefully by his standards he lived a full life, loving family, experiences, etc.
Pretty sure he lived a life past just having “to show for it is an inheritance and obituary.” He wasn’t an IC drone and this probably makes more sense if you’re in Korea.
Some people die sooner than expected but that doesn't mean their yardstick should be measured in quantity of years. What about quality?
Did he? Money is no guarantee for happiness or comfort. Considering his position and how young he died, he likely had a very stressful live, and little time for his personal enjoyments. At least, he hadn't enough time to take care of his own health.
My assumption is, he worked hard to gain money, and died before he reached the point where he could fully use it for his personal benefit. Which is indeed sad.
No, I don't, which is why I wrote it's "my assumption". What I know is the life of managers, high performers, Korean culture, and that he died too young. People in that position usually have an awful work/live-balance, too much stress, not enough time for their own personality and self-fulfillment because of a toxic environment.
The average life expectancy in South Korea seems 82.68 years. So he died nearly 20 years too early, with wealth which should allow him to outlive the expectancy by 20 years instead. So yeah, my assumption is he had all the money, but not enough fun.
He reached to top of his profession, high social status, decent money. Maybe it is USA/western obsession with longevity. From where I am, people would totally fine if someone died in 60s after such high level accomplishments.
Unless there is zero probability someone rich can die of heart attack even if they are billionaire. Overall they are dying less from preventable/lifestyle diseases which is reasonable expectation.
Maybe the author is questioning if the journey was worth it?
Did he feel in the moments leading up to his death ,that his influence was used in the most effective ways or did he feel regret about the ways he used his influence.
To be honest, I think money can have diminishing returns after some point, and maybe with his CEO , he got a lot of responsibilities which might have really stressed him out (which potentially , increases heart attack rate)
We've banned this account for posting too many unsubstantive and flamebait comments (not just in this thread but in many others).
That's not allowed here—it's not what the site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Just for clarification, Samsung has two CEO's:
The deceased Han Jong-hee was a Co-CEO and Vice-Chairman, just like Jun Young-hyun who now remains as the sole CEO.
This was not a planned transition or coincidence, Samsung usually had 3 parallel CEO's since 2013 and downsized to two CEO's in 2021, all of those being "Vice-Chairman".
On top there is still the Samsung Electronics Chairman, Lee Jae-yong...
JH Han came from Samsung's Visual Display (tvs, smart tvs) business unit which is part of Samsungs larger consumer electronics business which includes things such as home appliances. Mobile electronics such as Galaxy brand smart phones are another business, and Han was promoted to lead the businesses spanning all of those groups, which was (re)named to called "Device Experience (DX)". Samsung's semiconductor fabrication and component businesses have normally had a separate "CEO" from the consumer electronics finished products businesses (aka. "SET")
I wonder if they had 3 CEOs because the name means 3 stars in korean
The company name of "Samsung" originates from the founder's admiration of Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi, known as "keiretsu" and their place in its economy; he hoped that his company would also endure as a shining symbol in the sky, like stars. Mitsubishi means three stars in Japanese language.
Samsung the company started as something resembling a dry goods market.
I thought Mitsubishi was 三菱 for Three Diamonds? Seems to go better with their log.
Mitsuboshi, 三つ星, would I think be for three stars, particularly the stars of Orion's belt.
"According to Samsung's founder, the meaning of the Korean hanja Samsung (三星) is three stars."
https://news.samsung.com/global/20-things-you-didnt-know-abo...
菱 is "water chestnut", a nut that actually is spiky, the <> figures are a stylization of that.
菱形, that is, "water chestnut-shaped" is indeed used for what's called "diamond-shaped" in English, maybe hence the confusion.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct. Symbolically, in this context, they were seen as diamonds in the sky, aka stars :)
Pendant correction: The bishi in Mitsubishi translates more closely to rhombus or diamond.
pedant correction: pedant ;)
Maybe it was a deep cut pun: diamond pendant?
Brilliant, regardless.
I thought Mitsubishi means 3 diamonds ?
https://www.mitsubishielectric.com/en/about/history/logo/log...
Just a week or so ago, Samsung chairman Lee Jae-yong told everyone in Samsung that there's only a "do or die" attitude.
https://www.kedglobal.com/leadership-management/newsView/ked...
Guess he made his choice
If it's a suicide you may be onto something. If died of natural causes though, it's a poor taste joke.
Probably in poor taste either way.
> Based on the notice Samsung published, Han's co-CEO Young-Hyun Jun is now the sole CEO of the company. Jun, who also heads Samsung's semiconductor business, was appointed as Han's co-CEO in November 2024.
I guess he had been co-CEO since November. That’s about as smooth of a transition one could hope for? (As far as the company welfare goes.) My thoughts are with his family. An abrupt loss like this must be painful.
This is Engadget's error, but the name would be Y(o)ung Hyun-Jun, where Yung is the last name, and Hyun-Jun is his "first+middle" name
[flagged]
??
[flagged]
[flagged]
Regardless of parent's bile, it's kinda hard to avoid Samsung products without living in a cabin in the woods.
Don't Apple phones use Samsung displays ? Doesn't the pixel phone use a Samsung processor ? Will you check if it's not Samsung RAM or SSD when buying a computer ?
It's just not a company that can be avoided that easily.
> Regardless of parent's bile, it's kinda hard to avoid Samsung products without living in a cabin in the woods
Not everybody is an Apple fan.
Apparently he died at his daughter’s wedding. That’s an awful way to go.
I always shudder at the following: all three brothers of Charlotte Roche [0] were killed in a car crash on their way to her wedding.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Roche
Johnny Gaudreau, NHL star, and his brother Matthew were hit and killed by a drunk driver while in New Jersey for their sister's wedding last summer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Gaudreau
Reasonably speaking, the chance is 1/365, not that low.
Do people get married every year or something?
Could be worse. At least he got to live to see his daughter get married before logging out. I call that a win.
But every wedding anniversary of the daughter will be bittersweet...
A yearly reminder of the most painful and beautiful moments that can happen in a human life. Damn.
Everyone dies eventually, it's inevitable, you can't schedule your parents death when it's convenient for you. It's just how it is, and we're all adults, why try to sugarcoat it?
I don't know much about his family life, but it's very plausible that he spent more time working during his lifetime than with his family, and this is a good take. Considering the company's state of affairs, I would assume he was under a tremendous amount of work-related stress during the last few years, if not the majority of his career, peaking in this role.
I would assume he would be in work related stress for decades but daughter's wedding preparation, considering how stressful asian weddings are, pushed him over the edge.
> I don't know much about his family life, but it's very plausible that he spent more time working during his lifetime than with his family
Because we all know that CEOs are hard working individuals. Only the developers are lazy. /s
What a great way to remember your wedding!
cut him some slack he didn't think that far
it's HN.
I added this heuristic to my mind "Do not assume you will live until 90" when my dad also passed on his 60s. But he was a smoker. Until then I was thinking all my uncles that died in their 60s was because of heavy drinking (bottle of whisky a day or something)
I see all these rich-famous people, having all the money for all the best care in the world, dying in 50s-60s and I get more and more anxious.
Healthcare doesn't do very much compared to not doing the unhealthy things in the first place, and being rich lets you buy a lot of unhealthy things.
Healthcare can buy you regular screenings to catch problem much earlier on, when there is better chance to cure them
on the flipside -- avoiding unhealthy things, especially environmental health factors like carcinogens and microplastics, often requires a certain level of wealth.
The "wellness" industry is a way to scam rich people. You want to believe you can spend your money to opt out of environmental toxins by shopping at Erewhon. But you're still going to be exposed to all of this stuff unless you live in a hermetically sealed bubble and never leave. Or if you get rid of toxins in your area, an action which affects everyone.
The hard truth is that pollution and environmental toxins affect everyone present in that environment. Taxes and government regulation are going to do far more for the wealthy than individual changes in shopping habits.
> Or if you get rid of toxins in your area
Moving can often accomplish that depending on the selected location.
I have the opposite reaction.
Because of their stress levels and possible smoking/drinking/drugs? I don’t buy into “yeah they’re rich/famous but that’s a lot of stress” narrative.
In the case of a CEO of a major South Korean company, I could believe that stress could have contributed to his heart attack. But for specifically the actors/musicians category of the rich and famous, it seems like drugs tends to be a limiting factor on lifespan.
I suspect it's more of "the witch is dead/the rich is dead"
If you want to die you don't have to wait for it
Related:
Samsung Electronics Says Co-CEO Han Jong-Hee Has Died at 63 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43466951 - Mar 2025 (no comments)
Heart attack at 63. What a shame. Guy worked at the company longer than I’ve been alive and all he has to show for it is an inheritance and obituary. Makes you wonder what we’re working so hard for.
Maybe you're not familiar with the Chaebol system in Korea, but the leadership of Samsung is like some kind of modern-day monarchy-(not necessarily the CEO but the founding Lee family are royalty in the inheritance sense)- Samsung the company exists as a sort of independent nation-state that drives the Korean economy. (this guy was in charge of about 1/4 of the GDP of the entire economy of Korea)
Saying "all he has to show for it" is like saying all Jimmy Carter got was 4 years of stress.
Well that and over 30 years more life…
And the majority of that with a loving wife! (she died in 2023 at 96. He died in 2024 at 100).
A life spent improving human lives and promoting peace.
It's a good question.
My home was recently destroyed by fire (not a total loss of dwelling, but 95% of contents due to smoke and water), and I'm quitting tech to accept being a rancher and body builder.
I love tech, but tech doesn't love me. So, #yolo on to the next thing.
Just a heads up, this only works well if you have a nice cushion of cash to do it on.
Someone with 30% tech ability will easily out-earn someone with 100% ranching ability. And have way more free time. And live way more comfortably.
Don't be fooled, the greenest grass is in the tech sector (and finance too).
Ranchers make far more money than you think. They have to manage years where they are losing $100,000 per month, but the good years they make more than enough to make up for that. The hard part is getting started. You can't make a ranch work on just a little bit of land, you need thousands of acres of land in an area where you can get to all those plots every day.
Getting bank loans on that means most ranchers start at 20 with a few acres (that is a ranching/farming hobby) and a full time job to pay the bills - the ranch itself isn't even paying for the land loans, but it is close and their job pays the rest. Then they build trust with the bank and buy more land as it becomes possible. At 40 they have paid off the initial land (or at least inflation means the payments are tiny in current money) and so they are generating enough income to quit the full time job and farm. At 60 they have paid off most of the land which is now worth millions and so are rich by any measure in ways most tech jobs cannot get to (though if you happen to be one of the lucky early people in in a successful startup you are doing much better, your odds as a rancher are probably better than that).
Beware though that ranching is physically hard on the body. Farming is one of the most dangerous jobs humans do, there is a real risk you will die before you get rich. Even if you do get rich there is real risk that you will be in poor health and unable to do it. Or you could end up like my uncle who loved the ranch so much he basically never left it - he died with millions in the bank while wearing clothes he had been patching for 40 years.
I figured that the best way to own a ranch is to start a successful tech company, sell it (or parts of it), buy a bunch of ranchland, and then hire ranch hands that always wanted to get into the business but didn't have the capital for it.
That seems to be what all the tech billionaires do. Gates, Bezos, and several old-line tech company heirs are all big ranch holders.
You run into the same problem of everyone else: there is only so much land and so you compete with everyone, including those ranch hands that want to get into it (and likely have their own holdings they are working when not on your shift). That they are working their own land means they have some ability to out compete you (though their lack of capital means you will have a much larger investment).
Also many states have laws against corporate farmers that can get you.
But they have to actually do work, in tech we get to hang out and eat lunch and drink coffee together while we talk about stocks.
I'm going soft ranching as a hobby. Honestly, I want to get a few cattle which I control the inputs too 100% such that get 100% grass fed beef.
My profit is primarily driving down my costs as much as possible such that I can become self sufficient.
My wife and I are carnivores, so our diet is basically beef, butter, bacon, eggs. I'll start with raising chickens such that I can produce at least a dozen a day. Then I'll get beef, and I'll just buy bacon and butter.
I'm designing my barndo right now such that it has a simple living space for me and my wife, and then a big bro science gym where we can work out.
It's the dream right now that I'm clinging too since I'm moving forward. I lost all my stuff, and I'm waiting for insurance adjuster. Fortunately, I had a very good career and I'm in my early 40s, and I'm going to different stuff. I've always wanted land, so I'm going to do it. It's going to be great! (or, I'm deeply traumatized and using optimism to deny the reality of escaping a burning building :shrug: )
Regardless, we should be friends as I love to learn more this. My hope is that I can spend a few years recreating all the 4H knowledge, network with farmers, and just learn new stuff which... isn't tech.
You can do that on 10 acres, which is affordable near a city. (possible even a reasonable commute to the suburbs. It will feed you but won't otherwise pay the bills (probably not even property taxes!) so figure out how to handle health insurance, and those other details of life.
I know enough about this to know that it isn't for me. It will sometimes be hard dangerous work. There will be late nights and early mornings. You can't take a vacation unless you find someone to cover for you. There will be years when there is a crop failure of some sort and you have nothing to work with. I'm happy working for John Deere where I get to meet and learn about the people doing this but I work my 40 hour weeks and go home.
>At 60 they have paid off most of the land which is now worth millions and so are rich by any measure in ways most tech jobs cannot get to
A person with the drive and intelligence to start ranching at 20 and put in 80 hours weeks in their youth could have done well in tech too, socking away $100k or more in tax advantaged retirement accounts, all the while having PTO and weekends.
Also, most people like to leave near urban areas with access to airports and a variety of grocery stores and kids' activities and schools filled with kids of other high achievers.
You can only put $38k/year into tax advantages accounts working for someone else - $20k in the 401k, $10k with a match (that would be a generous match, but not unrealistic), and $8k in an IRA. You can double it if you are married. Everything is is not tax advantaged. If you work for yourself there are other retirement laws.
You can of course put as much as you want into real estate (which if you rent out can give a nice return), or other investments. However the tax advantages do not apply.
Ranchers don't normally put anything into tax advantaged accounts, but they tend to put a large portion of their gross income into real estate. By 60 their take home pay is higher than tech and those large investments have grown to more than most in tech make.
Urban and rural areas allow for different life styles. I've lived both and when I'm in one I miss the other.
$7k for IRA contributions in TY24 and TY25
I think their whole point was that it's not just about the money to them. If they love being outside and working with their hands far more than being in an office and can make a living ranching it seems like a smart move to me, regardless of the salary difference.
Yes, there are people like that. Their numbers are greater than zero, but not much more.
Overwhelmingly though, people are romanticizing an existence where the only contact they have with it is through a conduit of financial security and drive by experience. They like hiking and once did an Air bnb experience weekend on a farm.
Not everything is about how much money you’ll make.
Yes. But we all have an addiction to food and shelter.
In the US, only the poorest of the poor don't have shelter, and even they mostly have food.
> In the US, only the poorest of the poor don't have shelter, and even they mostly have food.
Me+kids spent a decade in hunger-level poverty while staying housed. We usually got basic living expenses covered and what was left over might buy a bag of white rice - but not always.
Our situation was far from uncommon.
13.5% is a small number?
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics...
Most people obtain those just fine without a tech salary.
You don't need much money to have food and shelter...
That homesteader life
Yeah, but I already mowed that grass. It was nice, and I could retire in the burbs... now, I'm just going to give up on civilization and become a rancher. Maybe, I'll start an egg subscription business for my friends that is 100% cash base. I don't know.
It's going to be great.
Sorry for your loss.
But may I ask, about the comment "I love tech, but tech doesn't love me"
Where does this really arise from?
I have some theories and feel free to tell me which one is the right one:- 1)Does this arise from the fact that tech is excessively used to create AI coder assistants to take the coders out in the first place
2)Does this arise from the fact that you feel as if you are a working machine in a cog, like most of what coders do in tech is unethical or useless in terms of human resourcefulness (asking because I saw one hackernews post about it some day where the guy was a microsoft engineer working on some project that he believed to have no impact other than surveillance)
Because these were the two theories as to why you might feel like that way. And I am genuinely interested in what you believe.
Curious for your response!
Not OP but the business of western tech places absolute minimum value on individuals and relationship building. It's all short term gain at the expense of all else. I'd expect the average tech employee to live shorter less fulfilled lives despite their wealth.
[1]: What makes a good life lessons from the longest study on happiness (Harvard) - https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_waldinger_what_makes_a_good...
[2]: The secret to living longer may be your social life - https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_pinker_the_secret_to_living_...
> the business of western tech places absolute minimum value on individuals and relationship building
It's not just the businesses; it's the workers as well. How many comments have you seen here of tech workers making a point that people in the office are not and will never be considered friends, and they're 100% not interested in having any kind of relationship with coworkers?
That may be true in many (even most) places, but it's not universal. I've found the most success when I'm able to build relationships, even at large well-known tech companies.
That being said, I strongly believe that it's never wise to find fulfillment solely—or even primarily—in vocation. Absolutely try to build a career that is life-giving, but there is so much joy and meaning to be found outside of work. We thrive in community.
You may build relationships with people you work closely with. I've certainly done that at multiple workplaces.
However, that doesn't mean anything when someone whom you've never even spoken to decides shareholders need 0.5% more profit and you gotta go.
The simple version is that I'm a perfectionist that cares about deep understanding, and I had a good career that fit me well with distributed systems. However, at core, I'm curious and passionate in a way that requires management to smooth me over.
So, I didn't want to be in big tech anymore since the game to play kind of sucks. No matter what "they" tell you, at a certain point, every company drains real creativity for one reason or another.
I love coding, and I can even play the strategy game at the higher level (I 'retired' as a 'senior principal'). So, I could have a very cushy life in big tech, but my heart is to build and tinker.
Low and behold, I decided to wander and build a thing that I cared about. I built https://www.adama-platform.com/ , but I could never really get traction without in person friends. Honestly, I wanted to wander and build, but I found myself in a field alone with a lot of ideas.
The sheer effort to promote new ideas is... exhausting. It's just a stream of failure after failure after failure, and then my home was destroyed. I literally ran out of a burning building, and my priorities changed.
Now, I could probably recover my ideas since I was preparing a new marketing push and try to meet developers where the are ( https://adamawww2.adama.games/ ). The idea was to let my ideas power the stranger topological scenarios (like cron jobs). And, given my background, I could probably have credible success raising funds around "real time infrastructure" / "pub sub" / "gateway". The problem there is then I recreate the problem I was escaping, so why bother with that.
So, now I'm going to just build a barndo with a full gym and get super duper fit. I honestly think doing pull ups will make me feel 10x better than accomplishing anything in tech.
That’s how the business world of tech is. It’s not that tech didn’t love you. You were looking for a creator centric universe.
And that is how most professions are as well. You go to school for four years learning to do this one small little thing. You practice that for ten years in a professional scope. And you trade one practice for another, say management. And then you change.
I would think in parallel to your creativity, you could find another system for monetization in education. You could also find a third system in theoretical studies.
also, to prove my feelings. I tell HN that I'm quiting tech and I get a bunch of points. I post about my shit, and I mostly got nothing. (and yes, HN wasn't the primary place I tried to market, but still... it sucks hard)
I did a 270 lb benchpress, and I felt better doing that then coding... So, I'm going from tech bro to gym bro. It's going to be wonderful.
Creators of tech vs users of tech are very different mindsets. My guess is the creators culture is not something you can just learn and work with. There is an inherent egotistical nature in the creator. And sometimes that is a difficult situation to work with .
I sold my startup and got out of tech and I’m much happier. Didn’t fully understand how miserable the whole industry and the long hours sitting at the computer were making me. Good luck with the new life!
What are you doing now?
Cliché but woodworking and working on my house! Been learning tons of new things that have nothing to do with coding. I’d probably get into rehabbing/flipping houses before I’d ever go back into tech
What was the startup?
It's in their profile.
Oh, cool I've used ionic framework
would love to follow your progress if you're going to be publicly blogging it (would be ironic, i know.) Also, really sorry for your loss. Was it the palisades fire?
I thought about doing a youtube channel, honestly. Both as a parody and a progress.
It's strange. I will probably get more love for making a video about my future barndo than my tech projects.
It was an electrical fire due to a 20 year old wire and an external flood light that has never worked.
Good luck! Your username suits you.
Thanks.
I love math, and I regret not being able to usefully use it more. I don't regret leaving academia, but life is a mystery.
The next chapter feels... good and right.
In 3 to 5 years once AI is doing most of our tech jobs, we may look back on this comment as someone with laser vision
Maybe. I was using AI via API, and I was building a tool chain to build a social network with PHP... I realized that I could focus on the product, but then I realized I was solving a problem which is social in nature rather than technical.
I am going to get in absolute peak shape, get a few cattle, raise some chickens to produce eggs, and maybe study to become a personal trainer.
It's common for Asian people, especially Asian men, to work like hell for their parents and children, and not really think about what other life choices they have.
That's caused by social values and expectations – people think you are disrespectful to your parents if you don't provide them and carry on the family name.
That happened to my dad too. He worked really hard for his family, but as his child, it is crystal clear to me that he doesn't enjoy childcare.
The situation is improving as the new generation puts more focus on their own life. But it's still a long way to go.
Is that an improvement, or is it just more of a western mentality? I was raised by asian parents (who had no life of their own), and my wife was raised by Anglo American parents (who “put more focus on their own life”). And from my perspective as a child, I’d rather have my upbringing than her’s.
And I’m happy to pay it forward and do for my kids what my parents did for me. I think “choices” are vastly overrated. I don’t think my kids would be happy if I quit my high paying job to pursue my dreams or whatever. Not that there’s anything else I would want to do! Part of what makes the Asian mentality work is that you avoid “grass is greener on the other side” thinking that will just leave you discontented. For all the talk of “choice”—Americans don’t really that happiness is itself a choice. You can choose to be happy doing what you have to do.
> I don’t think my kids would be happy if I quit my high paying job to pursue my dreams or whatever
Wasting life on a lifestyle one doesn't enjoy, just to raise another generation of life-wasters? I don't get this ponzi scheme at all.
Raising kids well is extremely rewarding. Plus its very hard. But those rewards, you can't find them anywhere else. That happiness and fulfillment, dare I say, neither.
I've tried it before having kids - had total blast in European Alps - climbing, alpinism, ski touring, skiing, via ferratas, paragliding, but also ie diving in exotic remote places half around the world. ~5 bigger vacations per year. Traveled all continents except Antarctica backapcking style, ie 6 months in India and Nepal. Life-changing experiences, truly, but that backpacking part was the key to its intensity.
I've met folks who had way more intense lives than mine, since I was still working 100% and did all this during weekends, vacations and after work (or in-between work for long trips). Mostly they were some form of mountain guides who traveled world off-season. But even those folks, when they see me now with what seems like well raised kids so far, damn are they envious. I mean life that you hardly see on some 'influencer' instagram, those folks have no reason to brag about it publicly to compensate for something bad or trying to milk users for money. And most of them ends up in parenthood anyway for better or worse.
All those experiences means very little to nothing compared to experiencing my kids and see them growing up. Yes the hard parts are very hard and you question yourself and your whole life, but the amazing parts... mere words can't describe them. They give life to one's meaning that nothing else does, not even close. There is nobility to take hits for closest ones you love, to endure hardships, it builds and keeps character strong. Overcoming all properly hard challenges does that, do it for 2+ decades and it shows.
I am not claiming everybody should have kids, far from it, maybe not even half of population IMHO (I know, not sustainable, but we have overpopulation now so thats an afterthought). Plenty of broken people around, either inherited mental issues or ones acquired during childhood or even adulthood via traumas or drugs. Some could raise kids somehow but most are bad parents and then it propagates further down the line.
What do you “enjoy”—and more importantly, why do you think you enjoy it? I suspect enjoyment is mostly socialized, and we enjoy or don’t enjoy what our culture tells us should be enjoyable or not enjoyable.
Prior to my dad’s generation, virtually everyone in my home country was a subsistence farmer. Most people still are. Are their lives less “enjoyable” than some childless millennial pursing his dreams of traveling the world?
I don’t think that, on average, the asians I know (south asians, to be fair) are less happy than the Americans I know. They just derive enjoyment and contentment from different sources.
I'm from a similar bicultural household as rayiner, though from comment history I'm guessing I come down more on the American side. I've got enough of a background in both cultures to parse out and explain the differences though.
It's not perceived as "wasting a life" or "not enjoying it" by the parent, and oftentimes not by the child either. Rather, it's different values, different time preferences, and different conceptions of self. Western cultures have a conception of self that is very rigid and individualistic. There's a hard boundary between your wants and everyone else's wants, and you're responsible only for your own desire. This is encoded in our structures of law, in contemporary business culture, in the concept of individual rights, in the goals of Western psychotherapy, and in the relationships between family members that we view as normal.
In most traditional Asian cultures, there is much more of a soft boundary between members of the same family. You are expected to consider the welfare of everyone in the family. And that leads to a sense of obligation between parent and child, and then between child and parent as they get older, and between sibling to sibling when it comes to dealing with the outside world. There is a comparatively stronger boundary between the family and the state, eg. many Asian cultures feel like it's okay to snub the rules of the wider society for the benefit of the family, while in American society this is considered grift, nepotism, and corruption.
Likewise, there is a difference in time perception. Americans have a hard boundary between the present and the future or past. This shows up in popular culture through lines like in Rent ("No day but today", "How do you feel today? Then why choose fear?", "Forget regret, your life is yours to live") or through popular aphorisms to "Let go of the past", "Live for the present", "The future is yours to write", etc. Asian cultures often consider the past, present, and future as one: the past informs the present, which becomes the future, and the "you" of today will soon become the you of tomorrow. As a result, it is perfectly natural to preference "future you" over "present you". And that shows up through things like savings rates (where Asians are consistently higher than Americans), long-term investments, business continuity, and willingness to invest in family and raise the next generation. Denying present pleasures for future gains is not a lifestyle that they don't enjoy; it's simply being smart, and the enjoyment comes from the anticipation of the future payoff.
There's a good illustration of the difference in the two cultures from two movies that both came out in 2018/2019, Crazy Rich Asians vs. The Farewell. Crazy Rich Asians is foremost a Chinese-American film. When the grandmother (who is considered the villain in the film) smugly says "We know how to build things that last", she's exemplifying the values and time preferences of Old China. And the film's climax and resolution is all about choosing present happiness over an indeterminate future, basically a victory of American values over traditional Chinese ones. The Farewell, however, more closely depicts the web of obligations in a traditional Chinese family, and is comedic to American audiences simply because the farces that the family goes through to preserve the feelings of the matriarch make no sense to Americans. Sure enough, Crazy Rich Asians was a smash hit in the U.S. but an utter flop in China, while The Farewell was a sleeper hit in America but did very well with Chinese audiences.
The emphasis on filial piety in east Asian cultures is undeniable, but I think this thread is overlooking the significant complication that east Asian countries also have some of the lowest birth rates in the world. Americans have more kids than the Japanese, for instance--not fewer--and birth rates across southeast Asia are collapsing, including in China.
I am probably one of the very few people on HN who came from a very similar household to rayiner but descended from pre-1965 south Asians in the US so I can tell you that all his suppositions do not necessarily hold for that group
I’m sure that’s true. Who were the pre-1965 south asians?
My father's mother's family. My mother is an 80s immigrant.
Sorry, I meant how did they come over? I don’t know there were any pre-1965 desis.
Stowed away in 1929 to NYC. A lot of Bengali and Punjabi Muslim sailors jumped ship there and in New Orleans to some extent (Google Fatima Shaik) and tended to marry Blacks and Latinos. On the west coast it tended to be more Sikh farmers.
Fascinating story!
Thanks! Might have been 1919-1920 actually, I have to check.
Great summary. I’d add that it’s largely unconscious. It’s like, fish are happy swimming. Why wouldn’t they be?
I will have to check out the Farewell, didn’t know about it!
[dead]
> Not that there’s anything else I would want to do!
That's the key part IMHO. If you're happy with the balance you landed on, why not.
I think some kids really benefit from the traditional Asian style, and they reach levels that would be hard to reach otherwise. The main issue is not all kids are in that boat, and they'll need to be miserable for a pretty long time before the parents change course and try alternative approaches (if they ever do).
Only the parents can decide if they want to force the square peg into a perfect round hole, and if the kid will thank them later or hate them for life (or jump through a window, shortening the waiting time). Even in Asia not all parents want to take that risk.
> That's the key part IMHO. If you're happy with the balance you landed on, why not.
But I would go further and say that lots of american kids who feel aimless would be happier if they were raised in a culture that tells them what to do and then socially rewards them for doing it. The efficient market fairy is a bad way of thinking about how the economy works, but it’s also a bad way of thinking about how people work.
I agree that, in asian society, some portion of kids suffer from being a square peg that parents try to shove in a round hole. But I think Americans overestimate the share of the population that’s square pegs, and underestimate the share of the population that would be happier being told what shape they are and what hole they fit into.
> I think some kids really benefit from the traditional Asian style, and they reach levels that would be hard to reach otherwise.
I absolutely agree.
> or is it just more of a western mentality
Where do you get the idea that "have kids and treat them as a side thought" is a Western mentality? In the West, we usually use prophylactics to avoid kids until we want them. That's why the birth rate is so low.
Having seen both perspectives I think a happy medium is possible. The self centered nature of some parents of the western societies doesn't really end up helping out the children whereas the complete abandonment of self for the sake of family also has limitation.
The contradiction of those traditional life goals: providing for parents and having descendents, isn't about abandoning one's children. Rather, it's about making those choices willingly and consciously, and without sacrificing your own well-being.
Many Asian parents treat their children as their "retirement plan", which places a significant "debt" on those children after they graduate from college (or high school). They're also often expected to have at least one male descendant to carry on the family name, who, in return, is expected to ensure their financial support after they retire, just like how they did to their parents.
This system is an infinite loop that places a massive financial burden on everyone in society, consuming their lives, and ultimately benefiting no one. It's good to provide for loved ones and raise children, but both are significant commitments and should be considered choices, not obligations.
IMHO, the "western" style of retirement, i.e. using other people's children's money to fund the elderly's retirement doesn't look that great either...
>For all the talk of “choice”—Americans don’t really that happiness is itself a choice.
Dead on. This is the end state of materialism. An mindset where happiness is not something to be created internally, but externally bought or acquired.
> It's common for Asian people
It is only common in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and Korea).
Sidebar but don’t those countries usually get called “ East Asia”? Northeast Asia would more accurately be Siberia
Southeast as well (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, etc). I don't know much about South and West Asian cultures
+India :)
Yep.
Jong-Hee was self-made, and did not come from a Chaebol family. Samsung is controlled by the (founding) Lee family, and as of 2025, Samsung's executive chairman (Lee Jae-yong) is the family patriarch.
Samsung might not have been his baby, but glad he could taste the very pinnacle of power in SK before death came knocking.
Building and growing a business of any size is probably one of the most intellectually stimulating lives possible. People work for years without any where close to his amount of engagement with the world.
What do you mean 'all he has to show for it is an inheritance and obituary'? What else was he supposed to have or anyone else for that matter? I'd think inheritance covers a lot at the very least.
I mean, maybe he meant to point out that south korea as a country focuses way too much on this work culture and he might've sacrificed his precious family time / just became a "well off cog" in this huge machine.
Maybe he was passionate. Maybe he felt obliged / motivated even to prove to others who helped him get to CEO that he was the right choice.
But in the end , like all people , he died.
In the end , all he had after all his efforts were inheritance and obituary.
We might never know if his final moments were full of regret or full of acceptance & happiness.
Death is just one breath away. Knocking on our doors. Our fragile egos can't understand death but it very desperately tries to.
I am not sure why but I really wish to end my comment with the famous quote by Albert Camus, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." (Not sure, if it really relates to the other paragraphs in this comment but I for one felt like that so I am just writing it out here)
Not SK in particular but the point of all of this in general, especially for those who have reached such heights.
63 is a young age to die in a rich country, especially for a corporate titan. Warren Buffett has been at the helm of Berkshire Hathaway an entire-my-lifetime of years between him and Jong-hee Han.
Gabe Newell famously has yachts around the world, explores the oceans and seems to be enjoying the fruits of his labor without kicking the bucket immediately after the release of Half Life 2.
Chuck Feeney made himself a multi billionaire and impressively gave it all away to charity within his lifetime. While so many plutocrats would “pledge” their wealth after death, Feeney had the stones to do it while he drew breath, earning him a high seat in the pantheon of philanthropy.
So what’s the point of all this work if it buys you an early grave? I’m sure he would have enjoyed a comfortable and lengthy retirement with his family, if he could’ve gotten there.
Beautifully Written! I think this was sort of what I was also saying, though you wrote it out more succint.
In fact, I might argue that why not take this step further! Like yes, gabe newell has his yachts and he's having fun. But I might argue that its not his yachts that we aspire. Its his freedom. And I think its this freedom of having fun which we need to maximize (let's try to df/dx it ,jk) and in my opinion, you don't need tooo much money (100 Million-esque) to do that.
I think even a million - 10 Mill can be great, but even better could be something like how the 4 hour work week recommends. Though, to be honest, my issue with the 4h work week is that you are forced to leave the comfort of job security for once and he says that you can enter any time soon but I genuinely believe that the current job market is rough, so that's the only caveat I have.
For that, I think that you have to be frugal and have a huge emergency fund. Something which suits me quite well actually.
This is most definitely a viewpoint on life.
I've also worked with people with an entirely different viewpoint and I highly respected them and don't think they lived any less of a life, in fact they are greatly missed and leave behind a legacy.
The architype of those people, "I'm not slowing down, while I can still do my work I'll go on until they take me out of here feet first. That's why you guys are around me, I expect you to call me out when you see me slipping." And they really did get carried out feet first. Their memorials were attend by thousands willingly and they are still respected and an inspiration to those that worked with them.
Neither is wrong. Life isn't binary either. If someone is happy who are we to judge their life.
> This is most definitely a viewpoint on life.
> I've also worked with people with an entirely different viewpoint and I highly respected them and don't think they lived any less of a life, in fact they are greatly missed and leave behind a legacy.
> The architype of those people, "I'm not slowing down, while I can still do my work I'll go on until they take me out of here feet first. That's why you guys are around me, I expect you to call me out when you see me slipping." And they really did get carried out feet first. Their memorials were attend by thousands willingly and they are still respected and an inspiration to those that worked with them.
> Neither is wrong. Life isn't binary either. If someone is happy who are we to judge their life.
> Their memorials were attend by thousands willingly and they are still respected and an inspiration to those that worked with them.
But, they are dead. /s
I actually think we should discuss such things more publicly.
So many people glorify their role in the cog. Not realising that nobody cares.
I mean, everybody dies.
More like you are pushing your perspective out here. You think he didn't enjoy being in charge of an organization that was building some remarkable products and pushing the possibility of what humanity can build?
I think maybe you would prefer sitting on a beach doing nothing but I bet you this person enjoyed what they were doing on the whole.
>but I bet you this person enjoyed what they were doing on the whole.
well given that the man just dropped dead of a heart attack at his daughters wedding at a relatively young age I'd maybe take that bet. I'm currently reading Evan Dou's book on Huawei and one constant among the leaders in that company seems to be mental and physical exhaustion, up to depression, chronic illness and suicide, virtually no time spent with family, and not enjoyment but an almost martial sense of loyalty to the company.
Running Western companies already doesn't seem to do wonders for one's mental health judging by some of the prominent figures, but East Asian giants sound even worse. I'll take the beach and my family over either one
You under estimate that people very much want to build and be part of something lasting and meaningful.
Certainly takes its mental toll - its part of the trade off and it certainly isn't for everyone. Its a demanding job.
My point is that some people want that and some people want to hang out at the beach - its a personal choice.
OP original comment is question why people work so hard - because sometimes to do important things it requires hard work.
"Makes you wonder what we’re working so hard for."
he living a lavish live and probably didn't have to think about money for his life and his descendant
Some people are working as hard as they can for humanity in general. It's still "for them" in the sense that this is what drives and motivates them. But we're all the winners. These are the folks that work long hours at the expense of their own health and family relationships. These are the folks that people ask about "don't they already have enough money" - when it's not about the money at all. It's about doing and creating and building something better for humanity. Sometimes these are our best corporate leaders, or government officials, or scientists, or even revolutionaries and cultural leaders.
I'm very grateful for these people.
Status seeking, cultural conditioning, an innate desire to be valuable to your community/loved ones. Certainly don't do it to consume more, which is what basically all economic models assume.
That's a very pessimistic view on the role of work. Whilst possibly true, it's equally possible that his decent choices allowed Samsung to succeed in areas, and in turn recently employ more people, who in turn could live safe, stable fulfilling lives. I think people forget how bad a chaotic life without safety nets is for most people.
Of course, this is all a hunch, I hear Samsung is quite a good company.
> Makes you wonder what we’re working so hard for
You're working for the life you get to live in the hours inbetween that you're not working.
The world judges the guy by being the CEO of Samsung. However he judges his life by what he got on the in between. Hopefully by his standards he lived a full life, loving family, experiences, etc.
Pretty sure he lived a life past just having “to show for it is an inheritance and obituary.” He wasn’t an IC drone and this probably makes more sense if you’re in Korea.
Some people die sooner than expected but that doesn't mean their yardstick should be measured in quantity of years. What about quality?
The guy was making ~$4M per year.
Presumably he was living a quite nice and comfortable life.
Did he? Money is no guarantee for happiness or comfort. Considering his position and how young he died, he likely had a very stressful live, and little time for his personal enjoyments. At least, he hadn't enough time to take care of his own health.
My assumption is, he worked hard to gain money, and died before he reached the point where he could fully use it for his personal benefit. Which is indeed sad.
Do you actually know anything about his life? I don't know how you can make that assumption at all.
No, I don't, which is why I wrote it's "my assumption". What I know is the life of managers, high performers, Korean culture, and that he died too young. People in that position usually have an awful work/live-balance, too much stress, not enough time for their own personality and self-fulfillment because of a toxic environment.
The average life expectancy in South Korea seems 82.68 years. So he died nearly 20 years too early, with wealth which should allow him to outlive the expectancy by 20 years instead. So yeah, my assumption is he had all the money, but not enough fun.
He reached to top of his profession, high social status, decent money. Maybe it is USA/western obsession with longevity. From where I am, people would totally fine if someone died in 60s after such high level accomplishments.
Absolutely wild how people will just make up a story to fill in the gaps in their knowledge, and believe it.
This makes me think... how is it that in 2025, a 63 year old super rich guy can die of a heart attack.
By now, we should have some sort of portable appliance a medication that would save us from sudden heart attack.
Unless there is zero probability someone rich can die of heart attack even if they are billionaire. Overall they are dying less from preventable/lifestyle diseases which is reasonable expectation.
Journey, not the destination I'd say. I'm sure he must have enjoyed being CEO in the end.
You are a leader of one of the most influential companies in the world and most likely the most influential in Korea.
Maybe the author is questioning if the journey was worth it?
Did he feel in the moments leading up to his death ,that his influence was used in the most effective ways or did he feel regret about the ways he used his influence.
To be honest, I think money can have diminishing returns after some point, and maybe with his CEO , he got a lot of responsibilities which might have really stressed him out (which potentially , increases heart attack rate)
>Makes you wonder what we’re working so hard for.
Plenty of people enjoy the work they do...
Work is worship
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
If you're wishing hell on other people, you don't understand hell.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for posting too many unsubstantive and flamebait comments (not just in this thread but in many others).
That's not allowed here—it's not what the site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.