>What we generally mean when we say "nice problem to have" is that the preconditions for having this problem are nice to have. i.e. you cannot have this problem unless some other nice thing happens first. This is not at all a reliable predictor of the amount of suffering involved.

Doesn't matter, because at that point you've already made millions/billions...

That's kind of the whole point: that a "nice problem to have" emerges only when it can no longer be a catastrophic loss of your early startup, but an annoyance in your mature and company (perhaps after you're already sold it, IPOed, and made millions). At that point it's not your problem as a CEO/CTO/etc anymore, it's just a case of throwing money at some engineers to fix the thing.

E.g. who gives a fuck if PHP was not robust of the early architecture not scalable enough for Facebook? They've already made billions by the point it became an issue, and they trivially threw money and engineers and fixed it eventually...

Whereas obsessing over the "right future proof" architecture would have likely killed their early momentum, diverted precious resources, and so on...

This article painted a picture in my mind of someone who complains often/too much

> My standard response to the concept has often been "Yes but nice problems to have are still problems"

"A nice problem to have" is something we should be telling ourselves, not having to hear from others. To me, anyway.

An addendum to this excellent article:

Perhaps when they say this to you, you should have a little perspective and laugh at yourself. It's emotionally healthy.

"I had to fire my cleaning lady today!" OK, remind yourself to be grateful you're able to hire a cleaning lady.

To the author of the piece:

Yes, we all know what "nice problems to have" means. Nobody is trying to fool you. They're offering a different perspective. And the obsessive focus on your problems is the reason people offer that perspective shift.

It's an interesting take and there are certainly real such problems. A good example is winning the lottery. Many people that did hit the jackpot suffered afterwards.

But I often feel that some "nice problems to have" aren't, after all, problems. You are moving from place A to place B on $NICE_LAKE and don't know how to accommodate your motorboat on place B? Not a problem in my book, barely an inconvenience. Your cleaning (let's face it) lady called in sick and you are awaiting guests? Sorry, to say that, but it's not something you can bitch about.

> Nice problems to have are the opposite of nice: They isolate you from the ability to complain about them, which removes a major bonding activity with people who have not been successful in the same way as you, and also causes you to feel worse about the problems with those who do not share your burden.

Scalability issues are nice problems to have. Not everyone has them, but everyone on HN can relate to them. So I don't think the premise of the article holds up, really.

I work with some people who are much poorer than me and some much richer than me, and it does cause some social confusion about what is venting, what is a request for assistance, etc.

Occasionally I hear the much richer people complain about how expensive something they want is, as though they think it's unfair that they can't afford it. Tough to keep myself from resenting their sense of entitlement.

I try to remember not to make the same mistake.

When we say "... but it's a nice problem to have", what we're often doing is indicating that we're complaining in order to vent frustration or anxiety we're feeling, and that the person we're talking to isn't expected to take any action other than offering sympathy. Translate it as "this sucks, but I'll be fine".

It's lonely at the top...

I always interpret the phrase to mean: “that’s not a bad thing”. specifically in contexts such as “we have more demand than supply” or “we’re hiring a ton of new people”.

Typically in contrast to the alternative.

Richard Cory had everything a man could want, power, grace and style.