Hacker News Reader

Comment by radmuzom | Hacker News Reader

Ten years back, when I was fresh out of college, I joined a startup - not as a founder but as the first employee. A lot of it was driven by reading Paul Graham's essays, and I was naive and immature enough to believe that I was doing something great (as an aside, I came from an economically disadvantaged family; and every cent of my assets today is something I have earned and not something which I have inherited or obtained from anyone including my family). Two important things I learned from the experience - 1. The experience as an employee is completely different from being a founder; a lot of my friends have deluded themselves into believing that early employees enjoy as much benefits as the founders. 2. It is very hard to take risks when you are not financially secure; yes, I am pretty sure that there are counterexamples but I believe my statement is true on average. Now after ten years mostly working in large companies, I have some savings which will allow me to last two years in case I lose my job. Also, I like to think that I have enough skills not to die of hunger if it happens. This has resulted in me being much more "entrepreneurial" and I am already working towards starting a company in the next two years.

TL, DR; On an average, it is much easier to start a start-up if you have some basic level of financial security in your life.

View on HN

I have a very similar story, except I'm on part one. Recent graduate, very modest family, and drank all the Paul G koolaid which got me to jump into the whole scene just to realize I'm mostly surrounded by upper middle class types where there's still risk being taken just not nearly as much. This has taught me to always consider the source of advice more rigorously. I still think he's a great thinker, but some of the advice should come with a disclaimer.

I haven't been turned away from the tech startup world, but I'll be much more calculated if I'm ever to join another one. I also don't plan on staking my career purely in startups and am attracted to bootstrapped business now more than ever.

Agree. The risk of having to run back to mummy and daddy with their tail between their legs is no risk at all. I could be quite entrepreneurial if I didn't also have to pay for my apartment and food every month without fail.

But from a broader social standpoint, isn't it a good thing that people who can afford to take risks are the ones taking the risks? It sucks on an individual basis if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't risk failure, but it's not such a bad thing that the affluent are taking larger economic risks than the poor.

It sorta spits at the idea of social mobility ("the american dream") though. The biggest rewards are only really available to those who can take risks like starting a business, and if you restrict that to only those who are already well-off, you remove most chances for the poor to ascend to the higher classes.

This implies that you believe that there is a global elite and there has always been a global elite and that they are all related and there is no way to become a part of that elite.

Because if you say that "if you restrict that to only those who are already well-off", their parents probably weren't or their parents' parents etc.

There are many occupations that really only require hard work and little risk that has big payout.

The end result here is that no, life isn't "fair". But by and large, a person that has the ability to take risk, does and succeeds will create that ability for others to do the same in the future.

> There are many occupations that really only require hard work and little risk that has big payout.

Such as?

Medicine.

You need quite more than just hard work to become a doctor.

This is why a social security net (ie. Welfare state) can actually be good for the economy. In fact, most western countries qualify as 'welfare states' when compared to 3rd world countries.

But this supports the whole idea of a basic income - if everyone is able to live without working, they can take risks such as going to University, starting a business, etc...

A lack of social net prevents risk taking and severly limits mobility, creating a 'have-not' class and keeping them there for the most part.

There isn't that much social mobility, there's plenty of statistics that prove that. The American dream is just that, a dream. Like most dreams, the odds are long. You can reduce those odds, but don't kid yourself that it will be easy.

Maybe so, but there's no point in making the situation worse. If we can make it better, we should.

Do you have those statistics? I'm not trying to be unreasonable. It's just that I've tried looking for this data before, and all I found was that social mobility (in the US) has remained relatively unchanged for about 50 years, and that's probably the best it's ever been.

I think we could do better, but I'm not sure what you are saying is correct, either.

There's a lot out there spinning the same result different ways; but I think that's the general status -- social mobility hasn't changed in the US for decades.

There's rather clearer data that the gap between rich & poor continues to widen in the US, which makes it a bit more bleak that going from poor to rich is still a rough uphill battle.

It's also fairly disheartening when you think of all the things that have changed in the past 50 years, many efforts that should help social mobility. Attempting to stop pervasive lead poisoning, lots of grants and policies to help get poor kids through basic and into higher education, legal and other sorts of efforts against sexism and racism... all kinds of things intended to hopefully make the playing ground more fair for everyone haven't actually moved this particular needle at all.

For a bit more context, also look outside of the US. If you want to live the American dream, you'll have a much better chance in Denmark. Reference here (though I read about it elsewhere a few years ago... can't remember orig src): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...

Of the 9 developed countries in that study, only the UK ranked worse than the US.

yeah, the affluent, taking one for the team <3

I would rather see the most able taking the risks, because they'll be the ones most likely to succeed, and we all benefit.

Assigning resources to the most able is, of course, an immensely difficult problem that nobody really knows how to solve. But it should be the goal, and I don't see affluence as a good substitute.

How many people are out there right now with the personal ability to change the world in some large beneficial way, but without the necessary finances? What are the rest of us missing out on because they're stuck working a 9-5 job to pay their rent, while some idiot with money is building Twitter for Cats and talking about how much of a risk taker he is because he's living off $50,000 in savings until the VC money comes in?

No, that's the opposite of how it should be.

In an ideal world would be everyone would be free to take business risks, and customers would reward the ideas that offer a real benefit.

What we have now is a world where hardly anyone is free to take business risks, and the people who are tend to share the same political and social values.

Politically, that makes for caste perpetuation and monoculture - which is the exact opposite of the entrepreneurial mythology.

In some ways it's good, but in other ways it's worse. One noteworthy change in the last few years compared to say 10 to 20 years ago, most startups are either self-funded or funded through incubators of the already rich, unlike pre-2005 or so when regular investors had a chance getting in relatively close to the ground floor (let's ignore that most everyone lost their shirt!)

I think the negative of this is that most of the wealth created in the technology is going to remain in the pockets of those who are already rich and well connected.

I'm increasingly feeling like as our society becomes more technically advanced, it's almost inevitable that the vast majority of wealth is going to flow up to the top 10%.

The refrain of posers everywhere...

You of course are right. Tail between legs is embarrassing but in the end you won't go hungry or homeless.

Problem is in popular culture there are also stories about the 1 out of 1000 guys (just like you) that essentially gambled and came out ahead. Let me say that again. Gambled and won. You hear those all of the time. What you don't hear is about the ones who lost or hit the skids as a result of those chances that they took. Or maybe you do (there are always counter stories floating about) but the shine of the winners typically totally blocks those out.

For example I am sure in response to this thread someone has already mentioned the type of family that Steve Jobs came from.

That's the big fallacy of capitalism. Nobody buy books about the guys who took a risk and lost everything, but everybody buys books about the One Guy who became millionaire after being a drop out.

What you call "popular culture", is just propaganda to make people believe that if they don't became rich is their own fault.

A suggestion for the disclaimer:

*this advice only applies to upper middle class white males based in Silicon Valley(or at least the US), who own trendy startups that have raised some VC funding

You don't have to be a white male to be an upper middle class startup founder.

Yeah but then you typically have to drop out from Stanford.

That still does not make sense.

don't get it all too literally. it's about certain stereotypes.

I know a lot of Blacks, Asians, and Women born into a lot more privilege than I, who exhibit the same behavior as those white male founders who sometimes get described as egotistical/ self absorbed/ "douchey".

I mean, are you trying to claim there are no upper middle class tech scensters who are Black, Asian, or Female? Or do they get a pass for acting exactly like the white male counterpart because they aren't white males?

The lesson from this is don't drink anyone's kool aid consciously. PG has a huge incentive to wax heroic about the "risk takers" "makers" and "founders"; it's the Silicon Valley cargo cult, and should be compensated against in the mind of the reader. Always be brutally critical of applying the question of qui bono-- always, no exceptions, ever.

PG has little incentive to explicitly qualify ideas that are his foundation (regarding the prerequisites for the above), and frankly it'd kind of break up the nice flow his pieces have anyway if he did. His target audience doesn't want to be told that they started life on second base, and honestly it's quite annoying to have someone tell you so with the intention of taking you down a peg.

> taking you down a peg.

Like, back to first base, say?

Or at the back of the rotation, maybe even playing for the farm team rather than the Show.

>honestly it's quite annoying to have someone tell you so with the intention of taking you down a peg.

This is why a lot of HNers flag articles about privilege, sexism, etc.

Privilege is just secular "original sin".

I bet that line goes over well at the golf course.

But claiming someone has privilege isn't a value judgement on the person, or a sin. Its not claiming they did anything wrong, or that its their fault. I'm not sure why people are so offended when others point out their privilege. Saying someone has privilege is just pointing out the state of the world, it isn't a judgment.

People without food allergies have privilege in that they don't have to constantly worry whether what they eat will kill them. The people with privilege often just don't have to think about or deal with stuff that those without do.

> Saying someone has privilege is just pointing out the state of the world, it isn't a judgment.

It could, in principle, be just a claim about the state of the world; in practice, its quite often an ad hominem to dismiss a position they've taken, and often its that with a side of implicit moral judgement that the position is not only invalid because of the claimed privilege, but also that it is maliciously offered as a defense of that privilege at the expense of the unprivileged.

That's not to say that privilege doesn't exist (it does), or that it doesn't at times blind people to others' experiences (it does), or that it doesn't at times lead to people, consciously or not, defending it at the expense of the unprivileged (it does that, too!)

But to pretend that claims of privilege are non-judgemental is ignoring how they are actually used in practice.

>But claiming someone has privilege isn't a value judgement on the person, or a sin...Saying someone has privilege is just pointing out the state of the world, it isn't a judgment.

That is exactly the same argument that bigots use when they talk about {minorities, poor people, immigrants, LGBT people}. "That person fits into category X, and everyone in category X shares some characteristic Y because they're in that category. I'm just saying that because it's true!" It doesn't matter who that generalization is made about, whether they're the dominant group in society or not. It's still a terrible generalization and an intellectually lazy argument and in and of itself carries a judgement. If you grant that something like "white privilege" or "male privilege" exists (and most people that buy into the concept do) then by that logic a homeless, illiterate white man has more privilege than a black woman millionaire CEO.

>People without food allergies have privilege in that they don't have to constantly worry whether what they eat will kill them.

That's absolute nonsense as well. There exist people without food allergies that have other conditions where they constantly have to worry about what they eat, diabetes being an example. So check your cis-gylcemic privilege you fascist!/s Do you see how ridiculous and divisive that sounds?

Damn man, people really wanted to prove your point.

What do you mean?

Just the two other replies to your comment seemed to be pretty typical HN posts regarding sexism/privilege etc.

"PG has a huge incentive to wax heroic about the "risk takers" "makers" and "founders""

To be sure (in the spirt of NY Times "to be sure" statements) [1] PG (who went to Harvard of course as everyone knows) and others always point out the obligatory risks but tend to do so in a way that I think most people perhaps ignore. More or less a "sure it's risky but" as opposed to "you'd be foolish however there's always a small small chance that..."

[1] That is where they (and others in the media) counter something they are saying with the other point of view typically buried 3 quarters down the page as a qualifier.

PG also went to a no-name public high school at a blue collar steel town outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

I like what JWZ wrote about the related topics:

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-se...

"I did make a bunch of money by winning the Netscape Startup Lottery, it's true. So did most of the early engineers. But the people who made 100x as much as the engineers did? I can tell you for a fact that none of them slept under their desk. If you look at a list of financially successful people from the software industry, I'll bet you get a very different view of what kind of sleep habits and office hours are successful than the one presented here."

The whole text is worth reading.

Absolutely. What I think some stating that this is all "common sense" miss is that for many people it's NOT. All the advantages some have are advantages they believe that others have. Couldn't go to university because you had to work? Why didn't your parents help you? What? Nowhere to live? What about your old bedroom? You've supported yourself since you were a teenager? Where were your parents! No money left? Huh? No trust or college fund? Not even a savings account that your parents set up for you? What about your credit card? You're afraid to start a business / go into debt / try to "work your way" through college? Why, if you fail you can just move in with your family! Why not get some "friends and family" investors? The list of these tacit assumptions, and by extension that you're just a fool or lazy because you didn't do those things (supported ideologically in this country by all the Just World Fallacy nonsense) is far more widespread than one may think.

It's really amazing just how many people cannot even fathom that others do not have the familial safety net and have been working to support themselves from an age where said people were just starting to think about what school to go to. For many, until they've lived on the razor's edge, they simply do not have the mental framework for understanding what living that way does to people.

Edit: I'd also add that for those of us who have seen the other side (I was upper middle class from 0-9 years old, fell into poverty after and lived that way until my early 20s - riches to rags sucks. Badly. Read all about it here if you're curious: https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why-software-developers-should...) we know what the other side is like. We've seen it. We know what it's like to never worry about transportation, decent food, school supplies, books, tutors, spending money - and the ever-present implicit safety net. We saw our parents' friends go on vacations, buy multiple cars, live in huge houses, etc. So anyone, anyone who says it isn't a huge advantage is delusional or lying.

A million times yes. This is a common mistake of managers/older people assuming younger/inexperienced folks are dumb from their mistakes and lack of experience. The latter need patience and some guidance for the former to grow their "common sense" to become more capable/productive/successful.

The other antipattern is spoiling kids and helicopter parenting, which leads to sheltered/learned-helplessness kids. Letting kids struggle more to learn for themselves and earn things is important because the role of the parent to prepare people to become independent, survive and thrive. Also, expecting them to do more with much less improves their ingenuity out of necessity. People/startups that are broke can often attain what others cannot because they are able to make something awesome out of what other people call "junk" and waste less money.

The world isn't fair or just. But we all control our attitude and our decisions. Some attitudes and decisions get you a house and food. Some do not.

Speaking as somebody who's been there, I'm really concerned with this "poor changes your mind" thing I'm seeing. Buddhists manage to live and be happy not having much at all. For the vast majority of history, great men lived in conditions much worse than the average poor person in the western world does.

I agree that many rich people do not understand poor people. Likewise, many poor people do not understand rich people. But when people say things like "So your startup doesn't work out, why don't you just go live with family", they are not simply showing that they don't understand your situation. They're trying to point out: what's the worse that could happen? I've been homeless, I've lost everything I've owned. You go through a lot of crap an either you sit in the corner feeling sorry for yourself or you start thinking "So I could lose the house? It's not the end of the world." Doesn't mean I'd do it lightly, but I am in control and I have the power to make that decision.

I really don't care who has a private jet or has never worried about food or shelter. Moreso, I find worrying about those things is a good sign my head is in the wrong place for actually making me a better person.

That's great that you had the mental fortitude to make it through that. For many, being broke and homeless is the very bottom and is psyche-destroying (people are so afraid of it, we even have a phenomenon named for it - Last Place Aversion: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/occupy-wall-street...) You may not like the poor changes your mind thing, and why would anyone? That doesn't make it wrong. For example:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/escaping-the...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-fro...

I'm also referring to the incredible narrowing of choices that you're left with (this one I've experienced first-hand, and by a read of these comments many here have experienced it as well), which you are surely well aware of. Don't let "what you don't like" or "what should/should not be" dictate your interpretation of the reality. I don't like that stuff either, but I'm not going to deny its real effects. It's not only callous, it's not correct.

> TL, DR; On an average, it is much easier to start a start-up if you have some basic level of financial security in your life.

I didn't realize this was some secret. Someone who has parents who are doing well and can pay for their college and living expenses indefinitely will be at an advantage. They can take risks others can't.

BTW, this is true from the time someone is born. Parents who are well off will send their child to pre-pre schools, pay for the best elementary, middle and high schools. Then their child gets to go to college, likely loan free, and can focus on college and not working to pay the bills. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, and I certainly didn't grow up this way. I'm surprised it wasn't common sense.

yes, it is common sense and everyone indeed knows it. But many want to believe in SV as some not rest of the world place with equal opportunities for everyone, just be smart. We all want it to be ruled by meritocracy. That's why we keep drinking this koolaid.

Life isn't fair, especially when it comes to economics. Whenever you think you've found some sector of industry that is more egalitarian, you've probably either stumbled into something where you haven't identified the advantaged and disadvantaged parties (it's easier to miss when you are part of the advantaged group), or the current social context makes it easier to hide. That said, there are lots of very different industries, and one of them probably advantages you in some way if you can find it.

To be honest, I only want to be ruled my a meritocracy if I can define myself as the most intelligent person in the world. (Or, in the upper 10% or something). A true meritocracy scares me. And this from a guy who was in the upper 10% of my high school (upper 4%). But I've seen much more brilliant people out there.

So who honestly wants a meritocracy either?

Another option would be that whoever works hard is taken care of. That sounds like the 1950s corporate job with a pension. It may be less exciting and sounds like it would produce less motive for innovation, but it is also less scary and a bit more fair than rewards to the affluent risk takers.

I have no idea how to get the best of all systems. So I make do in this one. I'm just pointing out that no system (known to man) is perfect.

I'd be frightened to see the world run by people like me, but I'd love to see the world run by the best of the best, as long as we can somehow select for morality as well as intelligence.

Wisdom, integrity, and respect are far more important than intelligence in making a good leader.

It is a bit of koolaid, but I believe we are closer to a meritocracy than we ever have been. Some people will always have it easier, but in software the capital cost to start a company has approached zero. What's left is time, and that is the main thing my post tried to hone in on.

"I believe we are closer to a meritocracy than we ever have been"

While it has always been true that the strongest factor in a successful life is rich parents, I understand that it is more true today in the US than it has been for the last fifty years. That would suggest that we are further from a meritocracy than we were, and moving away from it.

I don't agree with the money angle. What is hurting the US isn't money, but the complete break down of the family structure. And no, I'm not talking about the religious 1 man 1 woman family, but the 2 parent family. Kids need discipline and someone to guide them to make good choices early on. I don't see that as much anymore and you get to where we are today.

I grew up without much of anything. Neither parent finished college and both worked all the time. Yet somehow they drilled into me hard work, education, and don't get a girl pregnant while in high school. I am by no means rich, but have done much better than my parents.

> It is very hard to take risks when you are not financially secure

There's a caveat here. It depends on your responsibilities. If you have children, fixed expenses, then absolutely.

If you have nothing to your name and no responsibilities, it's very easy to take risks without anything to fall back on. After all, you have very little to lose.

indeed. "Almost everything--all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure--these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked." - Steve Jobs

I'm guessing "and are prepared to live in a car/cardboard box". Yes it's do-able but the reality is that a founder does need to be able to have the funds to sprint, fail, and sprint again. It's why people bootstrap.

You can always lose your own life, pretty much. If you can go back to your old room at your parent's room while you find a job and start earning again, sure, it's easy to take risks (I've done it this way).

On the other hand, if you come from a rather poor background and have no one to fall back on, finding yourself with a failed company, in debt, maybe kicked out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say that rather terrifying.

I'm all for entrepreneurship, but if failing means living in the street, then let's just not start a company for now.

> in debt, maybe kicked out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say that rather terrifying.

There are two types of businesses out there. Those that make money from day 1 and simply need to be scaled up. Those that require substantial investment and time before you even make a penny.

For anyone who isn't financially secure, doing the latter is idiotic. There are plenty of business models that you can pursue that don't involve you ending up on the street. A business model where the worst-case scenario is that you wasted some time.

While it is true that you have profitable businesses from day 1 or almost, it still reduces your chances to be able to be an entrepreneur coming from the bottom. This article doesn't say it's impossible. Just that it's less likely/harder. That's a hard truth. You can build around all you want, there is no denying it.

> If you can go back to your old room at your parent's room

Gee here we are again talking about the parents. Why not just ask your parents for a million dollar business loan while you're at it Mitt Romney?

That might (or might not) be true materially; but I would not ignore the psychological effects of growing up financially secure vs. not, and what it tends to do to your capacity to take financial risks specifically. If you don't even hardly know what it feels like to have no safety net at all, if you know you do have a safety net in the form of family that will help you out if things get _really_ bad, at least to keep you off the streets.... it's easier to take risks "without anything to fall back on." If, on the other hand, you know exactly what it really looks like to be at the bottom with truly nothing to fall back on...

true. there was an interesting text posted here once, about how one of the worse things about poverty is that it kills the will to dream big and make plans. when you're scraping by, it's much harder, and any big plan can easily fall through due to bad luck (some unexpected expenses you cannot cover eat up your small savings, e.g., and ironically, since poverty is not healthy, unexpected expenses are more likely).

> ironically, since poverty is not healthy, unexpected expenses are more likely

Well, that's mostly an US issue, I guess. When you live in a country with even modest public healthcare, such as Germany, things are not that terrible.

Here, if you get ill, no matter how bad, you get the base treatment that you need. Of course you can (and should) pay on top of that for better treatment. But event without money, you don't have to fear to be denied important treatments. (With some unfortunate, but luckily very rare exceptions.)

Thinking of that, I wonder why we Germans are so conservative, despite living relatively secure. A large portion of our people could take a lot of risk without falling too deep. Probably this is because "falling deep" here means to have to rely on social welfare provision, of which people are afraid of. But this is not really falling deep, compared to living on the street in utter poverty.

coincidentally, i live and work in Germany ;) immigrated from Croatia 2 years ago. and i agree, no doubt about it, the system is really functional here and provides a good safety net (although, welfare involves a bit of humiliation everywhere, the money is never just handed out...). from my kinda outsider perspective, Germans seem obsessed with doing the "right" thing. the word "ordentlich" came to mind ;) the culture is a bit conformist, not too much, but noticeably. so, many people play it safe, avoid going too far out on a limb. but i'm still processing the whole experience, and occasional culture shocks, so i don't stand too firmly behind these impressions.

Maybe having everything trashed during the World Wars (plus other interesting times like hyper-inflation) instilled conservatism in the common psyche.

Where can I find the article you are talking about?

it was a while ago, but I think it was this one: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-...

(hat tip to Algolia's HN search ;) )

Sorry but that's just such a small part.

I have spoken to a friend who has rich parents, and the psychological effect is that they always know if something goes wrong they can just be supported by their rich parents when they get back on their feet.

Furthermore they know they can bum around until their parents die and get their retirement money in the form of inheritance. You might be surprised how ever-present that thought is to people like that.

But for people without that option, because their parents can't, they make the right decision and don't take a risk because there is nothing to fall back on.

>I have spoken to a friend

I wish people wouldn't speak this confidently with such little life experience.

If you feel that kind of boiler-plate would provide better results, feel free to imagine it and extract the results for yourself.

Or provide details about those experiences you think are needed.

During good times sure. In tight job markets, that resume gap is a killer.

Even that varies based on your ability to find an alternative. If, say, you're a well-spoken geeky-looking white guy with a degree from a decent school, the worst-case scenario from a complete meltdown is something like “I took a job one cube over from Dilbert at <big corp> which has trouble keeping developers”.

The further you deviate from that (not fluent in the right language, from the wrong minority/gender, self-taught, etc.) the more reasonable it is to question how a failure will impact your ability to get jobs at your level or even stay in the field.

Agreed. It always seemed to me that people with nothing to lose can take can take the biggest risks.

TL, DR; It is much easier to do X if you have some basic level of financial security in your life.

Same goes for education. "Rich" people can pursue and education in terms of opportunity costs. Some kids I went to HS with had to work part time to support their own families, having less time to invest in their education ... really sad story.

Don't forget the unpaid internships. Only wealthy kids can take advantage of those.

Or protected classes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155774/

er Chris was talking about the really high status Jobs in the creative liberal arts professions its not a so much a problem in STEM fields.

Your description of being an employee resonates with me, and thank you for giving some insight into how you've approached your career and what you see in the future. Though I came from a financially supportive environment, I was (wisely) cautioned against being a risk-taker with my career due to medical issues that I can't afford to manage without good company sponsored health insurance. My parents urged me to get good skills so that I could be a valuable employee, obtain a nice standard of living, and have some security in the sense that if I had to change jobs, then I would have skills and a good background in order to get hired and retained.

Here's where the correlative kicks in: I always wanted to be a full-time musician, and I still do...but I view success in music a lot like being involved with a start-up. There's the product/service angle (quality and innovation matter, unless they don't), the investor relationship (labels), the marketing budget, and absolutely no guarantees of success. Actually, it's an offhand joke, but being a full-time musician writing originals (e.g. not in a wedding/corporate party cover band) is a lot like choosing poverty up front for a potential windfall later.

Being an employee has been a choice, and one that I'm glad to have made because with patience and investing in myself, I've been able to acquire lots of equipment and spent hundreds - if not thousands - of hours playing, writing and recording music. Because I didn't seek out the 'traditional' channel of label investment and signing away certain rights, I've been able to build a library of my own content which I consider like a savings of sorts. Maybe it's a worthless legacy in dollar terms, or maybe when an opportunity finally arises to do some business with my material, I won't be caught empty handed. The trade-off in security and health isn't glamorous, but it's certainly something I'm proud of choosing and accomplishing thus far.

TL,DR; If your goal is to get a Nolan Ryan rookie card and the guy won't trade it unless you offer the entire roster of the 1989 Oakland As Championship team in trade, then get to work building up what you need to get what you want.

I agree with you but with one important caveat.

The difference is that today you can build a side project on the side while working in a company and hopefully build something up that way. This wasn't possible 20 years ago in the same way.

Yep, that's exactly what I am planning on doing. At this stage, gaining some knowledge around a few ideas which interest me.

Would you elaborate on how different is the life as the employee compared to the life of the founder (in your experience)?

In this specific case, 1. Very low salary - just enough to afford housing and food. 2. No equity - though the founders promised that I would get some later (yeah, I know I was an idiot). 3. Working 12 hour days including Saturdays.

The founders were quite rich and they were of course passionate about their own company because of which they worked even more than me, but I could never feel the same enthusiasm. Interestingly, both of them had worked for larger companies, studied in and traveled to various countries for work which gave me the idea that perhaps it is better to be in a start-up once I have experienced what they have.

Thirty-five years back, I went to work as the fourth person in a start-up (that's still in business) and loved the fast-paced environment of a start-up life. Fifteen years ago, I went to work for "BigCo", and while our group was essentially an internally funded start-up, I hated the politics, especially as we acquired other companies and tried to integrate their software products into ours.

The good news is that succeeding at three of the four start-ups left me with enough stock options to fund (my share) of my next start-up with cash. While it's looking like I may not see a return on that investment, the product was certainly something the industry needs/needed. As a small boot-strapped company, it's almost impossible to move an industry.

I'm currently working at a university and we've tailored the culture within our group to be much like you'd find in a start-up (the political machinations of a university can however be brutal). In any case, I think I have a couple more ideas that could be turned into start-ups and enough working years left to build a couple more start-ups. I can't think of anything that's more fun.

In contrast to you, I came from an upper-middle class family with a stay-at-home mom and a go-to-work dad. Things were comfortable when I was at home but I'd have never asked any of my relatives for money to create a start-up and my parents were far more risk averse than I (originally they mildly disapproved of the risks I was taking but seem to have realized I always "left myself an out" so that in the worst possible outcome, I could take care of my wife and kids).

So it might be true that most kids these days have the money to be entrepreneurs, I say it was definitely in my genes. (As an aside, in the '80s I think most of the start-ups I saw were people who were risking almost everything to get started because they had a vision - it's much easier to fail if there are no consequences).

Do people really believe that their upper-middle class upbringings offered no advantages other than cash?

They think money solves every problem, completely ignoring family stability, risk assessment by family members, advice, a roof over your head, more daylight hours since chores are split up between family members, sanity, etc.

I didn't mean to imply I didn't have advantages ... just being born where I was was a tremendous advantage. On the other hand, I wasn't a legacy dumped into an Ivy League college, I wasn't handed a trust fund or even enough money to even live for a month.

My parents wanted me to follow the "safe path", to be the '50s style company man who would work his 40 years and retire with a good pension. They wouldn't endorse the life I ended up living. I was however encouraged to be curious and the "hack". That was an amazing gift and I am in fact grateful for my privileged upbringing - I'm just not tanned from laying on the beach at the Hamptons.

That's a shame. Imagine what you could have accomplished with even better genes.

> Now after ten years mostly working in large companies, I have some savings which will allow me to last two years in case I lose my job.

After 10 years of being a software engineer you should have enough to retire forever (albeit in some third world country).

From a disadvantaged family (no initial savings) and perhaps student loans (ill-advised, but not uncommon) -- it's not unthinkable that he hasn't hit "soft retire" numbers after 10 years.

But your sentiment is correct: If you're debt-free, you should be able to "soft retire" after 10 years as a software engineer in today's markets.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "soft retire"?

Build a sufficiently large investment portfolio such that annual income from investments approximately equals annual expenses. Note that this may require moving to an area with lower cost of living (eg. working in SFBA for 10 years and then moving to the midwest).

The approximate rule of thumb (not accounting for investment variability, so be careful!) is that you can extract 4% of your investments annually without affecting the basis (while adjusting it for inflation). So if you can live off that 4% (ie. $40k off a $1M investment portfolio), then you can "soft retire."

There are entire communities dedicated to this notion (eg. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim...)

Another thing to factor in is being from a lower income area will distort your perception of what a large number is. I come from a town where the per capita income is 20k. My first "real" job was doing tech support at $16/hr. It felt like A LOT of money to me. I thought I was getting overpaid, that sentiment followed me for years. Today making 125k I still feel overpaid, though when I look at the value I produce for the company, and the numbers of my peers I know it's not. It took me many years to get to 125k because each step up the ladder felt pretty big to me even though it probably wasn't compared to my peers.

Pay is very relative. I look at my old high school buddies, they range from 25k-40k. The first time I asked for 100k, I thought it was craziness. Like no human being deserves that amount of money. So it took me several years to build up to that number.

I can completely relate to this. Doing a practice interview with a career counselor we got to the part about negotiating pay. I said I had no idea how to do this. She said ask for 70k as a junior developer. I told her that, that felt like saying "I'll be needing all the money in the world please."

What part of the country do you live in? That's a great salary in some places, and an incredible salary in others.

if you have no life outside work, sure ;)

No, that's if you take home $100k and 'only' spend half of it (which already represents the median household income in the US)

OK, but how many developers in the US get $100k? Throughout the first 10 years of their career?

And I'm sorry, I should explain - I live and work in the EU, in Germany right now. So I can't compare. In any case, one can certainly save, and I'm not gonna lie, I could certainly spend less without losing too much :) But a claim like "10 years is enough to retire" seems a bit extreme.

$100k after tax (including stock) is basically starting salary in the valley for 22-year-old college graduates at big companies.

well, a full answer to the question would also need the percentage of college graduates that land jobs in big companies in the valley...

P.S. I don't think we'll get far with this... i just noticed, e.g., "median household income in the US" - that seems a tricky thing to compare with, given that many ppl in the US don't have health insurance, or live in trailer parks eating off food stamps...

I think almost all my (upper-year) classmates got offers to at least one of Amazon/Microsoft/Google/Facebook/Twitter/Palantir/Uber. And I went to a school in Canada that nobody's ever heard of (University of Waterloo).

> And I went to a school in Canada that nobody's ever heard of (University of Waterloo).

Erm, that's well-known as an excellent school. Top-tier, really. My only qualms about inviting in a Waterloo man for an interview would be that our work might not be interesting enough.

What with one of Tommy Flowers colleagues moving there post ww2 :-)

Read Cryptonmicon and you can work out who Randy's' family is based on

From across the pond, I can tell you we do have heard of you.

I don't follow the Shangai listings (because to me they are kinda pointless) but if pressed to list canadian universities, University of Waterloo would definitely be there....

You do realize that Waterloo has a CS program that's highly regarded (internationally), yes?

Outside tech circles most people give me a blank stare or ask me if it's in England or in Belgium. It's certainly not an Ivy League school where my rich parents dropped $200k to ensure my spot in the upper class, like some of these commenters claim.

For sure. Why you're getting my response, and others like it, is because well, this is a tech circle and we're talking about tech jobs, so in this context, it's certainly nowhere close to being a school no one has heard of.

edit: Your original comment (paraphrased) was, 'I go to this school no one's heard of, but my classmate get offers to <top-tier tech companies>', but the reality of this is that all of these top-tier tech companies are without a doubt quite aware of Waterloo and it's quality. The same can't be said for, what, I don't know, Cleveland State University.

Humblebrag by association.

SV salary levels are not the norm across the industry. Furthermore, these high salaries in places like SV are often displaced by the extreme cost of living.

Which brings us full circle back to the topic of the article such that its only children of rich parents who graduated from ivies, white "1% rock star programmer" males only, then you don't need the easy cash anyway.

Children of rich parents come in all shapes, sizes, and colours, friend.

You can consistently get $100k in Silicon Valley, New York City, and Washington DC Metro, although you will need Top Secret security clearance for the latter.

It should come as no surprise that the expenses in those areas are much higher. If you settle for a lower salary in an area with lower living expenses, your effective savings rate could be higher.

Also, you don't want those DC jobs. Just say no. The military industrial complex is a soul-eating machine, and it does not respect software professionals.

The problem is that other places have fewer available jobs in the field, and a greater proportion of them are extremely unglamorous. $90k maintaining a stupid, business-line CRUD app may be less attractive than $80k making custom software for medical researchers.

Good luck saving half your income, even at $100k, in any of those places. Median rent alone in SF is way over half of that in a year... BEFORE taxes.

I saved over 80% of my take-home pay when I lived in SF. The rent is expensive, yes, but everything else is cheap and at most jobs you get free food and entertainment.

Don't forget Seattle. Amazon/Microsoft/Expedia/etc.

As I mentioned in another unrelated thread, most people do not have the discipline to do this. It is simply unrealistic... but, yes, it can be done.

.... what planet do you live on? That certainly isn't the case for the vast majority of developers, even if their lifestyle involves a studio apartment and ramen noodles.

GDP per capita in Vietnam is $2k. I think you're overestimating how much it costs to retire. Even $500k would be enough that you'd never touch the principle.

I think you're underestimating the social cost of moving halfway around the world to a place where you aren't familiar with the culture or language or people.

If you're single and socially unattached, your proposition is viable. But you can't readily expect someone's SO and/or children to be as willing to cut ties with their home. And if you have a solid group of friends, that's a big thing to give up and to try and rebuild in a foreign land without the benefit of common language and culture.

I am from a third world country myself :) and have always earned in the country's currency. And even though I did start working as a software engineer in the startup I mentioned, I did not eventually continue in the field and do statistical modelling for a living (which pays much more than the average software engineer here).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com