Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I am in my 40s and I work with a young married guy in his mid 20s who i would consider a level 1 software engineer on a scale of 1 to 5. He is a dreamer thinking he can strike it rich with his great startup idea working on it part time because he hears stories of all the people who sold their startups and thinks that's such a glamorous life.

First I told him about survivorship bias and laid out basically the same statistics as in the article. Then I showed him that he could double his income in 3-5 years just by learning the craft of software engineering - risk free -- and still have plenty of time to enjoy his new marriage and enjoy his hobbies.

If his own company was struggling, he would be up late worrying about it. If the company he is working for is struggling and he keeps his skills up, he could easily get another job in our metro area. It's been that way for me for over 20 years.

I enjoy being a corporate drone, I go to work every day and leave the job at work -- and I'm a technical lead -- imagine how easy it is if you are "just" a senior developer? If you are a two income family in a good job market with one income as the average senior software engineer, you are guaranteed to be well within the top 10% of earners and be able to live a pretty good life.

Founders don't start companies to live a "pretty good life in the top 10%".

We do it because we are ambitious, want to solve huge technical and business problems, make our mark, and change the world.

We usually have more energy and sleep less than others. We love work. We love our business. Most of us would not want to be corporate "drones". It would be like a living death.

I fear most entrepreneurs really do care about leaving a mark. Any mark. Ad tech companies? Big data (selling) companies? Marketing (convince the consumer to buy something excessive) companies? LinkedIn and other companies that intentionally force dark patterns on their users? Security companies selling spyware and hacking tools to anyone who'll pay?

The world could do with fewer of those marks IMO.

The same could be said about the corporate raiders that run many tech companies. They leave ethics at the door "I'm just doing my job to support my family".

I think people who start their own companies sometimes do so because they can have more control over product quality and quality of life for their team.

I'm confident most entrepreneurs care about leaving a good mark. It's just that people that are intent on leaving a bad mark, any mark, generally have an easier time of it.

Put someone with the best of intentions in a desperate, stressful, situation and you'll see a wide variety of outcomes.

> We do it because we are ambitious, want to solve huge technical and business problems, make our mark, and change the world.

That's a theory.

I've been around this world a while and I'm pretty sure ego is the primary driving force for entrepreneurs. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I do have little patience for people telling me they want to "change the world" by creating an obviously inconsequential consumer web app or the equivalent. People want to be in charge, they want to be the boss, they want to be looked up to and praised and rewarded and feel different and exceptional. It's not so bad to just admit it.

> I do have little patience for people telling me they want to "change the world" by creating an obviously inconsequential consumer web app or the equivalent

I know what you mean - while also building a consumer app to change the world (well, the worlds of people).

There is certainly BS out there and it does draw out my patience. But likewise, there are apps and services out there that really are trying to change the world.

But in the end, you're not a mind reader. Everyone is different and has different reasons, although there are certainly trends.

While it's true that you can't read minds, it is at least somewhat possible to read actions. You can certainly see guys like Craig Newmark or Scott Heiferman who make obvious visible decisions against their own material self interest in service of a broader principle. For the most part it's those exceptions that prove the rule in my opinion.

Again, I don't think it's a pejorative observation at all. I think wanting to feel valuable and special, and a desire to have resources, are quite fine things to cultivate in life, and I think a decent measure of our society is to see how well we do at giving everyone an opportunity to do those things.

The original article in this thread seems to be written by someone who is consumed by regard for their own self image, and has trouble admitting it. Being self-deprecating is not the same thing as being humble at all, it's just the other side of the oversized ego coin.

He goes on about how great he is and then how horrible and hurtful he is as if those are the only two ways to possibly evaluate him, while excluding the obvious first default theory we all start with, which is that his life is mostly inconsequential.

> Being self-deprecating is not the same thing as being humble at all, it's just the other side of the oversized ego coin.

Exactly. My impression from reading Kenan Hopkins' article was that he self-deprecates himself in order to get some social points.

That's true and I told the guy that he has to make a choice. Either he has to be willing to "settle" with being a corporate drone and enjoy a nice work life balance or come up with a great idea and go all in and execute. Very few if any of the well known startups get successful by doing it "on the side".

i mainly want to make money. if i can also improve the world, all the better.

I applaud your honesty.

From the entrepreneurs I've talked to, it's usually a combination of money and ego. They want to change the world because then "people will know who I am".

That certainly is a valid choice, and if it's what makes you happy, then great. I wish it was what made me happy because, as you've pointed out, it's a lot easier (at least in some ways).

But that's the problem: it isn't the right choice for everyone. People have complex motivations but, for me, working in some giant corporation where it can be really hard to get things done due to politics and ingrained bureaucracy is nigh on intolerable. When I do it at all I do it for the money and for no other reason.

And this is not "special little snowflake" mentality (which is infuriating): it's pretty common for people not to like working in big organisations, to prefer smaller companies, or to want to see if they can "make it" themselves. Horses for courses.

That's easy and I agree with you. In 20 years I've only worked in a large corporation with a lot of bureaucracy for two and I said I would never do it again. I only work for small companies for the same reasons you cited.

But the same thing applies. I worked for a company where any day the doors could be closed if the VCs gave up on us. Management was very open about the situation but there wasn't really a mass exodus, and I slept well at night not worrying about it, thinking that worse case I would be out of a job for at most a month.

We all got laid off during an acquisition, no one was overly concerned, we all went to lunch had fun and looking at my coworkers LinkedIn profiles, we all had better jobs in month.

Security for software engineers should never come from our jobs. It should come from keeping our skill set up to date and keeping our network of former coworkers and recruiters.

Again, I couldn't agree more with that. Most of my jobs have been with companies where it could go either way. Red Gate turned into an exception and became successful, and I stayed there for a long time. Subsequently I've come to the conclusion that, professionally, this was a mistake. For the first few years I definitely developed a lot of new skills there, and had opportunities that otherwise I wouldn't have had, but the value tails off after that.

When it came to the point where I absolutely, positively wanted to leave and nothing was going to change my mind (this is far too late - to anyone reading, do not do this), I felt rusty and behind the curve. It became an 18 month process whilst I skilled up in the areas I needed (again, Red Gate provided the opportunities to do that, so props). That was tough going. Red Gate's a decent company but, you know, when I'm done I'm done, so keeping up the motivation was hard.

This is all a very roundabout way of saying you're absolutely right about keeping your skills up. If you do that (and you're not an asshole) you'll have absolutely no problem securing employment. You might need to relocate, but you'll always find work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com