Hacker News Reader

Comment by alttab | Hacker News Reader

I'm picturing a lot of guys who sold everything they have to move to SF to become a start up founder / rock star. This is not unlike moving to LA and being a waitress to tread water whilst trying to make it big in Hollywood.

A portion of these guys are probably frustrated, burned out, and lost. The only way to reinvigorate in some eyes is to figure out how rich they need to get before they are happy.

Never chase money because it will outrun you. Money is like girls, it only comes in bounds once you stop giving a shit. Ever wonder why you only get hit on by hot girls when you actually have a girlfriend?

There are stories of teenagers making their first million and they're ideas are super-simple. I wonder if its possible some portion of the HN crowd is trying too hard to get rich by being smart.

View on HN

It's true. There have been many "Ask HN" posts along the lines of "I just quit my job and am moving to Bay Area tomorrow to work on my idea. Where do I start?"

Even though I live in the Bay Area, when I read these I always wonder why would someone move from X to an expensive area just to bootstrap their idea. Yes, there are VCs and startup-minded people here. But really, doesn't it make sense to incubate your idea first before betting the farm? Moving to Silicon Valley won't make anyone magically rich -- hard work (and passion) just might.

After studying planet earth for a considerable time the aliens concluded that the way to get rich there is to send lots of white shirts to the laundry.

Never underestimate the power of good clothing for your career and income progression ;)

A modern day California gold rush. Funny how history repeats itself.

When a million people try X, a few hundred can get really lucky.

Tell a million people to go to take a grand to Vegas and bet their 1,000$ on 7 on a roulette table. Then have them take their winnings and do the same thing until FU money. Some of them would become millionaires, but collectively they would all be worse off. (They started with 1 billion.)

The secret is to look for things where risk > reward. Unfortunately writing generic web apps is probably not it. But, the obvious cost is simply time which people tend to undervalue, so it's not obvious if the game is rigged or not.

I think you need a comma in there.

FWIW the grandparent is nothing like it was when I wrote this.

I'm confused. There are lots of things where risk > reward, and most seem like pretty poor ways to get rich (e.g. jumping off a bridge).

Sorry, that seemed more clear when I wrote it. I meant (risk -> reward) as in your paid for the risk you take.

You want to be the House charging people because you risk something, not the gamblers paying someone to let them make bets. In the startup world that seems to be VC's who charge people money to invest in startups while sharing the startup's upside.

Risk less than Reward seemed like a poor way to express it.

You want a risk greater than the reward? That seems like a losing strategy to me.

What you want is a reward greater than the risk. Of course, everyone wants that. The way to find it is to have some insight into how to make the market more efficient (ex: a new product that solves a pain point), or to find an under-valued asset (ex: a business that is losing money because it is mismanaged).

Of course, municipal bonds also have a reward greater than the risk, but no one gets rich off municipal bonds. So you do want as much risk as you can tolerate, but you want the potential reward to be worth it.

The risk greater than reward scenario is no different than playing the lottery. You may get rich by chance, but on average, you lose.

Yea, I was thinking -> not greater than. see: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1612073

I agree with your observation that not everyone can be amongst the lucky ones in the entrepreneurial lottery.

However, luck always goes in hand with superior skills and correct timing. Warren Buffett provides some great related reading material here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-an...

I don't think this comparison is wholly valid because there is only a limited number of people who can be media A-listers at a particular time, and a large number of people who reach the apparently low threshold for at least the possibility of being a rock or movie star. From there it's mostly luck and serendipity.

By contrast, the number of people with the technical skill necessary to be a great hacker appears to be far lower; the returns to that skill far higher, even if the startup fails; and there appear to be a nearly infinite number of desires that people have for products to make their lives better. There are somewhere between 400 and 600 major movies greenlit every year.

Agreed very much. That pretty much sums it up. (@alttab)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com