The Startup Side Project Bubble (2013) | Hacker News Reader

The Startup Side Project Bubble (2013)

davidhauser.com

42 pointsm124527 comments

What is the point of this blog post?

1) There's not a "side project bubble". What happens tomorrow if everyone's side projects are deleted from the internet? I don't think anything horrible would happen, if anyone noticed at all. What bad things would happen if 2x more people decide to start a new side project in 2020? Similarly, nothing.

2) Side projects are not "an expense the employer ends up paying." Quite the opposite. Employees with side projects are spending off the clock hours improving their skills and becoming a better developer. In most cases, this increases the employee's productivity and value to their day-job.

3) "And actually, we need to be honest. Not everyone is an entrepreneur." -- so what? Having a side project isn't always about "being an entrepreneur". The best side projects are the ones people work on for fun, because they want to learn a new technology, or because they simply want to create a product that solves a problem they themselves have.

I'm struggling to understand why the author writes so passionately against people having fun working on projects outside of their day job.

He’s longing for the days when companies had longevity and gave a shit about people’s futures. At this point (especially in tech) if you are not working on something interesting to you on the side you will eventually find yourself laid off with a very deep knowledge of a very specific environment that is (likely) outdated.

Would it be better to have full investment from your employees? Sure. Is he ready to invest in them for the next 30 years or give them 20% time to explore things that are motivating to them? Probably not so much.

Absolutely. My skills would stay pretty static without side projects. There's not much time to explore different architecture patterns or technology on the job.

I don't get it. What's so bad about having an unsuccessful side project and what's so bad about wanting to work on your own thing when you're not at work.

It's my free time, the company doesn't own that.

The guy who wrote this piece is speaking from the perspective of an entrepreneur himself. Presumably, he would like dedication and focus from his employees. When I've worked at startups, that's what's been expected from me. This is why he's saying this bubble "causes great startups to fail."

Aside from that, I've found that generally in my life, I can only do three things well at any given time. Health, work, relationships, other goals... It takes mental energy to make decisions and process things, and even you are still spending the same amount of time on something. So yes, you can spend your time elsewhere, but the fact that you have a second full time job is highly correlated with you doing your first one worse. Are you claiming that your productivity at work is going to be the same if you have a side project or not? I definitely think there's a clear difference, having done it at one time.

If he, as an employer and entrepreneur, feels he's not getting his money's worth out of an employee, he should just fire that employee. If he is getting his money's worth, he should stop complaining.

But trying to get more effort for the same money by anathematizing side projects breaks encapsulation on the employee/employer relationship. It's obnoxious and involves matters that are (literally) none of his business (at least in California).

I assume would fire an employee that's underperforming.

You haven't actually refuted the point of this article. You can do one thing better than two. If you believe in your startup, then you'll do it better working on it fulltime. Else, if you believe in the startup you're working for, then just focus on that. You will probably get better outcomes on either front.

This isn't a legal argument, it's general advice. He also didn't say you can't do a full-time job and a startup on the side. He said it's hard to excel at your job when you're doing a startup on the side.

Sure, you can do one thing better than two, but that doesn't mean the optimal trade-off is going all-in on one or the other.

If your side-project has a low probability of a high reward, then having a steady paycheck from a job is a good floor to have under you, if you're not floating around on a cushion of wealth. The author closes with "I hope you have what it takes to commit and become a real entrepreneur" but the reality is "what it takes" is to a large extent money. If you don't have it, you need to get it from your day job.

The problem with this delusional author and others like him is that he doesn't realize that he's not entitled to that dedication and focus. He's not paying for it. He's clearly not valuing it. I can say this with confidence because the number of businesses I've seen that do value their employees and compensate them enough to demand such attention and focus are asymptotic to zero. The real question here is why are these delusions of his taken seriously?

I don't really know, all of my side projects have been of the just-for-fun variety so I guess it's fair to say I can't relate.

Yeah, that makes sense. There are definitely different types of side projects, not all are "startups". Also, I don't think doing a start-up on the side is bad if you work at a job that is 9-5. But this guy is saying dedicate to whatever you really care about- you should be working on at most one "startup" at a time if you would like to create a "startup" in the traditional sense.

I think the reasonable takeaway is "don't let your side project interfere with your job," but the article comes dangerously close to conflating it with "employees shouldn't have side projects." The draconian aspect of the latter becomes obvious if you replace "side projects" with "hobbies."

The earlier discussion about this piece was pretty great: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5511815

"How dare you slave not work for me 24/7 so that I can buy that yacht? I fucking own you, get back to work": the post

It is actually worse than that. He isn't even asking why his employees have side gigs (hint: it is probably his own fault for not providing sufficient growth/learning opportunities at work.)

Of course no response is universal, but i'd venture that most people working at startups are seeking growth, learning, or excitement. They are probably giving up pay at bigger firms in exchange for this. If they are not giving up pay, they are probably at least giving up current cash and liquidity in pay (i.e., stock options instead of public company benefits/stock).

So if they are then doing side hustles, it suggest to me, the employer has messed up and is probably not providing sufficient growth opportunities at work.

Now, mind you, the employee is totally free to engage in [non competitive] side hustles, but not all want to. But if the workplace doesnt provide excitement, perhaps lets blame the workplace first?

Know what I consider a "side project"?

My "full time" job.

My life, wife, kids, and personal interests/growth. That's my real mission.

Yea, on the other hand: more and more recruiters require to have a nice list of side projects on github. I failed an interview a couple of times because of that.

On the other hand: too often the "work hard, dedicate all your thoughts to this project" just means: "let the owner buy a new jet, and the manager to get a huge bonus... oh, btw. you will get fired as soon as you will show the first sign of a burn out, then we find a new one who will happily work over the weekends so we will get next car this year".

Sounds like a shill for employers who want to control their employees lives so completely, they want to prevent them from doing anything productive outside of work hours. What a fucking bunch of garbage. There is nothing wrong with starting side projects while working full time. And you know what, there's nothing wrong with doing the minimum to get by at your day job, whether you have a side project or not. This idea of giving your employer one's entire life is frankly ridiculous, outdated, and frankly tiring. As if employers don't already get plenty. They are not entitled to top performance. They are not entitled to the employees' minds outside if work. They are not entitled to anything but the mediocre at best work they solicit from the employees they take advantage of and don't value. How about employers start valuing employees first and then we can consider whether the employers even deserve ones best effort. Until then, we'll have to listen to assholes like the article's author scold us for doing something that's not in the best interest of our employer. Fuck that.

Why would I innovate or put in extra effort at the day job when I don’t get compensate for it. If they gave me bonus or or ownership shares for extra effort I would. As a policy most companies do no have reward systems for anything. I want reward for my innovations.

What a moron

Perfect candidate for a sociopath CEO.

Business owner wants employees to focus solely on work. Big surprise

From the discussion in 2013 [1]:

> So if you pour your heart into your job, you get nothing for it.

What about knowing that I developed something that's useful to people? A raise or bonus is nice to have, but not my motivation.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5512166

File under “did not age well” and move on.

Side projects take a slice but they expand the pie.

2013

So how’s that bubble been working out since then?

The author does not know what people mean by "bubble". Pls ignore this post

Reply on news.ycombinator.com