Hacker News Reader

Comment by pg | Hacker News Reader

The phrase "don't work too much" doesn't mean "don't do a lot of work today." It means don't let work take up your whole life. Starting a startup is the best way to do that, if you're suited to it. Note the word "compress" in the passage you quote.

View on HN

This implies that you advocate working very hard for what is essentially an early retirement.

Sort of. More like working very hard till you achieve financial independence, after which you can do whatever you want. You don't have to stop working; you just never have to work on anyone else's terms.

A question, which hopefully doesn't come across as facetious, as it isn't mean to be: Do you do whatever you want?

I ask this in the context of having been through the start-up mill in the 90s and watched other people make 10 figures off the technology (WiFi) I worked on. I still work 9-5 for someone else, and need to.

Eventually I came to the conclusion that I have to "live for today". If a firm opportunity presents seize it, but don't compromise today in the name of nebulous rewards tomorrow. Don't wait for retirement or financial independence, but try and do stuff now, using the means at my disposal.

I ask this question on the assumption some people here have had the opposite experience and would advocate going out on a limb for future rewards. When it paid off, did the change in circumstances meet expectation? It's always interesting to hear from people who have had a different experience.

No, that's a good question. I can do whatever I want. But doing things one wants at large scale often entails not doing it on a smaller scale.

As for the more general question, overall it was certainly worth it. If I were in the same situation again, I would do the same thing.

Can you clarify, perhaps with some examples, of doing something one might want at large scale and not doing it on a smaller scale? Thanks

http://news.ycombinator.com

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3872886

Possible answer:

Large Scale: Convincing others to start startups and helping them achieve it.

Small Scale: Talking to journalists, defending Y Combinator in the press etc...

Thanks.

For the majority of people this is unobtainable. Which is where your theory breaks down, I think. Because if a huge proportion of people adopt this attitude and strive for independence, most will fail and be ultimately unhappier for it.

Which sounds like I am recommending resigning oneself to never achieving.

But really what I am saying is this; figure out realistic goals, add a little bit, then head toward them. Also, enjoy yourself on the way.

Most successful people to my observation fall into two camps; ridiculously talented and "lucky". The former have realistic high level goals anyway. And the latter are, by definition, random.

Believe me, no one knows better that starting startups is not for everyone. That's why I was careful to qualify the great grandparent with "if you're suited for it."

I think that financial independence is the definition of retirement. It is only seen as a mismatch (and early if before the age of 60 or so) because the conventional path to financial independence is working for 50 years. Someone who has spent 50 years working and is now financially independent will not want to do any more work ever again. Someone who is financially independent at the age of 26 or 30 though will probably keep working. This doesn't mean that the latter person isn't retired; an unconventional path to retirement leads to an unconventional retirement.

If you're prudent with your lifestyles and finances, "financial independence" doesn't have to mean "enough money to last a lifetime." It just means "enough money to last until I have a reasonable certainty of making more money." I know a bunch of people on incomes far lower than a software engineer's that will intersperse work with 6 months to a year of doing something interesting like hiking the Appalachian trail, traveling around the world, or living in Thailand.

Something bugs me about this, and I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. The first thing that sticks out is that you kind of imply that there is no difference between work and not work. 'Working hard' is something you do for financial independence, which implies the earning of money. And yet, even after you earn enough, you say that it's okay to continue earning even more money through work? It seems to me that if one takes the dictum "don't work too hard" seriously that you'd stop earning money through work once you've earned enough. Otherwise the temptation to define work as something that you just want to do is too great, which would then render the dictum "don't work too much" meaningless.

Sorry if that's a little rushed, but there's a surprising amount to unpack about a seemingly simple statement.

[...] Work very hard till you achieve financial independence, after which you can do whatever you want.

This is a very interesting statement. The thing to keep in mind is that working very hard changes you, so that the thing you'll most likely do after achieving financial independence is probably more of the same (very hard work).

I'm taking a different approach, perhaps most succinctly advocated by Mr. Money Moustache (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com):

Become extremely frugal till you achieve financial independence, after which you can do whatever you want.

This is done with the same caveat: after achieving financial independence, you'll most likely continue being frugal, which is a very good thing.

Would you agree that adjusting expectations might also be a way to get there, at least partially?

"Financial independence" isn't just a measure of wealth, it's also a measure of one's own personal burn rate.

Or at least working very hard on one thing so you can spend your time doing whatever else you care about, which may be "working" on other passion projects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com