I'm wondering if there is a research about which percentile of these two groups became rich:
People who started a company vs People who worked for Tech companies.
Yes you need to be lucky to get super-rich as a founder too, but you have a lot more control, i.e., you make the primary decisions that determine whether the company will make good products that people will use/buy.
Hell if you joined Facebook last year and got in when the stock was around 100, your initial equity grant just 5x.
The real point is that it's misguided to try and compare percentages of tech company employees with percentages of founders; they're very different things.
Of course, out of all the founders of all the companies, a relatively tiny percentage will be vastly rich. And out of all the employees of all the tech companies, most will be quite wealthy and comfortable, and a small percentage will be vastly rich.
But that doesn't tell you anything about what is the most reliable path for any given individual to get vastly rich; it entirely depends on whether you're the kind of person you are how well you can learn how to build successful products and companies.
Decision inertia means that employees often don't sell vested stock, and end up being lucky. Similarly, external investors aren't willing to put 30-50% of their networth into one bet and therefore miss out on the kind of luck that can set them up for life.
There is nothing that a lowly engineer at Tesla or Nvidia knows, that can't be found out by an external investor. They are operating in the same information landscape, but different outcomes when they give into decision inertia.
It's not about joining Tesla or Nvidia early. It's about betting on them.
It's also possible to bet on Tesla/Nvidia and lose. Badly.
That was a bet.
If they hadn't made the bet and sold stocks as soon as they vested, then the returns wouldn't have been as incredible.
I'm well aware that the definition of rich can be very different in other contexts. I'm talking about the context of this article.
Most of the FIRE bloggers who bother to account for this—like MMM—have a (perhaps implicit) fallback plan of returning to work somewhere with decent health insurance if they or a family member becomes very sick, but that’s quite a gamble.
(Never mind that a bunch of those sorts have jobs and couldn’t remain comfortably “retired” without them—god I really hate that part of the blogosphere, “look it’s so easy you dumb idiot” but then you start reading between the lines and realize how much of it’s just a bit)
Exchange plans are fine enough, and like, they're not that cheap, but they're also not that expensive either. Depending on how much you make from investments on your never have to work again horde, you may be able to qualify for rate subsidies, and then it's even less expensive. In my county, if I were 64 years old, assigned male at birth, I'm looking at about $17,000/year for a Blue Cross Bronze plan (less costly options available), with $9,200 out of pocket max. Budgeting $26,000/year for healthcare means less than $1 M should cover you for life (assume 3% perpetual withdrawal rate). Rates are lower for younger people, but budgeting based on current costs for the oldest people should help the numbers work. Double the budget if you have a spouse; do some math if you have kids you need to cover until they become independent. Definitely make sure you work until you have earned Medicare eligibility, cause it'll be handy when you reach that age.
Is $1-2 M crazy-high? Kind of, but depending on what your annual withdrawal rate target was, maybe you can just say if you've got enough to pull $100,000/year, you're good on healthcare too. Hopefully most years you won't hit the out of pocket max.
You’ll be exposed to tens of thousands in risk per year on top of (low) tens of thousands in premiums per year for a family Exchange plan. You’ll be burning nearly half of that (and spending all your free time trying to keep hospitals and insurers taking even more) if one of you gets cancer—or, if it’s you who gets cancer, you better hope someone else can handle that.
You also can’t withdraw at as high a “safe rate” as people planning for an ordinary retirement at ~65 do, because your fund needs to last a lot longer despite inflation and such. $2m isn’t “retire at 35” (… or 45) money. It might be “take a big gamble and maybe get lucky… for a while” money. Or semi-retire money.
[edit] at constant 2% inflation (ha!) you need a very safe source of consistent (not average!) 6% returns to retire with 80,000/yr income on $2m, without eating into principal. Anything goes wrong (“whoops, ‘safe’ wasn’t as safe as I thought!” or “whoops, we had a year of 7% inflation and my investments didn’t benefit from that!”) and you can find yourself burning principal while your account value is already down. It won’t take a lot of that before $80k is no longer your safe-withdrawal amount. A couple such years and you may be back to work. 30+ years is a long time…
[edit edit] also damn under $10k max out of pocket on a family plan at the bronze level for $17k? I gotta get out of my shithole state. That’s better than our Gold plans (also our plans tend not to cover like 2/3 of area providers, which may include 100% of area specialists for certain situations)
> You also can’t withdraw at as high a “safe rate” as people planning for an ordinary retirement at ~65 do, because your fund needs to last a lot longer despite inflation and such. $2m isn’t “retire at 35” (… or 45) money. It might be “take a big gamble and maybe get lucky… for a while” money. Or semi-retire money.
The $2 M is the budged accumulation only to pay for premiums and out of pocket until you hit Medicare; and that's assuming a spouse. Budgeting that based on perpetual withdrawl rate gives yet another buffer, because it only has to last until Medicare eligibility age. Yeah, there's unknowns, but whatever. I'm not saying $2 M is enough to accumulate for early retirement. It could be, but a lot of people want to spend more money than that. $2 M doesn't generate that much income, so you'll likely qualify for health plan subsidies, which would help a bit too.
Edit: I used zipcode 98110, birthday for illustration 01/01/1960. Going into the less expensive side of my state, zipcode 99336; there's no blue cross out there, but the most expensive bronze plan for that birthdate is $14,000 / year with the same $9200 out of pocket max. And yeah, limited networks suck ... I'm not going to shop for hypotheticals there --- I'm pretty sure if there's no reasonable in network doctors, you can fight your insurance to get covered at a reasonable doctor, regardless of the insurance and state, and if you're early retired, you'll have time for it.
Solvable, including consideration of valuations via CAPE PE 10. Based on past data, the safe withdrawal rate (SWR) happens to be around 3.25-3.5% of assets to extend to a 60-year time horizon [1]
> at constant 2% inflation (ha!) you need a very safe source of consistent (not average!) 6% returns to retire with 80,000/yr income on $2m, without eating into principal.
For most of this research, "failure" constitutes running out of money. Preserving the initial portfolio value in inflation-adjusted terms can also be solved for. It takes the SWR closer to 2.8-3% for 60-year horizon with high equity valuation corrections.
> You’ll be exposed to tens of thousands in risk per year on top of (low) tens of thousands in premiums per year for a family Exchange plan.
Better to cap expenses and be ready to pay for it than live in fear. Save, invest, and move on with life.
> $2m isn’t “retire at 35” (… or 45) money. It might be “take a big gamble and maybe get lucky… for a while” money. Or semi-retire money.
Depends on how much money you need to spend every year to be happy. Sounds like you need a lot of it. For many, $2m would be fine, even with a very long time horizon. And if any problems crop up, there would be a 15-20 year warning during which a small income boost could top things up.
----
Things don't always have to be so gloomy.
[1] https://earlyretirementnow.com/2017/09/13/the-ultimate-guide...
I'm sitting on the accumulated wealth of 25 rather up-and-downish years in this industry, 10 years at Google, an almost paid-off mortgage, and a decent lump sum I got from when Google bought my employer, I turn 50 this year, and there's no way I can retire. Not without selling my home and moving somewhere a lot cheaper (hard to find here).
Maybe I've made some bad financial choices (not that many), but mostly it's that compensation packages in our industry are set just high enough to keep people on the upper side of comfortable middle class.
If you don't own capital -- haven't invested in rental properties or starting your own business --getting out of the job market isn't really a thing before 65 for most people even in our very well compensated industry.
If I were single or it were just me and my wife, sure.
I've been through tldroptions, and looked at enough options agreement given out by startups in the last few years, to know that as an IC engineer... even if you are lucky enough to be part of the very few startups that have a liquidity event... you're likely gonna get $300k, $400k USD tops.
Unless you're 25 and can shove that in the bank without touching it at all... that's not the life changing event some people think it is. Once the gov't takes their share, it's enough for a house downpayment or a very nice car, and you're certainly not going mortgage free with it.
Still, I'm in a 500x better position than most.
Back in the early y2ks, and late 90s, yes, you could get rich and be up and out if you were lucky and played your cards right. Those days are done.
There are tens of not hundreds of thousands of people who could retire comfortably after working at Google, Facebook, Apple, MSFT for a decade during their growth years. How many startup founders can do that?
Sure, becoming a billionaire is a different story but who cares?
Predicting which big tech company will do well enough in future to give you that big stock reward over time is a big gamble, but certainly a smaller gamble than doing a startup.
I know plenty of people who have joined half a dozen startups, none of which yielded any gain. And many entrepreneurs who worked super hard many times and have nothing to show for it but scar tissue.
Whatever you do, the best advice is to ensure you are enjoying the journey. Don’t waste your life just to be rich. That path nearly always yields a Pyrrhic victory.
If you think it is easy to save more than a third of your income, remember you’ll have a federal marginal tax rate of 35% or higher, will probably have to work onsite in a HCOL state, and unless you’re lucky enough to live in WA, a high state income tax. Yes you can shield some of your income via 401ks and Roths, but for the former you’re going to get taxed on withdrawal, and for the latter you get penalized if you touch it before you’re 59.5.
Now if you’re dual cogs with no kids, maybe. If you do have kids, you’re not retiring until long after ten years.
This is very easy, actually. You just happen to like fancy things and houses, probably.
> Now if you’re dual cogs with no kids, maybe. If you do have kids, you’re not retiring until long after ten years.
I find it depressing that so many people use kids as an excuse to avoid facing their own problems with money and spending. Look deeper and you can find happiness with a lot less.
If I save absolutely everything left ($235 K) for 10 years that gets me to 2.35 million.
The parent post mentioned saving $2-5 million. To get to $ 2 M I have to live off $35 K a year (I realize I'm ignoring investment activities).
EDIT: additionally to minimize taxation you’re probably doing some of that savings in a 401k. Let’s say $25k * 10 year (I was). But that actually creates a deferred tax obligation. Let’s say the tax rate you pay that at is 20% (very optimistic but by the time you pay it you’ll likely be used to living below the poverty line). That takes you down to $30k a year. Actually even worse the employer match is taxable when you withdraw it, so another deferred tax obligation means that to get to $2M (accounting for future tax obligations) in 10 years you need to live on $25K a year.
That seems challenging in Northern California. Also why would I want to do that? - living at that spending level is likely to affect my long-term health and happiness, so the motivation is not clear to me.
There are also ways to get at this money with almost no taxes paid later IF you are not working--look for "Roth IRA conversion ladder".
Also look into "Mega Backdoor Roth" for more tax sheltering.
> That seems challenging in Northern California
You don't have to retire to California. Just pay minimal costs while you're there. Many places in US are beautiful, have great infrastructure and health care, and don't cost as much.
And investment growth is a LOT; don't ignore it. And after just a few years of not working, unless you have a bad start you can probably live off of much more than the initial safe withdrawal rate.
Of course, a bad market makes it longer, but the converse is also true: it's more likely a good market makes it shorter! (historically markets go up more than down, of course)
Add a spouse that also saves and invests, and you can have MORE than $45,000/yr of expenses covered within 7 years of earning at that rate. You can also back off to part time or have one spouse continue working after having kids, and all you need to do is cover SOME (not even all!) of your expenses.
> I want to do that? - living at that spending level is likely to affect my long-term health and happiness
The freedom of not dealing with "the cult of impact" [1] and other such silly things is amazing. Having a huge pile of money allows solid peace of mind in a way most people can't even conceive.
And finding out how much happiness you can get independently of spending money is truly eye-opening. Most people are too scared to even TRY finding fulfillment away from what society tells us is "fun".
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/1bh80wl/go...