The 'Save Money and Pursue Passion Later' Myth | Hacker News Reader

The 'Save Money and Pursue Passion Later' Myth

bucketlistly.blog

33 pointsrzk21 comments

> Motivated by this realization, I worked day and night for four months to launch my first business, MyColorScreen, a decision I have never regretted.

> Rather than depending on this unstable system, it's better to rely on yourself. Instead of waiting for an elusive 'right time' when you have 'enough money', start now.

Their story doesn't add up. It took them four months of not working to build it. That would require either saving money, or having someone pay their expenses.

The website doesn't load for me, but it just looks like it was just an image gallery: https://archive.is/7dsvY

Hey, I am the author of that article. Just to clarify, the article was written way back in 2012 when I started MyColorScreen. I was working on it part-time in the evening and on weekends while working full-time as a software developer (in a company in Bangkok, Thailand) during the day.

I have since sold it to a US company a year and a half later and I began traveling the world. Now, I travel full-time and have been doing so for the past 10 years. :) The article was on my old Tumblr and I moved it to my travel blog.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

I have some friends that struggle to save money no matter how much they make. I totally agree that they would never save enough to start their business later. At the same time, I also think they would be fine scaling their spending down appropriately if they pursued a passion project. For them, this advice is great.

I have other friends that saved up for a few years and then took a year off between jobs. For them the math was simple: if they only touch 75% of their income (including for retirement and savings); they can take every 4th year off with zero impact on finances. For them the "myth" works fine.

Consider that the type of person who can't save enough money, no matter how much they make, is probably not the kind of person who will be successful in business.

This is an odd interpretation IMO.

Thiel - "If you bought a house or have all sorts of obligations of one sort or another, it may be very difficult."

My takeaway from that would be - if you have a dream and that dream requires an extended period of time out of traditional "work" to achieve it, don't get yourself into these sorts of financial obligations. Don't buy a house in an expensive area, don't get yourself stuck with car payments, etc.

I don't think that it is black or white. Sure, waiting for the perfect moment to pursue passion might not be the best way as it will probably never happen. What if there is a specific plan to save for a specific period of time, because let's say security is an important factor if you are not a twenty something single person. I am sure there are good examples for both sides, the ones saving for a specific time or the ones that just dive into it now. Just wanted to say that its not the one way or the other. It really depends on what fits you better.

When I was 27 I was working as a software engineer, going to work everyday. I looked around at the people that had been the 10 or 20 years and it scared the shit out of me.

I quit that job and drove from Alaska to Argentina over 2 years. I poked lava with with a stick, jumped off waterfalls, hiked a 20,000ft active volcano, learned spanish and had all kinds of wild adventures for a lot less than a used Tesla costs.

It changed my life, and I’m certain it was the best thing I ever did. Now almost 20 years later my body is not the same, my desire to rough it is not the same. If I didn’t do it then, I doubt I would do it now, because I would be too used to the comfortable life.

I am still having massive adventures around the world, and I am extremely happy I broke away from selling my life to someone else just sitting inside all day.

If you didn't work for two years, the cost was "less than a used tesla" and two years opportunity cost of missed wages.

Employment is also a flywheel. Much has been written about the fact that recruiters and employers prefer candidates that are already employed and have been continuously employed for long durations without gaps. Make of it what you will but the reality is that taking two years off means that landing a job will be substantially harder than it would have been if you worked during that time. Attitudes towards this seem to be changing for the better but the last time I embarked on a job search I had several people misread my resume, ask me about an employment gap that wasn't there, then act relieved when I corrected them.

Question for international HNers: is this a US-centric phenomenon?

Nope, rings very true (west europe).

But yes, also that it's developing for the better. I see sabbaticals from dedicated top-talent professionals more often now than before, it sets an example, and paves the way a bit for more mediocre people to do it without a huge corporate status impact. Some are even able to package it in a narrative that turns their year of a fun sabbatical into some self-development journey.

And I also find there's more opportunity to approximate the benefits of sabbaticals. Lots of employers are experimenting with remote work. And I see some friends who are able to play a smart game, e.g. during a 3 month period each year:

* taking a 40 hour workweek down to 32 hours

* having fridays off, having 3-day weekends and 4-day workweeks

* working remote for 3 months

* early shifts & lunch at their desks (e.g. 7am - 3pm shift)

* having the afternoon and evening off in remote location with lots to do and see

* take 1 week off every 6 weeks, or 2 every 12, to fully travel for a set of time without working.

* stay in 2-3 cities in one or two countries, and rent out their own home on Airbnb or sublet.

* avoid a bad weather season back home

* pick based on time zone differences to make early or late shifts easier

It's not quite a sabbatical, but it does allow you to detach from your routine life at hoe, travel and see a lot of the world, have adventures and meet new people without compromising your career (much).

Especially nice in junior roles to have this lifestyle remote if the alternative is to be a no-name number coming to the office every day for no reason in a big org. But if you can work under an inspiring technical talent / leader, I'd definitely recommend that instead.

> the reality is that taking two years off means that landing a job will be substantially harder than it would have been if you worked during that time

When I got back from driving Alaska->Argentina I was out of money, so I went back to Software Engineering.

I put the trip on my Resume and put "Learned Spanish, learned to think on my feet, negotiation skills and quickly adapting to new information".

I applied for three positions and every one asked me in detail about the trip and how they would love to do something similar. I was offered all three positions.

was this during the tech hiring boom or after

I interviewed and got that job in 2011.

I was able to gain about 300k in the span of about the last 5 years of working, saving, investing, and buying a home. I've also seen my income double or so.

I'm in my early 30s. That 300k doubles roughly every 10 years (7% annual ROI). And so those 5 years set me up for 600k, 1.2m and 2.4m respectively at 40, 50 and 60yo.

I've certainly had my fair share of fun, multiple significant relationships, travelled to each continent, great friendships, an active life with sports and cultural activities. But I never had the sabbatical lifestyle where I'd travel the world for half a year or more, 'fun' was always organized around studying and later work life, measured in hours, evenings, weekends or weeks of holidays.

I often doubt whether I made the right choice to spend these years working (sometimes more than) full time, I'll never know.

ROI amplifies money, making these conclusions even harder. A dollar today at 30 is 8 dollars at 60. But I also find the return of money measured in fun goes down as I age. At 16 traveling to Paris by train and staying in a cheap hostel sleeping in dorms and drinking 2 euro supermarket wines with strangers on the street on a summer night was amazing, now I can't get the same pleasure on that budget. Partly because I don't want to 'rough it' anymore, partly because I've already done it, and partly because it feels like I wouldn't belong with those kids in the hostel like I once did.

Anyway, fully agreed that the financial cost would've been way more than my expenses. With a 100k a year job the opportunity costs go up quite a bit, especially with ROI over time factored in. Earning 2 years of 100k at age 28 turns into close to a million at age 40, on average. That's a big opportunity cost...

I wonder how increased wages will change the way people work. Pretty much every household on my street is pulling in close to $500k / year. They’re all in their 40s and 50s. They seem to be putting excess wages into SPY. A handful of them have already retired. The rest are planning to in the next 5-10 years. I’m wondering how this will all play out.

> If you didn't work for two years, the cost was "less than a used tesla" and two years opportunity cost of missed wages

Absolutely, if having more money is the goal, then what I did (and continue to do) is stupid.

I decided a very long time ago that having more money is not the goal of my life. My goal is to have enough money to live the life I want to live that makes me and my family happy.

It turns out I don't actually have to work all that much to make that happen.

My point is not that you missed on some sweet cash. My point is that it's an example of extreme privilege and wealth opportunities that most people cannot afford. The post comes off as anti-materialism and worldly and not caring about the money. But it's really the opposite. Your particular circumstances around wealth are what enable you to do this.

I find it irritating. And phrases like this one:

> I looked around at the people that had been the 10 or 20 years and it scared the shit out of me.

Are the worst.

> My point is that it's an example of extreme privilege and wealth opportunities that most people cannot afford

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree.

At the time I was earning $48k CAD for a full time job. That is about $24 CAD/hr. or roughly $18 USD/hr.

I lived in a sharehouse with 4 other people. I walked to work, even in -35C winter. I had no phone, no tv. I didn't eat out, I cooked all my own meals. No alcohol. Enjoyment was a walk in the park (free).

I did all of that so I could scrimp and save for years and years until I finally had a meagre savings account, then I hit the road.

I lived full time in a ground tent for 2 years of my adult life. I ate plain oats cooked in a little camp stove for 2 years straight. I camped out in the middle of nowhere most nights which meant I didn't spend money on alcohol or partying.

I made a lot of sacrifices to make that happen, and I think basically anyone with a job could do the same, if they wanted.

> It almost never plays out that way in practice. What seems to happen is that after some period of time, people are making good money and they're typically spending all of it, and it becomes really hard to dial that back. If you bought a house or have all sorts of obligations of one sort or another, it may be very difficult.

This just sounds like lifestyle creep. Not everyone suffers from it.

If you want to become a travel blogger, building an unrelated business and selling it seems like a roundabout way to "plunge headfirst into your passion."

To me, the author's story represents a much more insidious myth than simply saving money by spending less than you earn.

The book “what should i do with my life?” by po bronson comes to a similar conclusion, describing this idea as the “lockbox fantasy”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com