Hacker News Reader

Remember, there are two variables in the equation: (hours worked) * (hourly rate). Try to avoid the temptation to max out the left side of that equation early in your career, since you have a lot more control over the right side than you think you do.

Look at what you're making now (assuming early career from the tone of your post). Now know with near certainty that you'll be making double that five years from now. Maybe 4x or even 8x by the time you hit 40. Does it really make sense in that context to toss out your entire 20s grinding on that entry level salary? Even though you'll be able to make up the entire difference with a single year of 40 hour weeks fifteen years from now?

Work on your value. Never just trade time for money.

A very astute observation. I will note:

1. 6 years, largely and increasingly specialist financial industry work, earning 5x what I did when I started, so you're right on that point. Unfortunately some curveballs have meant the net effect on my QOL is not as great as you'd expect.

2. Only 40-50 hours of those theoretical (i.e. subject to life) 80 hours number are billable. The remainder are my attempt to escape the rat race -- what is the hourly rate of those hours? Impossible to know - that's where the risk/reward of entrepreneurship lies.

3. As far as I can tell, I have maxed out the right side as a "no name" (although it's quite difficult to know if this is true!). From what I've been reading, and what you've confirmed by saying "work on your value", the next step is to make a name for myself. This is a tricky concept for me. Any advice? My current strategy is to direct my energy at building something in my "rat race escaping" time that will draw attention to me locally, hopefully leading to new opportunities.

There's a nice parable about working hard to have free time later: http://www.protolink.com/MexicanFisherman.html

The parable is nice, but it certainly does not apply here. To quote the GP:

> I live in a part of the world where a lack of financial resources is death

In that setting, any cent that you can accumulate on you bank account is a life insurance. I can totally understand that the GP wants to spend some time in his life working like crazy so that for the rest he can work less while still enjoying a moderate amount of safety. It certainly beats working part time all your life and worrying about how to pay today's food, heating or rent.

The problem with this parable is that it equates two different scenarios. A fisherman without extensive financial resources is not the same as a person with extensive financial resources choosing to fish. Here's some alternative endings, in a country without social and medical support in place, for you to consider:

1. The fisherman develops a serious illness and finds he can no longer support his family. His wife, who was barely getting by on a fisherman's income as a housewife, finds herself working at a local bar, serving drunk, lecherous men every day and night. His son and daughter find themselves unable to afford an education and really don't want daddy to die. With mounting medical bills, the son finds himself involved in crime to support his family and is eventually sent to prison for life for a crime he didn't commit. The daughter meets a wealthy man and everything is great until he starts hitting her. But at least she can support her father, lying on his deathbed in hospital. Daddy eventually dies but by that point she's stuck with 2 kids married to a man she hates.

2. Oh but medical welfare would solve the problem in #2? Setting aside that this is contrary to my stated scenario (a country without medical welfare), consider this scenario: the fisherman loses his fingers and toes in a freak fishing accident.

3. Oh but somehow he managed to afford an insurance policy that paid out on disability? Setting aside how unlikely this is to be for people barely making a living wage, consider this scenario instead: the nearby waters are polluted by an American oil extraction firm, and the fisherman finds himself scrubbing toilets at McDonald's to support his family. The American happens to come by one day and leaves him a nice tip.

On the other hand you can get bankrupt due to:

1. Share market crash. 2. Change in government regulations. 3. Getting sued. 4. Or simply bad luck. 90% of all business fail anyway.

Absolutely a valid, if tangential, point - businesses are not without risks. But if you want the reward, you have to take the risk - and I want the reward. Aside from that, you get to look back over your life and, whatever your mistakes, say "at least I tried". Better than "damn I was lazy, you kids better support me."

None of those would bankrupt me, without everybody getting bankrupt. An emergency fund and a modest lifestyle + a decent tech income = lots of security. I also avoid "straight tech" jobs, where there is no strong vertical experience. I work on data analysis and predictive analytics applications, which means I could easily make a jump into several other fields in no time. Call me paranoid, but I refuse to be the "HTML Designer" of the next crash.

None of these should cause a wealthy man to go bankrupt.

It can cause a business to go bankrupt, and a wealthy man to become much less wealthy, but otherwise either you are stupid or you are diversified; and it's easier to 'stay there' than to 'get there'. If a stock market crash or, say, Madoff hurts you then it's bad luck; but if it destroys you then it's stupidity.

For example, Bill Gates should still be wealthy even if Microsoft went completely bankrupt at any point since mid-1980ies. Sure, he probably wouldn't be on his malaria campaign in that case, but it wouldn't hurt his life that much.

Very nice parable, I love it.

It seems to easy to get stuck in between the two, though - working hard, but not hard enough to retire early, but still not having time to enjoy life as the Mexican fisherman.

> working hard, but not hard enough to retire early

instead of thinking of work, think of it as creating value. If you are employed by somebody, you are creating value for them, which you take a % as salary/wage. If you work for yourself, all the value you create, you get to keep.

This means, that to get financial freedom, you must work for yourself. This is difficult, and often impossible if you don't already have any capital. I feel this is the true problem with society - that the poor cannot retain 100% of the value they generate because they lack the capital to do so, and therefore, forced to work for somebody else, and get back less than 100% of the value they generate.

> to live the rest of my estimated 40-50 years on this planet in any way I chose

It seems like you quite enjoy what you do. When you retire are you just going to give up that completely? If not maybe it is something you consider. You can earn a pretty healthy salary not working 80 hours a week, and you might get some ideas of what you want to do when you have financial freedom, rather than just slouching in front of the TV because you are too tired from working so hard for the past 15 years.

Disclaimer: I'm currently earning >$100k working 40 hours a week doing Rails development. There are smarter people than me out there, there is nothing special about me in that regard. I just don't want to spend every waking minute working at 25.

On hours: I'm reasonably good at what I do. But there are other things I'd enjoy more. Consider that I work 40-50 hours/week at a normal job, and the remaining 30-40 on escaping the rat race or dealing with this troublesome thing called "life". If I'm in front of a TV, it's with a laptop.

On freedom: At 25 and with your income, it's likely you can have plenty of freedom and fun while putting away a fairly decent portion of what you're earning into e.g. ETFs or ETNs and by the time you're my age, 30, you'll have far more freedom than I do.

Unfortunately I was pretty naive at 25, and I have people to take care of now, so my only option is go big or go nowhere. I don't really have any comfortable middle-ground.

Apologies I think I misread your first post a bit, so my comment may have seemed a bit overly harsh.

I don't think the family thing is much of an excuse for having to work 80+ hours though - if anything that should be a reason not to work that hard. I know developers earning what I am, supporting a family like yourself, perfectly happy with their life. I guess it depends what you want though, if you want to send your kids to private school and not have them have to pay for their higher education then of course sacrifices need to be made.

I wish I could have your optimistic view of the worlds situation in 10, 20, etc. years.