I'm not saying don't invent or write books either. Just don't bet your life on it.
He's proposing that 1. If you don't think it is possible for you, it will never be. 2. Getting rich (financially) requires a LOT of hard work
On the subject of saving and investing wisely, he reminds the readers that investment works on compound interest. It is good to invest, but the more you put in, the more you get in return and it is a pretty slow process.
It is good to be smart with money and invest wisely, but without high risk, there would be little high reward.
It seems like a lot of people are dismissing the book without looking at the contents of it... (sort of brought it on himself with the title)
Also, the book is NOT saying getting money is the end-all. He emphasizes the important of health, family and freedom (which may or may not mean money for people)
For my sins, I read it. And it was painful. But he doesn't say what you remember he did. You took away the wrong message. He belittles the 'slowlane' approach of building up wealth through compound interest, encouraging you to build a business that scales first (then look at compound interest to consolidate). Much of what he says makes sense, if not completely obvious, it's just the endless fluff and ego I couldn't stand.
If the guy used normal language, had it edited well [1], didn't impose his ego everywhere through misogyny, dubious self-anecdotes, a continuous stream of prententious and laughable 'Laws' and didn't have a complete lack of self-awareness that he might have just got lucky in the dotcom boom, not overlooking his respectable work learning to code for his own golden-ticket website (a limo hire business), then I might have appreciated the book. But then, that's a different book.
I've nothing against the guy, I can see he's charismatic in a way and probably attracts the young and naive in droves, but I just don't think it's the healthiest of outlooks on life and encourages the hero-syndrome of the self-obsessed, rather than the respectable achievements of the generous and giving.
I've only ever written one other bad review, for a speed reading book [2], and it tried the same trick: all fluff and no substance. It probably says more about me that I keep checking these books out 'just in case' they have some useful insight. They rarely do.
--
[1] It's obviously more of a pleasure to read something that has been made with care, and not full of this kind of awkward phrasing: "I don't espouse my world vision on them" (first example I could find).
http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/21bghh/notes_f...
I'm not an entrepreneur, maybe a wanna be which is why I keep choosing start ups to work for. What I am curious about is why there is so much resistance to a balanced approach that doesn't require you to go all in without a plan for mitigating the risk your are taking on.
I totally get not playing it safe, all the big names in tech seem to have done this and made fu money. But I'm not that smart and even less connected. (I suspect most folks on here lack the connections that the big names in tech had before they made their $ - I could very well be mistaken about this and it's importance to starting up and striking a jackpot) so, I don't get not having a plan that looks at the long term consequences for all the potentail outcomes and plans accordingly.
I'm really interested in your feedback on this if you have the time.
All sorts of schemes are possible; its not a no-brainer that a balanced approach is the best for everyone. In fact I'm certain its not.
You try to tell them "It's ok, I can swim. If it rains I can go back on the beach for a while. There aren't any sharks here, at least not now. "
But they don't listen, they sail on.
See what I did there? The corporate employees can only see the risks, and greatly overestimate the danger. The swimmers (entrepreneurs) can't really convey how normal it is to them, to be swimming in those waters, to actually enjoy it.
This conversation happens a lot, where someone comfortable in their career can't conceive of jumping overboard and trying anything else. There's not a lot you can say, coming from such different points of view.
Is it not possible that you can spend all your money/time/effort chasing a lotto ticket and never have the winning numbers or even numbers that can support you when you get a curveball in life? Is it not possible that your opinions or your life circumstances could change enough that you need something more than a lotto ticket?
I would just hate for someone in their early 20's to not even consider all their alternatives. There is quite an intense sentiment online that corporate life is a dead end. I left the corporate world almost 10 years ago and am on my 5th start-up I guess, I'm not sure how to judge them any more but my 'career' is the high risk / higher reward whilst my wives is the aggressive mutual fund to use a poor analogy. When I had a health issue several years ago, without her insurance it would have been devastating and none of the start ups I have worked at since leaving BigCo have had health insurance that would have helped.
My point in carrying on in this discussion is that one should carefully consider all the possible outcomes and adjust plans accordingly. And selling the next generation on the defacto certainty that if they keep trying to start up they will be ok is a dis-service to them just because it works for you.
Anyway, I said what I said and now i'll go to the beach even though its not raining.
Also, the backup plans I envision involve more than one person and I realize that working with your partner isn't an option for everyone.
No it requires making something useful to other people that you can sell to them. You really should read the book.
Airbnb (hardwork and launching 4 times? nah just luck) Dropbox (solving a hard problem? nah just luck)
"That's why it's better to be frugal and invest wisely" This concept is explored in depth in the book.
It's called wealth in a wheelchair and is highly dependent on the stock market and property market (things you don't control performing favourably for you).
I know full well that there are many more examples, but I think the total of millionaire-making companies compared to the total is abysmal.
Does it mean that only those at Airbnb and Dropbox (and Whatsapp, Twitter, etc...) worked hard and well ?
I think luck still plays a role.
Working hard and solving problems is a necessary condition, not sufficient.
The parent post would probably propose that this differentiating factor is, at least partially, luck.
And yet, he suggests buying property to rent as a method of the Fastlane. Ask a small-time landlord if renting their property in a halfway efficient market is making them rich.
I don't have a problem with the first half of the article, discussing the philosophy of getting rich. It's when he seems to delve into practical advice (write a book! rent out a house!) that the author seems to lack a sense of financial matters.
Yes, you absolutely can say the same about the stock market. In fact, the historical compound annual growth rate of the market, adjusted for inflation, is almost 7%. That's over 100+ years. I don't have the data in front of me, but I'll bet the market returns crush real estate returns over that period.
You'll have to explain how these people managed to accumulate such wealth "quickly" through real estate, unless it involved flipping houses during one of the biggest housing bubbles in economic history, of which there were massive amounts of losers on the other end of these transactions (aka bagholders). This era produced a ton of "real estate gurus", but it will prove to be an anomalous period. But, taking the economic environment in context , it was a great, clever way to make a fortune; akin to telling someone to sell Tulips in 1640. I just think the idea that "buy real estate, get rich" is naive. The real trick is figuring out the next real estate, or Tulip, early in the cycle.
TINSTAAFL. There is nothing magical about expected real estate returns, and they are in line with any other investment vehicle when adjusted for risk.
Lots of people had made social networks in the past. Why did Facebook succeed? Partly because it was well designed. But also because it was in the right place at the right time to build momentum early on. That's the lucky part.
Success takes hard work. But hard work isn't enough.