[HN Gopher] Entrepreneurs who regret starting businesses
___________________________________________________________________
Entrepreneurs who regret starting businesses
Author : pmoriarty
Score : 141 points
Date : 2023-04-04 10:37 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| okeuro49 wrote:
| A cynic would say that the BBC is preparing the public for the
| Online Safety Bill, where many small online ventures will become
| unviable.
| simonswords82 wrote:
| Sadly the beacon of balanced reporting that the BBC once was is
| now a distant memory. It's politicised, click bait nonsense
| just like most of the news on the Internet. So your assessment
| is more than likely accurate.
| revelio wrote:
| Yes. It depresses me no end that this comes from the BBC. How
| predictable. You can argue that the Californian sun-always-
| shines mentality is unrealistic, but you can't argue with the
| results it generates. Perhaps the British attitude is just
| normal and not anything in particular, but compared to the
| attitude of the people at the top it's a culture of defeatism.
|
| I think it may also be reflective of the culture and mentality
| at the BBC specifically, though. It's well known their staff is
| completely dominated by Guardian readers. These are people
| whose idea of success in life is taking control of a powerful
| pre-existing institution. The sort of people who make wild bets
| on unintuitive beliefs and end up disrupting industries are
| pretty much opposed to that value system and it shines through
| in all sorts of subtle ways.
| okeuro49 wrote:
| I wouldn't usually be so cynical, but I noticed recently how
| the BBC was responding to the inflation crisis, by somehow
| making it out to be some external thing that nobody could
| control, and nobody could have predicted.
|
| When in fact there were many people saying that the massive
| state spending programs during coronavirus, were going to
| contribute to a high rise in inflation, and that policies
| such as paying the wages of the entire middle class were not
| going to come without a cost.
|
| The BBC manufactured consent for those state policies, then
| now act like inflation is some random incident, like the
| weather.
| postsantum wrote:
| That's what I thought. BBC and their likes lost all credibility
| and the first thing the reader should wonder about is what
| agenda they are pushing today
| mindvirus wrote:
| I think the real message is to reflect and know what you want out
| of life, and to know what you're optimizing for. And not just
| getting away from your current situation.
| opentokix wrote:
| Well, all mentioned in the article do bullshit jobs. "Advisor to
| high networth individuals" "Career coach" and other bullshit.
| strangescript wrote:
| You always here about the 5% that make it, not the 95% that
| don't. Even when you do its easy to brush off why they failed.
| "Oh their idea was bad", or "they didn't know what they were
| doing". This is only amplified further by those 5%'ers running
| around encouraging everyone to start a business. Writing books
| about their success. Giving motivational speeches, etc.
| gumballindie wrote:
| I dont know but most place i read i read about those who fail
| and about how difficult starting a business is. One can rarely
| read about those who start small but successful businesses.
| Usually stories are either about failures or those immensely
| successful.
| sshine wrote:
| There's a lot of timing, luck, market fit, retrying.
|
| The whole story is never a sample-size of one.
|
| Hacker News is pretty good at portraying those who failed five
| times in a row, those who give up after trying for years, those
| who seem to get it, and those who persevere.
| nkotov wrote:
| I'm in year five of building companies, three years doing it
| full-time. I don't have regrets but there have been extreme low
| point - primarily tied to other people. Firing others. Having
| investors pull out last second and forcing us to shutdown. Having
| cofounders quit, or worse, intentional sabotage the team. It
| takes a certain type of person to want to continue doing this
| long-term. Most people don't have that.
|
| One thing I wish someone told me early was that being consistent
| is the key. I spent the first ten years of my tech career looking
| for hacks to just realize the best hack is to just doing things
| consistently and speak to new people all the time. Once you have
| your pace set, just running with it and sticking with it results
| in things to start happening.
| jwr wrote:
| I can see a number of data points in the comments, let me add
| another one.
|
| I started a self-funded SaaS business fairly late (in my 40s). I
| was tired of being dependent on others, especially as others
| mostly failed me in the past. I wanted to be independent: no
| investors, no bosses, no employees. Just me.
|
| It took five years of slow growth to get to a stage where I
| didn't have to worry about revenue.
|
| Do I regret it? Hell no! It's the best decision I've ever taken
| in my life.
|
| I am now very happy with where I am: I have a business that
| depends on very few external factors and runs well. I don't have
| to worry about investors doing crazy investory things. I don't
| have to worry about employees pulling crazy employee stunts
| (believe me, I've seen a good number of those in the past, and
| the entitlement of many employees is absolutely crazy). I don't
| have to worry about user numbers, only about paid subscribers and
| maintaining slow revenue growth. Nobody pushes me for crazy
| growth.
|
| Most importantly, the business model is simple: my customers pay
| me because my software improves their workflows. That's it. There
| is no "monetization", no shove-it-down-your-throat marketing, no
| tracking, none of that unpleasantness that seems to be dominating
| today's world. If they like the software, they pay a subscription
| fee, if they don't, well, they don't, and I have a problem. But
| so far it seems they do :-)
|
| The only thing I had to carefully manage was my engagement: it's
| easy to get pulled in and work crazy hours, because in a single-
| person business there is _always_ much more to do than you can
| possibly ever do. You have to become good at prioritizing, which
| means identifying the single (ONE!) most important thing at this
| moment and focusing on that. But you also have to accept that
| most things will not get done and be OK with it. That was hard
| for me, but I learned, and I keep sane hours and a good work-life
| balance.
|
| I'm posting this just to provide a counterpoint to many negative
| comments.
|
| PS: if I were to provide one bit of advice to aspiring
| entrepreneurs, it would be: look for a business that delivers
| high value to customers with money. So don't start a B2C business
| that does something easily replicable with a low value. B2B is
| where it's at.
| randlet wrote:
| How do you deal with the bus factor as a B2B? I lost a few
| larger contracts because customers would not risk making a one
| person business a core part of their workflow.
| Axsuul wrote:
| I'm in a similar situation and this has not been an issue, at
| all.
| Frondo wrote:
| Also in a similar situation now (well, in the B2B space,
| with ~20 corporate customers around the country) and the
| times it's come up, people have been more concerned to see
| a business continuity plan than a big office full of people
| who can take over.
|
| You can find lots of examples for a BCP on any search
| engine, and in my experience so far it's more important to
| show that you've thought about it and at least have a plan
| in place to take care of business continuity, should
| something happen to you, in the future.
|
| Another thing to keep in mind is, even if you had staff who
| could keep a platform going, until you're running quite a
| large operation, even finding someone who'd _want_ to take
| over should something happen to you is going to be
| difficult. I 'm eyeing a buyout by a large competitor in
| the distant future for that, because this is a really niche
| space and requires a lot of technical knowledge and people
| skills.
| hu3 wrote:
| Thank you for sharing your experience. It's the style of life I
| want to pursue.
|
| I'm starting a B2B SAAS business (the dream) on the side where
| I also plan to work on my own (no investors, no employees) and
| maybe be helped by my wife.
|
| My question to you is: Do you have experience with free tiers?
|
| I'm thinking about having a free tier to lure in customers and
| allow them to play around with the app without having to commit
| their credit-card right away.
| Axsuul wrote:
| I wouldn't recommend it early stage since it can be a
| distraction and use up lots of support bandwidth. And you
| should be focusing on paid customers and the features that
| will bring value instead. But like everything in business, it
| depends (on the idea, vitality nature of it, etc)
| theery wrote:
| It definitely looks easier than it is. You have to want it.
| xwdv wrote:
| Overemployment where you hold multiple jobs simultaneously is the
| far better goal for those who are ambitious and want to make a
| lot of money these days. Not entrepreneurship.
|
| As an overemployed worker, you will work less than an
| entrepreneur but probably start making far more money than them
| right away. Overemployment is also more friendly to failure. If
| you fuck up a job and lose it, it takes little effort to just
| find a new one. You might even have a severance as a bonus. The
| entrepreneur will probably just drink beer and spiral into
| depression as they wrestle with the choice of starting yet
| another business or finding some kind of job they can tolerate.
|
| Overemployment will also force you to have incredible time
| management, and the high you get from running your day like a
| well oiled machine delivers far better satisfaction than the
| terrifying uncertainty that comes with entrepreneurship.
|
| Furthermore, overemployment allows you to truly "turn off" in a
| way entrepreneurship doesn't. At the end of the day, since you're
| just working for another company, your responsibilities are
| limited. You can push away from your desk and live life stress
| free.
|
| You could be grossing around $500k a year easily as an
| overemployed worker, meaning that with prudent saving and
| investment you will have amassed millions in the span of a
| decade, almost _guaranteed_. The entrepreneur probably has to
| work a decade just to maybe get the chance at a similar pay day
| someday, and for many that day never comes.
|
| Entrepreneurship doesn't carry the same prestige it used to.
| Nowadays there's a lot of "entrepreneurs" out there and the term
| has become a bit derogatory, hence the need for quotes. Indeed,
| someone is more likely to be a charlatan or just a fucking loser
| if they call themselves an entrepreneur, rather than an actual
| successful business owner.
|
| Overemployment on the other hand is _gaining_ prestige. Most
| people are immediately impressed when you tell them you have two
| six figure jobs at the same time. Imagine how eyes would nearly
| pop out of people's heads if you told them you worked at Facebook
| _and_ Google, _at the same time_. You can't bullshit
| overemployment the way you can bullshit entrepreneurship: two
| jobs is two jobs.
|
| So all you young men take this advice: build the most valuable
| skill set and knowledge base you can, and get multiple six figure
| jobs with decent tech companies. The world doesn't really need
| another shitty business idea, it needs people who want to _work_.
| Michelangelo11 wrote:
| Profiling only two people in an article like this seems like a
| breach of journalistic standards. If they'd interviewed like 4+
| people from very different backgrounds, maybe the article could
| have packed a punch. As it is, I don't feel like I've learned
| much of anything from this.
|
| I mean, surely it's unsurprising to anyone with some life
| experience that, as with any career choice, some people regret
| entrepreneurship, and here are two examples of that, and -- so
| what... ?
| rco8786 wrote:
| I am 100% certain that many entrepreneurs regret their choices.
| But kicking off this article highlighting a person whose stated
| alternative to entrepreneurship was "consistent 7-figures at a
| management consulting firm" is laughable, as though that's an
| option for most people.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I honestly stopped reading right there in paragraph 3 or
| whatever, it made me too mad.
|
| But i still came here for the comments!
| akrymski wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that the probability of hitting 7-figures in a
| consulting firm is smaller than hitting that figure as a
| founder of a startup.
| pg938hkd wrote:
| Yeah but hitting 300-500k is still quite comfortable
| [deleted]
| selimnairb wrote:
| Yeah, my reaction to that quote was, "well at least probably
| did less damage to society as an entrepreneur."
| koromak wrote:
| Exactly
| rwmj wrote:
| Plus if he was a management consultant I bet he'd hate it even
| more.
| osigurdson wrote:
| The YCombinator model seems pretty good. Try something bold when
| you are young, if it doesn't work out - whatev. The 1%-2% that go
| on to become successful are able to fund the whole system.
| SlickStef11 wrote:
| "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're
| right."
|
| https://matt-rickard.com/reasons-to-do-a-startup
| bicijay wrote:
| Great first article to see in the morning, while trying to
| bootstrap a startup! Today is gonna be a good day.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| And you didn't even need to use your AK.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| I started and run an e-commerce company, and my best advice
| before starting a business is to think very little about what you
| want your product to be and a whole lot about what you want your
| lifestyle to be.
|
| Want to have relaxing end-of-year holidays? Don't start a B2B
| SaaS company in which you're going to close a huge % of your
| yearly revenue in the last few days of the year.
|
| Want to be able to travel? You're probably better off with an
| internet business than a brick-and-mortar store.
|
| Want to be able to eventually step back? You need to make sure
| that there's a path to lessening your involvement over time
| without hurting the business.
|
| I started mine during the pandemic and got it to profitability.
| It's not world-shifting money, but it produces solid cashflow. At
| that point, rather than trying to raise money and aggressively
| scale, I automated as much as I could. Got a manufacturer to make
| the products. Found a 3PL to handle fulfillment. Went through all
| the common types of support emails I got and made sure those
| questions were addressed proactively in the product or emails, so
| I get basically no support emails. Handed off bookkeeping to a
| professional.
|
| Some of that has changed (the 3PL was terrible and for now I'm
| doing some fulfillment myself and using Amazon for the rest), but
| overall I'm only spending a few hours a week on the business. I
| write marketing emails, ship some product and place orders for
| stuff as needed.
|
| The really nice thing is that I can move things on or off of my
| own plate as my workload changes. I'm working a full time PM job
| that I'm loving, and my wife just had a baby, so I might offload
| the marketing emails soon (but honestly they're super quick and I
| often just reuse last year's, so that's tough to justify). If I
| leave my job, I could definitely move manufacturing in house to
| expand margins.
|
| I think more than anything, it's those qualities of the business
| that make it great for me (definitely more than the product).
| onion2k wrote:
| One of the things I learned running my first startup was that I
| really don't enjoy running a business. The mountains of admin
| work, the never-ending decision making, the constant anxiety of
| whether or not I made the right call, the pressure to never
| actually switch off and just _work work work_ , all of the
| pointless 'networking' with people who're pretending to be
| interested ... it all adds up to a pretty horrible experience.
| The high points (raising a successful round, first revenue, first
| hires, etc) _kind of_ make it worthwhile, and obviously an exit
| is nice (not that I 'd know... I've never got to that point), but
| I don't think I'd do it again unless I have an amazing idea that
| I _have_ to build.
|
| Anyone who tells you being a C-level person in a startup is fun
| and glamorous isn't running a real startup.
| rsrsrs86 wrote:
| I always ask candidates why they want to work at an early stage
| startup as a developer, and "because it must be fun" is a show
| stopper.
|
| Being a founder is certainly not fun. The good parts are there,
| like earning money, interacting with your team and seeing them
| grow, the first round, the first sale. But the job is quite
| painful itself.
|
| Please note that not all startups and founders are / want to be
| funded with billions of dollars. The true story is that you are
| going to be overworked and fail 99% of times.
| amanj41 wrote:
| Similar to the sibling commenter, I would say it's a matter
| of semantics. I am one of three developers at a small startup
| and definitely would describe the experience as fun albeit
| stressful. The two sentiments are not mutually exclusive. If
| it's not fun / interesting / challenging, the possibility of
| options being worth something in future would absolutely not
| justify the stress of working at a startup
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Maybe fun isn't the right word, but the best startup
| engineers that I've met found great satisfaction in their
| work. They enjoyed the engineering, the subject matter, and
| the process of learning.
|
| It is closer to the type of "hard fun" one has training and
| running a marathon, than the "easy fun" of watching a movie
| or playing a game.
| ttcbj wrote:
| This article is super generic. It could have been written about
| any career path -- Some people who dedicate their careers to
| ascending in a single corporation regret it, Some people who
| aspire to be corporate lawyers regret it, Some people who become
| ski instructors to have more time to ski regret it.
|
| Careers are long, and I think the key is to try things, learn
| what suits you, and generally try to evolve towards things that
| are a better fit for you.
| donutdan4114 wrote:
| I don't know that I fully regret starting a business but boy does
| it suck like 90% of the time.
|
| I'm fortunate in that the business does really well, but.... I
| just can't stand it anymore. The stress, the boring, the
| frustrating, the getting taken advantage of, the weekend
| hours....
|
| I suppose I fell a little bit into the trap of someone wanting to
| open a cafe because they like being at a cafe... well I like
| programming, I like solving problems... but running a business
| (and a successful one at that) is tough.
|
| I can see why most CEOs are non-technical, because it's a special
| type of sadistic person who would ask for this.
|
| I've tried steering the ship towards some goal or task that would
| maybe make things better but there's no point. The business is on
| autopilot.
|
| The business is like it's own person with its own wants, needs,
| desires... and they come first. They always come first. Bending
| over backwards to keep something running, get some bug fixed,
| satisfying some customer, putting out fires... takes higher
| priority than friends, family, personal time, etc...
|
| It has to. I can't let the business suffer. People depend on its
| success, most of all my family.
|
| I can understand why the rich suffer so.
| enumjorge wrote:
| > the getting taken advantage of
|
| I've been thinking of starting my own business and I hadn't
| heard of this before. It sounds draining. If you're
| comfortable, would you mind sharing an example of how people
| try to take advantage of you?
| janetacarr wrote:
| I think what people don't seem to understand is that
| entrepreneurship is a skillset. You can get better at it by
| practicing.
|
| Like any skillset, you can build a career out of it. And, just
| like any career, you could end up on the scale of loving it to
| hating it. I'll admit it's quite a bit harder than any other
| career though since often you can't look to your peers for advice
| or examples of success. It's largely a game of taking on risk to
| provide value to people who will pay for it.
|
| If you've never promoted yourself online, how do you expect to
| learn enough marketing chops to get people to the value you
| provide with your business; how do you expect to learn enough
| sales chops if you've never sold anything to anyone before.
|
| As for me, I'm just a lowly independent consultant, so make of
| this what you will, but I understand that I'm slowly getting
| better at sales and marketing, and understanding the value I can
| provide to my clients, and what makes my consulting different
| (and hopefully better) than others. Like a natural career
| progression, I hope to give myself a promotion by creating and
| selling digital products one day using the skills I've built at
| the bottom of the ladder.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you
| throw darts or something.
|
| Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the
| target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye
| and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives
| on.
|
| Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try
| over and over and over again until they hit something and feel
| good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center
| bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about
| "meritocracy" and the salutary effects of hard work.
|
| Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working
| it.
|
| --
|
| Original comment from notacoward here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659076
| nightski wrote:
| The world will never be fair, I'm not even sure that is an
| ideal goal. The best things in my life have come from when I
| faced adversity, not when I was in a position of privilege.
| While opportunities are not always equal in quality or number,
| there are opportunities if you seek them. It's ironic that even
| though lots of things come down to luck, it's very possible to
| put oneself in a position that makes it feel like they are very
| lucky! "Luck" tends to follow those with initiative.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > The world will never be fair, I'm not even sure that is an
| ideal goal.
|
| Which is exactly why it is important to have an accurate
| assessment of who is truly an entrepreneurial genius,
| contributing to society, and who is starting another Juicero.
| coldtea wrote:
| If fairness is not an "ideal goal" what is?
|
| > _The best things in my life have come from when I faced
| adversity, not when I was in a position of privilege_
|
| Does that hold for kids hungry and unable to finish school
| because their parents don't make enough then? (Or much worse
| situations)?
| detourdog wrote:
| The hard thing to understand about privilege is that it may
| have just as many constrictions as having nothing. They are
| different but can be every bit as challenging to a good
| life.
| detourdog wrote:
| I guess people want to believe that if only they were
| born with more privilege they would be happier and have
| more freedom to fail. I find that attitude makes the
| person and circumstances. I won't deny having one's mom
| rub elbows with the chairman of IBM is a very rare
| privilege.
| nightski wrote:
| To remove barriers and give people a chance to achieve what
| they desire (if they desire). That doesn't mean everyone
| will have the same opportunities and/or the same
| circumstances.
|
| And no it doesn't, this is not an argument against
| assistance programs.
| digging wrote:
| Seems like an arbitrary line. Lifting someone out of
| poverty is removing a barrier. Helping people make social
| connections is removing a barrier.
| [deleted]
| goodpoint wrote:
| > Middle class kids can afford one throw.
|
| More like upper middle class or if you are in the right
| country.
| revelio wrote:
| A nice analogy but it doesn't work.
|
| There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple times
| before succeeding at a business. If you look at the big
| businesses that dominate the US tech economy, they're all first
| time founders (Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc).
|
| There are also very few entrepreneurs bootstrapping their own
| business. Even rich kids go to VC, they aren't usually risking
| their own funds.
|
| Finally, if you try multiple times, learn something important
| from each failure, and then succeed, it seems reasonable to
| claim that this is now due to the skills you developed and not
| mere luck. You can't even claim it's privilege - it _might_ be,
| but as this article argues, being an entrepreneur isn 't being
| handed a nice life on a plate even if you're successful.
|
| For sure there are counter-examples where some rich kid spent
| their parents money trying and failing over and over, then got
| lucky without learning anything, somehow had an incredibly easy
| life from that point on and then started talking about merit.
| But they're going to be the exceptions that prove the rule. The
| carnival analogy therefore feels like ideologically motivated
| reasoning of the most common Marxist kind (claiming hard work
| and risk taking don't matter, that all success in life is the
| inherited privilege of capital).
| vlovich123 wrote:
| I think you need to leave tech and VC money. VC's are happy
| to throw money behind a bunch of smart college kids. Go try
| to go a different route and see all the doors shut. Also you
| don't get to see all the people who don't try their hand at
| entrepreneurship because the gamble is too great for them.
| revelio wrote:
| Yes, but the reason it's harder to get money for those
| sorts of businesses is because they're much less likely to
| generate large returns. The BBC couldn't / didn't want to
| find any tech entrepreneurs for this article (it's not like
| the UK doesn't have them), so they focus on people doing
| contracting or agency work. Of course it'll be tough to get
| investment in such a low margin and competitive business,
| VCs don't invest in tech outsourcing body shops either.
| There just isn't the possibility of large profits without
| product development.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Most businesses don't generate extraordinarily large
| returns. Successful tech companies are in the long tail.
| Where's the investment in the middle?
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Except a huge amount of VC plays are basically just
| gambling on someone succeeding. They don't care who. So
| you've got 1 success story for every 100 attempts. Sure
| that 1 generated outsized returns, but that doesn't help
| the 100 that failed and lost time and money they could
| have gotten elsewhere.
|
| Additionally, VC plays are often are parasitic endeavors
| that try to acquire monopoly positions by flooding the
| market to corner it (ie kill all competition) before
| raising prices (eg Uber prices raise to pretty close to
| taxis once the local taxis have been run out of
| business). If you prevented flooding the market as a
| tactic, the entrepreneurship model would change
| drastically. And that is something we used to try to
| prevent but for some reason we only did it once for the
| commodities market but let it continue unabashed
| everywhere else.
| endisneigh wrote:
| > There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple
| times before succeeding at a business. If you look at the big
| businesses that dominate the US tech economy, they're all
| first time founders (Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc).
|
| For this analysis to be complete you'd have to look at all
| companies, not an arbitrary selection of tech companies.
|
| Furthermore, tech is unique (and so is the list of your
| companies) in that one couldn't have started a similar
| company before the ones you listed since modern tech
| literally had just begun.
|
| A better example would be to look at the new generation of
| tech companies, such as OpenAI, if you want to focus on tech.
|
| Finally, let's look at your companies:
|
| Microsoft - was not Bill Gates' first company.
|
| Amazon - It's true the name was the same, but the company pre
| and post 1998 (Amazon as a bookstore, and then Amazon as an
| ecommerce site, and then the development of what is known as
| AWS in the early 2000s) was fundamentally different. The only
| real similarity is the name.
|
| Google - it's true Brin and Page started this company first,
| but they had effectively done all the work for "free" as part
| of their PhD (at Stanford, no less). Keeping up with the
| parent post analogy, there was not much risk here.
|
| Apple - Similar to Amazon in that Apple as a name and company
| had continuity from now to its beginning, but Steve Jobs
| started Next which you could argue is the DNA of modern Apple
| (it merged back with the almost then defunct Apple), as well
| as Pixar.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Amazon - It's true the name was the same, but the company
| pre and post 1998 (Amazon as a bookstore, and then Amazon
| as an ecommerce site, and then the development of what is
| known as AWS in the early 2000s) was fundamentally
| different. The only real similarity is the name.
|
| > Apple - Similar to Amazon in that Apple as a name and
| company had continuity from now to its beginning, but Steve
| Jobs started Next which you could argue is the DNA of
| modern Apple (it merged back with the almost then defunct
| Apple), as well as Pixar.
|
| These two do not really support your point. The grandparent
| said:
|
| > There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple
| times before succeeding
|
| Starting a successful company and then used that basis to
| branch out into another successful company does not
| disprove this point.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The point I was addressing was "Rich kids can afford many
| throws." in the grandparent. The parent post doesn't
| really change what the main point of the grandparent is,
| which is that rich people get more chances.
| treis wrote:
| Gates had one other company that he founded at 17 before
| starting Microsoft at 20.
| jotjotzzz wrote:
| This sounds like survivorship bias.
|
| Rich kids have a golden parachute for a smoother fall than
| all the other kids. In addition, most rich kids belong to
| wealthy, well-connected parents who have already built a
| network for them. Middle-class to poor kids do not have these
| resources. However, that doesn't mean bootstrapping will not
| work. But it is harder for them than rich kids to build a
| multi-million business.
| irjustin wrote:
| > A nice analogy but it doesn't work.
|
| Your analogies don't refute his claims the way you think they
| do.
|
| When you look at the FAANGs you're implicitly viewing from
| $$'s of the overall pie (top 99.99999%??) where as the parent
| comment is looking at it from they're just 5 founders amongst
| a sea of them (top 0.000001%?). Also, the founders of those
| companies aren't rags to riches they came from upper middle
| to upper class families.
|
| His quoted analogy stands well and yours generally helps it.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple
| times before succeeding at a business.
|
| That seems counter-intuitive. You are looking at incredibly
| large corporations that came full form in a few decades only,
| and I'd wager their founder succeeding at the first try might
| be part of the whole miracle. Companies that mildly succeed
| could come from less miraculous founders who needed a few
| more tries.
|
| > Even rich kids go to VC
|
| It's more on whether they can effort to "waste" a few years
| in a startup instead of trying to build a career in a more
| stable company.
|
| They also don't need social branding: if you're trying to get
| a loan for your mortgage, working at IBM will help a lot
| compared to some random stealth startup.
|
| It's the same reason you'll find more well-off kids trying to
| make it as actors. It's just a risk most poor kids won't
| take.
|
| > due to the skills you developed and not mere luck
|
| It doesn't have to be a dichotomy of one or another. Just
| don't publish a book to tell the world "look at me: just work
| hard enough and everything is possible"
| oogali wrote:
| Your average mortgage broker does not care about the name
| of the company on the check beyond conversation.
|
| The Fannie Mae underwriting manual and software[1] they use
| makes no mention of company prestige, age, etc.
|
| Simply, is there consistent pay stub history, do the bank
| accounts agree with the pay stub history, do the filed
| 1040s agree with job and bank account.
|
| If you have a non-average mortgage broker that cares about
| the name, then you're in an SVB-like situation and we've
| all seen how that played out.
|
| 1: https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/applications-
| technology/d...
| [deleted]
| dehrmann wrote:
| > Rich kids can afford many throws.
|
| True, but those throws are still expensive, and the prize is
| worth less than the cost to play. This is what downward
| mobility looks like. It's a kid who grew up wealthy, but ended
| up upper middle class because they weren't as
| lucky/ambitious/talented as their parents. It happens a lot,
| but it isn't dramatic, and the outcome isn't "bad," so it
| doesn't get much attention, but downward mobility absolutely
| happens.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Isn't the trope that the first generation makes the wealth,
| the second generation maintains it, and the third spends it?
| JamesBarney wrote:
| If you're a dev living moderately in a reasonable cost of
| living city you can afford to go all in on a startup every few
| years without any familial income or wealth.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| This describes a member of the unlanded gentry class, not the
| middle class.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can
| try over and over and over again until they hit something and
| feel good about themselves.
|
| I see this story repeated over and and over again on the
| internet, but I don't really see it playing out the same way in
| the real world.
|
| I've seen a lot of "rich kids" try to start businesses, but
| then quickly realize that it's a huge amount of work and not
| guaranteed success. Then they look around and see all of their
| opportunities for safe, high-paying jobs that leverage their
| expensive education and their parents' network, and decide that
| taking one of those jobs is a much easier way forward.
|
| I lived near a highly ranked MBA school for a while. I would
| constantly get LinkedIn requests from stereotypical "rich kid"
| MBA grads who banded together and wanted to "do a startup", but
| they just needed a few engineers to actually do all the work.
| It was funny to hear the pitches about how they'd give me 1-5%
| for doing all of the tech work of their company while all of
| them (up to 7, in one case) would handle the business side of
| things for me. No thanks.
|
| There are definitely some "rich kid" startup founders out
| there, but a lot of the founders I've worked with over the
| years came more from the end of the spectrum where they grew up
| learning how to work hard, that money doesn't come easy, that
| they can't rely on parents to bail them out, and so on.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| > I would constantly get LinkedIn requests from stereotypical
| "rich kid" MBA grads who banded together and wanted to "do a
| startup", but they just needed a few engineers to actually do
| all the work. It was funny to hear the pitches about how
| they'd give me 1-5% for doing all of the tech work of their
| company while all of them (up to 7, in one case) would handle
| the business side of things for me. No thanks.
|
| If they kept trying, someone else probably said yes.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Rich kids does not mean rich idiots and does imply they do no
| work.
|
| It simply implies that in a case where both have considerable
| skills and effort, the 'rich kid' will get much farther
| dumbotron wrote:
| > I lived near a highly ranked MBA school for a while
|
| This is how elite colleges work. They connect elite kids with
| talented kids they can take advantage of.
| dumbotron wrote:
| > but then quickly realize that it's a huge amount of work
| and not guaranteed success
|
| The other path I've seen rich kids take is get a good enough
| job in sales and marketing where they're doing fine, but not
| as good as their parents.
|
| Revision to the mean is real.
|
| It's also like the three-generation rule for family
| businesses. The first builds it, the second maintains it, the
| third loses it.
|
| Alternatively,
|
| > My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I
| drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will
| drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel
| linguistbreaker wrote:
| To apply it to the dart game analogy I would argue it's just
| not as compelling to the rich kids. They can shoot shots if
| they want, but winning the stuffed animal isn't that exciting
| because they can have as many of those as they want without
| winning a dart game. The prize is much more exciting to
| someone who has to hit the shot to get the prize.
| badpun wrote:
| > Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones
| working it.
|
| Aren't many first-generation immigrants (Koreans etc.) in the
| US entrepreneurs? They're certainly not middle class, and yet
| they make in it the business world.
| peterxpark wrote:
| As a son of Korean entrepreneur immigrants, I can say that
| many of them work less than minimum wage per hour at their
| business. These bets can work out but it can also be worse
| than their employees.
| svnt wrote:
| Poor isn't just a temporary personal financial situation. In
| this case often the parents continue to sacrifice everything
| so that their children can have a chance at a better life.
|
| Being the recipient of the sacrifice of two capable people is
| not a state of poverty.
| Dig1t wrote:
| I've seen this analogy repeatedly many times and it's becoming
| a meme.
|
| I think this is wrong and that it trivializes people's
| accomplishments and hard work as nothing but random chance.
|
| There are tons of examples of entrepreneurs who came from
| nothing that spent long periods of time living with their
| parents and eating ramen, grinding until they finally made it.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| And for every one of those, there are 10 who did not.
|
| Random chance is a dominant factor in life, in some walks of
| like it's The Dominant Factor. Look at Olympic champions,
| they all work hard but for every athlete that succeeds, there
| are 100 that worked just as hard and did not. If you were not
| randomly allocated the right genes, your chance of winning
| the Olympics is 0% no matter how hard you work.
|
| Or look at traders, they work 100 hours a week, consume
| cocaine, some die of overwork, some die of overdose. And we
| have research to prove that random chance is the dominant
| factor in their work. Working hard for them is a necessity to
| stay in the game, but it does not assure success.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > If you were not randomly allocated the right genes, your
| chance of winning the Olympics is 0% no matter how hard you
| work
|
| Tonya Harding would like a word with you.
|
| More seriously, luck beyond can help beyond genetics. Such
| as having local access to a world-class trainer. Or changes
| to the rules of a competition (I have heard that Simone
| Biles' 10s are partly possible because of changes in
| scoring which value her skillset more than they did
| previously).
| pvsukale3 wrote:
| I agree, a lot of things you do in life are based on how many
| times can you absorb the failure and recover from it. This
| ability is just not financial, it also has physical, mental
| health, relationships aspect to it.
|
| You could get be the "lucky" person either tomorrow or 10 years
| from now, question is how long can you afford to continue.
| czbond wrote:
| You can always afford to continue - just with your after
| hours work job nights and weekends.
|
| In my experience, the stress and mental aspects are the
| hardest because each has to decide what to give up for
| potentially nothing in return.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > You can always afford to continue - just with your after
| hours work job nights and weekends.
|
| I don't like pointing out 'privilege', but this is it.
|
| Many of us have to spend weekends and evenings looking
| after kids, or ill parents. Family responsibilities in
| other words.
|
| Some of us have jobs that demand more than standard 9/5.
|
| And some have to work a second job to make ends meet.
| czbond wrote:
| What you pointed out is adults have responsibilities. We
| all have responsibilities to work around to follow your
| goals and dreams.
|
| Not having responsibilities is not a sign of privilege -
| but just a sign of a different phase of life. So that
| means one has to be tactical to pick the opportunity that
| matches what effort & energy one can put towards that
| opportunity.
| thrashh wrote:
| You can't work around all responsibilities. For example,
| if you have to take care of your sick mom, you simply
| cannot do it.
|
| I'm going to be honest. You don't sound super privileged
| but you are more privileged than a lot of people and you
| don't seem to realize it.
|
| There is nothing wrong with privilege and there are
| definitely lazy people but it gets ridiculous when you
| keep posting "if I could do it, why can't everyone else?"
| czbond wrote:
| Realize the game you and your family are playing.
|
| Middle class have 3 paths out:
|
| - Single shot entrepreneurship
|
| - Repeated entrepreneurship with a job (no free nights or
| weekends)
|
| - Long term, multi generational wealth building over the course
| of 40-100 years with a mixture of stable career or above
|
| A wealthy family did the above but a generation or two before
| you or yours & someone else is reaping the benefit. Don't get
| mad at someone else because of your own families path.
| wootland wrote:
| That's _not_ how most generational wealth was created. From
| mobsters that went "legit" (Bronfmans, Kennedys...) to
| people who build their fortunes off war profiteering,
| slavery, genocide, child labor... They weren't grinding away
| for 40-100 years at some labor job. They exploited people,
| captured the gains, then used the power law to stay on the
| top.
| czbond wrote:
| Sure - those are some very specific examples. But whatever
| town you're in, drive around the nice areas. Those $1M-$5M
| houses with BMW's or etc. Are they gangsters and warlords?
| No, they're just normal people who tried and took a
| different path. Some by luck, some by skill, some by
| experience.
|
| Just as one can't judge a person who's on the streets - one
| can't judge a wealthy person with such lenses.
| wootland wrote:
| The vast majority of those people are middle/upper-middle
| class people in massive debt. The kind of upper-class
| Harvard grad that VCs like are most definitely of the old
| money variety.
| ameister14 wrote:
| >The kind of upper-class Harvard grad that VCs like are
| most definitely of the old money variety.
|
| Do you have _any_ evidence for this?
|
| [edit] Of course, you'll likely be able to find a single
| case and that's _any_ evidence. So how about is there
| sufficient evidence to support your conclusion that "old
| money" is getting all the VC funding?
| wootland wrote:
| I don't think there's been research done on generational
| wealth of funded founders, but there's plenty that shows
| highly skewed investment patterns:
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/29/diversifying-startups-
| and-...
| ameister14 wrote:
| That doesn't describe most generational wealth.
|
| A family house is generational wealth. Most people who at
| age 65-75 are worth over $1 million dollars didn't get
| there by using the power of law to stay on top or
| profiteering from slavery or genocide. That's insane.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > didn't get there by using the power of law
|
| NIMBYism is the power of law. Mortgage interest deduction
| is the power of law. Without either, that million dollars
| of wealth, much of it in the home, would be a lot less.
| ameister14 wrote:
| Even if I take that as true, it's still not "using the
| power of law" to follow the law. "Using the power of law"
| implies some degree of control over the law.
| wootland wrote:
| I said "power law" not "power of law", meaning winner
| take all.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| People vote, and on some issues they vote as blocks.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think it's a mixed bag. Without progressive taxation
| regimes and property tax, I would expect those people to
| have much more wealth, not less.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| The very top, sure. But there are effects all down the
| ladder, and at some point the effects of the laws stop
| helping build wealth and start hurting it. Some of these
| taxation regimes are functionally regressive, at least at
| the top.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2023/03/26/finan
| cia...
|
| > The reason most people don't get the mortgage interest
| benefit is because claiming it requires itemizing tax
| deductions rather than using the standard deduction. But
| to itemize, you need enough deductions. In 2019, the Tax
| Foundation estimated how many people itemized after those
| big tax changes in 2017 that made it harder for most
| taxpayers to do so. It was 13.7%, or more than 17
| percentage points lower than before the 2017 law.
|
| > Desmond pointed to a National Bureau of Economic
| Research study from 2015. Even at that point, about $195
| billion of the $270 billion the federal government spent
| on housing was in the form of these tax code-based
| deductions. The remaining $75 billion is spent on the
| poor, or less than a third as much.
|
| > That $195 billion now is for the people who can claim
| it on their taxes, or less than 14% of the tax paying
| population.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >But there are effects all down the ladder, and at some
| point the effects of the laws stop helping build wealth
| and start hurting it.
|
| This was actually the point I was trying to make. It
| depends on how you look at it, but by one measure, taxes
| on net are slowing the wealth accumulation of everyone
| who pays more than the national average tax. Those who
| pay less than the average are typically living hand to
| mouth and not accumulating wealth. When you look at where
| tax revenue comes from, it is mostly the high earners
| that are paying for everything, offsetting the their
| wealth accumulation. Even despite factors like itemized
| tax deductions, your high earner will still be paying far
| more than your low earner. For example, the federal rate
| of 37% on income over 500k will still be far more than
| 12% on less than 41k, even with tax deductions.
|
| There are of course some factors that offset this, like
| maintaining the rule of law, education, and property
| rights which help lift all boats, rich and poor.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| For the generationally wealthy laws such as stepped up
| basis and lower taxes on capital gains are also counter
| factors.
|
| The mortgage interest deduction in particular now helps
| the top 20% or so afford their homes. And afford to
| continue paying more for homes in their range. Thus
| boosting property values and prices. While the lack of
| mortgage interest deduction for additional homes
| increases the cost of homes which are let out as rentals,
| which directly impacts the cost of renters, and
| indirectly boosts the costs of renters through the rise
| in property values.
|
| I haven't studied this, and lack the ability to do an
| economic analysis of the yoyoing of increasing home
| prices versus new construction. But there's probably a
| regressive effect on wealth even for some of those who
| aren't living hand-to-mouth.
|
| It looks like the mortgage interest tax deduction did
| decrease from interest on up to $1 million in loans to
| interest on up to $750 thousand with the 2017 tax change.
| This should help reduce the effect on house prices a
| little bit on the margin.
|
| > it is mostly the high earners that are paying for
| everything, offsetting the their wealth accumulation.
|
| To an extent this is true. But this argument is also used
| to say that renters don't pay property taxes. Maybe not,
| but property taxes have a direct, proportionate effect on
| the rent that they pay.
| icedchai wrote:
| How do you define generational wealth? 7 figures? 8? 9?
| There are many small to medium sized family businesses that
| were not built on criminal or immoral activities.
| wootland wrote:
| I'd say 8,9 or 10. Generally people who would be
| considered LPs for VCs and have political and/or media
| influence. It is the children of these people that are
| highly over represented in the executive and funded
| entrepreneur ranks.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Similar to the other post, Every American who passes a
| house to their decendents has built some level of
| generational wealth. There are a lot more people in this
| bucket than the Kennedy wealth bucket
| wootland wrote:
| We're talking about wealthy entrepreneurs that raise
| millions of dollars from VCs, not average homeowners. One
| house passed down to 4 kids, isn't going to get those
| kids invited to Marc Andreessen's bbqs.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| To the contrary, the parent post you respnded was talking
| about what options middle class families have to make it
| to the upper class. This is a seperate question than what
| option middle class familes have to get to an Andreesen
| BBQ.
|
| Maybe it is just a confusion over the definition of
| "multi generational wealth".
|
| Many if not most people consider getting a house,
| inheretence, or small business "multi generational
| wealth", especially in economic literature.
|
| You dont need an 8+ figure inheretence to be upper class
| in the US.
| wootland wrote:
| I think multi generational wealth would mean that people
| are a member of the capital class and not the labor class
| (i.e. they don't have to work for a living). Those are
| the people who go on to be serial entrepreneurs, because,
| why not? Nothing to lose other than effort.
|
| Anyone else is taking on risk of becoming destitute if
| they repeatedly try to start businesses. Even a small
| business can drain a million dollars very quickly.
|
| > _You dont need an 8+ figure inheretence to be upper
| class in the US._
|
| I think you do since that's about the level where you
| don't have to work anymore, especially if you're talking
| about passing that money down to multiple children and
| keeping them in the upper class.
| czbond wrote:
| Disagree. You're not mentioning something just as
| important, and even more powerful than work. Compounding
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't think you are using a conventional definition of
| upper class, or that it is interchangeable with capital
| class. I also don't think these are the definitions for
| the Post you were responding to.
|
| That said, I agree eight figures is about the right
| number for when a family would not have to work assuming
| that the capital assets are managed appropriately.
|
| I think high value labor is the main path between lower
| class and middle class. High value labor plus smart
| investment of surplus capital gets families from middle
| class to high class. The path from high class to Capital
| class, as you call it is, primarily return on Capital
| management.
|
| To get from Capital class to Kennedy class requires a
| significant windfall or luck, as you would expect for
| tail end of a Pareto distribution.
| treis wrote:
| That's not true. A large majority of middle class kid can
| rely on their parents support until their 30s. I personally
| know several shitheads doing that and they're doing so
| because they're lazy. Not because they're working hard on
| some start up.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Sure, but that safety net runs out. And once it runs out
| with nothing established beyond it, the "shithead" is SOL.
| treis wrote:
| Sure, but it runs out after a dozen start up attempts.
| And at that point you haven't got a business you can live
| on it's because you're not cut out to be a founder.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > Sure, but it runs out after a dozen start up attempts.
|
| For middle class adults living with their parents?
| treis wrote:
| If you do one a year from 18 to 30 that's an even dozen.
| digging wrote:
| > Don't get mad at someone else because of your own families
| path
|
| Should I get mad at my family? This part is not clear to me.
|
| You are also saying this like it's possible for everyone to
| become wealthy, if only they were picking one of these three
| options. Not every family can be wealthy - the wealthy make
| sure of it. It's a zero-sum game (well, more of a negative-
| sum game? as wealth becomes more concentrated at the top).
|
| Actually, the more I think about it, the less I see how these
| are three different options. For me as an individual, #3
| comes down to inheriting wealth that someone else generated
| with #1, which is just #2 + luck.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| If the economy was a zero or negative sum game we'd still
| have the same food insecurity we did 500 years ago. But we
| don't, the world has gotten much better in the last 500
| years from people working hard on making it better, many
| getting rich in the process.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Your benchmark was Rich. Rich is a relative term, it
| means more money that everyone else.
|
| If everyone owns 5 houses, to be rich you have to own 500
| david38 wrote:
| Funny how this doesn't apply to immigrants. Being lower,
| middle, upper class is mostly a mindset that dictates your
| tolerance for risk. Immigrants of the same income level as US
| born have a far higher tolerance.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Isn't this self selection bias?
|
| The most risk tolerant people are also the most likely to
| immigrate to a new country? The more conservative people
| buckle in for a life at the fruit stand or whatever they have
| in their home country. Maybe not a great life, but it's
| steady and they know it keeps them fed.
| jakey_bakey wrote:
| Can confirm this as middle class kid.
|
| Co-foudned a startup a few years ago, was good fun, didn't end
| up going anywhere. Got a decent bit of parental help with
| childcare. Now childcare has gone up a ton and I'm in a market-
| rate dev job with no intention to change.
|
| Co-founder came from money, and is definitely under no such
| constraints in starting another business.
| blueprint wrote:
| what universe do you live in where someone making gte 100k
| working the carnival is poor?
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| The median income in the USA is 41k.
| blueprint wrote:
| what's your fallacy called? i don't remember. but obviously
| the comment was about the circus enabling the rich kids'
| startups. if the circus was the rest of the us then it
| would be everyone's circus, not the aforementioned one.
| duh. now the real question is are you arguing in good faith
| or are you actually on, eg, the side of those rich kids?
| either way, fallacy is fallacy and you should be downvoted.
| shubhamjain wrote:
| [flagged]
| andrepd wrote:
| > There are thousands of examples that will refute your
| assumptions.
|
| Someone needs to take a statistics/numeracy 101 class :)
| lapcat wrote:
| Please review the HN guidelines for comments:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ericmcer wrote:
| Agreed, article was about the emotional impacts of working
| for yourself vs someone else. GP warped that into some
| metaphor about classism. Cool but unrelated.
| aww_dang wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29688489
|
| It isn't the first thread like this. No sense in rehashing
| the same arguments again and again. Pessimists cannot be
| convinced. Their world view is self-reinforcing. Worse yet,
| they have every incentive to ignore evidence to the contrary.
|
| Arguments from first principles are always the strongest. If
| you don't try, you cannot succeed.
| EliRivers wrote:
| Money where your mouth is, otherwise you're exactly the same
| as what you complain about.
| brightball wrote:
| Starting a business is much easier for married couples who are
| on the same page about what to do. Succeeding is a heck of a
| lot harder. Both work, you live off the job income from one
| while the other focuses on starting the business. In
| preparation for living on a single income, you budget and save
| the income of the other spouse to start the business. This
| strategy also works great for saving for a down payment on a
| house too.
|
| A dual income couple can accomplish a lot if they communicate,
| plan and support each other.
| blitz_skull wrote:
| If you can't afford to sink the money into a startup, you
| probably should not attempt to do so, right?
|
| The fallacy here lies in assuming that every startup requires
| capital. Capital greases the wheels, sure. But far too many
| people think entrepreneurship is just dumping money into an
| "idea" until it works, and that's actually the worst possible
| way to go about building a business.
|
| I've been building businesses since I was 10. _Very_ low income
| family. They certainly weren 't funding anything (nor was I in
| middle-school). But the spirit of entrepreneurship has always
| been there.
| wootland wrote:
| If you have a family and live in the US, you will be saddled
| with mandatory health insurance payments that are basically
| untenable without a full-time job.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| > Rich kids can afford many throws.
|
| True. But the advantage is broader than that. They also have
| more able networks. Their parents more likely to know someone
| who can help who might know someone else who can help. The
| (support) network matters.
|
| But that's not the difference marker. It's WHAT they throw
| those darts at that matters. True story...
|
| A few years ago I attended (as a spectator) a hackathon at
| Princeton Univ. It was mostly PU teams but there were a handful
| of outsiders.
|
| On day one each team presented their ideas. The team from
| Rutgers' idea had to do with drinking. An app that figured out
| the amount of alcohol in your glass or something like that. I
| honestly don't recall the PU ideas but I know they didn't
| center around partying.
|
| It was then I realized the difference between those two
| schools. It's not the quality of the education per se. It's
| WHAT you think about and HOW you think about it.
|
| Rich kids are exposed to a way of thinking (and role models)
| that is 100x more rare in the middle class or below. Sure you
| can claw up from the middle/bottom but it's 100x easier from
| the top.
| grardb wrote:
| As a Rutgers alumnus who was involved in the scene when
| college hackathons started really taking off (2009-2013,
| attended 40+ hackathons), I can say that this anecdote
| doesn't reflect my experience at all. Had you attended HackRU
| instead of HackPrinceton, I can guarantee you that the app
| ideas would be pretty much indistinguishable from those at
| other universities.
|
| As for thinking differently, I can't speak much to that, but
| I've met quite a number of rich people with average and
| below-average thinking capabilities.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| To clarify, I'm not talking about IQ. There's no connection
| between IQ and (financial) success. It's how and what they
| use what they have.
|
| There's a difference been thinking about and having lunch
| with Aunt X and Uncke Y the successful biz owners and the
| new Marvel movie and associated video game.
|
| There's a difference between being smart about your body
| (read: food and exercise) and indulgening in anything
| advertised on TV. Spend a day in Princeton, there is a
| noticeable lack of excess weight and obesity.
|
| Why? Because they think (and act) different.
| kingboss wrote:
| Rich people usually control their weight better because
| they have more money to have better food and perhaps
| personal cooks/access to better restaurants with better
| food. They act differently because they are rich. Not
| because of any sort of bullshit mEnTaLiTy concept.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| It's chicken egg thing.
|
| Or at they rich because they act differently?
|
| Come on, if you had the money it's 10x easier to "let
| yourself go", right? Yet how often does that happen?
|
| Your thoughts drive your decisions and actions. That's
| not bullshit. That's life. Suck it up cupcake :)
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| It's my comment above yours.
|
| I went to RU as well so I know what that edu and campus
| experience is like. I grew up in central NJ so I am
| familiar with Princeton. I went to public school. I had
| friends who went to private schools (e.g., Hun).
|
| There IS a differnce, and it ain't just income.
|
| You're absolutely right. It's a small sample size.
| Nonetheless the contrast was stark and obvious. Network,
| environment and role models all matter. They are things a
| lack of money can't buy.
| oogali wrote:
| If you're open to fielding some questions about the area
| (and its academics), can you drop me a line at gmail
| using my username?
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| This ignores generational change. You can bump up your kids to
| the next level.
|
| You see this most often in many of the immigrant families
|
| First generation are janitors.
|
| Second generation are accountants/engineers.
|
| Third generation are doctors/lawyers
|
| Fourth generation are entrepreneurs
| ROTMetro wrote:
| This doesn't explain the success rates that low wealth
| immigrants have when it comes to entrepreneurship. It does feel
| like an analogy someone would write a sudo-intelectual book
| based on because it 'feels accurate' while being nothing but
| pop-crap people use to put energy into being resentful or to
| justify limits they put on themselves.
| [deleted]
| Mistletoe wrote:
| That is golden.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Actually, poor people start lots of businesses, particularly
| immigrant families. In lots of cases those tend to be mom-and-
| pop operations, not things intended to become unicorns or
| anything, just enough to afford independence from "the man", or
| to give the kids an opportunity to get an education etc. (Kim's
| Convenience really gets at this dynamic pretty well for
| immigrant families). Often times too, poor people's businesses
| are in the gray economy. Pushing around a cart selling ice-
| cream, going house to house selling tamales, maintaining a
| clientele fro nails and hair styling. In fact, one of the
| biggest obstacles to these folks are the local regulations. I'm
| no libertarian, but it has long been clear to me that the
| licensing requirements etc. for some of this stuff is a real
| obstacle to moving out of the gray economy for them.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| When I lived in California there were yearly stories about
| homemade cheese that was getting sold and killing people and
| a push to remind people of this reality. The 'licensing
| requirements' are there for a reason, around food the reason
| is to prevent deaths or permanent disabilities from food
| poisoning.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Sure, but other requirements are stupid, like you can't
| open a cafe in US without having a lot of land for parking.
|
| Also in Britain, surprisingly, you can register a takeaway
| anywhere, even at your home, and if you don't handle animal
| products, there is no requirements to meet at all. You
| don't have to show your hygiene rating to customers either.
|
| "When you start a new food business or take over an
| existing business, you must register with your local
| authority.
|
| It's free to register, and your registration cannot be
| refused.
|
| You should register at least 28 days before opening. If
| you're already trading and have not registered, you need to
| do this as soon as possible."
| [deleted]
| boplicity wrote:
| > Middle class kids can afford one throw.
|
| Gotta disagree with this. As someone who grew up middle class,
| I was fortunate, in a lot of ways, to also learn to be prudent
| with money. I started bootstrapping microbusinesses with almost
| no monetary investment. This eventually allowed me to support
| myself (on a very low budget), and then, later, on a slightly
| larger budget. Eventually, one of these businesses became
| successful enough to support a family comfortably with an
| "upper" middle class income.
|
| The mistake a lot of people make is that they need to spend
| significant time and/or money to start a business. You don't.
| You can work on low-risk businesses, building your skillset so
| that your odds of success improve over time. No need to aim for
| the "center" bullseye, either. This is a case where low
| ambition can be helpful. Instead of trying to grow a huge
| startup, I was ecstatic when I was able to afford rent in my
| cheap apartment (with a roommate.)
|
| Of course, the situation may be different now for middle class
| kids. Maybe they don't have some of the same luxuries my family
| was able to give me: a couple of years of college paid for,
| attending a few business/marketing conferences as a teenager,
| examples to follow from my dad and brother. I suspect some of
| this is true; I sense a lot of pressure on young adults that I
| didn't feel when I was young. I also recognize that "middle
| class" in the states is definitely a case of "wealth" in
| comparison to other parts of the world.
|
| Also, when I was young, and learning the ropes, _I was young._
| I didn 't have responsibilities; just being able to afford a
| crappy apartment and food was more than enough.
| isoos wrote:
| I'm curious: what was your first 3 bootstrapped business?
| didgetmaster wrote:
| >Also, when I was young, and learning the ropes, I was young.
| I didn't have responsibilities; just being able to afford a
| crappy apartment and food was more than enough.
|
| Back in the mid 90s, I had the opportunity to join a small
| startup. I took a 50% pay cut and took a big risk; but I got
| a healthy chunk of founder's stock so if it worked out, I
| would be rewarded. Turned out to be one of the best decisions
| I ever made; but I also made it when I was young and single
| with no one to take care of but myself. I seriously doubt I
| would have done that just a few years later when I was
| married and had a couple young kids.
|
| Rich people can afford to take more risk and do it more times
| than can people with more modest means. It is certainly
| possible for the middle class to make it work; but they have
| to be more strategic and careful and thanks for pointing out
| a few ways to do that.
| TrueSlacker0 wrote:
| This goes back to Jim Collins book Great by Choice and the
| idea of Bullets then Cannonballs.
|
| [1]"First, you fire bullets (low-cost, low-risk, low-
| distraction experiments) to figure out what will work--
| calibrating your line of sight by taking small shots. Then,
| once you have empirical validation, you fire a cannonball
| (concentrating resources into a big bet) on the calibrated
| line of sight. Calibrated cannonballs correlate with outsized
| results; uncalibrated cannonballs correlate with disaster.
| The ability to turn small proven ideas (bullets) into huge
| hits (cannonballs) counts more than the sheer amount of pure
| innovation."
|
| [1] https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/fire-bullets-then-
| cannon...
| boplicity wrote:
| Interesting...I definitely read some Jim Collins books
| early on; though I'm not sure of the timing. This was like
| 20 years ago.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| I suspect many people simply want to be seen as a "startup
| founder," much more than actually being one. They want to
| play "startup business" the same way young children want to
| "play house." It is akin to Gen Z's obsession with becoming
| an influencer, just with more hoodies, misplaced Steve Jobs
| quotes, and awful Medium thinkpieces.
|
| The label is aspirational by design, and they buy into the
| whole culture, which explains why everyone thinks a startup
| has to be an all-or-nothing unicorn taking VC funding for a
| glorified CRUD app where they're just making up the
| requirements as they go while praying for product/market fit.
|
| In short, it's about status and pop culture, not solving the
| problems of real users. Which is a shame, cause actually
| solving problems for users is really, really interesting even
| if TechCrunch doesn't get excited about it.
| nsoonhui wrote:
| >> Middle class kids can afford one throw.
|
| > Gotta disagree with this. As someone who grew up middle
| class, I was fortunate, in a lot of ways, to also learn to be
| prudent with money.
|
| You said you are fortunate, that actually _proves_ rather
| than disproves the parent comment, no?
| boplicity wrote:
| I don't understand your logic. I was middle class, and
| could afford more than one throw. The assumption in the OP
| was that a middle class kid can only afford one throw,
| which wasn't true, in my case.
|
| I was fortunate, because I knew better than to "throw" all
| of my money at an opportunity, not because I wasn't middle
| class.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Could you have afforded more than one throw, if your
| first throw had missed? If it had missed so badly you
| figuratively hit a bystander with the dart, and now owed
| more than you had originally put in (microbusinesses
| aren't typically protected under limited liability)?
| pc86 wrote:
| The parent comment is a cute little story that makes people
| feel better, without any actual facts, so there's not
| really anything to prove or disprove.
|
| But no, they meant that not having unlimited funds meant
| having to be creative or having to focus on business ideas
| where huge budgets were unnecessary.
| zdragnar wrote:
| The point the GP was refuting- that middle class kids
| only get one throw - is also not an actual fact.
|
| I'll take their assessment of their life ("lived
| experience" in modern parlance) over a bad analogy any
| day.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| The point the original comment was making is that richer
| kids get more throws. The particular number 1 was used to
| highlight the magnitude of this difference. If you read
| it literally, then sure, it isn't true of all edge cases.
| zdragnar wrote:
| And the refutation was that the "number of throws"
| matters less than the scale of risk they took on each
| "throw", hence why I said it was a bad analogy. If the
| point of the original comment is that rich people have
| more money, then I'm not really sure what was worth
| pointing out.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| I think status
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35400562 ) is a
| bigger deal than personal risk. Status lessens personal
| risk, by getting buy-in from others.
|
| This can work even with poor people who have connections
| and status within their community.
|
| Status not only gets buy-in from others for business
| operations, but gets buy in from customers, which is
| required for any business to survive and thrive.
|
| I've had Adam Neumann, in particular, in mind while
| reading this thread. He famously had multiple shots. Some
| of these may have been while just a child of the upper
| middle class, but his most recent big ones were because
| of his connection to status within the upper class.
|
| It's kind of like the failing upward of executives of
| broken companies. Once you get past a certain level of
| status it's really, really hard to lose it all so much
| that you can't get buy in from others.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/wewo
| rk-...
|
| > What distinguished Neumann, along with his ambition,
| was "his connection to capital," Wiedeman writes. Neumann
| had married Rebekah Paltrow, a wealthy cousin of Gwyneth
| Paltrow and a kabbalah devotee. She invested part of a $1
| million nest egg in WeWork and introduced her husband to
| Manhattan's Kabbalah Centre, where he met other well-off
| backers.
| melenaboija wrote:
| I think you missed the point.
|
| As middle class you can't fail with your dart, you are either
| lucky or good with it. Maybe you are part of the latter, but
| if you miss your shot you are fucked in either case.
|
| Wealthy people can be damn bad with it but keep trying until
| it works, and if you are rich enough you don't even need to
| hit the center once and keep going.
| czbond wrote:
| Of course you can miss your shot. Many, many times. But it
| just means each time you have to give up a little more of
| your personal time and freedom for the next shot.
|
| No nights or weekends after the j.o.b. - each has to decide
| if that is worth it to them.
| melenaboija wrote:
| What you have to give up is relative to each situation
| and the only thing that makes a difference in my opinion
| is:
|
| - You have to give up something
|
| - You don't have to give up anything
| broast wrote:
| This is still more than other more privaleged people have
| to sacrifice per attempt
| czbond wrote:
| The only thing that matters is your OWN personal
| situation. Sure, some make it in 1 shot. Most don't.
| digging wrote:
| It seems like y'all are arguing completely different
| points, which is often the case in conversations about
| hustle/motivation. You are both right
|
| The value of what _you_ are saying is that an individual
| can 't change their circumstance, only make the best of
| it. This is true.
|
| The value of what the OP is saying is that we should be
| aware of how our circumstances affect our chances. Be
| kind to ourselves if we fail, when it's so likely for us.
| And also that we should, if possible, change the
| circumstances for those who come after us.
| bumby wrote:
| To torture this analogy a bit, the post you're responding
| to is basically saying:
|
| If you're middle class, maybe you can't take shot after
| shot at the full distance, but you can start close to the
| target and incrementally step further away. To mix
| analogies, there's nothing in business that says you have
| to swing for the fences on your first attempt.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Gotta disagree with this. As someone who grew up middle
| class, I was fortunate, in a lot of ways, to also learn to be
| prudent with money. I started bootstrapping microbusinesses
| with almost no monetary investment. This eventually allowed
| me to support myself (on a very low budget), and then, later,
| on a slightly larger budget. Eventually, one of these
| businesses became successful enough to support a family
| comfortably with an "upper" middle class income._
|
| That's still a random individual outcome. What matters is
| aggregate outcomes, what happens to most middle class kids
| who want to be enterpreneurs for example, and how many
| chances they get.
|
| There's also the matter of the quality of those chances (what
| kind of changes you get with $300K in the bank and dad's rich
| people connections vs $0 in the bank and middle class
| connections).
|
| That's even before considering the chances afforded to middle
| class kids now versus then.
| prottog wrote:
| > What matters is aggregate outcomes
|
| In the aggregate, nobody starts a business. It's hard work
| with lots of risks. Most everyone prefers to exchange their
| time and labor for a stable income.
| vhanda wrote:
| The aggregate is the number of attempts at
| "Entrepreneurship" across class boundaries. The thesis is
| that Middle class kids get far fewer attempts vs richer
| kids.
|
| In that context, counting where the number of attempts is
| 0 doesn't add anything to the thesis.
| mrangle wrote:
| The larger red flag is the language typical of marketers
| combined with zero specificity. "Bootstrap microbusinesses,
| no monetary investment" followed by "success". All very
| unlikely, especially in plural. If true, he wouldn't have
| to reveal an exact business model. But detailing the type
| of business (ie: service or product) and / or sector would
| have lent credibility.
|
| I can't think of a truly successful business, for an adult,
| that didn't require money to start. Money being a bare
| minimum.
| boplicity wrote:
| Note, I said "almost no monetary investment."
|
| I did things like buy a domain name, pay for cheap web
| hosting, etc. I was already knew the basics of coding,
| and _some_ understanding of marketing. My biggest
| investment was a $97 eBook about marketing. I found one
| idea in that book that I used to do some successful SEO.
| This was circa 2003, when SEO was pretty much as easy as
| picking fruit from a tree, if you knew the right things.
| Anyways, that 's how I got things launched. I also bought
| and read quite a few business books, which certainly
| weren't free.
|
| This type of investment was very do-able for most middle
| class kids. Many of whom, at the time, could afford their
| own home built computers.
|
| Also -- what I started with is very much _not_ where I
| ended up, though there is certainly some relationship to
| it. For example, SEO is still an important part of the
| business, but the SEO strategy is much more about human
| relationships and service, than it was about "gaming the
| system," which was my perspective as a 21 year old.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| The whole point of the post you're responding to is that
| it's not a random outcome; it's an outcome driven by a
| strategy that is specifically useful for people with $0 in
| the bank and middle class connections. You're talking about
| $300k in the bank, but the quote you included literally
| says "almost no monetary investment."
| mrangle wrote:
| And what strategy was that, exactly?
| coldtea wrote:
| It's still a random personal anecdote. And the "strategy"
| is an empty trivial advice.
|
| Do you think other poor people trying to start businesses
| don't try to do it with "almost no monetary investment"?
| Not only they try that, that's the only way they can
| afford to try anyway.
|
| Still no match for a big monetary investment, and still
| much much harder for them to get the same outcomes as an
| enterpreneur coming from privilege. Notice also how the
| claim isn't that it's impossible (or inversely, that the
| rich always succeed to build a succesful business), but
| that it is much much harder, and the upper middle
| class/rich/connections people have it much easier.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| This is cynicism disguising itself as wisdom.
|
| Of course people with privilege have it easier. The whole
| world runs on the Matthew Effect because it's too lazy to
| do anything else. It isn't just or fair. Until you can
| fully accept that truth and do things _despite_ that, you
| 're stuck.
|
| Me? As someone who rarely is fully confident about
| things, I'm fully confident I'll achieve some moderate
| success in bootstrapping if only because I have
| internalized the meta-belief that I can learn, adapt,
| persevere, and work toward the future I want, regardless
| of how long it takes, how successful I am, or any other
| external indicators. Agency is a powerful meta-belief. In
| that sense, I've already won, I'm just enjoying the
| journey and what I'm learning. And, one day I'll start
| cutting the strings of trading time for money.
| mrangle wrote:
| Cynicism, and its brother pessimism, are absolutely
| necessary to survive and thrive in business. Unbridled
| optimism is generally for future failures.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Cynicism that keeps you out of the game is
| maladaptive...if you want to be playing that game.
|
| Nobody is arguing for unbridled optimism.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _This is cynicism disguising itself as wisdom_
|
| Nope, just reality described as is.
|
| > _Of course people with privilege have it easier. (...)
| Until you can fully accept that truth and do things
| despite that, you 're stuck._
|
| That, on the other hand, is fatalism described as
| realism.
|
| Nothing ever changed without outrage about how things
| are.
|
| And even less by people accepting them and trying to get
| by "despite that".
| JohnFen wrote:
| "Every pessimist thinks themself a realist."
| coldtea wrote:
| Realists also think of themselves as realists, so there's
| that.
|
| Plus, every starry-eyed, la-la land, Polyanna thinks
| themselves not naive!
| JohnFen wrote:
| Agreed. Very nearly 100% of people think their point of
| view is correct and reasonable and everyone who doesn't
| share their point of view is wrong. The point of the
| quote, to me, is to remind us of that.
|
| It goes along with another of my favorite quotes:
| everyone seems crazy when you don't understand their
| point of view.
| Hermitian909 wrote:
| There's an interesting tension in between aggregate
| problems and what's possible for you as an individual.
|
| As an example, in the aggregate people with non-CS or
| math backgrounds are very unlikely to make $400k+ a year
| as a software developer. On an individual level, I have
| repeatedly been able to get others to that level inside 5
| years _if_ those people are willing to do straightforward
| but difficult work. However, this is only possible
| because so many people _won 't_ do the work, if everyone
| was aware of the opportunity and had the gumption to
| pursue it diligently the opportunity would quickly be
| exhausted.
|
| This same pattern of "plenty of opportunity for
| individuals, but not enough for the group" seems common
| in many other ventures. Talking to very successful people
| it seems to be one of the reasons so many people who make
| it view lack of success as a failing, they've acquired
| the skillset to see these opportunities and wonder why no
| one is taking them (but often fail to notice there aren't
| enough for everyone).
| winstonprivacy wrote:
| I did something similar, so there you go... now you have
| three "random" anecdotes.
| anony23 wrote:
| 1000 similar random anecdotes would still be random
| anecdotes.
| anonGone73 wrote:
| No ones anecdotes in this thread are random. The majority
| of failures are not reading this.
| qup wrote:
| Chiming in with my random personal anecdote: I worked a
| very low-paying job, started with zero dollars, saved my
| money, and took a shot on a business with less than
| 5-figures.
|
| This system is very repeatable. I'm 13 years in.
| jarym wrote:
| ... aggregate outcomes will be the sum of random individual
| outcomes?
| ta1243 wrote:
| How did you make rent while you were bootstrapping?
| quags wrote:
| Can't speak to parent comment. But I started a business 20
| years ago and I lived in my business partners moms
| basement. He lived in his old room - this no rent. This
| lasted 2 years in my early 20s. I'd guess anyone paying
| rent bootstrapping is doing something similar or the
| business is paying rent in some way.
| lmeyerov wrote:
| In the US, you can part-time consult, as programmers are
| paid way above the national median income. This can either
| be in a lucrative field, giving you more time, or in your
| vertical, giving you more pmf exposure. The result is
| living like a normal US person, though not necessarily your
| peer group.
|
| As most commenters note, the youth aspect is a big
| differentiator for the middle class. All this is hard as
| soon as a family is in the picture, health concerns go up,
| etc. (And for some, those happen even sooner, but not
| most.) Frustratingly, most successful entrepreneurs are
| much older, so a case of "youth is wasted on the young."
|
| Source: Had a 5 figure income in the bay area for years and
| it was fine until it wasn't.
| svnt wrote:
| This common advice is arguably the best way to guarantee
| the failure of your new venture.
| lmeyerov wrote:
| Source? Every path is hard, so saying that's the worst is
| one of the most extreme claims one can possibly make.
|
| Ex: I can argue that VC funding is much worse than having
| paying customers in your space and the luxury to pivot &
| explore until things work. Having to double down your
| growth bet every 18mo or die trying is a real killer.
| People get confused by thinking the VC path is awesome
| because VCs only fund good companies, but that doesn't
| mean it helps them, just that the company was good. Back
| to my main point, I wouldn't say VC funding is the kiss
| of death, but it a bad fit for many and arguably most
| companies ;-)
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > In the US, you can part-time consult, as programmers
| are paid way above the national median income.
|
| At some point the middle class becomes unlanded gentry.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > Maybe they don't have some of the same luxuries my family
| was able to give me: a couple of years of college paid for
|
| They don't. And that counts as pretty well off today.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Middle class kids can afford one throw.
|
| > Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival.
|
| This doesn't agree with my experience. I grew up poor, and by
| the time I hit middle class income levels, had already thrown
| the dart more than once. At middle class, I also threw the dart
| a few times.
|
| One of the things people misunderstand about starting
| businesses is that they think you need a lot of money to do it.
| You don't. Adequate funding makes the experience more
| comfortable (fewer nights going without eating, the ability to
| hire people to help, etc.), and perhaps makes the venture more
| likely to succeed (although that's a matter of legitimate
| debate), but isn't necessary.
|
| What's necessary -- regardless of monetary resources -- is an
| almost pathological drive to do whatever it takes to make the
| business work. I've found, personally, that the single factor
| that makes the difference between success and failure is being
| in a position where failure would mean complete and total
| personal disaster. Then my survival instincts kick in and help.
| plehoux wrote:
| What a depressing take.
|
| Starting young (at 20 years old or earlier) gives you over a
| decade to explore and discover your entrepreneurial path with
| low risk. Stop making excuse.
| teolandon wrote:
| Being under the age of 30 doesn't protect you from
| bankruptcy.
| biren34 wrote:
| I say that the need to start your own thing is a bug not feature.
| It IS a hard life, with tons of risk, change, and uncertainty. My
| wife hates the instability of it all. I've missed or worked
| through many vacations, concerts, and other things over the
| years.
|
| It's not even clear that it's a good deal, when you factor in
| opportunity costs, hours worked, and chances of success.
|
| So, it if you don't _have_ to do it, don 't do it. You're not
| going to succeed unless you are just the kind of person who can't
| be happy going down another path.
|
| It all sounds harsh, but it's actually a lot better than the
| risk/reward offered in many other fields: acting, writing,
| sports, etc.
|
| This is just how professions with tournament-style payouts work,
| and you either buy in or you don't. Know thyself...it never
| pretended to be anything else.
| sshine wrote:
| I don't regret not starting a business.
|
| But I've always wanted to start a business.
|
| At the least I could have something to regret.
| gumballindie wrote:
| "But as evidenced by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in
| March, which left many small firms without access to their
| essential accounts"
|
| Yeah as if that happens every day. This sob story was clearly
| written by someone who has no clue what running a business means.
| throwaway8456 wrote:
| I started, boostrapped and sold a SaaS business.
|
| By most standards, this was a resounding success. I won't have to
| work again ever if I don't want to. This being my first company,
| I was obsessed with it. Towards the end, I burnt myself out, I
| had neglected my wife and kids for years, and I was just so
| miserable. I used to love programming, but I could not
| concentrate anymore. I started developing resentment against the
| entitlement of the software engineers I would hire. My heart was
| broken every time I would read articles/comments on HN about how
| working for a start up is a scam that only benefits the founders.
|
| It was time to get out. I was lucky that I sold in 2021, when the
| multiples were higher than ever. But I have lost my marriage
| along the way, and I have definitely lost a few years of life
| expectancy.
|
| I really wonder if it was really all worth it. I know at the end
| of the day though I had to go through that. I had to see it with
| my own eyes.
|
| In the end, things worked out for me. I can't even fathom how I
| would feel if the whole thing had failed. I really came to the
| conclusion that most of the time, starting a company is for
| suckers.
| chinaman425 wrote:
| [dead]
| komali2 wrote:
| > But I have lost my marriage along the way, and I have
| definitely lost a few years of life expectancy.
|
| > I really wonder if it was really all worth it.
|
| Wait, are you saying you don't think you'd have lost the
| marriage if you didn't do the startup? Surely it wasn't worth
| it if so?
| marpstar wrote:
| A lost marriage isn't always for the worst.
| itsaquicknote wrote:
| And sometimes it is.
| dazc wrote:
| 'I really wonder if it was really all worth it.'
|
| You concede your marriage suffered and suggest the impact on
| your health was negative, but both of these things could have
| happened if you were just surviving in a low paid regular job.
|
| Don't be so hard on yourself and enjoy your success.
| pc86 wrote:
| But they were already a programmer, so "low paid regular job"
| is extremely unlikely. Probably the "worst" they could have
| done was mid-level dev at a bank in the middle of nowhere
| making $65-80k/yr, which is certainly doable as half the
| household income to have a nice middle class life. The math
| changes in you're in a big city but the income does too.
|
| It's easy to choose destroying your relationships and risking
| your health when the alternative is poverty. It's not so easy
| when the alternative is still making twice what the average
| American makes working in a cubicle _at worst_.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Though I agree with the sentiment of your post...
|
| > You concede your marriage suffered and suggest the impact
| on your health was negative, but both of these things could
| have happened if you were just surviving in a low paid
| regular job.
|
| This isn't really a good way of thinking. Where will it end?
| You might as well do _anything_ , since any _negative
| outcome_ isn 't _necessarily_ inclusive of the thing you did.
| qgin wrote:
| I think it's more useful for second guessing your past
| choices.
|
| You're absolutely right that it's worth weighing the
| chances looking forwards because it can guide your future
| choices.
|
| But when looking back and thinking "if only I'd done this
| or that differently, everything would have gone well,"
| that's torturing yourself with a imaginary timeline that
| never happened and for which there is a non-zero chance
| could have been worse.
| matart wrote:
| While you shouldn't torture yourself with past choices,
| you do need to recognize them so you can learn. They were
| a participant in the past it didn't only just happen to
| them.
| throaway33355 wrote:
| From throwaway to throwaway: Would you mind sharing some
| contact details, or reaching out to throaway33355@proton.me? Am
| in similar situation and would love to have a chance to reflect
| with someone who's been through it.
| reedf1 wrote:
| > a start up is a scam that only benefits the founders
|
| I've worked for a few start-ups now from early-stages to IPO
| and it definitely feels like this. Most opportunities for any
| amount of valuable equity is complete lies. I have been
| personally responsible for creating quite a few millionaires -
| without being one myself.
|
| > I started developing resentment against the entitlement of
| the software engineers I would hire
|
| You probably know this already - but you are nothing without
| your engineers and they usually know it. I recently worked for
| a financial start-up which completely imploded just pre-IPO
| because the founder thought that they were beyond the point of
| needing an engineering team (!).
| dlisboa wrote:
| I think people today, especially high paid workers, forgot
| all about class consciousness. People like to think
| themselves closer to the owners of a company than to the
| cleaning staff. At the end of the day we're still labour,
| equity only exists for engineers because we're a high value
| commodity at this point, but that's not supposed to happen at
| all. The moment that is no longer true the more we'll look
| like "regular" workers, with no expectation of a big payout.
| Just like the line worker at Foxconn isn't getting equity.
| inconceivable wrote:
| i also sold in 2021 when the money flowed easy. i'm not set for
| life but i could easily go 10 years, longer if i sold assets.
| eventually the burnout faded, my health improved (knock on
| wood) and the boredom got to me after 1.5 years and i'm working
| again. working on personal projects "for fun" is not the same
| as making money, no matter what anyone says.
|
| buying expensive shit is awesome for a while but it gets old.
| especially if you already have a home you actually like living
| in and the 'expensive toys and experiences' itch has been
| scratched for a while because your business was already
| successful by the time you sold it. i don't want a huge house
| and i don't need another car or overpriced workstation
| computer.
|
| it makes me wonder what drives billionaires to keep going.
| they're probably just bored when they're not working. it really
| might be as simple as that.
| digging wrote:
| > it makes me wonder what drives billionaires to keep going.
| they're probably just bored when they're not working. it
| really might be as simple as that.
|
| If we're looking at billionaires, it's a very different
| situation from the rest of the rich.
|
| Billionaires carve out and control portions of civilization.
| I mean any business or other venture does this to a degree,
| but when you're working with billions of USD, you're playing
| a different game entirely. It is about power.
| hydrok9 wrote:
| A lot of people who make money love "making money" most of
| all. I come from a successful entrepreneurial family and it
| was the big difference between my parents and most of their
| peers, my parents did not care about money per se, it was
| just part of the business. But the other businesspeople they
| knew, they loved making money. Loved it.
| boplicity wrote:
| > what drives billionaires to keep going
|
| I don't think it's a mystery; if you want to do a good job,
| then you'll continue to want to do a good job, _even if you
| 're already succeeding at doing a good job._
| [deleted]
| orangepurple wrote:
| Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything
| he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he
| will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will
| have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored
| and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically
| depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to
| become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies
| that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured,
| secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves
| usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though
| they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One
| must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.
|
| Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical
| necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and
| shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured
| aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his
| boredom and demoralization.
|
| Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the
| goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if
| nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival.
| Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in
| defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.
|
| Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a
| human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and
| he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his
| goals.
|
| But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and
| demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of
| sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine
| biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When
| people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their
| physical needs they often set up artificial goals for
| themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with
| the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise
| would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus
| the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary
| pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago
| invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they
| certainly didn't need the meat; other aristocracies have
| competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and
| a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.
|
| _Please read paragraphs 33 through 41, or better yet, the
| full text for context_ https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
| srv/national/longterm/unab...
| daemoens wrote:
| I've never seen anybody cite the Unabomber before.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Ted's major major mistake was using violence and
| intimidation to raise awareness
| saliagato wrote:
| " I have definitely lost a few years of life expectancy "
|
| Why? Genuinely curious. Stress can lower life expectancy?
| hmate9 wrote:
| Stress + neglected diet and exercise definitely puts a strain
| on your body.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| It definitely does, but even a decade of high stress vs not
| having to worry about money for the rest of your life could
| be a very fair stress trade.
| badpun wrote:
| I'm not so sure. Like of financial worries is also
| dangerous - it can make people uber-complacent and lazy
| coach surfers, which will weaken the person long-term.
| Similar to how lack of gravity in space leads to
| significant loss of muscle mass.
| s1mplicissimus wrote:
| if you doubt that, I recommend living under high stress
| conditions for a couple years and see for yourself
| conradfr wrote:
| What about living with no financial stress for the rest of
| your life, maybe it balances things out?
| digging wrote:
| Maybe, but not necessarily. It's all probabilities. A
| fatal heart attack in 2 years being X% more likely is one
| thing - actually having it happen and dying young from it
| is another thing entirely.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Our physiology is not built to work under sustained high
| stress and a constrained environment like fast moving
| startups can have long term health effects.
|
| 1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18693771-the-body-
| keeps-...
| vaylian wrote:
| Not OP, but you have to keep in mind that your body is always
| trying to repair any damages that happen. Be it through
| actual accidents or molecular mishaps. Stress and other
| factors can cause the body to go into survival mode, where
| all resources are allocated to solving only the challenge
| directly ahead at the expense of repairs. And your body
| always needs repairs, because there is so much stuff going on
| at the molecular level that wears down the cells. Our bodies
| are pretty good at repairs but not perfect.
| ryder9 wrote:
| [dead]
| reedf1 wrote:
| I worked myself into the dirt for 2 years for a start-up that
| ended up failing. It felt like I aged 10 years. My hairline
| receded an inch - my hair started going grey - and I gained
| 15kg.
|
| I'm undoing the damage now - but I can tell I've been
| physically aged by the process.
| rozenmd wrote:
| I wanted to document a regular person's experience building a
| business while working full time, it wasn't until the end of my
| third year before I made my first dollar from a stranger on the
| internet:
|
| year 1: https://maxrozen.com/2018-review-starting-an-internet-
| busine...
|
| year 2: https://maxrozen.com/2019-further-reflections-trying-to-
| star...
|
| year 3: https://maxrozen.com/indiehacking-3-year-review
|
| year 4: https://maxrozen.com/2021-strangers-paid-my-macbook
|
| year 5: https://maxrozen.com/2022-just-keep-shipping
|
| In the end, my business has been described as an "internet
| laundromat", it's definitely not a unique idea, it was a pain in
| the ass to get here, but I don't regret it.
| mportela wrote:
| Great story and write ups. Thanks for sharing it!
| yawnxyz wrote:
| What's worse: failing to start a company, or believing your
| skills and your job are going to keep you safe/secure and create
| a sustainable life and retirement?
|
| At this point, they're probably equally risky.
| elforce002 wrote:
| Interesting take. My parents were risk averse and work until
| retirement age. My father told me he doesn't regret being
| employed but times change, companies are not what they used to
| be, and the way things are going it'll be better to just pick a
| niche and try to come up with a startup. This is coming from a
| person who didn't go to college and got his house, cars,
| vacations every year, etc... all that just by working a 9-5
| job. Company loyalty and career development is almost not
| existent.
|
| Things have changed for the worse and we might as well give it
| a shot.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| Well if your skills and your job are considered static, yeah
| that's equally risky. If you have the ability to keep learning
| and evolve with the job market, then no I think that's still a
| much safer option.
|
| Or maybe it's better to say that starting a successful company
| is extremely reliant on your ability to have insight into what
| need in the market isn't being filled and how to monetize that
| need (or what needs can be created, if you're extremely
| ambitious). If you can learn quickly, navigating "what skills
| will existing businesses pay a premium for" takes much less
| insight in comparison.
| bobleeswagger wrote:
| Regret is a natural part of any long term choice.
| gizmo wrote:
| > The start-ups he later launched all ultimately failed. And even
| now, as a solopreneur, combining freelance consultancy with
| writing books and developing information-based products, he often
| looks back with regret at not simply sticking with his job at a
| large management consultancy in Beirut.
|
| He now has a consultancy called "Business Model Hackers LLC".
|
| One of his books is titled: "Vision, Mission, Values,
| Aspirations, Do They Matter?: A Business Professionals' Guide to
| Drafting Vision/Mission Statements and Their Purpose in Modern
| Organizations".
|
| I wrote a couple of paragraphs and deleted them, because really,
| there is nothing left to say.
| rchaud wrote:
| Lots of ex-management consultants do this in their 50s, writing
| books and getting on the paid speaking gig circuit. Any
| business will have significant marketing and admin work that's
| challenging to manage. That's true whether you're shilling a
| book or running a SaaS company renting Shopify plugins to
| dropshippers.
| known wrote:
| [dead]
| game_the0ry wrote:
| One thing that I did not see discussed in the article but I think
| should be contemplated - when your business goes bust years down
| the road, it is not easy to go back into the job market.
|
| My dad had successful business he started in his 40s, but it
| failed in his mid 50s. He was engineer before, so it wasn't like
| he could just go back in the job market. Those were very
| difficult years.
| shubhamjain wrote:
| Both the examples in the article are agency/consulting
| businesses. There's a reason for that. Such businesses offer no
| respite of any kind, especially so if you've decided to scale.
| You're constantly on the hook to find new clients, and to meet
| the demand, hire more employees, and then, find even more clients
| because the hires aren't getting utilized enough. And let's not
| forget about downturns. Even a small dip is enough to left you
| scrambling to pay your employees. In most cases, the revenue
| multiple tends to be much on the lower side in the case of a
| sale. So, don't except a big pay day.
|
| I am not saying, product business is easy either. But, consulting
| business is relatively easier to start and lures you into
| thinking that it will also be easy to scale, which is an easy
| trap to fall into. With entrepreneurship, the kind of ship you're
| driving matters. I don't think there's much to regret when you're
| running a profitable software business with 80% gross margins and
| <10 employees. In today's economy, it's not an impossible dream.
| davidn20 wrote:
| My guess is running a startup is like running a marathon. The
| idea of it is great to many people, but as people start to train
| they realize all the work it takes and drop out. People get into
| things without fully understanding it all the time. The few that
| really love it or enjoy the process makes it to the starting
| line.
| simonswords82 wrote:
| Totally agree. The number one rule of (most) startups is that
| everything takes infinitely longer than you would imagine. And
| then, even longer than that still...
| slavoingilizov wrote:
| Understanding everything before you get into it is overrated.
| Belief is a necessary requirement to move the world forward.
| And that in itself requires some naivety. Otherwise those
| people who can actually see it through wouldn't even start -
| most of them didn't "understand" it before they started.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-04 23:02 UTC)