13 ms·

Ten years back, when I was fresh out of college, I joined a startup - not as a founder but as the first employee. A lot of it was driven by reading Paul Graham'

Ten years back, when I was fresh out of college, I joined a startup - not as a founder but as the first employee. A lot of it was driven by reading Paul Graham's essays, and I was naive and immature enough to believe that I was doing something great (as an aside, I came from an economically disadvantaged family; and every cent of my assets today is something I have earned and not something which I have inherited or obtained from anyone including my family). Two important things I learned from the experience - 1. The experience as an employee is completely different from being a founder; a lot of my friends have deluded themselves into believing that early employees enjoy as much benefits as the founders. 2. It is very hard to take risks when you are not financially secure; yes, I am pretty sure that there are counterexamples but I believe my statement is true on average. Now after ten years mostly working in large companies, I have some savings which will allow me to last two years in case I lose my job. Also, I like to think that I have enough skills not to die of hunger if it happens. This has resulted in me being much more "entrepreneurial" and I am already working towards starting a company in the next two years. TL, DR; On an average, it is much easier to start a start-up if you have some basic level of financial security in your life.

matwood 11y ago
> TL, DR; On an average, it is much easier to start a start-up if you have some basic level of financial security in your life. I didn't realize this was some secret. Someone who has parents who are doing well and can pay for their college and living expenses indefinitely will be at an advantage. They can take risks others can't. BTW, this is true from the time someone is born. Parents who are well off will send their child to pre-pre schools, pay for the best elementary, middle and high schools. Then their child gets to go to college, likely loan free, and can focus on college and not working to pay the bills. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, and I certainly didn't grow up this way. I'm surprised it wasn't common sense.
- pound 11y ago
  yes, it is common sense and everyone indeed knows it. But many want to believe in SV as some not rest of the world place with equal opportunities for everyone, just be smart. We all want it to be ruled by meritocracy. That's why we keep drinking this koolaid.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Life isn't fair, especially when it comes to economics. Whenever you think you've found some sector of industry that is more egalitarian, you've probably either stumbled into something where you haven't identified the advantaged and disadvantaged parties (it's easier to miss when you are part of the advantaged group), or the current social context makes it easier to hide. That said, there are lots of very different industries, and one of them probably advantages you in some way if you can find it.
  - webjprgm 11y ago
    To be honest, I only want to be ruled my a meritocracy if I can define myself as the most intelligent person in the world. (Or, in the upper 10% or something). A true meritocracy scares me. And this from a guy who was in the upper 10% of my high school (upper 4%). But I've seen much more brilliant people out there. So who honestly wants a meritocracy either? Another option would be that whoever works hard is taken care of. That sounds like the 1950s corporate job with a pension. It may be less exciting and sounds like it would produce less motive for innovation, but it is also less scary and a bit more fair than rewards to the affluent risk takers. I have no idea how to get the best of all systems. So I make do in this one. I'm just pointing out that no system (known to man) is perfect.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I'd be frightened to see the world run by people like me, but I'd love to see the world run by the best of the best, as long as we can somehow select for morality as well as intelligence.
      - CapitalistCartr 11y ago
        Wisdom, integrity, and respect are far more important than intelligence in making a good leader.
  - matwood 11y ago
    It is a bit of koolaid, but I believe we are closer to a meritocracy than we ever have been. Some people will always have it easier, but in software the capital cost to start a company has approached zero. What's left is time, and that is the main thing my post tried to hone in on.
maratd 11y ago
> It is very hard to take risks when you are not financially secure There's a caveat here. It depends on your responsibilities. If you have children, fixed expenses, then absolutely. If you have nothing to your name and no responsibilities, it's very easy to take risks without anything to fall back on. After all, you have very little to lose.
- math 11y ago
  indeed. "Almost everything--all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure--these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked." - Steve Jobs
- awjr 11y ago
  I'm guessing "and are prepared to live in a car/cardboard box". Yes it's do-able but the reality is that a founder does need to be able to have the funds to sprint, fail, and sprint again. It's why people bootstrap.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Jacqued 11y ago
  You can always lose your own life, pretty much. If you can go back to your old room at your parent's room while you find a job and start earning again, sure, it's easy to take risks (I've done it this way). On the other hand, if you come from a rather poor background and have no one to fall back on, finding yourself with a failed company, in debt, maybe kicked out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say that rather terrifying. I'm all for entrepreneurship, but if failing means living in the street, then let's just not start a company for now.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > in debt, maybe kicked out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say that rather terrifying. There are two types of businesses out there. Those that make money from day 1 and simply need to be scaled up. Those that require substantial investment and time before you even make a penny. For anyone who isn't financially secure, doing the latter is idiotic. There are plenty of business models that you can pursue that don't involve you ending up on the street. A business model where the worst-case scenario is that you wasted some time.
lint_roller 11y ago
I have a very similar story, except I'm on part one. Recent graduate, very modest family, and drank all the Paul G koolaid which got me to jump into the whole scene just to realize I'm mostly surrounded by upper middle class types where there's still risk being taken just not nearly as much. This has taught me to always consider the source of advice more rigorously. I still think he's a great thinker, but some of the advice should come with a disclaimer. I haven't been turned away from the tech startup world, but I'll be much more calculated if I'm ever to join another one. I also don't plan on staking my career purely in startups and am attracted to bootstrapped business now more than ever.
- efaref 11y ago
  Agree. The risk of having to run back to mummy and daddy with their tail between their legs is no risk at all. I could be quite entrepreneurial if I didn't also have to pay for my apartment and food every month without fail.
  - twcooper 11y ago
    But from a broader social standpoint, isn't it a good thing that people who can afford to take risks are the ones taking the risks? It sucks on an individual basis if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't risk failure, but it's not such a bad thing that the affluent are taking larger economic risks than the poor.
    - lhc- 11y ago
      It sorta spits at the idea of social mobility ("the american dream") though. The biggest rewards are only really available to those who can take risks like starting a business, and if you restrict that to only those who are already well-off, you remove most chances for the poor to ascend to the higher classes.
      - tertius 11y ago
        This implies that you believe that there is a global elite and there has always been a global elite and that they are all related and there is no way to become a part of that elite. Because if you say that "if you restrict that to only those who are already well-off", their parents probably weren't or their parents' parents etc. There are many occupations that really only require hard work and little risk that has big payout. The end result here is that no, life isn't "fair". But by and large, a person that has the ability to take risk, does and succeeds will create that ability for others to do the same in the future.
aianus 11y ago
> Now after ten years mostly working in large companies, I have some savings which will allow me to last two years in case I lose my job. After 10 years of being a software engineer you should have enough to retire forever (albeit in some third world country).
- beambot 11y ago
  From a disadvantaged family (no initial savings) and perhaps student loans (ill-advised, but not uncommon) -- it's not unthinkable that he hasn't hit "soft retire" numbers after 10 years. But your sentiment is correct: If you're debt-free, you should be able to "soft retire" after 10 years as a software engineer in today's markets.
  - artmageddon 11y ago
    Can you elaborate on what you mean by "soft retire"?
    - beambot 11y ago
      Build a sufficiently large investment portfolio such that annual income from investments approximately equals annual expenses. Note that this may require moving to an area with lower cost of living (eg. working in SFBA for 10 years and then moving to the midwest). The approximate rule of thumb (not accounting for investment variability, so be careful!) is that you can extract 4% of your investments annually without affecting the basis (while adjusting it for inflation). So if you can live off that 4% (ie. $40k off a $1M investment portfolio), then you can "soft retire." There are entire communities dedicated to this notion (eg. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim...)
  - swalsh 11y ago
    Another thing to factor in is being from a lower income area will distort your perception of what a large number is. I come from a town where the per capita income is 20k. My first "real" job was doing tech support at $16/hr. It felt like A LOT of money to me. I thought I was getting overpaid, that sentiment followed me for years. Today making 125k I still feel overpaid, though when I look at the value I produce for the company, and the numbers of my peers I know it's not. It took me many years to get to 125k because each step up the ladder felt pretty big to me even though it probably wasn't compared to my peers. Pay is very relative. I look at my old high school buddies, they range from 25k-40k. The first time I asked for 100k, I thought it was craziness. Like no human being deserves that amount of money. So it took me several years to build up to that number.
6stringmerc 11y ago
Your description of being an employee resonates with me, and thank you for giving some insight into how you've approached your career and what you see in the future. Though I came from a financially supportive environment, I was (wisely) cautioned against being a risk-taker with my career due to medical issues that I can't afford to manage without good company sponsored health insurance. My parents urged me to get good skills so that I could be a valuable employee, obtain a nice standard of living, and have some security in the sense that if I had to change jobs, then I would have skills and a good background in order to get hired and retained. Here's where the correlative kicks in: I always wanted to be a full-time musician, and I still do...but I view success in music a lot like being involved with a start-up. There's the product/service angle (quality and innovation matter, unless they don't), the investor relationship (labels), the marketing budget, and absolutely no guarantees of success. Actually, it's an offhand joke, but being a full-time musician writing originals (e.g. not in a wedding/corporate party cover band) is a lot like choosing poverty up front for a potential windfall later. Being an employee has been a choice, and one that I'm glad to have made because with patience and investing in myself, I've been able to acquire lots of equipment and spent hundreds - if not thousands - of hours playing, writing and recording music. Because I didn't seek out the 'traditional' channel of label investment and signing away certain rights, I've been able to build a library of my own content which I consider like a savings of sorts. Maybe it's a worthless legacy in dollar terms, or maybe when an opportunity finally arises to do some business with my material, I won't be caught empty handed. The trade-off in security and health isn't glamorous, but it's certainly something I'm proud of choosing and accomplishing thus far. TL,DR; If your goal is to get a Nolan Ryan rookie card and the guy won't trade it unless you offer the entire roster of the 1989 Oakland As Championship team in trade, then get to work building up what you need to get what you want.
Rainymood 11y ago
TL, DR; It is much easier to do X if you have some basic level of financial security in your life. Same goes for education. "Rich" people can pursue and education in terms of opportunity costs. Some kids I went to HS with had to work part time to support their own families, having less time to invest in their education ... really sad story.
- chrisbennet 11y ago
  Don't forget the unpaid internships. Only wealthy kids can take advantage of those.
  - millermp12 11y ago
    Or protected classes http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155774/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155774/
    - walshemj 11y ago
      er Chris was talking about the really high status Jobs in the creative liberal arts professions its not a so much a problem in STEM fields.
daddykotex 11y ago
Would you elaborate on how different is the life as the employee compared to the life of the founder (in your experience)?
- radmuzom 11y ago
  In this specific case, 1. Very low salary - just enough to afford housing and food. 2. No equity - though the founders promised that I would get some later (yeah, I know I was an idiot). 3. Working 12 hour days including Saturdays. The founders were quite rich and they were of course passionate about their own company because of which they worked even more than me, but I could never feel the same enthusiasm. Interestingly, both of them had worked for larger companies, studied in and traveled to various countries for work which gave me the idea that perhaps it is better to be in a start-up once I have experienced what they have.
ThomPete 11y ago
I agree with you but with one important caveat. The difference is that today you can build a side project on the side while working in a company and hopefully build something up that way. This wasn't possible 20 years ago in the same way.
- radmuzom 11y ago
  Yep, that's exactly what I am planning on doing. At this stage, gaining some knowledge around a few ideas which interest me.
smoyer 11y ago
Thirty-five years back, I went to work as the fourth person in a start-up (that's still in business) and loved the fast-paced environment of a start-up life. Fifteen years ago, I went to work for "BigCo", and while our group was essentially an internally funded start-up, I hated the politics, especially as we acquired other companies and tried to integrate their software products into ours. The good news is that succeeding at three of the four start-ups left me with enough stock options to fund (my share) of my next start-up with cash. While it's looking like I may not see a return on that investment, the product was certainly something the industry needs/needed. As a small boot-strapped company, it's almost impossible to move an industry. I'm currently working at a university and we've tailored the culture within our group to be much like you'd find in a start-up (the political machinations of a university can however be brutal). In any case, I think I have a couple more ideas that could be turned into start-ups and enough working years left to build a couple more start-ups. I can't think of anything that's more fun. In contrast to you, I came from an upper-middle class family with a stay-at-home mom and a go-to-work dad. Things were comfortable when I was at home but I'd have never asked any of my relatives for money to create a start-up and my parents were far more risk averse than I (originally they mildly disapproved of the risks I was taking but seem to have realized I always "left myself an out" so that in the worst possible outcome, I could take care of my wife and kids). So it might be true that most kids these days have the money to be entrepreneurs, I say it was definitely in my genes. (As an aside, in the '80s I think most of the start-ups I saw were people who were risking almost everything to get started because they had a vision - it's much easier to fail if there are no consequences).
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  Do people really believe that their upper-middle class upbringings offered no advantages other than cash?
  - ChrisNorstrom 11y ago
    They think money solves every problem, completely ignoring family stability, risk assessment by family members, advice, a roof over your head, more daylight hours since chores are split up between family members, sanity, etc.
Futurebot 11y ago
Absolutely. What I think some stating that this is all "common sense" miss is that for many people it's NOT. All the advantages some have are advantages they believe that others have. Couldn't go to university because you had to work? Why didn't your parents help you? What? Nowhere to live? What about your old bedroom? You've supported yourself since you were a teenager? Where were your parents! No money left? Huh? No trust or college fund? Not even a savings account that your parents set up for you? What about your credit card? You're afraid to start a business / go into debt / try to "work your way" through college? Why, if you fail you can just move in with your family! Why not get some "friends and family" investors? The list of these tacit assumptions, and by extension that you're just a fool or lazy because you didn't do those things (supported ideologically in this country by all the Just World Fallacy nonsense) is far more widespread than one may think. It's really amazing just how many people cannot even fathom that others do not have the familial safety net and have been working to support themselves from an age where said people were just starting to think about what school to go to. For many, until they've lived on the razor's edge, they simply do not have the mental framework for understanding what living that way does to people. Edit: I'd also add that for those of us who have seen the other side (I was upper middle class from 0-9 years old, fell into poverty after and lived that way until my early 20s - riches to rags sucks. Badly. Read all about it here if you're curious: https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why-software-developers-should-still-choose-to-go-to-university-if-someone-else-is-paying-45091d22acc1 https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why-software-developers-should...) we know what the other side is like. We've seen it. We know what it's like to never worry about transportation, decent food, school supplies, books, tutors, spending money - and the ever-present implicit safety net. We saw our parents' friends go on vacations, buy multiple cars, live in huge houses, etc. So anyone, anyone who says it isn't a huge advantage is delusional or lying.
- ddoscampaign 11y ago
  A million times yes. This is a common mistake of managers/older people assuming younger/inexperienced folks are dumb from their mistakes and lack of experience. The latter need patience and some guidance for the former to grow their "common sense" to become more capable/productive/successful. The other antipattern is spoiling kids and helicopter parenting, which leads to sheltered/learned-helplessness kids. Letting kids struggle more to learn for themselves and earn things is important because the role of the parent to prepare people to become independent, survive and thrive. Also, expecting them to do more with much less improves their ingenuity out of necessity. People/startups that are broke can often attain what others cannot because they are able to make something awesome out of what other people call "junk" and waste less money.

matwood 11y ago

> TL, DR; On an average, it is much easier to start a start-up if you have some basic level of financial security in your life. I didn't realize this was some secret. Someone who has parents who are doing well and can pay for their college and living expenses indefinitely will be at an advantage. They can take risks others can't. BTW, this is true from the time someone is born. Parents who are well off will send their child to pre-pre schools, pay for the best elementary, middle and high schools. Then their child gets to go to college, likely loan free, and can focus on college and not working to pay the bills. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, and I certainly didn't grow up this way. I'm surprised it wasn't common sense.

pound 11y ago
yes, it is common sense and everyone indeed knows it. But many want to believe in SV as some not rest of the world place with equal opportunities for everyone, just be smart. We all want it to be ruled by meritocracy. That's why we keep drinking this koolaid.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Life isn't fair, especially when it comes to economics. Whenever you think you've found some sector of industry that is more egalitarian, you've probably either stumbled into something where you haven't identified the advantaged and disadvantaged parties (it's easier to miss when you are part of the advantaged group), or the current social context makes it easier to hide. That said, there are lots of very different industries, and one of them probably advantages you in some way if you can find it.
- webjprgm 11y ago
  To be honest, I only want to be ruled my a meritocracy if I can define myself as the most intelligent person in the world. (Or, in the upper 10% or something). A true meritocracy scares me. And this from a guy who was in the upper 10% of my high school (upper 4%). But I've seen much more brilliant people out there. So who honestly wants a meritocracy either? Another option would be that whoever works hard is taken care of. That sounds like the 1950s corporate job with a pension. It may be less exciting and sounds like it would produce less motive for innovation, but it is also less scary and a bit more fair than rewards to the affluent risk takers. I have no idea how to get the best of all systems. So I make do in this one. I'm just pointing out that no system (known to man) is perfect.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I'd be frightened to see the world run by people like me, but I'd love to see the world run by the best of the best, as long as we can somehow select for morality as well as intelligence.
    - CapitalistCartr 11y ago
      Wisdom, integrity, and respect are far more important than intelligence in making a good leader.
- matwood 11y ago
  It is a bit of koolaid, but I believe we are closer to a meritocracy than we ever have been. Some people will always have it easier, but in software the capital cost to start a company has approached zero. What's left is time, and that is the main thing my post tried to hone in on.

maratd 11y ago

> It is very hard to take risks when you are not financially secure There's a caveat here. It depends on your responsibilities. If you have children, fixed expenses, then absolutely. If you have nothing to your name and no responsibilities, it's very easy to take risks without anything to fall back on. After all, you have very little to lose.

math 11y ago
indeed. "Almost everything--all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure--these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked." - Steve Jobs
awjr 11y ago
I'm guessing "and are prepared to live in a car/cardboard box". Yes it's do-able but the reality is that a founder does need to be able to have the funds to sprint, fail, and sprint again. It's why people bootstrap.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Jacqued 11y ago
You can always lose your own life, pretty much. If you can go back to your old room at your parent's room while you find a job and start earning again, sure, it's easy to take risks (I've done it this way). On the other hand, if you come from a rather poor background and have no one to fall back on, finding yourself with a failed company, in debt, maybe kicked out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say that rather terrifying. I'm all for entrepreneurship, but if failing means living in the street, then let's just not start a company for now.
- maratd 11y ago
  > in debt, maybe kicked out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say that rather terrifying. There are two types of businesses out there. Those that make money from day 1 and simply need to be scaled up. Those that require substantial investment and time before you even make a penny. For anyone who isn't financially secure, doing the latter is idiotic. There are plenty of business models that you can pursue that don't involve you ending up on the street. A business model where the worst-case scenario is that you wasted some time.

lint_roller 11y ago

I have a very similar story, except I'm on part one. Recent graduate, very modest family, and drank all the Paul G koolaid which got me to jump into the whole scene just to realize I'm mostly surrounded by upper middle class types where there's still risk being taken just not nearly as much. This has taught me to always consider the source of advice more rigorously. I still think he's a great thinker, but some of the advice should come with a disclaimer. I haven't been turned away from the tech startup world, but I'll be much more calculated if I'm ever to join another one. I also don't plan on staking my career purely in startups and am attracted to bootstrapped business now more than ever.

efaref 11y ago
Agree. The risk of having to run back to mummy and daddy with their tail between their legs is no risk at all. I could be quite entrepreneurial if I didn't also have to pay for my apartment and food every month without fail.
- twcooper 11y ago
  But from a broader social standpoint, isn't it a good thing that people who can afford to take risks are the ones taking the risks? It sucks on an individual basis if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't risk failure, but it's not such a bad thing that the affluent are taking larger economic risks than the poor.
  - lhc- 11y ago
    It sorta spits at the idea of social mobility ("the american dream") though. The biggest rewards are only really available to those who can take risks like starting a business, and if you restrict that to only those who are already well-off, you remove most chances for the poor to ascend to the higher classes.
    - tertius 11y ago
      This implies that you believe that there is a global elite and there has always been a global elite and that they are all related and there is no way to become a part of that elite. Because if you say that "if you restrict that to only those who are already well-off", their parents probably weren't or their parents' parents etc. There are many occupations that really only require hard work and little risk that has big payout. The end result here is that no, life isn't "fair". But by and large, a person that has the ability to take risk, does and succeeds will create that ability for others to do the same in the future.

aianus 11y ago

> Now after ten years mostly working in large companies, I have some savings which will allow me to last two years in case I lose my job. After 10 years of being a software engineer you should have enough to retire forever (albeit in some third world country).

beambot 11y ago
From a disadvantaged family (no initial savings) and perhaps student loans (ill-advised, but not uncommon) -- it's not unthinkable that he hasn't hit "soft retire" numbers after 10 years. But your sentiment is correct: If you're debt-free, you should be able to "soft retire" after 10 years as a software engineer in today's markets.
- artmageddon 11y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean by "soft retire"?
  - beambot 11y ago
    Build a sufficiently large investment portfolio such that annual income from investments approximately equals annual expenses. Note that this may require moving to an area with lower cost of living (eg. working in SFBA for 10 years and then moving to the midwest). The approximate rule of thumb (not accounting for investment variability, so be careful!) is that you can extract 4% of your investments annually without affecting the basis (while adjusting it for inflation). So if you can live off that 4% (ie. $40k off a $1M investment portfolio), then you can "soft retire." There are entire communities dedicated to this notion (eg. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim...)
- swalsh 11y ago
  Another thing to factor in is being from a lower income area will distort your perception of what a large number is. I come from a town where the per capita income is 20k. My first "real" job was doing tech support at $16/hr. It felt like A LOT of money to me. I thought I was getting overpaid, that sentiment followed me for years. Today making 125k I still feel overpaid, though when I look at the value I produce for the company, and the numbers of my peers I know it's not. It took me many years to get to 125k because each step up the ladder felt pretty big to me even though it probably wasn't compared to my peers. Pay is very relative. I look at my old high school buddies, they range from 25k-40k. The first time I asked for 100k, I thought it was craziness. Like no human being deserves that amount of money. So it took me several years to build up to that number.

6stringmerc 11y ago

Your description of being an employee resonates with me, and thank you for giving some insight into how you've approached your career and what you see in the future. Though I came from a financially supportive environment, I was (wisely) cautioned against being a risk-taker with my career due to medical issues that I can't afford to manage without good company sponsored health insurance. My parents urged me to get good skills so that I could be a valuable employee, obtain a nice standard of living, and have some security in the sense that if I had to change jobs, then I would have skills and a good background in order to get hired and retained. Here's where the correlative kicks in: I always wanted to be a full-time musician, and I still do...but I view success in music a lot like being involved with a start-up. There's the product/service angle (quality and innovation matter, unless they don't), the investor relationship (labels), the marketing budget, and absolutely no guarantees of success. Actually, it's an offhand joke, but being a full-time musician writing originals (e.g. not in a wedding/corporate party cover band) is a lot like choosing poverty up front for a potential windfall later. Being an employee has been a choice, and one that I'm glad to have made because with patience and investing in myself, I've been able to acquire lots of equipment and spent hundreds - if not thousands - of hours playing, writing and recording music. Because I didn't seek out the 'traditional' channel of label investment and signing away certain rights, I've been able to build a library of my own content which I consider like a savings of sorts. Maybe it's a worthless legacy in dollar terms, or maybe when an opportunity finally arises to do some business with my material, I won't be caught empty handed. The trade-off in security and health isn't glamorous, but it's certainly something I'm proud of choosing and accomplishing thus far. TL,DR; If your goal is to get a Nolan Ryan rookie card and the guy won't trade it unless you offer the entire roster of the 1989 Oakland As Championship team in trade, then get to work building up what you need to get what you want.

Rainymood 11y ago

TL, DR; It is much easier to do X if you have some basic level of financial security in your life. Same goes for education. "Rich" people can pursue and education in terms of opportunity costs. Some kids I went to HS with had to work part time to support their own families, having less time to invest in their education ... really sad story.

chrisbennet 11y ago
Don't forget the unpaid internships. Only wealthy kids can take advantage of those.
- millermp12 11y ago
  Or protected classes http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155774/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155774/
  - walshemj 11y ago
    er Chris was talking about the really high status Jobs in the creative liberal arts professions its not a so much a problem in STEM fields.

daddykotex 11y ago

Would you elaborate on how different is the life as the employee compared to the life of the founder (in your experience)?

radmuzom 11y ago
In this specific case, 1. Very low salary - just enough to afford housing and food. 2. No equity - though the founders promised that I would get some later (yeah, I know I was an idiot). 3. Working 12 hour days including Saturdays. The founders were quite rich and they were of course passionate about their own company because of which they worked even more than me, but I could never feel the same enthusiasm. Interestingly, both of them had worked for larger companies, studied in and traveled to various countries for work which gave me the idea that perhaps it is better to be in a start-up once I have experienced what they have.

ThomPete 11y ago

I agree with you but with one important caveat. The difference is that today you can build a side project on the side while working in a company and hopefully build something up that way. This wasn't possible 20 years ago in the same way.

radmuzom 11y ago
Yep, that's exactly what I am planning on doing. At this stage, gaining some knowledge around a few ideas which interest me.

smoyer 11y ago

Thirty-five years back, I went to work as the fourth person in a start-up (that's still in business) and loved the fast-paced environment of a start-up life. Fifteen years ago, I went to work for "BigCo", and while our group was essentially an internally funded start-up, I hated the politics, especially as we acquired other companies and tried to integrate their software products into ours. The good news is that succeeding at three of the four start-ups left me with enough stock options to fund (my share) of my next start-up with cash. While it's looking like I may not see a return on that investment, the product was certainly something the industry needs/needed. As a small boot-strapped company, it's almost impossible to move an industry. I'm currently working at a university and we've tailored the culture within our group to be much like you'd find in a start-up (the political machinations of a university can however be brutal). In any case, I think I have a couple more ideas that could be turned into start-ups and enough working years left to build a couple more start-ups. I can't think of anything that's more fun. In contrast to you, I came from an upper-middle class family with a stay-at-home mom and a go-to-work dad. Things were comfortable when I was at home but I'd have never asked any of my relatives for money to create a start-up and my parents were far more risk averse than I (originally they mildly disapproved of the risks I was taking but seem to have realized I always "left myself an out" so that in the worst possible outcome, I could take care of my wife and kids). So it might be true that most kids these days have the money to be entrepreneurs, I say it was definitely in my genes. (As an aside, in the '80s I think most of the start-ups I saw were people who were risking almost everything to get started because they had a vision - it's much easier to fail if there are no consequences).

kelukelugames 11y ago
Do people really believe that their upper-middle class upbringings offered no advantages other than cash?
- ChrisNorstrom 11y ago
  They think money solves every problem, completely ignoring family stability, risk assessment by family members, advice, a roof over your head, more daylight hours since chores are split up between family members, sanity, etc.

Futurebot 11y ago

Absolutely. What I think some stating that this is all "common sense" miss is that for many people it's NOT. All the advantages some have are advantages they believe that others have. Couldn't go to university because you had to work? Why didn't your parents help you? What? Nowhere to live? What about your old bedroom? You've supported yourself since you were a teenager? Where were your parents! No money left? Huh? No trust or college fund? Not even a savings account that your parents set up for you? What about your credit card? You're afraid to start a business / go into debt / try to "work your way" through college? Why, if you fail you can just move in with your family! Why not get some "friends and family" investors? The list of these tacit assumptions, and by extension that you're just a fool or lazy because you didn't do those things (supported ideologically in this country by all the Just World Fallacy nonsense) is far more widespread than one may think. It's really amazing just how many people cannot even fathom that others do not have the familial safety net and have been working to support themselves from an age where said people were just starting to think about what school to go to. For many, until they've lived on the razor's edge, they simply do not have the mental framework for understanding what living that way does to people. Edit: I'd also add that for those of us who have seen the other side (I was upper middle class from 0-9 years old, fell into poverty after and lived that way until my early 20s - riches to rags sucks. Badly. Read all about it here if you're curious: https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why-software-developers-should-still-choose-to-go-to-university-if-someone-else-is-paying-45091d22acc1 https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why-software-developers-should...) we know what the other side is like. We've seen it. We know what it's like to never worry about transportation, decent food, school supplies, books, tutors, spending money - and the ever-present implicit safety net. We saw our parents' friends go on vacations, buy multiple cars, live in huge houses, etc. So anyone, anyone who says it isn't a huge advantage is delusional or lying.

ddoscampaign 11y ago
A million times yes. This is a common mistake of managers/older people assuming younger/inexperienced folks are dumb from their mistakes and lack of experience. The latter need patience and some guidance for the former to grow their "common sense" to become more capable/productive/successful. The other antipattern is spoiling kids and helicopter parenting, which leads to sheltered/learned-helplessness kids. Letting kids struggle more to learn for themselves and earn things is important because the role of the parent to prepare people to become independent, survive and thrive. Also, expecting them to do more with much less improves their ingenuity out of necessity. People/startups that are broke can often attain what others cannot because they are able to make something awesome out of what other people call "junk" and waste less money.