3 ms·
True, although he was not a founder
by muzz 11y ago
True, although he was not a founder
- scrollaway 11y agoI think it can be extended to "[the suicide rate amongst] people who give a huge part of their life onto a particular entity or product".
- throwaway13337 11y agoOr could it be more accurately "the suicide rate among people who wrap their self worth in their financial success".
- hkmurakami 11y agoI think SV is even more perverse because there are plenty of cases where people are chasing some nebulous definition of "success" that is not tied to financial success. If it's just financial success and you're a very sharp, bright person, be a quant trader at a prop trading firm or something similar.
- throwaway13337 11y agoPeople say this - that being a founder isn't a the best path to being rich - and it's definitely true. The popular culture, however, points to the tech area as the source of the new rich. If you want to be the new rich today, you found a tech company. You're right, though, that there is also an element of success is more than about financial success today. Not just in the valley but in the privileged world that it is peppered with. We don't want to just be rich - we want respect.
- hkmurakami 11y agoCompletely agree. Being rich isn't good enough. You have to be rich and have had to done something to "change the world" (barf) along the way to be truly cool.