8 ms·

There's a common saying "Nobody ever gets rich working for someone else". I am not sure how much that is backed up by any statistics but the Bay Area and employ

by gjkood 10y ago

There's a common saying "Nobody ever gets rich working for someone else". I am not sure how much that is backed up by any statistics but the Bay Area and employees of unicorns or Google/Apple/Amazon/Microsoft/... may be outliers to this adage. Anyway the point I am trying to make is that as an engineer you either have the choice of working for an employer and living an albeit comfortable life (without any risk) or going it alone or starting your own venture with all its associated risk/reward profile. You have already indicated that you believe in this adage and took the necessary steps to increasing your worth and would continue to take the same approach in future. What somebody is worth is what the market is willing to pay for them either in salary or by investing in their venture.

blahi 10y ago
This adage is used mostly by snake oil salesmen slinging get-rich-quick schemes. Working for somebody else is probably the best way to get rich. Putting a qualification here, rich is not filthy rich, but affluent to comfortably rich.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  >but affluent to comfortably rich. What does that even mean? It's kind of rare that someone will pay you enough money that you can live off your investments.
- dvt 10y ago
  Uh, no. This adage is very very true. Sure, you can get a comfortable six figure salary, but that is by no stretch of the imagination "affluent". I'm defining rich as making 7 figures a year. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. You'll never get that working for someone else (especially as an engineer), barring extenuating circumstances. High equity employee #1 or co-founder is the way to go. High risk, high reward.
  - blahi 10y ago
    You will get affluent in 10-20 years. That's my point. You get rich slowly, not quickly. And wealth is not defined by how much money you make, but by how much money you have.
    - dvt 10y ago
      You will probably not become a millionaire unless you have no family, you never get laid off/let go, and your salary scales with inflation. There are other considerations as well, including cost of living (most high salary jobs are in high-cost areas), liabilities (debt), and so forth. If you want to get rich (again, 7-figure range), this just doesn't seem like a good bet to make. My personal slant on things is that even if you do become a millionaire, let's say in your 60s, who cares? The point is to get rich while you can still enjoy your money. There's no virtue in being buried with your treasure.
      - TrickedOut 10y ago
        Well said. Also, when most of us are 60 (20yrs? 30yrs?) a million wont be worth that much.
  - morgante 10y ago
    A 7 figure annual income is setting the affluent definition very high. You can work at Google for a decade and end up a multi-millionaire, with enough money to retire to most places in the US. From your other comment, it seems like you haven't done the analysis on this. Top companies are routinely paying $200k-300k these days. That's enough to save a million dollars over a decade even if you have a family.
    - dvt 10y ago
      $200k-$300k in places like San Francisco and Menlo Park. Clearly, you don't understand how cost of living works. Also, to make that much, you need to be at around a level of SDE3/tech lead, which is by no means easy (a decade of making low six-figures & some political panache). See this top answer on Quora, for a pretty detailed analysis: https://www.quora.com/Will-I-be-able-to-become-a-millionaire-by-working-at-a-big-Software-company-like-Google-Facebook-Microsoft-etc-all-my-life https://www.quora.com/Will-I-be-able-to-become-a-millionaire... You might be able to become a millionaire in 25 years assuming a frugal lifestyle and no big life event costs, but that's optimistic.
      - morgante 10y ago
        You can argue all you want, but I understand how cost of living works plenty well. SV is expensive but not so expensive that it wipes out $200k in income. If you're careful about expenses you can easily put away tens of thousands annually. This is backed up by own personal experience as a developer in NYC (hardly a low cost area). I expect to have a million dollars saved up within a decade and I certainly haven't relied on political panache to get there.
        dvt 10y ago
        Sorry for seeming incredulous, but if you're saying that you're saving 100k a year in NYC, then you must be making like 400k or living in a cardboard box. Even with a 300k salary, you could only save 10k a month if you only had 5k worth of monthly expenses (3-4k is easily rent in NYC). And keep in mind that making 300k-400k is not typical.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    Have you seen the thing about how there are no rich Americans?[1] No matter how big my house and expensive my car, I'm not rich, heavens no, that guy over there has a bigger house and a shinier car, he's rich. And of course he'll tell you the same thing. $200k/year is most definitely rich by the standards of most of America. If you think that's silly, hang out with someone who makes $30,000 a year and think about how much $200,000 would change their lives. [1]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/03/03/how_americans_define_rich_somebody_who_has_more_money_than_they_do.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/03/03/how_americans...
danjoc 10y ago
>as an engineer you either have the choice I don't feel like I do. I cannot afford to battle patent trolls when something I produce somehow infringes on their "intellectual properties." There has been some progress, given the Alice vs CLS Bank decision, but there's still lots of patents flying around out there like this one (https://www.google.com/patents/EP2973038A1 https://www.google.com/patents/EP2973038A1) where Google attempts to patent "Classifying resources using a deep network." Given that there's a very real threat of bankruptcy for even trying to start my own venture, I plod along at my position which is automating thousands out of their jobs while I make a minuscule fraction of what those people were once paid.
- gjkood 10y ago
  There is a tremendous amount of risk to go it alone, especially when the alternative is so comfortable and risk free. By all definition you would be crazy to go it alone. The statistics seem to point in that direction. But then again the reward profile if you are in that 10% to 5% that succeed and have the stomach to continue for the long haul is huge. I personally am a victim of the 'Analysis Paralysis' that your are alluding to and understand the hesitancy in taking the first step. There is plenty of risk out there and its good to be wary, but if you never take that first step you will never know what your future could be. Maybe its better to try and fail than never to have tried at all. Time is not on your side and none of us are getting any younger. (Sorry for all the cliches).
  - danjoc 10y ago
    >the alternative is so comfortable and risk free I've seen people with a decade of experience on the job "disappeared" and there's little more than an email to the staff telling us they are gone, effective immediately. I don't consider that comfortable or risk free. Especially true if one is in charge of systems, because of stories about loose cannons like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12179637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12179637 >Maybe its better to try and fail than never to have tried at all. I hear this sentiment mostly from upper middle class people who can fall back on family if they fail. I don't meet a lot of people who have experienced true financial ruin, recovered, and are willing to risk going back. A lot of us are as hungry as any entrepreneur. We simply don't have the safety nets. I don't know your case. Maybe you're as "financially independent" as I am, but advice like that sounds condescending in such a context. Of course they'll walk the tightrope. They've got a net. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10979926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10979926

by gjkood 10y ago

blahi 10y ago

This adage is used mostly by snake oil salesmen slinging get-rich-quick schemes. Working for somebody else is probably the best way to get rich. Putting a qualification here, rich is not filthy rich, but affluent to comfortably rich.

ktRolster 10y ago
>but affluent to comfortably rich. What does that even mean? It's kind of rare that someone will pay you enough money that you can live off your investments.
dvt 10y ago
Uh, no. This adage is very very true. Sure, you can get a comfortable six figure salary, but that is by no stretch of the imagination "affluent". I'm defining rich as making 7 figures a year. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. You'll never get that working for someone else (especially as an engineer), barring extenuating circumstances. High equity employee #1 or co-founder is the way to go. High risk, high reward.
- blahi 10y ago
  You will get affluent in 10-20 years. That's my point. You get rich slowly, not quickly. And wealth is not defined by how much money you make, but by how much money you have.
  - dvt 10y ago
    You will probably not become a millionaire unless you have no family, you never get laid off/let go, and your salary scales with inflation. There are other considerations as well, including cost of living (most high salary jobs are in high-cost areas), liabilities (debt), and so forth. If you want to get rich (again, 7-figure range), this just doesn't seem like a good bet to make. My personal slant on things is that even if you do become a millionaire, let's say in your 60s, who cares? The point is to get rich while you can still enjoy your money. There's no virtue in being buried with your treasure.
    - TrickedOut 10y ago
      Well said. Also, when most of us are 60 (20yrs? 30yrs?) a million wont be worth that much.
- morgante 10y ago
  A 7 figure annual income is setting the affluent definition very high. You can work at Google for a decade and end up a multi-millionaire, with enough money to retire to most places in the US. From your other comment, it seems like you haven't done the analysis on this. Top companies are routinely paying $200k-300k these days. That's enough to save a million dollars over a decade even if you have a family.
  - dvt 10y ago
    $200k-$300k in places like San Francisco and Menlo Park. Clearly, you don't understand how cost of living works. Also, to make that much, you need to be at around a level of SDE3/tech lead, which is by no means easy (a decade of making low six-figures & some political panache). See this top answer on Quora, for a pretty detailed analysis: https://www.quora.com/Will-I-be-able-to-become-a-millionaire-by-working-at-a-big-Software-company-like-Google-Facebook-Microsoft-etc-all-my-life https://www.quora.com/Will-I-be-able-to-become-a-millionaire... You might be able to become a millionaire in 25 years assuming a frugal lifestyle and no big life event costs, but that's optimistic.
    - morgante 10y ago
      You can argue all you want, but I understand how cost of living works plenty well. SV is expensive but not so expensive that it wipes out $200k in income. If you're careful about expenses you can easily put away tens of thousands annually. This is backed up by own personal experience as a developer in NYC (hardly a low cost area). I expect to have a million dollars saved up within a decade and I certainly haven't relied on political panache to get there.
      - dvt 10y ago
        Sorry for seeming incredulous, but if you're saying that you're saving 100k a year in NYC, then you must be making like 400k or living in a cardboard box. Even with a 300k salary, you could only save 10k a month if you only had 5k worth of monthly expenses (3-4k is easily rent in NYC). And keep in mind that making 300k-400k is not typical.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Have you seen the thing about how there are no rich Americans?[1] No matter how big my house and expensive my car, I'm not rich, heavens no, that guy over there has a bigger house and a shinier car, he's rich. And of course he'll tell you the same thing. $200k/year is most definitely rich by the standards of most of America. If you think that's silly, hang out with someone who makes $30,000 a year and think about how much $200,000 would change their lives. [1]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/03/03/how_americans_define_rich_somebody_who_has_more_money_than_they_do.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/03/03/how_americans...

danjoc 10y ago

>as an engineer you either have the choice I don't feel like I do. I cannot afford to battle patent trolls when something I produce somehow infringes on their "intellectual properties." There has been some progress, given the Alice vs CLS Bank decision, but there's still lots of patents flying around out there like this one (https://www.google.com/patents/EP2973038A1 https://www.google.com/patents/EP2973038A1) where Google attempts to patent "Classifying resources using a deep network." Given that there's a very real threat of bankruptcy for even trying to start my own venture, I plod along at my position which is automating thousands out of their jobs while I make a minuscule fraction of what those people were once paid.

gjkood 10y ago
There is a tremendous amount of risk to go it alone, especially when the alternative is so comfortable and risk free. By all definition you would be crazy to go it alone. The statistics seem to point in that direction. But then again the reward profile if you are in that 10% to 5% that succeed and have the stomach to continue for the long haul is huge. I personally am a victim of the 'Analysis Paralysis' that your are alluding to and understand the hesitancy in taking the first step. There is plenty of risk out there and its good to be wary, but if you never take that first step you will never know what your future could be. Maybe its better to try and fail than never to have tried at all. Time is not on your side and none of us are getting any younger. (Sorry for all the cliches).
- danjoc 10y ago
  >the alternative is so comfortable and risk free I've seen people with a decade of experience on the job "disappeared" and there's little more than an email to the staff telling us they are gone, effective immediately. I don't consider that comfortable or risk free. Especially true if one is in charge of systems, because of stories about loose cannons like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12179637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12179637 >Maybe its better to try and fail than never to have tried at all. I hear this sentiment mostly from upper middle class people who can fall back on family if they fail. I don't meet a lot of people who have experienced true financial ruin, recovered, and are willing to risk going back. A lot of us are as hungry as any entrepreneur. We simply don't have the safety nets. I don't know your case. Maybe you're as "financially independent" as I am, but advice like that sounds condescending in such a context. Of course they'll walk the tightrope. They've got a net. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10979926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10979926