4 ms·
This pretty well mirror's PG's assessment of startups: "Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years.
by aresant 10y ago
This pretty well mirror's PG's assessment of startups:
"Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast." (1)
I've started or been a member of, I dunno, 7 or 8 startups at this point in a 20 year career.
The biggest success had the absolute worst work culture, longest hours, was the most detrimental to personal time, personal health etc.
The one with the brightest potential, best team, and best work/life balance was an utter failure.
(1) http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
- cableshaft 10y agoI've worked at a startup with poor work culture, long, long hours, and super detrimental to my time and personal health, and it crashed hard. It gave me a lot of experience but I'm not sure the resulting poor health and burnout afterwards made it worth it. Success is not guaranteed by working hard. At best, it increases your chances of success, and probably not by a whole lot.
- sh87 10y agoI do not believe MM embodies or resembles what PG wanted to convey. Quantifying success by the number of hours put in reminds me of another greatly flawed analogy : Lines of Code as an indicator of software quality.
- gmarx 10y agocause or effect? Could an otherwise doomed startup succeed by demanding 130 hour weeks? I think not. It's more plausible to me that the better things are working the more obsessive you are about working on them