3 ms·

Most of PG's writing on the subject implies the same 'all in' mindset. He himself said that he's hesitant to start another company because he doesn't want to s

by johnrob 17y ago

Most of PG's writing on the subject implies the same 'all in' mindset. He himself said that he's hesitant to start another company because he doesn't want to schlep away another 5 years. I'm a fan of the slow organic approach myself. But I also realize that there is a LOT of work that has to be done over the live of an idea, and the slower you work now the longer the whole thing will take.

cynicalkane 17y ago
IIRC, PG does point out a few times that you really do have to be a fool to start a business this way... if you're doing it for the money or other consequences of success, because success is unlikely even for the best. There are other reasons to try starting an all-in style business; reasons that don't appeal to me, but they do appeal to other people.
- tptacek 17y ago
  I really disagree with that hedge you're making there. I'm not a great scholar of Graham's work or anything, but my perception is that he's pretty much saying: "It is a good idea to work your ass off for 5-10 years so that you can work much less hard later on", with the modifier being "Do that when you're young so that if you fail the first time you can pick yourself up and do it again". I don't recall him writing that it was a foolish thing to do. He acknowledges the risk of failure but doesn't ever seem to come to terms with the consequences of failure. Again, with the caveat that losing 5 years of your 20's isn't the worst thing in the world. Until you're in your 30's and start thinking about what else you could have done with the time, I guess.
  - cynicalkane 17y ago
    Well, I could be recalling incorrectly for the first part of the hedge. It seems clear, though, that you and PG disagree on what the consequences of failure are, in that he would not characterize 5 years spent working on a failed startup as "lost". Anyway, I'm not really big on the all-in startup model, but I don't think it's strictly worse.
  - pg 17y ago
    Working on a startup is probably not the most interesting way you could spend your time, but it will be at least as interesting as getting a job as a developer at an existing company in the same field. So if that is the alternative and you're young enough to bear the financial risk, it makes sense to try.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      You're right. But you can't look at each bite at the apple independently, either. A failed startup might very well be a better experience than three years at a great company. But two consecutive failed startups is probably not better than six years at a great company, if you take the company job as seriously as startup founders supposedly do. After a couple years at a great company, an A-player is going to get much more interesting work. I'm also not trying to argue against starting companies. Starting a company is a great idea. I just think you should be making money from day one, get yourself to a place where you can live comfortably with your startup, and not bank your time on a tiny chance of getting acquired. Time is precious, and 20-year-olds suck at accounting for it.
      - staunch 17y ago
        > But two consecutive failed startups is probably not better than six years at a great company... Only if you're talking about the quality of the experience, and even that's entirely subjective. If the goal is financial independence there's no comparison. Your shot at making FU money working for someone else is essentially zero. As a founder your shot at achieving financial independence is considerable, and making FU money is at least a possibility.
        tptacek 17y ago
        This has been disproven time and time again. It's flat out wrong. You have a far better chance of becoming a millionare by careful career and money management than you do in entrepreneurship. Your odds of making "FU money" are so remote that it is irrational to bank your career on it. Remember, during all the time that you're chasing the "FU money" (that you again are never going to see), you are also not contributing significantly to your retirement. There are plenty of reasons to start companies, but money isn't a great one.

by johnrob 17y ago

cynicalkane 17y ago

IIRC, PG does point out a few times that you really do have to be a fool to start a business this way... if you're doing it for the money or other consequences of success, because success is unlikely even for the best. There are other reasons to try starting an all-in style business; reasons that don't appeal to me, but they do appeal to other people.

tptacek 17y ago
I really disagree with that hedge you're making there. I'm not a great scholar of Graham's work or anything, but my perception is that he's pretty much saying: "It is a good idea to work your ass off for 5-10 years so that you can work much less hard later on", with the modifier being "Do that when you're young so that if you fail the first time you can pick yourself up and do it again". I don't recall him writing that it was a foolish thing to do. He acknowledges the risk of failure but doesn't ever seem to come to terms with the consequences of failure. Again, with the caveat that losing 5 years of your 20's isn't the worst thing in the world. Until you're in your 30's and start thinking about what else you could have done with the time, I guess.
- cynicalkane 17y ago
  Well, I could be recalling incorrectly for the first part of the hedge. It seems clear, though, that you and PG disagree on what the consequences of failure are, in that he would not characterize 5 years spent working on a failed startup as "lost". Anyway, I'm not really big on the all-in startup model, but I don't think it's strictly worse.
- pg 17y ago
  Working on a startup is probably not the most interesting way you could spend your time, but it will be at least as interesting as getting a job as a developer at an existing company in the same field. So if that is the alternative and you're young enough to bear the financial risk, it makes sense to try.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    You're right. But you can't look at each bite at the apple independently, either. A failed startup might very well be a better experience than three years at a great company. But two consecutive failed startups is probably not better than six years at a great company, if you take the company job as seriously as startup founders supposedly do. After a couple years at a great company, an A-player is going to get much more interesting work. I'm also not trying to argue against starting companies. Starting a company is a great idea. I just think you should be making money from day one, get yourself to a place where you can live comfortably with your startup, and not bank your time on a tiny chance of getting acquired. Time is precious, and 20-year-olds suck at accounting for it.
    - staunch 17y ago
      > But two consecutive failed startups is probably not better than six years at a great company... Only if you're talking about the quality of the experience, and even that's entirely subjective. If the goal is financial independence there's no comparison. Your shot at making FU money working for someone else is essentially zero. As a founder your shot at achieving financial independence is considerable, and making FU money is at least a possibility.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        This has been disproven time and time again. It's flat out wrong. You have a far better chance of becoming a millionare by careful career and money management than you do in entrepreneurship. Your odds of making "FU money" are so remote that it is irrational to bank your career on it. Remember, during all the time that you're chasing the "FU money" (that you again are never going to see), you are also not contributing significantly to your retirement. There are plenty of reasons to start companies, but money isn't a great one.