4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - pg 17y ago
      If you phrased it "the average person has a far better chance of becoming a millionare by careful career and money management" I'd have agreed with you. The average person is not suited to starting a startup. But for the 1% of people who are suited to it-- the ones sufficiently smart and determined-- the odds are actually reasonably good. I'm not sure what you mean about it having been disproven that starting a startup is a bad way to make money. Presumably the same sort of statistical evidence that would prove that randomly selected people can't do anything hard. But what matters to someone asking this question is not whether random people could do it, but whether they could, and if the right sort of person is asking the question, the answer becomes very different. If the young Bill Gates is asking the question, the odds of making FU money are close to 100%. (Microsoft was already doing well before they got lucky with the DOS deal.)

by pg 17y ago

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.
  - pg 17y ago
    If you phrased it "the average person has a far better chance of becoming a millionare by careful career and money management" I'd have agreed with you. The average person is not suited to starting a startup. But for the 1% of people who are suited to it-- the ones sufficiently smart and determined-- the odds are actually reasonably good. I'm not sure what you mean about it having been disproven that starting a startup is a bad way to make money. Presumably the same sort of statistical evidence that would prove that randomly selected people can't do anything hard. But what matters to someone asking this question is not whether random people could do it, but whether they could, and if the right sort of person is asking the question, the answer becomes very different. If the young Bill Gates is asking the question, the odds of making FU money are close to 100%. (Microsoft was already doing well before they got lucky with the DOS deal.)