2 ms·
Sure, but it’s not like I was living under a bridge or anything. My standard of living did not change one iota. The stereotype of a starving founder is just not
by throwaway84742 9y ago
Sure, but it’s not like I was living under a bridge or anything. My standard of living did not change one iota. The stereotype of a starving founder is just not true most of the time. In fact I’ve yet to meet a founder who did not pay him/herself a pretty good upper middle class living wage. Not millions, natch, but still six figures.
- ithinkinstereo 9y agoThat's because you've only met vc-backed founders, I.e., founders gambling with other people's money. Many bootstrapped founders go years paying themselves massively below market to fuel the rocket ship so to speak. Would you make the same choice if the money came from your own savings or those of close friends and family?
- PeterisP 9y agoThe point is not about living under a bridge or starving, the point is that this should be considered equivalent in most terms (except tax-wise) to earning your market-rate salary and choosing to invest 2/3 of that cash into the startup. No matter how much you have left, the consideration of whether it's a good deal or not should include that choice to "spend" that amount of (potential) money on the startup versus whatever you would have done with that money otherwise. If you wouldn't have done anything, then there's choice of spending a few years on the startup versus having, say, half a million of savings for retirement.
- dividezero 9y agoI agree. Its a risk of opportunity cost