3 ms·

> As improbable and out-of-reach the YC/FAANG bar might seem to the everyday HN reader That's even more condescending than the previous one - and not the point

> As improbable and out-of-reach the YC/FAANG bar might seem to the everyday HN reader That's even more condescending than the previous one - and not the point I was bringing up. The majority of successes are based on product innovation, a new business model, market disruption, strategy, growing a niche. Not tech. All major capitals around the world have hundreds of thousands of millionaires. London alone has more than 350k. With some luck your description might fit 0.01% of the world's successful entrepreneurs.

Hydraulix989 8y ago
And my point is that trying to start a company as a FAANG-level engineer is very often not worth the opportunity cost unless you're receiving certain signals (YC, hockey-stick trajectory). Most millionaires aren't entrepreneurs. As a world-class engineer, you can become a millionaire by working for 5 years at Google/finance/big-4 with very little risk. And giving that up to start your own business is really only worth it for founding a breakout trajectory/unicorn startup. People tend to bias themselves and their abilities, but they need to take a realistic look at the profiles of those successful unicorn founders and use that as a yardstick to evaluate their own potential to avoid wasting their time and money. And I agree with you that tech is necessary but not sufficient for starting a successful unicorn (the line between "tech" and what you describe as "product innovation" is very blurry). This is Hacker News, after all. Tech-focused investments is their thesis.
tome 8y ago
> All major capitals around the world have hundreds of thousands of millionaires. London alone has more than 350k. 5% of Londoners are millionaires!?
- ricardobeat 8y ago
  3.9% since current population is 8.8m. NY is not far behind. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cities-boasting-the-most-millionaires-around-the-globe.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cities-boasting-the-most... Bear in mind that these days having a million doesn't make you rich like it used to, or even able to retire much earlier. The line for super-rich is currently drawn at $30M, then there's only ~4.5k people who qualify in London.
  - tome 8y ago
    I suspect house price inflation goes a long way to explaining that.

Hydraulix989 8y ago

And my point is that trying to start a company as a FAANG-level engineer is very often not worth the opportunity cost unless you're receiving certain signals (YC, hockey-stick trajectory). Most millionaires aren't entrepreneurs. As a world-class engineer, you can become a millionaire by working for 5 years at Google/finance/big-4 with very little risk. And giving that up to start your own business is really only worth it for founding a breakout trajectory/unicorn startup. People tend to bias themselves and their abilities, but they need to take a realistic look at the profiles of those successful unicorn founders and use that as a yardstick to evaluate their own potential to avoid wasting their time and money. And I agree with you that tech is necessary but not sufficient for starting a successful unicorn (the line between "tech" and what you describe as "product innovation" is very blurry). This is Hacker News, after all. Tech-focused investments is their thesis.

tome 8y ago

> All major capitals around the world have hundreds of thousands of millionaires. London alone has more than 350k. 5% of Londoners are millionaires!?

ricardobeat 8y ago
3.9% since current population is 8.8m. NY is not far behind. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cities-boasting-the-most-millionaires-around-the-globe.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cities-boasting-the-most... Bear in mind that these days having a million doesn't make you rich like it used to, or even able to retire much earlier. The line for super-rich is currently drawn at $30M, then there's only ~4.5k people who qualify in London.
- tome 8y ago
  I suspect house price inflation goes a long way to explaining that.