6 ms·

Early Retirement is a False Idol

56 points by ph0rque 18y ago

strlen 18y ago
is there a real correlation between working 100 hours weeks in isolation and earning enough of a "jackpot" to retire? the people who i know who did make enough to retire (if they wish) almost all still have friends and families (caveat: if they didn't have friends, they would also be less likely to know me). both the post (and the sentiments) that inspired seem to be based on false premise: you can't, realistically, expect a jackpot in one year. working 100 hours won't create a jack pot for you either (but it may alienate those who are likely to increase your chances - co-founders, employees and helpful friends).
aston 18y ago
It's like 37signals is writing blog posts to specifically reply to news.yc posts...
- ph0rque 18y ago
  It seems the coincidence started happening after DHH spoke at Startup School.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  It's a good idea. One that I need to do more of, really... my blog is echoingly empty, but it's not as if I don't write. I just do most of my writing here. I should really do more blogging and less news.yc, or crosspost my blog entries as comments, or vice versa.
  - aaronblohowiak 18y ago
    I think posting your comments as blog entries is of more service to the news.yc community than the converse.
- jmtame 18y ago
  No kidding ;)
cconstantine 18y ago
It does seem like 37signals is responding to HN... Anyway. If done right; Work is a hobby that makes you money, and a hobby is work that costs you money. Why retire when you can make money working on a hobby?
- redorb 18y ago
  thats the way to think about it! - I don't think its healthy to do anything for 90-110 hours a week, no matter how much you enjoy it
staunch 18y ago
This is a classic strawman. Most people I know who are aspiring entrepreneurs don't despise their current work and think everything will be roses after they've made a lot money. Most just want enough money so they never have to worry about it again. It's a question of security and flexibility. Choosing to work doing something you love is worlds apart from having to work doing something.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  This is a classic strawman. I don't think you're using that word correctly. The person works 80 to 100 hours a week and is miserable is a strawman? That's odd, because I've met so many of them. I've been one of them. Which is not to say that there aren't a few people in the world who want nothing more than to work 100 hours a week. If you are one, good luck with that. Most people I know who are aspiring entrepreneurs don't... think everything will be roses after they've made a lot [of] money. Most just want enough money so they never have to worry about it again. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction between these two sentences? And just how much is "enough money that you never have to worry about it again"? I know people with no money who never worry about money, and I know people with pots of money who worry constantly. The worry has very little to do with the amount of money. The worry comes from you. DHH is suggesting that one way to be happy is to get a job you like, work a sustainable number of hours, live within your means, and then stop worrying about it all the time. You've got an education, a skillset, and a salary that is the envy of the world, so what are you so afraid of?
  - staunch 18y ago
    I may be mistaken, but I'm not using the term "strawman" incorrectly. I believe his portrayal of an overly extreme and super naive entrpreneur is intentionally used so that it's easily refuted. How many startup founders feel the work they're doing is so unbearable as to consider it "evil"? > I know people with no money who never worry about money, and I know people with pots of money who worry constantly. This seems really bogus. I know poor people, wealthy people, and ultra rich people. The kinds of things they each worry about are totally different. Sure, they may all technically "worry" about money, but that's where the similarity ends. > You've got an education, a skillset, and a salary that is the envy of the world, so what are you so afraid of? A serious medical condition with myself, a family member, or a friend. Generally any problem that would prevent me from being able to work for an extended period of time. You don't have to be paranoid to worry about this. Unfortunately, it's just not that rare. More personally I'm afraid of having to significantly limit my interests to fall within relatively limited amounts of expendable time and money or to things that are profitable.
utnick 18y ago
i dont like the do what you love and you will never have to retire saying... Many of my hobbies and things I do for fun are not monetizeable.
- krschultz 18y ago
  Do what you love is not "do what you would do if you had infinite money". If I had infinite money I would be heli-skiing every day. That is not monetizeable. I could be a ski instructor for a lot less, but that is not what I want to do. So moving down to one of my interests, robotics, I work for a company doing close to that. Thus I'm happy at work. I guess by extension if you did what you loved most we'd all be porn stars. It is more about doing something you like.
ojbyrne 18y ago
Early retirement is a euphemism for "fuck you" money. That's what people really want.
- leelin 18y ago
  I assume that refers to dropping the F-bomb on the (lame|stupid|unappreciative|mean) boss that you toiled under pre-retirement. Now, if you got your money from doing a startup, who gets your F-bomb? :P
  - pm 18y ago
    Depending on how much you hold a grudge... Everyone who picked on you at high school, everyone who picked on you at primary school, the disapproving family members who told you to go get a real job, the insecure best friend who constantly undermined your confidence, and generally anyone who ever doubted your ability to finish what you started in style. At least, that's my motivation. It may not be very healthy, but it gets the job done.
    - globalrev 18y ago
      Scary how true that is too me. But I most of all want to create something to help people and I get very satisfied by solving problems.
  - swombat 18y ago
    Some of us have an irrepressible need to show the world. You could call it a disproportionate competitive streak allied with over-sensitivity about having been wronged in the past (and there's not a human being out there that hasn't been "wronged" by their definition of the term). Combine that with a good dose of competence, skill, talent, etc, and a bit of inferiority complex (which is natural for gifted people, see the "dots and holes" article from a while back, link below), and you have the perfect recipe for someone with that irrepressible need to show the world what he's made of. It's no bad thing. That's how most progress was made, I think. Thomas Edison and Newton were definitely both competitive jerks with inferiority complexes. Hardly bad company to be in.
alex_c 18y ago
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that most startup founders (those who stick with it, anyway) enjoy it a lot more than a 9-to-5 job or consulting work. In this context, then, the smallest value of "early retirement" really means "never having to take a 9-to-5 job or do consulting work again", not "never doing anything productive ever again".
- diego 18y ago
  But you don't have to do a 9-to-5 job or consulting work ever if you don't want to. You are working on a startup now and you don't have millions, I presume. There are endless possibilities for earning money in this world that are not mindless 9-to-5 jobs.
sabat 18y ago
"False idol"? Work until you drop? DHH must've been raised Catholic. Or, wait, Protestant. I'll do what I want to do the way I want to do it, thank you very much Mr. Hansen.
- jrockway 18y ago
  I think it's just a figure of speech. You are reading in to it a bit too deeply.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    ...or not reading at all.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
If you come to the realization that work in itself isn’t evil, you can stop living your life as a waterfall-planned software project. This simile is awesome.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
The vast majority of people do not like vast quantities of leisure time. They get bored. I do not get bored. I have never been bored nor will I ever be bored. I have never been wanting for things to do. I have never had too many hours in the day and not enough to do. People whose time isn't valuable can't understand someone like me. Every second of my time is valuable, not in a DOLLAR value, in a personal value. I have vastly many more interests than I have time to indulge all of them. Work is a cancer on my life.
smoody 18y ago
It's too bad they perceive long hours at their job as a chore -- and they must since they are prescribing both short hours and four-day work weeks. When I'm in the groove doing something I truly love to do, then 16 hour workdays fly by as if they're perhaps three or four hours in duration and in those moments, there's nothing I'd rather be doing more -- including sleeping. I've been in that grove at my own startups and working for a big company where there's no chance that my efforts will translate into a pot of gold. And I love it. Funny thing is, you seldom hear people give that advice to obsessed painters, sculptors, musicians, etc. Why? Because artistic passions are viewed differently than "jobs." But, what if your job IS your artistic passion? Why shouldn't entrepreneurs be viewed as "artists" instead of "workers?"
- cstejerean 18y ago
  i'm assuming 37 signals doesn't kick people out of the building and/or prevent them from doing extra work at home. But it's nice to have the option to work 4 days a week and short hours.
pavelludiq 18y ago
Why retire after your startup succeeds? Why not just start doing something fun thats is not easily monetizeable? The idea is that you can have some real freedom. You can work on whatever you want. You can start another startup or continue your education or anything you want you can even start a music band or go traveling or anything that you find fun. Thats why people love money. They are a means to something, not a goal. You don't just get rich and then live some happy rich life, you get rich and get to do whatever you like, if you get rich enough, you could ignore laws too. I know a lot of people who if given a lot of money their first reaction would be to buy a lot of booze and celebrate. I have a friend who if given that amount of money would buy a biology research center and just play god with nature. My first reaction would be to buy a turn table and some 70's punk records or something, and then maybe a guitar. People want different stuff. And money gives it to them.
globalrev 18y ago
The point of a big score is not to retire. It is having the privileige of not having to worry about money and being able to do exactly what you want. If I sold a company for 200 million dollars I'd give half of it to charity, keep 10 millions as my own money and then put the rest in some big hard interesting project.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Couldn't you just do exactly what you want in the first place?
  - pchristensen 18y ago
    No, since the big hard project might require lots of money to do. Normally, money has strings attached (must be paid back, must give equity in a company with potential for liquidity, etc) which restricts what you can do. Do you think pg could have started YC w/o his ViaWeb $$? Or could tlb start AnyBots? Sure, you can work on stuff like that in your spare time, but huge projects usually require a bigger commitment than fits into spare time. Not having to sacrifice time or focus on earning money gives you a whole lot more to throw at a problem.
edw519 18y ago
If you come to the realization that work in itself isn’t evil, you can stop living your life as a waterfall-planned software project too. Nothing wrong with "waterfall-planning" if it's done properly. Problem is, it usually isn't. I understand that sometimes you need to release early and often. This is when you can't conduct proper anaysis. Why not? Because you're trying for a home run building something big and you don't know where your project will take you or who will eventually use it. Like a Web 2.0 or social site. But for the rest of us, "waterfall-planning" is just another name for the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC), which is an excellent way to develop systems. But you must conduct analysis first. You must answer the question "what" before you examine the question "how". Most developers do not know how to do this. How can you tell? When their waterfall phases take too long (more than a month for analysis for most projects). When they say things like, "The user doesn't know what he needs." Yes he does. You just have to keep digging until you know. Once a good programmer learns how to conduct analysis he becomes a good developer. Then projects become like shooting fish in a barrel. You biggest problem will be convincing your customers that you can do what they think can't be done.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  You've just highlighted everything wrong with the waterfall method, and the SDLC for that matter. You said it yourself: Most developers don't know how to perform the level of front loaded analysis required for a successful SDLC project. Ergo, "most" waterfall methods fail miserably. The method is out of sync with how humans work. When your process boils down to creating a team so elite that they would succeed regardless, it's not much of a process.
  - edw519 18y ago
    The method is out of sync with how humans work. Wrong. The method works perfectly when done properly. Because it's perfectly in sync with how humans work. So why don't most people know how? 2 possible reasons: - All we really have to do is stay one step ahead of the users. So we don't have to be very good. - The field is so young we still don't have adequate well-established standards and procedures. Imagine "release early and often" as the standards for law, medicine, or bridge building. I've heard this argument too many times from people who have never done it right so they think it can't be done.
bayareaguy 18y ago
I think the end of Frost's "Two Tramps in Mud Time" http://www.etymonline.com/poems/tramps.htm http://www.etymonline.com/poems/tramps.htm captures my sentiment about retirement But yield who will to their separation, My object in living is to unite My avocation and my vocation As my two eyes make one in sight. Only where love and need are one, And the work is play for mortal stakes, Is the deed ever really done For Heaven and the future's sakes.

56 points by ph0rque 18y ago

is there a real correlation between working 100 hours weeks in isolation and earning enough of a "jackpot" to retire? the people who i know who did make enough to retire (if they wish) almost all still have friends and families (caveat: if they didn't have friends, they would also be less likely to know me). both the post (and the sentiments) that inspired seem to be based on false premise: you can't, realistically, expect a jackpot in one year. working 100 hours won't create a jack pot for you either (but it may alienate those who are likely to increase your chances - co-founders, employees and helpful friends).

aston 18y ago

It's like 37signals is writing blog posts to specifically reply to news.yc posts...

ph0rque 18y ago
It seems the coincidence started happening after DHH spoke at Startup School.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
It's a good idea. One that I need to do more of, really... my blog is echoingly empty, but it's not as if I don't write. I just do most of my writing here. I should really do more blogging and less news.yc, or crosspost my blog entries as comments, or vice versa.
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  I think posting your comments as blog entries is of more service to the news.yc community than the converse.
jmtame 18y ago
No kidding ;)

cconstantine 18y ago

It does seem like 37signals is responding to HN... Anyway. If done right; Work is a hobby that makes you money, and a hobby is work that costs you money. Why retire when you can make money working on a hobby?

redorb 18y ago
thats the way to think about it! - I don't think its healthy to do anything for 90-110 hours a week, no matter how much you enjoy it

staunch 18y ago

This is a classic strawman. Most people I know who are aspiring entrepreneurs don't despise their current work and think everything will be roses after they've made a lot money. Most just want enough money so they never have to worry about it again. It's a question of security and flexibility. Choosing to work doing something you love is worlds apart from having to work doing something.

mechanical_fish 18y ago
This is a classic strawman. I don't think you're using that word correctly. The person works 80 to 100 hours a week and is miserable is a strawman? That's odd, because I've met so many of them. I've been one of them. Which is not to say that there aren't a few people in the world who want nothing more than to work 100 hours a week. If you are one, good luck with that. Most people I know who are aspiring entrepreneurs don't... think everything will be roses after they've made a lot [of] money. Most just want enough money so they never have to worry about it again. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction between these two sentences? And just how much is "enough money that you never have to worry about it again"? I know people with no money who never worry about money, and I know people with pots of money who worry constantly. The worry has very little to do with the amount of money. The worry comes from you. DHH is suggesting that one way to be happy is to get a job you like, work a sustainable number of hours, live within your means, and then stop worrying about it all the time. You've got an education, a skillset, and a salary that is the envy of the world, so what are you so afraid of?
- staunch 18y ago
  I may be mistaken, but I'm not using the term "strawman" incorrectly. I believe his portrayal of an overly extreme and super naive entrpreneur is intentionally used so that it's easily refuted. How many startup founders feel the work they're doing is so unbearable as to consider it "evil"? > I know people with no money who never worry about money, and I know people with pots of money who worry constantly. This seems really bogus. I know poor people, wealthy people, and ultra rich people. The kinds of things they each worry about are totally different. Sure, they may all technically "worry" about money, but that's where the similarity ends. > You've got an education, a skillset, and a salary that is the envy of the world, so what are you so afraid of? A serious medical condition with myself, a family member, or a friend. Generally any problem that would prevent me from being able to work for an extended period of time. You don't have to be paranoid to worry about this. Unfortunately, it's just not that rare. More personally I'm afraid of having to significantly limit my interests to fall within relatively limited amounts of expendable time and money or to things that are profitable.

utnick 18y ago

i dont like the do what you love and you will never have to retire saying... Many of my hobbies and things I do for fun are not monetizeable.

krschultz 18y ago
Do what you love is not "do what you would do if you had infinite money". If I had infinite money I would be heli-skiing every day. That is not monetizeable. I could be a ski instructor for a lot less, but that is not what I want to do. So moving down to one of my interests, robotics, I work for a company doing close to that. Thus I'm happy at work. I guess by extension if you did what you loved most we'd all be porn stars. It is more about doing something you like.

ojbyrne 18y ago

Early retirement is a euphemism for "fuck you" money. That's what people really want.

leelin 18y ago
I assume that refers to dropping the F-bomb on the (lame|stupid|unappreciative|mean) boss that you toiled under pre-retirement. Now, if you got your money from doing a startup, who gets your F-bomb? :P
- pm 18y ago
  Depending on how much you hold a grudge... Everyone who picked on you at high school, everyone who picked on you at primary school, the disapproving family members who told you to go get a real job, the insecure best friend who constantly undermined your confidence, and generally anyone who ever doubted your ability to finish what you started in style. At least, that's my motivation. It may not be very healthy, but it gets the job done.
  - globalrev 18y ago
    Scary how true that is too me. But I most of all want to create something to help people and I get very satisfied by solving problems.
- swombat 18y ago
  Some of us have an irrepressible need to show the world. You could call it a disproportionate competitive streak allied with over-sensitivity about having been wronged in the past (and there's not a human being out there that hasn't been "wronged" by their definition of the term). Combine that with a good dose of competence, skill, talent, etc, and a bit of inferiority complex (which is natural for gifted people, see the "dots and holes" article from a while back, link below), and you have the perfect recipe for someone with that irrepressible need to show the world what he's made of. It's no bad thing. That's how most progress was made, I think. Thomas Edison and Newton were definitely both competitive jerks with inferiority complexes. Hardly bad company to be in.

alex_c 18y ago

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that most startup founders (those who stick with it, anyway) enjoy it a lot more than a 9-to-5 job or consulting work. In this context, then, the smallest value of "early retirement" really means "never having to take a 9-to-5 job or do consulting work again", not "never doing anything productive ever again".

diego 18y ago
But you don't have to do a 9-to-5 job or consulting work ever if you don't want to. You are working on a startup now and you don't have millions, I presume. There are endless possibilities for earning money in this world that are not mindless 9-to-5 jobs.

sabat 18y ago

"False idol"? Work until you drop? DHH must've been raised Catholic. Or, wait, Protestant. I'll do what I want to do the way I want to do it, thank you very much Mr. Hansen.

jrockway 18y ago
I think it's just a figure of speech. You are reading in to it a bit too deeply.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  ...or not reading at all.

mechanical_fish 18y ago

If you come to the realization that work in itself isn’t evil, you can stop living your life as a waterfall-planned software project. This simile is awesome.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

The vast majority of people do not like vast quantities of leisure time. They get bored. I do not get bored. I have never been bored nor will I ever be bored. I have never been wanting for things to do. I have never had too many hours in the day and not enough to do. People whose time isn't valuable can't understand someone like me. Every second of my time is valuable, not in a DOLLAR value, in a personal value. I have vastly many more interests than I have time to indulge all of them. Work is a cancer on my life.

smoody 18y ago

It's too bad they perceive long hours at their job as a chore -- and they must since they are prescribing both short hours and four-day work weeks. When I'm in the groove doing something I truly love to do, then 16 hour workdays fly by as if they're perhaps three or four hours in duration and in those moments, there's nothing I'd rather be doing more -- including sleeping. I've been in that grove at my own startups and working for a big company where there's no chance that my efforts will translate into a pot of gold. And I love it. Funny thing is, you seldom hear people give that advice to obsessed painters, sculptors, musicians, etc. Why? Because artistic passions are viewed differently than "jobs." But, what if your job IS your artistic passion? Why shouldn't entrepreneurs be viewed as "artists" instead of "workers?"

cstejerean 18y ago
i'm assuming 37 signals doesn't kick people out of the building and/or prevent them from doing extra work at home. But it's nice to have the option to work 4 days a week and short hours.

pavelludiq 18y ago

Why retire after your startup succeeds? Why not just start doing something fun thats is not easily monetizeable? The idea is that you can have some real freedom. You can work on whatever you want. You can start another startup or continue your education or anything you want you can even start a music band or go traveling or anything that you find fun. Thats why people love money. They are a means to something, not a goal. You don't just get rich and then live some happy rich life, you get rich and get to do whatever you like, if you get rich enough, you could ignore laws too. I know a lot of people who if given a lot of money their first reaction would be to buy a lot of booze and celebrate. I have a friend who if given that amount of money would buy a biology research center and just play god with nature. My first reaction would be to buy a turn table and some 70's punk records or something, and then maybe a guitar. People want different stuff. And money gives it to them.

globalrev 18y ago

The point of a big score is not to retire. It is having the privileige of not having to worry about money and being able to do exactly what you want. If I sold a company for 200 million dollars I'd give half of it to charity, keep 10 millions as my own money and then put the rest in some big hard interesting project.

run4yourlives 18y ago
Couldn't you just do exactly what you want in the first place?
- pchristensen 18y ago
  No, since the big hard project might require lots of money to do. Normally, money has strings attached (must be paid back, must give equity in a company with potential for liquidity, etc) which restricts what you can do. Do you think pg could have started YC w/o his ViaWeb $$? Or could tlb start AnyBots? Sure, you can work on stuff like that in your spare time, but huge projects usually require a bigger commitment than fits into spare time. Not having to sacrifice time or focus on earning money gives you a whole lot more to throw at a problem.

edw519 18y ago

If you come to the realization that work in itself isn’t evil, you can stop living your life as a waterfall-planned software project too. Nothing wrong with "waterfall-planning" if it's done properly. Problem is, it usually isn't. I understand that sometimes you need to release early and often. This is when you can't conduct proper anaysis. Why not? Because you're trying for a home run building something big and you don't know where your project will take you or who will eventually use it. Like a Web 2.0 or social site. But for the rest of us, "waterfall-planning" is just another name for the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC), which is an excellent way to develop systems. But you must conduct analysis first. You must answer the question "what" before you examine the question "how". Most developers do not know how to do this. How can you tell? When their waterfall phases take too long (more than a month for analysis for most projects). When they say things like, "The user doesn't know what he needs." Yes he does. You just have to keep digging until you know. Once a good programmer learns how to conduct analysis he becomes a good developer. Then projects become like shooting fish in a barrel. You biggest problem will be convincing your customers that you can do what they think can't be done.

run4yourlives 18y ago
You've just highlighted everything wrong with the waterfall method, and the SDLC for that matter. You said it yourself: Most developers don't know how to perform the level of front loaded analysis required for a successful SDLC project. Ergo, "most" waterfall methods fail miserably. The method is out of sync with how humans work. When your process boils down to creating a team so elite that they would succeed regardless, it's not much of a process.
- edw519 18y ago
  The method is out of sync with how humans work. Wrong. The method works perfectly when done properly. Because it's perfectly in sync with how humans work. So why don't most people know how? 2 possible reasons: - All we really have to do is stay one step ahead of the users. So we don't have to be very good. - The field is so young we still don't have adequate well-established standards and procedures. Imagine "release early and often" as the standards for law, medicine, or bridge building. I've heard this argument too many times from people who have never done it right so they think it can't be done.

bayareaguy 18y ago

I think the end of Frost's "Two Tramps in Mud Time" http://www.etymonline.com/poems/tramps.htm http://www.etymonline.com/poems/tramps.htm captures my sentiment about retirement But yield who will to their separation, My object in living is to unite My avocation and my vocation As my two eyes make one in sight. Only where love and need are one, And the work is play for mortal stakes, Is the deed ever really done For Heaven and the future's sakes.