4 ms·

Why are we using Bill Gates as an example here? He is an extreme outlier that is far beyond the goal post of what most entrepreneurs would see success as. It do

by Axsuul 6y ago

Why are we using Bill Gates as an example here? He is an extreme outlier that is far beyond the goal post of what most entrepreneurs would see success as. It doesn't require the seminal upbringing and kismet growth environment of Bill Gates just to get into entrepreneurship.

Arainach 6y ago
....but it helps a huge amount. That's the point of this article. It's much easier to risk doing a startup when you know that no matter what, you won't have to go hungry or homeless because there's family who will help you. You're a lot less worried about pouring dollars into your 401k at age 22 if you know that you stand to eventually inherit a few million from your parents, so whatever.
- Axsuul 6y ago
  I'm not denying it helps and isn't significant. But why do you need to inherit a few million just to feel secure enough to pursue entrepreneurship? Being an entrepreneur doesn't mean you have to go big or go home. There is just as much entrepreneurship with immigrants as there is with the US-born, with the former less likely to have a comfortable safety net.
  - Arainach 6y ago
    Opportunity cost and time value of money. In general, if person A puts $5K a year into a 401k between ages 25-35 and then stops, while person B puts in $5K a year between ages 35-65, at age 65 person A will have a larger retirement balance despite having put in only 1/3 as much principal. This generalizes to the rest of your net worth (salary+stock) as well. If you win the lottery and manage to have significant equity in a startup worth millions, congratulations. If not, you're faced with the prospect of being older and having minimal (or at least far fewer) assets. This is a big problem if you want to raise a family or even if you want to advance your status in life. The economics of software are simply different. Someone good enough to start a business that brings in $10-20K MRR and barely survive is almost certainly good enough to get hired and paid $200K+ by any number of companies. If you're not going big or going home, it doesn't make sense to do a software startup these days. Even in other industries, starting and running your own business is a LOT of work. If your goal isn't to (try to) get rich, you can almost always make more money climbing some corporate ladder for a lot fewer hours.
    - Axsuul 6y ago
      > Opportunity cost and time value of money. In general, if person A puts $5K a year into a 401k between ages 25-35 and then stops, while person B puts in $5K a year between ages 35-65, at age 65 person A will have a larger retirement balance despite having put in only 1/3 as much principal. This generalizes to the rest of your net worth (salary+stock) as well. I'm with you on the opportunity cost of money but I don't see how it has anything to do with what we are discussing. > The economics of software are simply different. Someone good enough to start a business that brings in $10-20K MRR and barely survive is almost certainly good enough to get hired and paid $200K+ by any number of companies. If you're not going big or going home, it doesn't make sense to do a software startup these days. This is not true at all. There are tons of FAANG engineers plotting their exit to start their own business for the reasons of freedom and impact. It's not just about the money. Also, if you can reach $10-20k MRR—that's a lot more scalable than your salary at a company ever would be. Don't confound entrepreneurship solely as a vehicle for getting rich.
      - Arainach 6y ago
        If you come from a family that is anything less than "well off", there is a strong instinct for security. When you know how bad the alternative is, you play it conservative and plan for the future. If your choices are a job at Microsoft where you'll start at a level of compensation that's quite possibly higher than any ever earned by any of your family at any point in their careers and likely climb to senior or principal where you'll make more money in a year than most members of your family will ever have as a net worth or to throw away that essentially guaranteed income for the chance that you could do something else? You take the sure thing.
mixmastamyk 6y ago
The focus here is on the hustling Bill of the 80s, not billionaire Bill of the 90s.
- ozim 6y ago
  Don't forget that this guy full name is: William Henry Gates III. He is not your friend Bill from across the street that most of people could compare with.
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    Next you'll be telling me ascots aren't standard morning wear. (One of my favorite cartoon alter egos as a child was Henry Cabot Henhouse, III.) Still this is the whole point of the article, he makes a reasonable example.
  - anchpop 6y ago
    Aren’t most people called Bill actually named William? I actually know a William III and he’s a not-rich ROTC kid. Bill Gates did have money but i’m not sure the degree to which his name is an indication of that
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
He's the guy I compared myself to, at the time.

by Axsuul 6y ago

Arainach 6y ago

....but it helps a huge amount. That's the point of this article. It's much easier to risk doing a startup when you know that no matter what, you won't have to go hungry or homeless because there's family who will help you. You're a lot less worried about pouring dollars into your 401k at age 22 if you know that you stand to eventually inherit a few million from your parents, so whatever.

Axsuul 6y ago
I'm not denying it helps and isn't significant. But why do you need to inherit a few million just to feel secure enough to pursue entrepreneurship? Being an entrepreneur doesn't mean you have to go big or go home. There is just as much entrepreneurship with immigrants as there is with the US-born, with the former less likely to have a comfortable safety net.
- Arainach 6y ago
  Opportunity cost and time value of money. In general, if person A puts $5K a year into a 401k between ages 25-35 and then stops, while person B puts in $5K a year between ages 35-65, at age 65 person A will have a larger retirement balance despite having put in only 1/3 as much principal. This generalizes to the rest of your net worth (salary+stock) as well. If you win the lottery and manage to have significant equity in a startup worth millions, congratulations. If not, you're faced with the prospect of being older and having minimal (or at least far fewer) assets. This is a big problem if you want to raise a family or even if you want to advance your status in life. The economics of software are simply different. Someone good enough to start a business that brings in $10-20K MRR and barely survive is almost certainly good enough to get hired and paid $200K+ by any number of companies. If you're not going big or going home, it doesn't make sense to do a software startup these days. Even in other industries, starting and running your own business is a LOT of work. If your goal isn't to (try to) get rich, you can almost always make more money climbing some corporate ladder for a lot fewer hours.
  - Axsuul 6y ago
    > Opportunity cost and time value of money. In general, if person A puts $5K a year into a 401k between ages 25-35 and then stops, while person B puts in $5K a year between ages 35-65, at age 65 person A will have a larger retirement balance despite having put in only 1/3 as much principal. This generalizes to the rest of your net worth (salary+stock) as well. I'm with you on the opportunity cost of money but I don't see how it has anything to do with what we are discussing. > The economics of software are simply different. Someone good enough to start a business that brings in $10-20K MRR and barely survive is almost certainly good enough to get hired and paid $200K+ by any number of companies. If you're not going big or going home, it doesn't make sense to do a software startup these days. This is not true at all. There are tons of FAANG engineers plotting their exit to start their own business for the reasons of freedom and impact. It's not just about the money. Also, if you can reach $10-20k MRR—that's a lot more scalable than your salary at a company ever would be. Don't confound entrepreneurship solely as a vehicle for getting rich.
    - Arainach 6y ago
      If you come from a family that is anything less than "well off", there is a strong instinct for security. When you know how bad the alternative is, you play it conservative and plan for the future. If your choices are a job at Microsoft where you'll start at a level of compensation that's quite possibly higher than any ever earned by any of your family at any point in their careers and likely climb to senior or principal where you'll make more money in a year than most members of your family will ever have as a net worth or to throw away that essentially guaranteed income for the chance that you could do something else? You take the sure thing.

mixmastamyk 6y ago

The focus here is on the hustling Bill of the 80s, not billionaire Bill of the 90s.

ozim 6y ago
Don't forget that this guy full name is: William Henry Gates III. He is not your friend Bill from across the street that most of people could compare with.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Next you'll be telling me ascots aren't standard morning wear. (One of my favorite cartoon alter egos as a child was Henry Cabot Henhouse, III.) Still this is the whole point of the article, he makes a reasonable example.
- anchpop 6y ago
  Aren’t most people called Bill actually named William? I actually know a William III and he’s a not-rich ROTC kid. Bill Gates did have money but i’m not sure the degree to which his name is an indication of that

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

He's the guy I compared myself to, at the time.