6 ms·

You have a 40+ hour workweek, until you put in enough intelligently focused 80 hour work weeks coupled with some dumb luck, to possibly arrive at anything resem

by czbond 5y ago

You have a 40+ hour workweek, until you put in enough intelligently focused 80 hour work weeks coupled with some dumb luck, to possibly arrive at anything resembling a 4 hour workweek. I'm really tired of seeing online 'equality' warriors think entrepreneurship is easy and should be used to pay for all of society's financial hardships; entrepreneurship is a significant toll that can cause financial ruin and mental instability just to have a chance at arriving at any sort of time liberation. When you create something you place your own time, finances, energy at risk - in many cases you get a low ROI in return. But like all educations, one can get better and improve over time. One must vision the system, design the system, find ways to finance the system, execute the system, manage the system, and optimize the processes. Then possibly, you might be able to receive benefits from that system - but it is in no way guaranteed. So don't pity the founder, but don't denigrate them either; actions taken on own volition mean founders must enjoy or live with the outcomes.

bantunes 5y ago
I think a lot of people's main problem with entrepreneurship is that it's by and large a rich kid's game. I know a few "serial entrepreneurs" - every time they failed, their parents or the social network they grew over the years at their private school were there to pick up the pieces and back them for the next attempt. Until they made it and didn't need help any more and could pay for their own flat and live off their projects. It's a problem in a lot of professions too, like law or even acting https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/working-class-actors-diversity-quotas-eddie-marsan https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/workin... Most people have zero shots, or at best one, in them until they have to get back to paying their bills - and get stuck in the rat race forever. No access to credit, no chance of getting in front of a VC firm to pitch, etc. The majority of people don't really care if the Harvard or Stanford kid had to put in 80+ hour weeks to build his or hers business. However hard that is to pull off, people won't respect it because it's just privilege asserting itself most of the time.
- dvh1990 5y ago
  The most profitable games are always a rich kid's game first and foremost, because power begets power. This doesn't mean that you don't get a shot at doing what you want. Yes, your odds as a "nobody" are lower. But that's why being somebody, or having privilege, is so desired. There are problems with this. Chances aren't always given out on merit, a fact that is a detriment to society. The other issue is what this article talks about: People selling a pipe dream.
- k-mcgrady 5y ago
  >> I think a lot of people's main problem with entrepreneurship is that it's by and large a rich kid's game. >> No access to credit, no chance of getting in front of a VC firm to pitch, etc. You're looking at this from a startup perspective I presume. You're ignoring the many plumbers, electricians, corner shop owners and other small business owners. Very few of these people were rich before starting their businesses. In the online world you can do similar things through e-commerce, small SaaS businesses etc. You can work on these in your spare time until they start to generate income + they have little to no startup costs.
  - eloisant 5y ago
    Unlike the startup founders those don't get a 4 hours week after they're successful. Yes they can because wealthy, but they have to keep working 70 hours weeks to keep their business afloat.
    - jimbokun 5y ago
      If you get to the point of having a bunch of people working under you and taking on more and more responsibility for the hands on work, you could conceivably have something like a four hour work week? One of the main take aways from Feriss' book was that he achieved the 4-hour work week by continuing to delegate more and more responsibility to the people working for his business.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    Successful businesses in these construction fields were started a generation or more ago and handed down to family members. Even electricians and the like have a very difficult time getting beyond self-employed with an assistant and maybe a partner who helps part-time with billing and scheduling. That leap to getting a second employee who can work independently in the field is a big one. Why is that person working for you rather than themselves? A good portion of the time, the answer to that question is that they are related to the owner in some way.
- czbond 5y ago
  I disagree - I know many founders - and all of them were broke, broke, broke (and went broke to bootstrap). Yes, some subset of founders have parental backing - and that's fine. They're at a different wealth level trying to increase their wealth. Founders I know (including myself): - One worked years on the side to grow it enough just to get seed. With newborn kids, then quit his CompSci job to live off his teachers wife salary for years. - One was on foodstamps for 6 years, and kids on medicaid to pull his shop through - One saved for years, and spent most of his money to get through the rough spots and is coming out the other side just now. - One failed 4 times - each attempt taking a few years, entered bankruptcy to try on a 5th attempt. - One lived at poverty means for years with a family while bootstrapping. So.... there is a lot of "entrepreneurship is easy pr0n" as viewed from Silicon Valley. But if you're rich - it's easier to just sit back and be rich. So only a small group do. The rest of us are just trying to create something with little resources in the rest of the country/world.
  - birksherty 5y ago
    Utill we know the complete story, it's still privileged. People who have family to support them in case of a failure or connections. Most people can't do that. Most rich people are themselves as struggling while exploiting others.
    - cpncrunch 5y ago
      For me it was working on a part-time hobby while working full time, and that eventually turned into a full-time business. So I didn't need any support or connections or anything like that. I never had any funding.
- milansm 5y ago
  So what? I’m putting >50 hours per week so that in 20 years my kids could have more than one shot in entrepreneurship.
  - discordance 5y ago
    What if your kids want to be artists and not entrepreneurs?
    - milansm 5y ago
      Good for them. But I guess there will also be some people judging and complaining how it’s not fair that they can afford to follow their dreams.
- markozivanovic 5y ago
  But, isn't that discrimination? Why should I belittle the hard work of a person that was fortunate enough to attend a prestigious university that gave them certain privileges? What is that majority trying to achieve? A world where that hypothetical person would stop trying? I'm someone that's not from a privileged background, and I did not attend a prestigious university, but I sure do respect the time of anyone as much as I respect mine. Sadly, it seems to me that it boils down to that quote from WarGames - the only winning move is not to play.
  - bantunes 5y ago
    I don't think it's discrimination. In a world of finite opportunities, more and more of them going to the people that are born on level 50 when you have to start at level 1 will inevitably lead to revolution against entrenched interests, as people realize things are rigged against them. History has a few examples, notably in France and Russia. What people call 'equality warriors' I call bloodshed preventers.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Leaving aside your implied threat of violence, what on earth convinces you that “opportunities are finite”? Human needs are infinite. Every solved problem creates a new class of problems that you can solve. And that’s ignoring the many bad solutions we already live with that are ripe for replacement.
      - imtringued 5y ago
        >Leaving aside your implied threat of violence, what on earth convinces you that “opportunities are finite”? Of course they aren't. Once the central bank hits the 2% inflation goal it is just a matter of time until there are enough opportunities for everyone.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
      For a system to be rigged, it implies that the same people stay at the top. Look at the most valuable companies today, and look 30 years ago. There are numerous studies that show that income volatility at the top and at the bottom are very pronounced in US vs Europe and other developed countries. More importantly, about 50% of people in the US will be in the top 10% of income, at least 1 year of their lives. This goes against the tenet that the system is "rigged" or at least, it far less rigged here than in the rest of the world.
- caymanjim 5y ago
  At what wealth level does parents and community helping someone succeed switch from a laudable ideal to privilege asserting?
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    When it starts to corrupt the broader society? Like unpaid internships. This practice can shut off entire industries from people who do not have parents who can support them in expensive cities well through their 20s.
  - markozivanovic 5y ago
    That's one of the problems. Everyone has their opinion on what that level is. And nowadays we have the internet, so they can share it with everyone else. Sometimes I like to think what a world would look like - geopolitically and economically if we didn't have newspapers, the internet, or any other means of communication. Would our world be a more balanced place? Would it balance itself out in the end?
  - czbond 5y ago
    Never - creation should always be the goal.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Most people have zero shots, or at best one, This reflects my experience. Co-founded a company, and we did OK for a while. At some point, we made a mistake that killed us. I think I learned from that mistake, but have not had the opportunity to try again - the first lesson cost my savings to that point. > The majority of people don't really care if the Harvard or Stanford kid had to put in 80+ hour weeks They don't care about people busting ass for no reward and mostly downside, why should they care about someone doing it for much better odds?
  - setib 5y ago
    May I ask what was the mistake?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - czbond 5y ago
    You may have one long, extended duration - but you can try again part time, time a business taking less time or resources. You can try until you're 85. Keep going.
- burlesona 5y ago
  I know quite a few start up entrepreneurs who had nothing like Harvard or Stanford education/connections, but were able to raise VC. Raising money gives them a shot at entrepreneurship by shifting the financial risk onto someone who can afford it. When they’re successful, most startups tend to create a lot of good jobs. When they’re not, some rich folks lose some money. This is all fine and good, and is one of the few parts of our economy that arguably works pretty well. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but pretty good.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  > Most people have zero shots, or at best one, in them until they have to get back to paying their bills - and get stuck in the rat race forever. No access to credit, no chance of getting in front of a VC firm to pitch, etc. I look at it like a baseball game. Most of us are stuck being spectators. We're perpetual employees, living paycheck to paycheck (the lucky ones saving a little) but we will never get to play in the major league. A few people are MLB players. They can afford to get one, maybe two at-bats during the game. If they miss, they're done. If they hit, they're heroes. Then, you have the extremely lucky few who get infinite at-bats, due to being born into wealth. They swing, miss, fallback on their family, swing, miss, fall back, and so on until they finally swing, get a home run, then spend the rest of their life writing books about how to be talented at baseball.
  - czbond 5y ago
    I fully disagree with you. You get as many at-bats as you want. It depends on what you're willing to give up FOR those at-bats. Is it worth your extra time, spare time, finances, family time, TV time? That is for each to decide.
czbond 5y ago
As a followup - I've seen illegal immigrants in the U.S. create million dollar legal businesses without connections, unable to speak English, in fear of constant de-portation, and tons of hard work. [as singular examples] So I'm pretty sure anyone can create a business - that also EMPLOYS the people who need to pay their bills yet do not want to take the huge risks in founding a business.
sidlls 5y ago
> When you create something you place your own time, finances, energy at risk - in many cases you get a low ROI in return. The laborer class doesn't risk time; they simply have it consumed. They also risk their own finances and energy, with the "ROI" being often to do things like decide between food and $5 in gas for the drive to work tomorrow. The problem I have with entrepreneurship evangelists is that they elide important context from the discussion: the role a secure financial life growing up and into adulthood provides. Nobody would say the act of building a business is not hard work, requiring sacrifice and long hours. That isn't at all what "equality warriors" object to. The objection is to the notion that that kind of hard work is even possible for everybody. Almost everyone will not have the opportunity to commit to the hard work of an entrepreneur.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
Ok fine, then only require established businesses, like Amazon, Google, Home Depot, Wallmart, non-union construction (which might be the worse jobs in America), etc. to treat employees with better working conditions. The struggling start-ups are left out of the experiment. I do understand the risks of new entrepreneurs. I'm perfectly fine with giving them a lot of leeway. We could use profit off 1040's to determine which companies need to improve working conditions? I think most of us are looking at the monopolistic big boys. And sure, there will be companies crying poor mouth forever, but most won't be savvy enough to fool the IRS. Amazon will always be the exception.
boleary-gl 5y ago
Part of the point of the article is that Tim was born in East Hampton, NY and went to Princeton - he never truly faced the possibility of complete financial ruin when building what he's built. That gave him the freedom to do what he did - without that privilege would he have been able to do thing? I don't know...but for him to NOW turn it into a cult of personality and sell a fake story about "working hard" is at a minimum disingenuous
- jimbokun 5y ago
  But the story he is selling is about NOT working hard. Thus the "Four Hour Work Week". He is not praising indiscriminate effort. He is praising getting the most reward for the least amount of work. Which demonstrates his privilege. But I don't think he's really trying to hide that or claim some kind of virtue.
jimbokun 5y ago
Right, but I think more people have a problem with the passive investors, who have a surplus of capital and then reap the lion's shares of rewards from the businesses they invest in. They are not taking on anything like the risk of the entrepreneur.
birksherty 5y ago
It's recently that these articles coming out. This one talks about exploiting others for their own benefit that leads to such a life. Otherwise there were too many as articles about working hard and hustle.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Entrepreneurship is not easy. Not by a long shot. If a founder-CEO is putting in crazy hours to get the company off the ground then they should be compensated. The denigration happens when this labor doesn't just generate more money than other laborers, but way more money through a means that is entirely decoupled from labor. Gates has seen his wealth increase through Microsoft ownership more after he left the company than during his time actually working there.

by czbond 5y ago

bantunes 5y ago

I think a lot of people's main problem with entrepreneurship is that it's by and large a rich kid's game. I know a few "serial entrepreneurs" - every time they failed, their parents or the social network they grew over the years at their private school were there to pick up the pieces and back them for the next attempt. Until they made it and didn't need help any more and could pay for their own flat and live off their projects. It's a problem in a lot of professions too, like law or even acting https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/working-class-actors-diversity-quotas-eddie-marsan https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/workin... Most people have zero shots, or at best one, in them until they have to get back to paying their bills - and get stuck in the rat race forever. No access to credit, no chance of getting in front of a VC firm to pitch, etc. The majority of people don't really care if the Harvard or Stanford kid had to put in 80+ hour weeks to build his or hers business. However hard that is to pull off, people won't respect it because it's just privilege asserting itself most of the time.

dvh1990 5y ago
The most profitable games are always a rich kid's game first and foremost, because power begets power. This doesn't mean that you don't get a shot at doing what you want. Yes, your odds as a "nobody" are lower. But that's why being somebody, or having privilege, is so desired. There are problems with this. Chances aren't always given out on merit, a fact that is a detriment to society. The other issue is what this article talks about: People selling a pipe dream.
k-mcgrady 5y ago
>> I think a lot of people's main problem with entrepreneurship is that it's by and large a rich kid's game. >> No access to credit, no chance of getting in front of a VC firm to pitch, etc. You're looking at this from a startup perspective I presume. You're ignoring the many plumbers, electricians, corner shop owners and other small business owners. Very few of these people were rich before starting their businesses. In the online world you can do similar things through e-commerce, small SaaS businesses etc. You can work on these in your spare time until they start to generate income + they have little to no startup costs.
- eloisant 5y ago
  Unlike the startup founders those don't get a 4 hours week after they're successful. Yes they can because wealthy, but they have to keep working 70 hours weeks to keep their business afloat.
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    If you get to the point of having a bunch of people working under you and taking on more and more responsibility for the hands on work, you could conceivably have something like a four hour work week? One of the main take aways from Feriss' book was that he achieved the 4-hour work week by continuing to delegate more and more responsibility to the people working for his business.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Successful businesses in these construction fields were started a generation or more ago and handed down to family members. Even electricians and the like have a very difficult time getting beyond self-employed with an assistant and maybe a partner who helps part-time with billing and scheduling. That leap to getting a second employee who can work independently in the field is a big one. Why is that person working for you rather than themselves? A good portion of the time, the answer to that question is that they are related to the owner in some way.
czbond 5y ago
I disagree - I know many founders - and all of them were broke, broke, broke (and went broke to bootstrap). Yes, some subset of founders have parental backing - and that's fine. They're at a different wealth level trying to increase their wealth. Founders I know (including myself): - One worked years on the side to grow it enough just to get seed. With newborn kids, then quit his CompSci job to live off his teachers wife salary for years. - One was on foodstamps for 6 years, and kids on medicaid to pull his shop through - One saved for years, and spent most of his money to get through the rough spots and is coming out the other side just now. - One failed 4 times - each attempt taking a few years, entered bankruptcy to try on a 5th attempt. - One lived at poverty means for years with a family while bootstrapping. So.... there is a lot of "entrepreneurship is easy pr0n" as viewed from Silicon Valley. But if you're rich - it's easier to just sit back and be rich. So only a small group do. The rest of us are just trying to create something with little resources in the rest of the country/world.
- birksherty 5y ago
  Utill we know the complete story, it's still privileged. People who have family to support them in case of a failure or connections. Most people can't do that. Most rich people are themselves as struggling while exploiting others.
  - cpncrunch 5y ago
    For me it was working on a part-time hobby while working full time, and that eventually turned into a full-time business. So I didn't need any support or connections or anything like that. I never had any funding.
milansm 5y ago
So what? I’m putting >50 hours per week so that in 20 years my kids could have more than one shot in entrepreneurship.
- discordance 5y ago
  What if your kids want to be artists and not entrepreneurs?
  - milansm 5y ago
    Good for them. But I guess there will also be some people judging and complaining how it’s not fair that they can afford to follow their dreams.
markozivanovic 5y ago
But, isn't that discrimination? Why should I belittle the hard work of a person that was fortunate enough to attend a prestigious university that gave them certain privileges? What is that majority trying to achieve? A world where that hypothetical person would stop trying? I'm someone that's not from a privileged background, and I did not attend a prestigious university, but I sure do respect the time of anyone as much as I respect mine. Sadly, it seems to me that it boils down to that quote from WarGames - the only winning move is not to play.
- bantunes 5y ago
  I don't think it's discrimination. In a world of finite opportunities, more and more of them going to the people that are born on level 50 when you have to start at level 1 will inevitably lead to revolution against entrenched interests, as people realize things are rigged against them. History has a few examples, notably in France and Russia. What people call 'equality warriors' I call bloodshed preventers.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Leaving aside your implied threat of violence, what on earth convinces you that “opportunities are finite”? Human needs are infinite. Every solved problem creates a new class of problems that you can solve. And that’s ignoring the many bad solutions we already live with that are ripe for replacement.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      >Leaving aside your implied threat of violence, what on earth convinces you that “opportunities are finite”? Of course they aren't. Once the central bank hits the 2% inflation goal it is just a matter of time until there are enough opportunities for everyone.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
    For a system to be rigged, it implies that the same people stay at the top. Look at the most valuable companies today, and look 30 years ago. There are numerous studies that show that income volatility at the top and at the bottom are very pronounced in US vs Europe and other developed countries. More importantly, about 50% of people in the US will be in the top 10% of income, at least 1 year of their lives. This goes against the tenet that the system is "rigged" or at least, it far less rigged here than in the rest of the world.
caymanjim 5y ago
At what wealth level does parents and community helping someone succeed switch from a laudable ideal to privilege asserting?
- jimbokun 5y ago
  When it starts to corrupt the broader society? Like unpaid internships. This practice can shut off entire industries from people who do not have parents who can support them in expensive cities well through their 20s.
- markozivanovic 5y ago
  That's one of the problems. Everyone has their opinion on what that level is. And nowadays we have the internet, so they can share it with everyone else. Sometimes I like to think what a world would look like - geopolitically and economically if we didn't have newspapers, the internet, or any other means of communication. Would our world be a more balanced place? Would it balance itself out in the end?
- czbond 5y ago
  Never - creation should always be the goal.
_jal 5y ago
> Most people have zero shots, or at best one, This reflects my experience. Co-founded a company, and we did OK for a while. At some point, we made a mistake that killed us. I think I learned from that mistake, but have not had the opportunity to try again - the first lesson cost my savings to that point. > The majority of people don't really care if the Harvard or Stanford kid had to put in 80+ hour weeks They don't care about people busting ass for no reward and mostly downside, why should they care about someone doing it for much better odds?
- setib 5y ago
  May I ask what was the mistake?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- czbond 5y ago
  You may have one long, extended duration - but you can try again part time, time a business taking less time or resources. You can try until you're 85. Keep going.
burlesona 5y ago
I know quite a few start up entrepreneurs who had nothing like Harvard or Stanford education/connections, but were able to raise VC. Raising money gives them a shot at entrepreneurship by shifting the financial risk onto someone who can afford it. When they’re successful, most startups tend to create a lot of good jobs. When they’re not, some rich folks lose some money. This is all fine and good, and is one of the few parts of our economy that arguably works pretty well. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but pretty good.
ryandrake 5y ago
> Most people have zero shots, or at best one, in them until they have to get back to paying their bills - and get stuck in the rat race forever. No access to credit, no chance of getting in front of a VC firm to pitch, etc. I look at it like a baseball game. Most of us are stuck being spectators. We're perpetual employees, living paycheck to paycheck (the lucky ones saving a little) but we will never get to play in the major league. A few people are MLB players. They can afford to get one, maybe two at-bats during the game. If they miss, they're done. If they hit, they're heroes. Then, you have the extremely lucky few who get infinite at-bats, due to being born into wealth. They swing, miss, fallback on their family, swing, miss, fall back, and so on until they finally swing, get a home run, then spend the rest of their life writing books about how to be talented at baseball.
- czbond 5y ago
  I fully disagree with you. You get as many at-bats as you want. It depends on what you're willing to give up FOR those at-bats. Is it worth your extra time, spare time, finances, family time, TV time? That is for each to decide.

czbond 5y ago

As a followup - I've seen illegal immigrants in the U.S. create million dollar legal businesses without connections, unable to speak English, in fear of constant de-portation, and tons of hard work. [as singular examples] So I'm pretty sure anyone can create a business - that also EMPLOYS the people who need to pay their bills yet do not want to take the huge risks in founding a business.

sidlls 5y ago

> When you create something you place your own time, finances, energy at risk - in many cases you get a low ROI in return. The laborer class doesn't risk time; they simply have it consumed. They also risk their own finances and energy, with the "ROI" being often to do things like decide between food and $5 in gas for the drive to work tomorrow. The problem I have with entrepreneurship evangelists is that they elide important context from the discussion: the role a secure financial life growing up and into adulthood provides. Nobody would say the act of building a business is not hard work, requiring sacrifice and long hours. That isn't at all what "equality warriors" object to. The objection is to the notion that that kind of hard work is even possible for everybody. Almost everyone will not have the opportunity to commit to the hard work of an entrepreneur.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

Ok fine, then only require established businesses, like Amazon, Google, Home Depot, Wallmart, non-union construction (which might be the worse jobs in America), etc. to treat employees with better working conditions. The struggling start-ups are left out of the experiment. I do understand the risks of new entrepreneurs. I'm perfectly fine with giving them a lot of leeway. We could use profit off 1040's to determine which companies need to improve working conditions? I think most of us are looking at the monopolistic big boys. And sure, there will be companies crying poor mouth forever, but most won't be savvy enough to fool the IRS. Amazon will always be the exception.

boleary-gl 5y ago

Part of the point of the article is that Tim was born in East Hampton, NY and went to Princeton - he never truly faced the possibility of complete financial ruin when building what he's built. That gave him the freedom to do what he did - without that privilege would he have been able to do thing? I don't know...but for him to NOW turn it into a cult of personality and sell a fake story about "working hard" is at a minimum disingenuous

jimbokun 5y ago
But the story he is selling is about NOT working hard. Thus the "Four Hour Work Week". He is not praising indiscriminate effort. He is praising getting the most reward for the least amount of work. Which demonstrates his privilege. But I don't think he's really trying to hide that or claim some kind of virtue.

jimbokun 5y ago

Right, but I think more people have a problem with the passive investors, who have a surplus of capital and then reap the lion's shares of rewards from the businesses they invest in. They are not taking on anything like the risk of the entrepreneur.

birksherty 5y ago

It's recently that these articles coming out. This one talks about exploiting others for their own benefit that leads to such a life. Otherwise there were too many as articles about working hard and hustle.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Entrepreneurship is not easy. Not by a long shot. If a founder-CEO is putting in crazy hours to get the company off the ground then they should be compensated. The denigration happens when this labor doesn't just generate more money than other laborers, but way more money through a means that is entirely decoupled from labor. Gates has seen his wealth increase through Microsoft ownership more after he left the company than during his time actually working there.