> "if I have to do all this, for someone else, and it's about the same if I do it for myself, why do I work for them?" This thought has already crossed my mind

> "if I have to do all this, for someone else, and it's about the same if I do it for myself, why do I work for them?" This thought has already crossed my mind. I mean, I am far from being the hypothetical perfect employee who is simultaneously an expert on all existing technologies, can successfuly manage teams of developers, talks to customers, notices opportunities on the market for new products, and whatever else... but I thought that if I ever became that kind of guy, I would have to be really stupid to continue working at the same company in return for, dunno, maybe 30% raise, but probably also extra overtime and being on the phone 24/7... when the alternative would be to start my own company. Especially if I also knew other people with the same skills whom I could trust, e.g. my former colleagues. So I have two explanations, not sure which one is correct, maybe it's a bit of both... A) There actually are people who reach this level of perfect all-knowing and all-capable employee, who nonetheless do not start their own companies. Maybe they lack the capital: either they are not paid well and they do not notice the opportunity to change jobs, or they have insane spending habits. Or maybe the lack the courage, or ambition, or just have a huge blind spot no one told them about. This might be one person in a thousand, but the idea is that if you find one such employee, it's like winning at lottery -- you let the guy run your business but keep putting all the money in your pockets, and you kinda retire except not officially because you do not want the guy to notice that he is now running the entire business alone. Does this actually happen in real life? B) Of course, such perfection is unachievable. It is just presented to you as a realistic goal that "obviously everyone else does", so that you feel like an impostor, and don't ask for a raise.