3 ms·

Prep hard. My 2c below, not trying to tell you how to live life :) 1. Review your finances. How long can you skip work without feeling financially stressed? Th

by ptero 4y ago

Prep hard. My 2c below, not trying to tell you how to live life :) 1. Review your finances. How long can you skip work without feeling financially stressed? This should include full expenses (medical insurance, family, etc.) and will determine the level of risk you can comfortably take with your job. If you have 5+ years of cushion you can take a lot of risk. Even if the job market and your company both collapse you can downshift for a year or two and work on a new tech as a personal project. Droughts seldom last more than a couple of years. If you have less than 3 months of cushion, look for the lowest risk options (a strongest company you can work for) and try to build it up. 2. Decide whether you expect your current company to do well with the reduced headcount. If your company is publicly traded, read financial statements and analyst opinions try joining an investor call. Look at the outside information, not the HR infomercials. If the company is expected to do well you can stay. Layoffs in strong companies often mean shakeouts beyond actual layoffs (teams merging and forming, etc.) and you might even be able to move to a better spot. If the company is in trouble, start looking for other options ASAP. 3. Learn what is the job market for your skills and if any adjacent areas have significantly better prospects (if so, buff up your skills). This can change quickly. Talk to your tech friends, especially those in hiring manager spots, to figure out if they are hiring/frozen/RIFfing.

robocat 4y ago
> If you have 5+ years of cushion you can take a lot of risk. In my own experience I think this is a dangerous attitude: anny other HNers out there that thought this and failed, maybe add a comment about your own experience? I thought I had cushion. However that attitude led to me reseting my equity to zero when I was about 30, and it took more than a decade of my life before I felt like I was starting to recover. Perhaps sometimes we had some luck, so we get some savings, and we then think “that was easy, I could do that again” and try something risky. But the environment or our circumstances have changed, and we can’t always replicate our past. The other aspect is that I think we underestimate risk: for example when I was younger I would think creating a business worth a million dollars would be unbelievably great. Now I see that opportunity costs of a $X00,000 loss of income require a 10x return ($X million) to break even (to only just cover your risks). Also you need wayyyy more return than 10x to cover the fact that your time investment is not diversified: a 10x return on a game you can only play a few times is a massive gamble that you end up with nothing. You don’t want to end up with nothing after say 40, because the world starts to randomly switch into extremely-hard-mode sometime after ~40 (and everybody is unaware they were playing on easy-mode until after the switch changes).
- ptero 4y ago
  I wonder if we are talking about different risks. If I may ask, in your case did you go through your savings over several years by using it for regular living expenses or by pursuing a business/investment idea? I have seen people go from a good sized bank account to zero quickly by buying something expensive (a house, a boat, etc.) or by trying to start a business. One can always lose money on risky investments or outright gambling. But I have never seen someone deplete a 5-year savings by downshifting for a period of time. I was talking about the second case: I do not have to worry about losing a job if I have 5+ years of living expenses. If I lose my job and have to cool heels for a year, so be it; there are still have 4+ years of cushion. My 2c.
  - robocat 4y ago
    Sure. Travelling lots led to low equity, then I got involved with a business that went nowhere which led to “having nothing”, followed by cofounding another business (zero money investment but plenty of time investment). My income went to nearly zero and my spending went very low for a couple of years: for example I was living in an abandoned building with some dodgy people. I still had backstops (I could get a job, parents could have supported me, and I live in New Zealand which provides social welfare). The second business I helped found is mildly successful (I think it will pay me back for its risk plus a little, but it cost over a decade of my life plus some other even heavier costs). My opinion is tempered by watching so many others flame out when trying to start businesses. Early flame out is often way better financially than many years of not quite succeeding (a friend just sold a business for peanuts after nearly a decade: costs and benefits but didn’t get the success they wanted). Part of my comment is related to something I just read: a summary of Warren Buffett’s investing as: RULE #1: don’t lose money. RULE #2: don’t forget rule #1. I”m not suggesting we shouldn’t chase rainbows - dreams are awesome even though they are usually social constructs driven by status. I guess my comment could be summarised as: don’t advise people to take risks. Either they are risk averse, in which case if they flame out due to your advice, that is bad. Or they are risk takers, in which case they need the opposite advice - try to be more sensible and less gambling. The median return from people investing time into a business is probably nearer to zero than I would like to think. The average return is insanely skewed by the 1 in 1000 outliers. https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-founders-earn/ https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-foun... I mean, the world needs founders, but I strongly believe it is not a financially sensible risk for the vast majority of people that become founders. I am assuming your comment was aimed at potential founders. Edit: I just noticed this relevant note in https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlight/ https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlig... about Sam Bankman-Fried: Here, SBF realized, was the rub: When he applied this principle to his own life, he came up short. There was little chance he’d get himself fired from Jane Street. Thus the decision to stick with Jane was a risk-averse preference. It was the logical equivalent of being offered a choice between $50 and 50 percent of $100, and saying, “Give me President Grant.” SBF was risk-neutral on behalf of Jane Street, but not, he realized, for his own life. To be fully rational about maximizing his income on behalf of the poor, he should apply his trading principles across the board. He had to find a risk-neutral career path—which, if we strip away the trader-jargon, actually means he felt he needed to take on a lot more risk in the hopes of becoming part of the global elite. The math couldn’t be clearer. Very high risk multiplied by dynastic wealth trumps low risk multiplied by mere rich-guy wealth. To do the most good for the world, SBF needed to find a path on which he’d be a coin toss away from going totally bust.

by ptero 4y ago

robocat 4y ago

> If you have 5+ years of cushion you can take a lot of risk. In my own experience I think this is a dangerous attitude: anny other HNers out there that thought this and failed, maybe add a comment about your own experience? I thought I had cushion. However that attitude led to me reseting my equity to zero when I was about 30, and it took more than a decade of my life before I felt like I was starting to recover. Perhaps sometimes we had some luck, so we get some savings, and we then think “that was easy, I could do that again” and try something risky. But the environment or our circumstances have changed, and we can’t always replicate our past. The other aspect is that I think we underestimate risk: for example when I was younger I would think creating a business worth a million dollars would be unbelievably great. Now I see that opportunity costs of a $X00,000 loss of income require a 10x return ($X million) to break even (to only just cover your risks). Also you need wayyyy more return than 10x to cover the fact that your time investment is not diversified: a 10x return on a game you can only play a few times is a massive gamble that you end up with nothing. You don’t want to end up with nothing after say 40, because the world starts to randomly switch into extremely-hard-mode sometime after ~40 (and everybody is unaware they were playing on easy-mode until after the switch changes).

ptero 4y ago
I wonder if we are talking about different risks. If I may ask, in your case did you go through your savings over several years by using it for regular living expenses or by pursuing a business/investment idea? I have seen people go from a good sized bank account to zero quickly by buying something expensive (a house, a boat, etc.) or by trying to start a business. One can always lose money on risky investments or outright gambling. But I have never seen someone deplete a 5-year savings by downshifting for a period of time. I was talking about the second case: I do not have to worry about losing a job if I have 5+ years of living expenses. If I lose my job and have to cool heels for a year, so be it; there are still have 4+ years of cushion. My 2c.
- robocat 4y ago
  Sure. Travelling lots led to low equity, then I got involved with a business that went nowhere which led to “having nothing”, followed by cofounding another business (zero money investment but plenty of time investment). My income went to nearly zero and my spending went very low for a couple of years: for example I was living in an abandoned building with some dodgy people. I still had backstops (I could get a job, parents could have supported me, and I live in New Zealand which provides social welfare). The second business I helped found is mildly successful (I think it will pay me back for its risk plus a little, but it cost over a decade of my life plus some other even heavier costs). My opinion is tempered by watching so many others flame out when trying to start businesses. Early flame out is often way better financially than many years of not quite succeeding (a friend just sold a business for peanuts after nearly a decade: costs and benefits but didn’t get the success they wanted). Part of my comment is related to something I just read: a summary of Warren Buffett’s investing as: RULE #1: don’t lose money. RULE #2: don’t forget rule #1. I”m not suggesting we shouldn’t chase rainbows - dreams are awesome even though they are usually social constructs driven by status. I guess my comment could be summarised as: don’t advise people to take risks. Either they are risk averse, in which case if they flame out due to your advice, that is bad. Or they are risk takers, in which case they need the opposite advice - try to be more sensible and less gambling. The median return from people investing time into a business is probably nearer to zero than I would like to think. The average return is insanely skewed by the 1 in 1000 outliers. https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-founders-earn/ https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-foun... I mean, the world needs founders, but I strongly believe it is not a financially sensible risk for the vast majority of people that become founders. I am assuming your comment was aimed at potential founders. Edit: I just noticed this relevant note in https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlight/ https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlig... about Sam Bankman-Fried: Here, SBF realized, was the rub: When he applied this principle to his own life, he came up short. There was little chance he’d get himself fired from Jane Street. Thus the decision to stick with Jane was a risk-averse preference. It was the logical equivalent of being offered a choice between $50 and 50 percent of $100, and saying, “Give me President Grant.” SBF was risk-neutral on behalf of Jane Street, but not, he realized, for his own life. To be fully rational about maximizing his income on behalf of the poor, he should apply his trading principles across the board. He had to find a risk-neutral career path—which, if we strip away the trader-jargon, actually means he felt he needed to take on a lot more risk in the hopes of becoming part of the global elite. The math couldn’t be clearer. Very high risk multiplied by dynastic wealth trumps low risk multiplied by mere rich-guy wealth. To do the most good for the world, SBF needed to find a path on which he’d be a coin toss away from going totally bust.