3 ms·

> for a lot of people, the birth of their first child changes their priorities CEOs are not a lot of people. By definition they are extremely few in number, an

> for a lot of people, the birth of their first child changes their priorities CEOs are not a lot of people. By definition they are extremely few in number, and those who become CEOs of top companies have a perhaps pathological drive to get there. For someone like that, an entirely predictable event -- like the birth of a child -- is the last thing that would make them sacrifice the position they've worked so hard for. Now would I quit my job for $100 million? Absolutely! But maybe that just means I'm most people...

adamwk 4y ago
He’s been at twitch since 2006. How many founders stay that long? Mark Zuckerberg I guess? I just don’t think the numbers back up your premise that being a CEO of a top company requires a pathological drive to stay there until death
ryandrake 4y ago
I honestly don't understand the mentality that drives someone to keep working after they've made, say, $100 million. Maybe that's why we're all not that person. Even if you're the most single-minded, driven person ever, once you get that much wealth you've pretty much won the game. You did it, you're done. The show's over. It's like continuing to play your Civilization game for "Just... One... More... Turn..." after you defeated everyone and you're the only civ left.
- tmpz22 4y ago
  I imagine the work gets less stressful when you have FU money. As a CEO you're delegating a lot of the day to day work, and as a subsidiary of Amazon they're probably giving a lot of the macro direction. So you get into the office (maybe) at 10am (maybe), reading some emails, firing off some responses, maybe taking a call or two. Then a ritzy lunch for an hour. Coming back to some more emails and meetings. Some days you will be putting out fires all day. But the more mature the company is the less you have to do that. After 15+ years the company should have a mature executive team that can handle all but the biggest fires by themselves.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  > I honestly don't understand the mentality that drives someone to keep working after they've made, say, $100 million. Most people reading this site are in the 1% of the world and could easily retire to a lower cost of living area right now or after a few years of saving. They usually don't: Firstly, because the drive that gets you to earn that kind of money also keeps you going. If you're used to and can handle 80 hour weeks, going to 0 is likely to make you feel unfulfilled quite fast (which is also why I don't fully buy the child story). Secondly, you always judge yourself in regards your friend group, and usually quite badly. This might seem absurd to us, but they might be looking at their friends with private jets, yachts and paintings valued more than their total net worth and not feel like they are at the top. There are exception, of course, but I doubt you'll find many of them in the extreme environments at the top of the business hierarchy.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    I don't think we're talking about the same group of people. A highly paid tech worker who makes, say $250K a year, and maybe has a little $800,000 retirement account? Sure, they could retire in Kazakhstan or something, but there's still something to work for (maybe they want to step up and retire in Thailand or heaven forbid the USA). But if you've banked $100 million, that's a totally different world. You have wealth that grows by itself passively, and you'll never be able to spend it. You can live wherever you want in the world and never have to work, and neither will your offspring for multiple generations. Any work you do at that point is firmly in the "Play the video game after you won" territory.
- jonasdegendt 4y ago
  Paul Graham wrote an article [0] on this that provided some insight into this for me. I still don’t completely get it but that’s probably because I’m not that kind of person either, or maybe we just haven’t found the thing yet that is able to drive us on all cylinders with no brakes. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/ace.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ace.html
ericd 4y ago
If you read the article, or know the story of Justin.tv (one of the very earliest YC startups, from before YC was a big thing), you’ll know that he’s a cofounder, not someone who climbed up the ranks via ruthless political maneuvering to get there. It’s not the “position” he worked so hard for, it was to build a company. Being CEO is a means to doing that, not the end goal. He did that, it is extremely successful, it will probably continue to be successful without him. He even says it in the article - that for a long time, he wasn’t sure if he could leave and have it continue to function well. As someone who started, ran, and sold a (much, much smaller) company, I understand that viscerally. If you’re somewhat tired of it, it can feel like you’re trapped. But then you work on that, making sure that the things you do get well covered by someone else. And then, one day, there’s nothing it needs you for anymore, and you’re finally free.

adamwk 4y ago

He’s been at twitch since 2006. How many founders stay that long? Mark Zuckerberg I guess? I just don’t think the numbers back up your premise that being a CEO of a top company requires a pathological drive to stay there until death

ryandrake 4y ago

I honestly don't understand the mentality that drives someone to keep working after they've made, say, $100 million. Maybe that's why we're all not that person. Even if you're the most single-minded, driven person ever, once you get that much wealth you've pretty much won the game. You did it, you're done. The show's over. It's like continuing to play your Civilization game for "Just... One... More... Turn..." after you defeated everyone and you're the only civ left.

tmpz22 4y ago
I imagine the work gets less stressful when you have FU money. As a CEO you're delegating a lot of the day to day work, and as a subsidiary of Amazon they're probably giving a lot of the macro direction. So you get into the office (maybe) at 10am (maybe), reading some emails, firing off some responses, maybe taking a call or two. Then a ritzy lunch for an hour. Coming back to some more emails and meetings. Some days you will be putting out fires all day. But the more mature the company is the less you have to do that. After 15+ years the company should have a mature executive team that can handle all but the biggest fires by themselves.
Sebb767 4y ago
> I honestly don't understand the mentality that drives someone to keep working after they've made, say, $100 million. Most people reading this site are in the 1% of the world and could easily retire to a lower cost of living area right now or after a few years of saving. They usually don't: Firstly, because the drive that gets you to earn that kind of money also keeps you going. If you're used to and can handle 80 hour weeks, going to 0 is likely to make you feel unfulfilled quite fast (which is also why I don't fully buy the child story). Secondly, you always judge yourself in regards your friend group, and usually quite badly. This might seem absurd to us, but they might be looking at their friends with private jets, yachts and paintings valued more than their total net worth and not feel like they are at the top. There are exception, of course, but I doubt you'll find many of them in the extreme environments at the top of the business hierarchy.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  I don't think we're talking about the same group of people. A highly paid tech worker who makes, say $250K a year, and maybe has a little $800,000 retirement account? Sure, they could retire in Kazakhstan or something, but there's still something to work for (maybe they want to step up and retire in Thailand or heaven forbid the USA). But if you've banked $100 million, that's a totally different world. You have wealth that grows by itself passively, and you'll never be able to spend it. You can live wherever you want in the world and never have to work, and neither will your offspring for multiple generations. Any work you do at that point is firmly in the "Play the video game after you won" territory.
jonasdegendt 4y ago
Paul Graham wrote an article [0] on this that provided some insight into this for me. I still don’t completely get it but that’s probably because I’m not that kind of person either, or maybe we just haven’t found the thing yet that is able to drive us on all cylinders with no brakes. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/ace.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ace.html

ericd 4y ago

If you read the article, or know the story of Justin.tv (one of the very earliest YC startups, from before YC was a big thing), you’ll know that he’s a cofounder, not someone who climbed up the ranks via ruthless political maneuvering to get there. It’s not the “position” he worked so hard for, it was to build a company. Being CEO is a means to doing that, not the end goal. He did that, it is extremely successful, it will probably continue to be successful without him. He even says it in the article - that for a long time, he wasn’t sure if he could leave and have it continue to function well. As someone who started, ran, and sold a (much, much smaller) company, I understand that viscerally. If you’re somewhat tired of it, it can feel like you’re trapped. But then you work on that, making sure that the things you do get well covered by someone else. And then, one day, there’s nothing it needs you for anymore, and you’re finally free.