3 ms·

Maybe I’ll sound like the old out of touch rich guy (I’m 40 and won the startup lottery), but isn’t it great there is a way for people who are broke but have hu

Maybe I’ll sound like the old out of touch rich guy (I’m 40 and won the startup lottery), but isn’t it great there is a way for people who are broke but have hustle to get their chance? When I was an intern at Goldman Sachs me and my roommate rented an apartment in the Tenderloin for $600 a month. I slept in the closet. We stayed at the office 24/7 and focused on work. My former roommate is now a GP at a major growth equity fund. I opted out of finance and instead of getting a banker salary I lived in another closet for a bit and a shed with no shower or bathroom (I had to walk to the main house). I lived off $700 a month and pieced together a seed round in 2009 and things slowly got better from there. Now I have a public company and can say I’m one of the few founders to get my investors a unicorn exit. I know I am the outlier of outliers and had more luck than anything else, but god damn don’t disdain others who are willing to sacrifice to give it a go.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
We can still distain worsening living conditions. These folks are paying more for less space than a closet. And starting up in an era of more entrenched incumbents with higher interest rates. So looks like worsening odds for more expensive lottery tickets, at least from the outside looking in.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  This isn't worsening living conditions though. 50 years ago, in most places in the US, people shit into pits in the ground covered by a shed with a crescent carved into the door. They had lots of land, and they lived in drafty wooden shacks with, at best, a wood stove to keep them warm. 100 years ago in cities like new York most new immigrants lived in rickety stick buildings and took a shit in shared privies. The fact that it is considered the norm today for every individual to have their own toilet and closet full of clothes is a borderline miracle. A sanitary bed to sleep in, air conditioned, and a living area, that's not good enough for a single person because the bunk isn't queen sized and the living area is shared? I'm not convinced that this is some travesty.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Apples and oranges? Thread is about SF. Having known someone who lived there ~50 years ago, not to mention the parent poster, they described better living conditions for less money.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      OK... If this had been an option 50 years ago, and proportionally cheaper, would people have taken this cheaper route? I think probably. It's not any different than a hostel except that it's monthly instead of nightly, and cheaper. The issue here then is the cost of living in SF, not the particulars of this arrangement.
thehappypm 3y ago
Completely agree, the criticisms reek of privilege. At $700/month a minimum wage worker can live here easily, and walk to work.
kranner 3y ago
> I know I am the outlier of outliers and had more luck than anything else, but god damn don’t disdain others who are willing to sacrifice to give it a go. This is a red herring. Nobody is showing disdain for people who are forced to sleep in capsules for a chance at winning the lottery. It's profiting off pushing lottery-players to the brink that is coming across as problematic. And another reply to your comment is justifying it for minimum-wage workers, who clearly don't even get a ticket.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

We can still distain worsening living conditions. These folks are paying more for less space than a closet. And starting up in an era of more entrenched incumbents with higher interest rates. So looks like worsening odds for more expensive lottery tickets, at least from the outside looking in.

friend_and_foe 3y ago
This isn't worsening living conditions though. 50 years ago, in most places in the US, people shit into pits in the ground covered by a shed with a crescent carved into the door. They had lots of land, and they lived in drafty wooden shacks with, at best, a wood stove to keep them warm. 100 years ago in cities like new York most new immigrants lived in rickety stick buildings and took a shit in shared privies. The fact that it is considered the norm today for every individual to have their own toilet and closet full of clothes is a borderline miracle. A sanitary bed to sleep in, air conditioned, and a living area, that's not good enough for a single person because the bunk isn't queen sized and the living area is shared? I'm not convinced that this is some travesty.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Apples and oranges? Thread is about SF. Having known someone who lived there ~50 years ago, not to mention the parent poster, they described better living conditions for less money.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    OK... If this had been an option 50 years ago, and proportionally cheaper, would people have taken this cheaper route? I think probably. It's not any different than a hostel except that it's monthly instead of nightly, and cheaper. The issue here then is the cost of living in SF, not the particulars of this arrangement.

thehappypm 3y ago

Completely agree, the criticisms reek of privilege. At $700/month a minimum wage worker can live here easily, and walk to work.

kranner 3y ago

> I know I am the outlier of outliers and had more luck than anything else, but god damn don’t disdain others who are willing to sacrifice to give it a go. This is a red herring. Nobody is showing disdain for people who are forced to sleep in capsules for a chance at winning the lottery. It's profiting off pushing lottery-players to the brink that is coming across as problematic. And another reply to your comment is justifying it for minimum-wage workers, who clearly don't even get a ticket.