4 ms·

Is there any chance we could expand the conversation beyond "a couple 25 year old founders who can live on practically nothing"? I'd like to shake the sense th

by sanj 17y ago

Is there any chance we could expand the conversation beyond "a couple 25 year old founders who can live on practically nothing"? I'd like to shake the sense that having a wife and kids and a mortgage precludes participation in a minimal profitability trajectory.

ivankirigin 17y ago
Agreed. As others have mentioned, it just increases costs. The biggest failing of this essay is the soon to be anachronism of "$3000". It you replace it with $X,000, the whole essay still makes sense, and will apply to a wife/kids/house.
philwelch 17y ago
A minimal profitability trajectory seems to imply minimized costs. A family and mortgage means added costs, so I imagine you'd have to offset that with added revenues. Wives are capable of earning an income, for instance, while mortgages are usually tied to property ownership, which in itself has income opportunities (renting unused bedrooms, or in extreme cases, moving to a place where you're paying less rent than you're collecting from the house) and, once the mortgage is paid off, the potential to reduce recurring housing costs. Being single and without financial obligations is an optimal situation, but not the only survivable situation. As you can see from some of my ideas though, being single also gives you the latitude to make crazy lifestyle changes without anyone else having to be happy with it :)
arjunnarayan 17y ago
Well it all depends on the wife/husband. If s/he is earning, and agrees to give you a runway (say 3 years of you not having to pull your financial weight), you essentially get 3 years in which to get to a higher level of profitability. Of course, this all depends on your spouse's career and willingness to enter this, but I know of many marriages that have gone through intertemporal sharing of financial responsibilities.

4 ms·

Is there any chance we could expand the conversation beyond "a couple 25 year old founders who can live on practically nothing"? I'd like to shake the sense th

by sanj 17y ago

ivankirigin 17y ago
Agreed. As others have mentioned, it just increases costs. The biggest failing of this essay is the soon to be anachronism of "$3000". It you replace it with $X,000, the whole essay still makes sense, and will apply to a wife/kids/house.
philwelch 17y ago
A minimal profitability trajectory seems to imply minimized costs. A family and mortgage means added costs, so I imagine you'd have to offset that with added revenues. Wives are capable of earning an income, for instance, while mortgages are usually tied to property ownership, which in itself has income opportunities (renting unused bedrooms, or in extreme cases, moving to a place where you're paying less rent than you're collecting from the house) and, once the mortgage is paid off, the potential to reduce recurring housing costs. Being single and without financial obligations is an optimal situation, but not the only survivable situation. As you can see from some of my ideas though, being single also gives you the latitude to make crazy lifestyle changes without anyone else having to be happy with it :)
arjunnarayan 17y ago
Well it all depends on the wife/husband. If s/he is earning, and agrees to give you a runway (say 3 years of you not having to pull your financial weight), you essentially get 3 years in which to get to a higher level of profitability. Of course, this all depends on your spouse's career and willingness to enter this, but I know of many marriages that have gone through intertemporal sharing of financial responsibilities.