6 ms·
This is good advice for a very narrow segment of creative people and not everyone at large. It's terrible advice for people with children, for example.
by nsxwolf 12y ago
This is good advice for a very narrow segment of creative people and not everyone at large. It's terrible advice for people with children, for example.
- pyrocat 12y agoI think reaching "Fuck you" levels of wealth has a very slightly different (3% higher?) definition for people with kids, but otherwise the advise is the same. Once you (or, you and your family, if you have one) are financially safe, don't hoard.
- mesh 12y agoWhy do you feel it is bad advice for people with children?
- rifung 12y agoI imagine it's because you need to save for your kids to go to school, college, and to generally ensure their well being, and those things have a pretty set timeline. That being the case, taking the risks of pouring all your money into creative endeavors doesn't appear to be a particularly responsible thing to do as a parent. Of course, there's a balance to be had.
- fulafel 12y agoLots of places have free education and healthcare. Even the US seems to be be slowly approaching the western median safety net level there with the path started by Obamacare and plummeting bang for buck of college education... Increased risk tolerance helps on many fronts.
- wtbob 12y agoEven with free education, food and healthcare, the parents who save more resources for their children will do better for them than those who don't.
- rifung 12y agoI'm from the US so I can only comment on the situation here, but the reality is that despite public education being free till college, it is for the most part terrible. So, if you want your kids to get a proper education you'll either have to pay for a good school or get a house in a nice neighborhood; both things which require one to constantly be paying a substantial amount of money, whether it be for the mortgage, taxes, or tuition.
- anonbanker 12y agoYour mindset is exactly why pg refuses to invest in anyone over 35; they've become unable to take risks due to commitments.
- sillysaurus3 12y agoI don't think pg would behave like that, let alone say that. He was 29 when he started Viaweb, which is not far from 35. YC has funded people over 35 as well.
- anonbanker 12y agoI love that I'm being downvoted for quoting pg.
- kbenson 12y agoYou didn't exactly quote him, you stated his opinion and reasoning, without clarifying if it was your interpretation or his direct statement, and included no reference. That said, I generally agree with the sentiment. People with commitments are less free to play with their resources, at least if they are responsible. An who wants to invest in someone who's not responsible. There are, of course, exceptions, and even times when the opposite holds true; commitments can force a level of responsibility and drive because the stakes may be higher.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- noblethrasher 12y agoThe closest thing that I can find that pg has said on the matter is that good hackers between about 23 and 38 should start a company. He said 38 was the upper bound because the simple reality is that the affordability of risk declines with age. But, even then he said that there was a lot of play in that number. Source: http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
- dang 12y ago
- underwater 12y agoIt's also easier to say when you have a lot of money. Telling someone living in poverty that money is fictitious would be pretty tactless.
- droopyEyelids 12y agoI have to disagree. Someone in poverty already knows money is a proxy for what they actually want. They understand perfectly that barter work or a gift can provide the same things without the control and authority structures around money.