5 ms·

Most people choose the wrong time periods for thinking about work/life balance. The usual discussion is about achieving a balance every day or every week. That

by rg 17y ago

Most people choose the wrong time periods for thinking about work/life balance. The usual discussion is about achieving a balance every day or every week. That just dilutes and compromises both your work and the remainder of your life. A startup is a chance to balance out your work and life over many decades. If you can work, say, five times as effectively as other people (which is hard), and if you can get paid for that, you have the possibility to compress your working life into 9 years instead of 45 years--that will give you an extra 36 years with no work commitments at all, free to travel and choose your own interests. Balance in this form can make up for a lot of all-nighters during the startup.

hariis 17y ago
"If you can work, say, five times as effectively as other people (which is hard)," It is hard because, it is hard to find something that will make you work at very high levels of efficiency for extended periods of time.
jkincaid 17y ago
The key words in your comment are "chance" and "possibility". If it really was just a simple matter of when you're putting in the time, plenty more people would do the 9 years of intense work for 36 years of freedom later on. Thing is, for lots of people a year or two of very intense work on a startup yields nothing but the learning experience of running a company.
run4yourlives 17y ago
You're assuming that the 9 years of work are somehow equal to the 36 years of enjoyment. Nobody with a child would ever say this. You won't have 36 years of pleasure if you are "absent" for the first 9.
- philwelch 17y ago
  The trick is to not have the damn kid until after you're done with your working years. If it's too late for that then you do have problems.
fan 17y ago
You're assuming here that enjoyment in life is some mathematic, static, function of number of years worked and number of years of free time. There are a lot of issues with that assumption. First, there are non-linearities when you mix work and play. I personally know that if I wanted to do a full day of work and have two days allocated, I'd rather split them evenly between the two. That way each day I feel accomplished while still having fun and not being stressed. Second, the above assumes that you're working just for the heck of resources, and work is inherently negative and to be avoided. If you love your work and it's innately important to you, you're not looking to get out as soon as possible. Thus, being able to work "just 9 years" isn't a real advantage. Finally, this last argument is a personal preference, but I believe in a lifestyle philosophy that doesn't depend on delaying gratification for decades. We already did it once for 12 years for school, and if you extend by another 10-12 years, the better half of your life will be gone before you see any payoff. Life isn't saving for tomorrow, but rather what you experience today.

by rg 17y ago

hariis 17y ago

"If you can work, say, five times as effectively as other people (which is hard)," It is hard because, it is hard to find something that will make you work at very high levels of efficiency for extended periods of time.

jkincaid 17y ago

The key words in your comment are "chance" and "possibility". If it really was just a simple matter of when you're putting in the time, plenty more people would do the 9 years of intense work for 36 years of freedom later on. Thing is, for lots of people a year or two of very intense work on a startup yields nothing but the learning experience of running a company.

run4yourlives 17y ago

You're assuming that the 9 years of work are somehow equal to the 36 years of enjoyment. Nobody with a child would ever say this. You won't have 36 years of pleasure if you are "absent" for the first 9.

philwelch 17y ago
The trick is to not have the damn kid until after you're done with your working years. If it's too late for that then you do have problems.

fan 17y ago

You're assuming here that enjoyment in life is some mathematic, static, function of number of years worked and number of years of free time. There are a lot of issues with that assumption. First, there are non-linearities when you mix work and play. I personally know that if I wanted to do a full day of work and have two days allocated, I'd rather split them evenly between the two. That way each day I feel accomplished while still having fun and not being stressed. Second, the above assumes that you're working just for the heck of resources, and work is inherently negative and to be avoided. If you love your work and it's innately important to you, you're not looking to get out as soon as possible. Thus, being able to work "just 9 years" isn't a real advantage. Finally, this last argument is a personal preference, but I believe in a lifestyle philosophy that doesn't depend on delaying gratification for decades. We already did it once for 12 years for school, and if you extend by another 10-12 years, the better half of your life will be gone before you see any payoff. Life isn't saving for tomorrow, but rather what you experience today.