Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

seattle20.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 230 posts

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#141

Post by cookiecaper »

hyperbovine wrote: post #126
pg wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking theoretically about the life I actually lived for the second half of my twenties, living cheaply and supporting myself with occasional bursts of consulting. It was not as easy as you make it sound. I preferred it to a regular job (which leaves you too little time to work on your own stuff), but it was extremely stressful to keep running out of money. With kids it would have been impossible. How remote…

As a 27-year old, part-time consultant, it's not so theoretical :-) I agree I could never support a family living the way I do, but raising a family is at odds with maximizing your free time anyways.

I don't really know what to say about this. It makes me totally face_plain. In my opinion, a goal of maximizing your personal free time at the expense of family is completely crazy. You should raise a family because its joys are immense and awesome, more immense and awesome than anything involving a huge chunk of money and/or free time (i.e. boredom, which more often than not does not end well), and I would instantly sacrifice my entrepreneurial desires if I had to choose between my wife and son and my hope of getting a lot of money independently. It's much better to have a family waiting for you after an eight-hour work day than to set your own hours and come home to an empty house.

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#142

Post by btilly »

timr wrote: post #132
btilly wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...the software industry (as we know it) is only about 30 years old... Uh, what? The software industry is a lot older than that. The largest companies today by revenue are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_global_soft... and it is instructive to go down the list. Of the 10 listed, 2 have been selling software since the 50s (in the case of Accenture admittedly as part of another company), 1 in…

"Uh, what? The software industry is a lot older than that. The largest companies today by revenue....of the 10 listed, 2 have been selling software since the 50s (in the case of Accenture admittedly as part of another company), 1 in the 60s, and 3 in the 70s. So over half are over 30 years old." No, it isn't. A lot of companies that sell software now sold other things before they sold software. And of the companies l…

No, it isn't. A lot of companies that sell software now sold other things before they sold software.

Many companies move into software, but of the companies listed on that Wikipedia page, only IBM, HP, Lockheed Martin and arguably Accenture did something else before going into the software business. (Accenture was spun out from an accounting firm, so in some sense they did accounting first, and in some sense they existed long before they actually were a company.)

And of the companies listed on that wikipedia, page, only IBM, EDS, Lockheed Martin, CSC, Capgemini and SAP existed before the 1980s.

Check again. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Oracle in 1977. And while Accenture did not exist as a separate company before 1989, it started as a department at Arthur Andersen that had been selling software consulting since 1953.

Nearly all of those did other things before entering software.

What exactly did EDS, Computer Sciences Corporation, Capgemini and SAP do before entering software? As far as I can tell, nothing.

In any case, the exception makes the rule: virtually nobody was a professional coder before the early 1980s. Of the few who were, many retired rich and young after two of the largest technology booms in world history. They don't make good examples of career longevity, for what should be obvious reasons.

Again false. There were a lot of professional coders before the early 1980s. Most worked in the mainframe world. Much of their code is still running today. And very, very few of them retired rich and young. (Certainly the ones that I know didn't.)

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#143

Post by antareus »

crayz wrote: post #14
jchonphoenix wrote: post #9

Great article and really hits home. One thing that's overlooked, however, is the reasoning behind the need to earn money. For some people, money doesn't matter. Yet they still have a burning need to get rich. This is because they have something to prove. And money is their scorecard.

Exactly. Reading a comment right next to yours, "Are lower expectations supposed to be a good thing?". It's become ingrained in Western and especially American culture that money is one of if not the most important measure for judging success. We don't all see each others paychecks and bank account balances, so this manifests in various ways from wanting prestige jobs to conspicuous consumption People need to ask the…

Thank you. This comment is a breath of fresh air amongst the cries of, "but, it's just evolution that makes us want to hoard money!" That sort of attitude strikes me as fatalistic. Success is what you want it to be, not what you're told it should be. Even if evolution has drilled into us the need to accumulate wealth, that doesn't mean you have to accept it. I want to make things, and make them well. That is success for me.

I abhor the dating scene, because it perpetuates the morally bankrupt power dynamics that make up shallow value assessments of individuals. People's identities are shattered and reduced to a 3-tuple of salary, IQ, and waistlines.

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#144

Post by aswanson »

nickpinkston wrote: post #29
pg wrote: post #13

In my experience, startup founders who want to get rich want it more in order to have the freedom to work on what they want than to impress people. That could be because we prefer startups whose founders include hackers. On the other hand, we don't just prefer that type because they're more fun to hang around with, but because in our opinion they're more likely to succeed.

We just had this discussion yesterday at a StartupDrinks. I think the Darwinian notion says: 1.) We are hardwired to want things to attract mates. 2.) Power, Success, Prestige, Freedom, etc. are attractive. 3.) We want things that are derivative of such things, even if we consciously believe we want to benefit humanity, think it's, fun etc. Conclusion: The mind has a way of aligning our conscious interests with our s…

I don't care about my freedom being attractive. I want a certain level of material comfort without answering to anyone or reporting to a cubicle. Some drives derive from mating impulses, yes, but many derive from hating bullshit. Period.

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#145

Post by iamwil »

xyzzyb wrote: post #98
iamwil wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly, if HN attracts its intended audience--people that are intellectually curious about everything.

I'm not sure that's the HN audience. I came here looking to get away from the childishness of reddit, yet have found a new (and, hitherto to me, unknown) brand of childishness: the entitled startup programmer. Reddit was primarily populated by high school/college kids, but it definitely had a significant population besides that. As far as I can tell, HN is much more of an extreme monoculture; and one I have to confes…

startup programmer is so fiercely defended here because it's not in many other places, especially in the day to day work life.

What one may call close-mindedness may be what a community strong identifies as its values.

Regardless, welcome to HN. 12 days is but a blink. Keep participating. If it doesn't jive with you, perhaps you can find it in other communities or one that you start on your own.

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#146

Post by erikpukinskis »

blizkreeg wrote: post #53
pg wrote: post #13

In my experience, startup founders who want to get rich want it more in order to have the freedom to work on what they want than to impress people. That could be because we prefer startups whose founders include hackers. On the other hand, we don't just prefer that type because they're more fun to hang around with, but because in our opinion they're more likely to succeed.

I keep hearing this thing about freedom to work on something you want to after getting rich as opposed to something you have to. I'm not sure that Utopian scenario exists. It sounds charming to be a vintner, writer, film producer, or my personal favorite, travel the world care-free once you have enough money but I'm honestly not sure there's more to it than the charm of it. Time and resources aren't that short that w…

I'm honestly not sure there's more to it than the charm of it.

I think this is true for those folks who are putting these things off... if you don't enjoy it enough to do it today, there's a good chance that you only find it "charming" in the abstract.

I'm not a vintner or a writer... but I brew beer and I write software for fun, and I garden and cook and all of these things... on top of my day job and my startup. They aren't just charming to me, these are things I love, and I'm excited about replacing my day job with more of that stuff as my startup starts to earn a profit.

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#147

Post by JesseAldridge »

hyperbovine wrote: post #46
pg wrote: post #13

In my experience, startup founders who want to get rich want it more in order to have the freedom to work on what they want than to impress people. That could be because we prefer startups whose founders include hackers. On the other hand, we don't just prefer that type because they're more fun to hang around with, but because in our opinion they're more likely to succeed.

It's the Mexican fisherman story. Sacrifice your freedom and happiness so that you can get rich so that you can have freedom and happiness. Why not just take the direct route?

The Mexican fisherman story, in case people haven't heard it:

http://www.brefigroup.co.uk/resources/view_product.do?produc...

The main flaw is that it ignores the massive amount of wealth created by scaling up the fishing operation. The fisherman could've made a much greater contribution to the world by listening to the investment banker. We are all morally obligated to make enough money to buy a yacht with a flag saying, "Chillin' the most" and to subsequently rock that bitch up and down the coast.

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#149

Post by hyperbovine »

cookiecaper wrote: post #141
hyperbovine wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a 27-year old, part-time consultant, it's not so theoretical :-) I agree I could never support a family living the way I do, but raising a family is at odds with maximizing your free time anyways.

I don't really know what to say about this. It makes me totally face_plain. In my opinion, a goal of maximizing your personal free time at the expense of family is completely crazy. You should raise a family because its joys are immense and awesome, more immense and awesome than anything involving a huge chunk of money and/or free time (i.e. boredom, which more often than not does not end well), and I would instantly…

I draw the line at like 6 threads deep, so I will shut up after this, but:

At the expense of what family? The hypothetical one which I am purposely not creating? I'm glad that it's worked out well for you (really), but you need to recognize that, contrary to what people want to believe, parenthood and happiness are not synonymous. You look at my life and see empty houses (nevermind that I live with a bunch of fun, like-minded people); I look at yours and see sleep deprivation, debt, stress, loss of the ability to travel and develop myself personally--basically the end of everything I enjoy. Other than conventional wisdom, is there anything to suggest that your life is "immense and awesome", while mine must be empty and sad? For my part, I see a litany of studies suggesting that people like me are, on average, actually a lot happier (http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/).

I would never be so smug as to insinuate that you made the wrong choice. But it's not your place to make face_plains at me, either.

Re: Hey, Guys, It's Totally Okay If You Don't Get Rich

#150

Post by pvdm »

oconnore wrote: post #42
clistctrl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak to myself, but I want to get rich not for a Lamborghini, but so I can start another company to truly make a difference. Personally I think the Gates foundation is going to have a longer lasting impact on the world then Microsoft has. Yes I realize how huge of an impact Microsoft has had.

I think the one way that riches truly improve your quality of life is to make travel easy. The ability to explore your world is a great gift, and something that not many underpriveledged people can afford. A Lamborghini doesn't factor into that equation, because unless you live near the Autobahn, it doesn't get you anywhere a more modest car can't in the same time. But if I ever become extraordinarily wealthy, my fir…

Travel is overrated.

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/travel-is-not-worth-it.htm...

Post reply on HN