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

131–140 of 230 posts

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

#131

Post by nerfhammer »

orangecat wrote: post #63
kscaldef wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And most companies have good health coverage for the cancer. Well... kinda. One of the dirty little secrets of employer-provided group health care is that when you have one person whose health care costs vastly exceed the average, there's enormous pressure to get that person out of the "group". I've know companies where someone got cancer and the premiums for the whole company doubled the next year.

Geez. I never thought about that scenario, but it makes perfect sense. So much for the one possible advantage of employer-based health insurance.

Here's a disturbing tale of this scenario playing out: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/7/751100/-How-I-los...

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

#132

Post by timr »

btilly wrote: post #115
timr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you save wisely, you can retire just fine after a career at a tech company making 2-3x the US median salary." This is a theory at this point...and it's not a well-tested theory. I don't know many people who have actually retired from a lifetime (i.e. 30+ year) career in tech. Considering that the software industry (as we know it) is only about 30 years old, it's hard to draw long-term conclusions.

...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 listed on that wikipedia, page, only IBM, EDS, Lockheed Martin, CSC, Capgemini and SAP existed before the 1980s. Nearly all of those did other things before entering software.

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.

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

#133

Post by waqf »

mattmaroon wrote: post #84

This is a misunderstanding of where the motivation comes from. It's not societal pressure that causes either men to want to be rich or women to look good. It's an evolutionary artifact.

There's also a popular misunderstanding as to why people can walk. It's not your legs that cause you to be able to walk. It's an evolutionary artifact.

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

#134

Post by waqf »

johnrob wrote: post #36

For both wealth and (perceived) beauty, there is often a relatively easy solution: move! For more beauty, move to a location with a greater ratio of the opposite sex. For more wealth, move to a location with a lower cost of living. I don't know how much longer these arbitrage opportunities will exist, but for now they probably represent the biggest 'lifehacks' one can make.

If you're thinking of trying the sex ratios thing, I strongly suggest controlling for age, and preferably social class.

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

#135

Post by tansey »

jimbokun wrote: post #96
tansey wrote: post #74

Imagine you're in a big slot machine tournament with 150 competitors. Each player gets to pull one of two machines. One machine pays $1 every time. The other machine pays an average of $0 but has a variance of $50. Everyone gets 1 pull, the scores are tallied, and the bottom half of the players are out, and a new group is brought in to replace them. Which machine would you pull? The evidence[1] is pretty clear that i…

Except, today, high levels of wealth is inversely correlated with the number of offspring.

Well the real world is a much more complex scenario than simple simulations. Two points though:

1. We have not had much time to evolve away from such a mentality, so it's still very much bred into us.

2. One could say that gaining wealth is actually playing a strategy designed to preserve more than just your immediate offspring. The wealthy have less risk of seeing their line disappear in future generations.

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

#136

Post by kscaldef »

jimbokun wrote: post #94
kscaldef wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And most companies have good health coverage for the cancer. Well... kinda. One of the dirty little secrets of employer-provided group health care is that when you have one person whose health care costs vastly exceed the average, there's enormous pressure to get that person out of the "group". I've know companies where someone got cancer and the premiums for the whole company doubled the next year.

This is a good economic explanation for why national health care systems should outperform employer based (or any other) systems. You can't get a larger pool of people to spread risk around, under a single legal framework, than an entire nation state.

It's not really about the overall performance or cost of coverage. The advantage, in this case, of national health care is that you can't be kicked out of the "group" (i.e. fired because you're raising the insurance premiums for the whole company), and there's no concept of "uninsurable".

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

#137

Post by nagrom »

terra_t wrote: post #88
abalashov wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not directly related, but as the child of a family that amounts to a dynastic succession of academics, I feel the need to disabuse anyone reading of the impression that there is any connection whatsoever, at all, between having professors for parents and getting a tenure-track position. As it stands, it's nearly impossible for spouses to exert enough leverage to find academic employment at the same institution. If th…

Well, I'll just say that, when I was in grad school at an Ivy League school that 100% of the professors, for whom I knew anything about their parents, were also professors -- and that was a sample between 20 and 30 people. Things might be different at other schools, but I do know that even the Chronicle of Higher Education is starting to recognize the 'dynastic succession' phenomenon after years of it going on under…

That could have multiple causes. Often, if your parents have achieved a lot academically, you will palce more weight on that aspect of your life. You'll get better grades and you'll be more likely to become an academic yourself.

Since we're swapping anecdotes, as an academic, I have never known anyone to get a position just because their parent works in the field. Ever. The competition is ridiculous, to the point where many Americans opt to go elsewhere and leave the academic jobs to the people willing to work 14 hours a day, 6 days a week.

I would not be surprised if many modern academics would prefer that their offspring go into industry. The rewards are greater and the competition is less, given the level or reward on offer.

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

#138

Post by msort »

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?

Because the direct route is not easy, or even possible for most people.

We are human being living in a commercial society. Money is essential for us to survive. And for most people, a modest level of success is essential for happiness.

I think the right approach is to strike for goals which have dual rewards: material and spiritual. Do things you love. If money doesn't come, also do things bringing in money.

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

#139

Post by byw »

jlgosse wrote: post #12

Without trying to sound like an absolute ass, this article shows EXACTLY why most of the founders of the biggest empires and hottest startups are in fact men. I say MOST as I'm sure there are many women as well, but clearly they are overshadowed by men in this case.

I wonder if it has more to do with culture. According to Forbes, about half of all female billionaires are from China.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/22/billionaire-women-entrepren...

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

#140

Post by Locke1689 »

nagrom wrote: post #137
terra_t wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'll just say that, when I was in grad school at an Ivy League school that 100% of the professors, for whom I knew anything about their parents, were also professors -- and that was a sample between 20 and 30 people. Things might be different at other schools, but I do know that even the Chronicle of Higher Education is starting to recognize the 'dynastic succession' phenomenon after years of it going on under…

That could have multiple causes. Often, if your parents have achieved a lot academically, you will palce more weight on that aspect of your life. You'll get better grades and you'll be more likely to become an academic yourself. Since we're swapping anecdotes, as an academic, I have never known anyone to get a position just because their parent works in the field. Ever . The competition is ridiculous, to the point wh…

Don't forget the genetic aspect -- smart parents tend to have smart kids.
Post reply on HN