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

171–180 of 230 posts

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

#171

Post by corruption »

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.

My goal when I first started was to exit and buy a fully equipped bio/physiology/elec/engineering lab and enough raw material to invent full time.

I thought I'd need 10m+ to do this, but over time I'm gradually acquiring everything I need due to places like sparkfun, ebay and alibaba for little more than the cost of an average car.

I'm inventing every day (5-6days software, weekends building random projects), learning more than I ever thought possible and loving every minute.

My point is that if this is anything like your dream, it's readily doable now as the cost of doing science is extremely cheap these days. And I've found that productivity increases when I take a break from software in the weekends and do some wet/hard projects.

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

#172

Post by winterlightning »

grellas wrote: post #55
enjo wrote: post #6

Of course it's not ok. At some level getting rich is a life-or-death issue. How do I get enough money to retire? How can I possibly afford health-care? What if I or my lovely wife get cancer? The reality is, the later years of your life are going to be significantly more secure and happier if you make a lot of money.

Yes, but the obsession with accumulating money can lead to problems. Setting a high target for success and working hard to get there are worthy goals for men and women alike but going through life with a perpetually-agitated constitution because you don't attain a result that puts you in the top-1% wealth bracket (for example) is an almost certain way to find yourself unhappy and discontented as you strive to meet yo…

There is a thin line between motivation and obsession. Both are representations of passion.

While the above comment might portray getting a billion dollars as an out of perspective goal. I feel admiration for people that does not quit just because they have been successful in some stage in their life.

If the topic was about knowledge, can you ever become satisfied with your knowledge and cease to learn more?

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

#173

Post by peteypao »

JesseAldridge wrote: post #147
hyperbovine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

Yeah, you're kidding me right?

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

#174

Post by timr »

btilly wrote: post #142
timr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 exi…

"Check again. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Oracle in 1977."

Fine. The software industry is 35 years old. You're picking nits.

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

The same thing as that Arthur Andersen group that you're classifying as part of the "software" industry. Mainframe hardware sales and consulting:

"GE asked Arthur Andersen to automate payroll processing and manufacturing at GE's Appliance Park facility near Louisville, Kentucky. Arthur Andersen recommended installation of a UNIVAC I computer and printer, which resulted in the first commercially owned computer installation in the United States in 1954."

I never said that there weren't any software developers before 1980 -- I said that there wasn't a software industry, as we know it. That mainframes were first sold in the 1950s is not evidence to the contrary.

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

#175

Post by GVRV »

einarvollset wrote: post #170
JesseAldridge wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

Please god tell me you're joking.

I'm sure that is sarcasm.

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

#176

Post by nickpinkston »

jquery wrote: post #156
nickpinkston wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that we all consciously have reasons like what you're saying: independence, hating bullshit etc. However, all are motivated by hardwired goals of species survival. These base needs make us want to gain advantage in mating, but also in things like independence - which give us a higher likelihood of survival (i.e. controlling how to fulfill our base needs, reproduce, not be killed by others, etc.).

Your logic is tautologous. Evolution seeks no such things. Evolution just happens and is random. It's quite likely we have many traits which are not advantageous for survival, especially in our modern world. Appealing to evolutionary psychology is an intellectual and argumentative reductionist shortcut.

Evolution is not random - ask any biologist. Random mutations are actively selected for traits strongly favoring better species survival.

While certainly not a panecea, such strong drives as success, power, etc. that we're discussing are in no way accidental such as optical illusions and the like. To make an argument like this is to misunderstand evolution entirely.

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

#177

Post by davidw »

rick888 wrote: post #51
hyperbovine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"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." and how do you suppose we do that? Freedom to me means: 1) not having to work for anyone 2) having enough time to do what I want 3) traveling around the world You need money to do all of these. To get money, you need to create something that people are willing to pay for, which…

> You are sacrificing some time and freedom now for complete freedom later.

No, for the chance of complete freedom later.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#180

Post by btilly »

timr wrote: post #174
btilly wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exi…

"Check again. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Oracle in 1977." Fine. The software industry is 35 years old. You're picking nits. "What exactly did EDS, Computer Sciences Corporation, Capgemini and SAP do before entering software? As far as I can tell, nothing." The same thing as that Arthur Andersen group that you're classifying as part of the "software" industry. Mainframe hardware sales and consulting: "GE asked Art…

I'm very emphatically not picking nits here. See http://www.softwarehistory.org/history/ec.html for an overview of the history. From there you can dive into the early history of the software industry, with names, companies, and more. (They have less detail than I'd like.) For example if you read http://www.softwarehistory.org/history/csc.html you'll find that Computer Sciences Corporation started with $100 and a contract from Honeywell to write a programming language called FACT. They were NEVER in the mainframe hardware sales business. As for consulting, guilty as charged. There was no idea of a market in software, so if your company wanted to get paid for writing software then consulting was your only chance. But that still happens in the software industry.

However despite there not being a recognized market, software that was produced for one client could and did get sold to others. And as the 60s progressed there came to be enough of these pieces of software out there that the first regular catalog of software products for sale got going early in 1967. By the end of the 60s there were hundreds of software packages for sale, and IBM declared that it would get into that business starting January 1, 1970 by unbundling some of its software from its hardware.

By that point there is no question that there was such a thing as a software industry. Small? Yes. But definitely present at a surprisingly early point.

Post reply on HN