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

“I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#31

Post by IndianAstronaut »

rotten wrote: post #29

In my 30+ years in the workforce I've worked at large companies, small companies, startups, government organizations, and not-for-profits. Whether or not I ever get rich, I'm planning on spending the rest of my career working for startups. Why? Because it is exciting, it is fun, it is fast paced. I get to build things, I get to innovate, I get to play with and try the very latest technology. There is minimal bureaucr…

I work in a gigantic company and I feel I get a lot of flexibility and the scope to be creative. I worked at a startup previously and I was tightly bound by the technology stack and had to deal with silos.

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#32

Post by kinkdr »

superuser2 wrote: post #28
kinkdr wrote: post #4

Off-topic, but if Forbes don't disable their adblocker-blocker, they will soon be broke too...

People with adblockers don't make Forbes any money to begin with; losing them doesn't cost anything.

That's one way to see it.

Another way is that the people who cannot access Forbes will access something else. Soon everybody will be going to this something else and Forbes will be another dinosaur.

Bullying the users never worked in favor of any online company.

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#33

Post by cylinder »

dmitrygr wrote: post #16
x5n1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people took your advice Silicon Valley would be toast.

Silicon valley is built on naive dreamers who time and time again expect to make money as startup employees against all rules of logic and contrary to historical data.

Why don't people understand, you don't get rich without risking capital.

Yes, your time is capital. But not when you've already traded it for salary.

Brokers risk their time to try to sell speculative deals. This is why they make a chunk of the deal. No guarantee.

Lawyers get paid by the hour for their time. This is why they can earn a nice living but won't get wildly rich unless they take speculative cases on contingency.

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#34

Post by superuser2 »

kinkdr wrote: post #32
superuser2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with adblockers don't make Forbes any money to begin with; losing them doesn't cost anything.

That's one way to see it. Another way is that the people who cannot access Forbes will access something else. Soon everybody will be going to this something else and Forbes will be another dinosaur. Bullying the users never worked in favor of any online company.

A non-subscribing, ad-blocking readership is no different from 0 readership at all. There is no reason to retain a user whose LTV is and always will be $0.

Professional journalists aren't going to decide one day that paychecks are overrated. Your "something else" will be one big native advertisement (in which case, why are ad-blocking users reading it at all?) or else a hell of a lot lower quality.

Employing people to serve users from which you don't and can't extract value only works in tech, and only for a few years before the next crash.

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#35

Post by ap22213 »

dmitrygr wrote: post #3

And this, boys and girls, is why you should never join a second start-up. Join one early, see how it works & learn as much as you can. Do not expect $$$ - you will not make any. Then decide if you want to start your own, or want comfortable well-paid employment at GOOG/AAPL/FB/etc Do not expect to make money from a start-up unless you started it. If you did not start it, you are the disposable labour. Sorry.

Note that the situation has evolved over the last 20 years. During the first tech wave, general employees actually made decent money when the company got sold. I know a bunch of people that walked into early retirement in the 90s.

But, in that first wave, the founders were more likely to be the ones who built the original product. Since then, there's been a dramatic shift from the inventor-run tech company to the financier-run or salesperson-run tech company. In this second generation company, there's considerably less leverage for a non-sales or non-finance employee. I've known a couple people who've gotten rich during the second wave, but none were from the creative team.

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#36

Post by dmitrygr »

cylinder wrote: post #33
dmitrygr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silicon valley is built on naive dreamers who time and time again expect to make money as startup employees against all rules of logic and contrary to historical data.

Why don't people understand, you don't get rich without risking capital. Yes, your time is capital. But not when you've already traded it for salary. Brokers risk their time to try to sell speculative deals. This is why they make a chunk of the deal. No guarantee. Lawyers get paid by the hour for their time. This is why they can earn a nice living but won't get wildly rich unless they take speculative cases on contin…

What did the founder risk? OtherPeoples'Money?

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#37

Post by kinkdr »

superuser2 wrote: post #34
kinkdr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one way to see it. Another way is that the people who cannot access Forbes will access something else. Soon everybody will be going to this something else and Forbes will be another dinosaur. Bullying the users never worked in favor of any online company.

A non-subscribing, ad-blocking readership is no different from 0 readership at all. There is no reason to retain a user whose LTV is and always will be $0. Professional journalists aren't going to decide one day that paychecks are overrated. Your "something else" will be one big native advertisement (in which case, why are ad-blocking users reading it at all?) or else a hell of a lot lower quality. Employing people t…

I think I didn't make my point clear, which was that by not allowing the ad-blocking users they risk losing the paying users too.

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#38

Post by mpbm »

pikzen wrote: post #18
landryraccoon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> founders still got paid a salary Founders get paid a salary? That hasn't always been true in my experience. > Founders took no more risk than the first employees. If it's actually that easy you should go be a startup founder. After all, there's no risk, right?

Let's be honest: people who found startups fall in three categories: * Those who have funds to fall back on in case the startup fails * Those who got VC funding * Those who are actually risking things because they invested everything in their startup I'd wager the first two categories make up 90% of startup founders. These people take absolutely zero risks. Whoop, startup fails. Oh well, it was either not your money…

This word "risk." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Just because someone has lots of money (their own or a VC's) doesn't mean they aren't risking that money when they put it into a startup. The money is at risk because it probably WON'T be returned, let alone increased.

I think what you're conflating with risk is actually diversification. You're only willing to cry for the people who are "all in" on a single investment. Arguably, being diversified is the sensible thing to do and it's the idiots who don't make sensible choices who you shouldn't cry for.

Re: “I made 3 CEOs rich – So why am I broke?”

#39

Post by mpbm »

kinkdr wrote: post #37
superuser2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A non-subscribing, ad-blocking readership is no different from 0 readership at all. There is no reason to retain a user whose LTV is and always will be $0. Professional journalists aren't going to decide one day that paychecks are overrated. Your "something else" will be one big native advertisement (in which case, why are ad-blocking users reading it at all?) or else a hell of a lot lower quality. Employing people t…

I think I didn't make my point clear, which was that by not allowing the ad-blocking users they risk losing the paying users too.

That doesn't follow. If they had one reader, who paid them a million dollars per year, then they'd still be in business. So, if they had a million users, who paid them one dollar per year, they MIGHT be in business because it would cost a lot more to deliver to a million people than to one person.

By throwing up the ad blocker wall they're saving the cost of serving anything more than an ad blocker wall to the people who aren't paying them. Sure, they're limiting their audience, but they're limiting themselves to a PAYING audience.

The people who are willing to pay them might change their minds in the future, but their decision won't have anything to do with the unknown number of people bouncing off of the ad blocker wall.

Post reply on HN