Ask HN: If I am so smart, why I am not rich?
I was always a good student A- since it didn't come easy but I was eager and motivated to put the time and work to achieve.
When I was 18 with a few buddies we started a "fun" business and it was mildly successful. When I tried to start another business everyone told me that I needed an education (college).
Fast forward a couple of decades I have my BS and MBA,with a decent career in high tech (operations). Through the years I have started a few projects and they all failed (my bad), at the same time I have been working for entrepreneurs who are able to make a pretty good living with mediocre ideas and bad management.
I am now at a point in my career where I have the time and some funds to start something, but I am stuck by "analysis paralysis". I know AI is a great opportunity, but I can't find a pain point to use as an entry point.
I am well versed with Paul Graham essays, with the Innovator's Dilemma strategy, and Lean Startup methodology; still not much going on.
I have also done Startup School.
Am I just an employee-type and not cut for entrepreneurship?
Looking for honest feedback, resources, pointers anything.
Thank you in advance.
49 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 1532 ms ] threadThe leap you describe is a reinvention. And you have taken the opiate of modernity, delegating self mastery for sublime mediocrity.
You must find within yourself to work your ass off. You must find within yourself the “get it done.” Don’t wait for crisis and loss like every other ordinary human. Preempt your inevitable failure and fix those problems before they come upon you.
Money and asset management is no joke.
Play OpenTTD or some 4x games to drill your mind that resource management is the eternal costrategy for success.
No matter how smart you are you fail when you cannot pay rent.
Good luck!
[1] https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/?form=MG0AV3
Becoming a billionaire is actually more achievable than I would have predicted, by a lot.
It'd be interesting to see just how steeply those advantages decrease the odds for the rest of us. I'd be willing to bet that—even in a comparatively wealthy developed country—the true chances for an average person achieving >$1B are orders of magnitude lower than the figure quoted.
Developing vs developing world is an interesting question. There are a lot of people in the developing world who outright stole $1B or more, and the process of development frequently makes billionaires. Chinese people I know who came to the US and had average results often regret coming because they know people back home who got really lucky and hit it big.
Bernard Arnault is another interesting case study, his talents were quite different, started with a wealthy family, had luck to multiply his family wealth with real estate and get out [2] had a lot of luck rolling luxury brands together, and also benefited from the growth of China, as "keeping up with the Chens" more than made up for the decline of materialism in the west.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Arnault
[2] it is easy to turn a small fortune into a huge one in real estate using leverage and then lose it all
[citation needed]
Gates had family and connections. Brain didn't come into play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
I think the OP wants to be rich when he's young.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Amer...
That doesn’t take starting your own business or even working for one of the top paying companies. If you bought a house ten years ago in an area with rapid price appreciation - congratulations you are now close to a million easily.
Now if you work for any of the tech companies that pay top of market for a few years and live below your means, reaching 1 million is even easier.
That's your answer right there.
Wealthy people aren't smarter or better than you or anyone else. They are lucky by birth, get lucky in life, or just straight up grift their way to wealth. The Gilded Age figures are rife with men who lied, cheated, and bribed their way to amassing fortune.
- extreme survivorship bias in the tech and startup world distorts your expectations
- most startups fail, most businesses do not see exceptional returns
- intelligence is necessary (in most cases) but not sufficient for getting wealthy
- If you work in big tech with an MBA you’re probably much wealthier than the median USian.
- I suspect that lifestyle creep/peer comparison is distorting your view of your own personal wealth.
So yeah, there’s a number of cognitive biases that are distorting your ability to assess yourself here. What level of wealth are you aiming for? It would be easier to work backward from that number and try to model what you’d need to do to hit it.
If you know you're smart enough to start a decent business - don't listen to anyone. Key secret here is that nobody knows what is the right way to business success (not your friends, not warren buffet, not elon musk, nobody).
And also "everyone" is more often than not are dumb and wrong. (few examples: support for hitler, popularity of gaming chairs etc.)
Next thing is that getting make million from 0 is magnitudes harder than make same million from another million (for example your ancestors left you any capital) - it is not a fair game. Being smart is just one of many variables.
Good news is that in the long run, smart usually wins. If you live in free and advanced enough, democratic enough economy - your chances of success grow with time if you're persistent. It's more about endurance, marathon, not how sharp you are at the moment or what cool skills you have.
It doesn’t matter how much persistence or how far you are willing to run if you are running in the wrong direction. It’s an important skill to know when to quit
Also not changing direction when it is clearly wrong - is a good sign of not being smart. It is not persistence, it’s stubbornness.
And motivation counts for more than intelligence. A genius who doesn't want to do anything but read and collect a secure pay-cheque isn't cut out to be an entrepreneur. Where someone who has the pure motivation to build a business, but less brute force intelligence, is much more likely to actually do so.
Basically the upper limit of our earning potential is limited by how much work and stress we're willing to take on, not how smart we are. And this explanation also doesn't dive into the equally important requisite of social skill.
The world is filled with the corpses of dead companies founded by people with “motivation” and “passion”.
The whole idea of if you work really hard you are guaranteed success gives too many people unrealistic hope
Successful business takes hard work, the right work, done well, reaching a market that needs it and can afford it.
Motivation by itself is worthless. Working on the wrong thing is worthless. Working hard on the wrong thing is worthless.
Being smart isn't about doing Integral Calculus. It's about deciding to work on the right thing.
Most of all a business needs to reach customers who want what you are selling, and can afford what you need to charge.
To the OP I say "I don't know you, but i expect you looked for product first, then first customers. Switch to finding customers first, then worry about the product."
Once you have that then you'll need motivation, hard work and indeed some luck.
On the other hand, if you gave 10 people a job at BigTech, 10 a job at a well known non tech company and told 10 to go start a business, which one of those groups do you think would have the highest median and mean compensation history over 5 years? 10 years?
I posit that it would be BigTech, Enterprise Dev and the startup founders would come in dead last.
Heck I got close to a million dollars in “revenue” just working as a mid level (L5) remote employee at BigTech for 3.5 years and I was paid 10-15% less in my position (cloud consulting) than the equivalent SDE.
If that were my major concern at this point in life (I’m 50), there are much easier ways to have a million dollars in “revenue” over 3-4 years for anyone in tech than starting a business with much less work and risks.
Luck. Or, IOW, random variation. In physics, you could probably predict the position[1] of every atom in a confined volume of a gas, if you knew all their initial positions and velocities with sufficient precision... But that required precision is so high, and the effects of any infinitesimal deviation from the true state has such far-reaching chaotic effects, that it's in practice pretty much impossible.
Same with the social sciences, economy, and "the market" (whichever market it is you're entering): Random impossible-to-measure tiny variations add up to a chaotic sum of effects that manifests as what is usually called "good" -- or "bad" -- "luck", which probably accounts for almost as much of your success as anything you do (or don't do).
> On the other hand, if you gave 10 people a job at BigTech, 10 a job at a well known non tech company and told 10 to go start a business, which one of those groups do you think would have the highest median and mean compensation history over 5 years? 10 years?
> I posit that it would be BigTech, Enterprise Dev and the startup founders would come in dead last.
Yup, I'd guess so too... For N = 10 or so. Add an order of magnitude, and the mean might rise enormously -- though not the median.
[1]: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle notwithstanding.
And luck. Or, to put it another way -- which kind of is luck: What "the right work" is, and whether you reach your market or not, is influenced by so many other hard-to-predict things besides your own input, that getting it right among all these confounding factors is pretty much the definition of "luck".
Yes, but you can keep trying. In entrepreneurship, you only need to be right once. Most successful entrepreneurs have had failed startups and projects before they got it right.
>The whole idea of if you work really hard you are guaranteed success gives too many people unrealistic hope
It's not guaranteed, but it's the best system to get what you want, that we have.
And how many entrepreneurs are “right” enough to make up for the years of lost wages they could make even as ordinary CRUD enterprise devs let alone working for BigTech or adjacent? Not to mention the compounding returns if they had invested the money early?
HN especially suffers from survivorship bias. You don’t hear about all of the failed founders who are in their 30s and 40s with nothing to show for it and unemployable.
The “best” system is to “grind leetCode and work for a FAANG” (tm r/cscareerqyestions). Even the second best system of working your way up through enterprise dev is much more likely to succeed.
What matters a lot more is the combination of a bunch of factors:
1. Your network/background. Someone with a rich and influential family has way better odds than someone from a poorer one.
2. Whether your interests happen to align with a field or industry that's got a lot of potential for success. Being interested in technology/bitcoin/AI/whatever at the right time would get you a lot more money than being interested in journalism or travel.
3. Your mindset and how determined you are to push yourselves to do one thing despite overwhelmingly bad odds. Obviously you're gonna have issues if you get really attached to a bad idea with no chance of it becoming a viable business venture, but I also see a lot of people fail simply because their interests are very temporary/short term.
4. Plain old luck when it comes to your skillset, the timing for launching your idea, etc.
Point being though, there's a huge luck/timing element to it all, with connections and your network being another big factor on top of that. If you don't get those, you can be as skilled and hard working as you like and not get anywhere.
1. Fear. This is was a huge inhibitor of action. I was afraid of picking the wrong problem and then spending months-years having nothing to show for it.
2. To overcome the fear, I decided that instead of anchoring on the painpoint, I'll anchor on something else: The user. I chose ML engineers as the market I want to serve (its a terrible market, I advise you pick something else). It's hard to fathom a niche of users out there that don't have some pain they're willing to relieve by paying somebody else. You don't have to anchor on a user. You can anchor on something else, like a mission (eg. democratizing access to startup investing), or an industry (eg. semiconductor manufacturing). When you commit to a center point, now you have the freedom to iterate on ideas freely, knowing that even if an idea doesn't work out, you'll learn useful information you can use in the next iteration.
Does this guarantee that you'll company eventually grow into a unicorn? No, not really. You can end up picking a tiny niche, but in practice, most founders are able to expand the niche or find ways of expanding their market by combining niches.
This is more relevant to software businesses but hopefully some of it is still useful for other types of businesses.
“Most” founders fail miserably or toil in obscurity making peanuts until they give up.
I think a lot of very smart people have a definition of intelligence that is orthogonal to money-making. This is probably because, for all intents and purposes, it is. Some of the smartest people I’ve known were basically incompetent at “street” skills, and vice versa. This is especially common in fields like philosophy (which my background is in.) The level of raw intellect is often off the charts, and yet translating that into pragmatic dollars and cents seems almost impossible to them.
And so a lesson I’ve gradually learned is that entrepreneurship is not really about being smart, and being good at entrepreneurship does not indicate that someone has a high level of intelligence. It means they have certain skills that the market values, full stop. That can be technical skills, sales skills, the ability to notice and capitalize on opportunities, and so on. It doesn’t mean they are dumb, of course, but American culture has a way of lionizing business leaders and ascribing wisdom to them that they usually don’t have.
This is all long-winded way of saying that you have to decouple intelligence and success in your mind, because in the real world they are only sometimes related, unfortunately.
Be careful of survivor bias here, there are lots of very obsessed entrepreneurs who have failed.
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves. ""
Some "stupid" persons are able to make money effortlesy, maybe you could learn this kind of "smartiness".
If you speak spanish there is a Mensa's member named Javier Recuenco that talk a lot about this topic.
I've started businesses (and by most measures, successful ones), and despite what all the gurus will tell you, I would not wish it on anyone.
I tell people often, don't do it. Unless you're a certain type of person, do something else, and even if you're that sort of person, it's probably going to suck. A lot. We're not honest enough about this in our society, because people have a certain respect for entrepreneurs and aspire to be one themselves. And there's an entire cottage industry that preys on these aspirations (yes, that includes some of these startup incubators, etc).
Really, you know if you're the sort of person who will keep going or not. You know if you'll love the challenge of pulling together a million different pieces (half of which you know nothing about sometimes) and when to check yourself... or not. You know what to listen to others... or not.
Most people are not built like this. I'm close friends with a number of very successful entrepreneurs, and they're... weird. Good folks, but always weirdos.
That said, since it's in your title, I have a high IQ (145) but I think it's important to add, I grew up in the ghetto, where such an IQ is not considered an asset... instead, force and street savvy often are.
The reason I bring this up is because I've done okay for myself. Not insane, but decent. I thrive in organizing chaos. Not to be too dramatic, but that's what starting a business is like, especially when it's your own money on the line. Most of the successful people I know in starting businesses are also smart, process-oriented, and curious as all Hell.
For perspective, I'm comfortable reading scientific papers outside my expertise and seeing the potential business applications that the MBAs likely aren't looking at, because, well, they're thinking about other things. I'm comfortable shooting the shit with my plumber... or my siblings in very niche tech or science. I love breaking things and asking both these types of people for help, so they can laugh at me. I've done some incredibly stupid things in the name of curiosity.
My advice? Stop reading, stop talking. Flip a coin and take a risk on something you want to see to its end. Then burn yourself out to see where it goes. But be prepared for a lot of heartache and pain.
If you do this, hit me up after. Would love to hear how it went.