This article is on point. Money is a flow, it comes and goes, and the tighter you grip to it, the harder it is to gather.
The hardest thing to do is make up your own mind, without worrying about what other people think of you.
Financial independence.
Starting a profitable company is an interesting challenge. Not having to worry about money.
Providing value to the world.
Enjoying the intellectually stimulating challenge of programming.
Working remotely and on a self defined schedule.
Having the reach associated with web business (My customers literally come from all over the world).
Being a self made man.
Being able to call the shots for my own company and as a result sink or swim.
There's a million reasons why I want to start a web company. And I don't think I'm lying to myself about any of them. If it was all about money I would be working on perfecting my pitch and just focus on getting an investment.
This is a generally short-sighted article, that looks inward but not at the bigger picture. I want to make a lot of money because I want to start a family, and I want them to have the best life and the best opportunities available. Not to be spoiled, but simply to have a good life. And that's just the start.
I want to make money so I can help people. To be able to invest in things which might cure diseases, solve hunger, produce cleaner cheaper energy. Things which might have an opportunity to drive humanity forward.
I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity. Things that might drive us closer to a star-trek-esque free-energy economy.
This is what people don't understand about money. Some people want it because it has the power to do a lot of things. It is a measure of value, and you can use that value to create more value. It might spiral so high that you don't even know what to do with it anymore; and that's okay, because all it means is that you've produced value and created something real. If I have billions of dollars when I die, I won't care if I lose it. The real reward was the creation of which it was an accidental result.
Travel? Nice things? Acceptance? Popularity? You think that's why people want money? Child's play, all of them.
I noticed you have this on your first list: "create the biggest impact possible?"
But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.
*Edit: Okay, sorry, "children" is a little harsh. You get what I mean. Of course we all want financial independence, security, and the means to not have to worry about where we eat for dinner every night. Great.
You can have that, and do more also. Look at pg—in addition to I'm certain a comfortable life, he also invests in all of you and helps create things of value.
Look at what Elon Musk is doing: SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity—they're all a means to advance civilization in leaps and bounds. Fucking awesome. Will he make a lot of money in the process? Probably, if he's successful at it. But I guarantee you that's not why he's doing it (incidentally I think that's a huge reason he might be successful, also).
If you're not doing big things like that, you can. Why not? You need a bankroll to do big things. You don't get there by vilifying money and just wanting small things for yourself—even deep things like happiness or self-respect or spirituality. I feel that is a somewhat childish self-centered idea. You're saying "what can money do for me?" The answer in this article is "You don't need money to get those things you want for yourself." Well, buster, it's not for me: it's for the world, it's for advancement, it's for creation. Money gives me no great desire in itself, but the advancement of society certainly does, and it clearly does for others too, and that's a good thing.
"Child's play" usually connotes a sense of ease that, uh, isn't actually available to everyone. If you were correct, then everyone over the age of 20 would have a completely fulfilled life and would only care about money for the sake of making the world a better place.
You might be shocked to discover that not everyone is like you. Not everyone feels sufficiently fulfilled in their own life. Indeed, some people feel that their fulfillment may come from "the advancement of society", oddly enough. But are they chasing the advancement of society for its own sake, or are they chasing it for their own self-esteem?
I'd personally like to refactor the entirety of society. But, you know, that's childish and it's also just me.
Fact:
If you think that everyone who wants money wants it in order to "create the biggest impact possible," you are either incorrect or have an unusual definition of "biggest impact possible."
Opinion:
It's almost nice and idealist for you to think this, but you ruined it by being generally sour (on my interpretation).
But now you are getting so far flung away from either the point of the article or even any serious criticisms of it. No one would deny helping humanity is a noble goal but, and I don't intend this in a mean way, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Wanting to start a family and having a family to support are two different things. I imagine the goal of a ton of people without families is to generate the capital necessary to start a family.
I really thought this was a glaring hole in the article. It's not as if those without families will never be in the set of those with families. It was a bit odd for me as well.
Having started a family a year ago, I wonder what kind of capital is necessary to start a family is? For diapers? Or do people really want to save up for college when they have barely left college themselves?
Until age 3, a child doesn't even need a dedicated room, so basically any apt suitable for 2 people will do.
Disclaimer: I'm in Austria, maybe it's easier here.
Its almost certainly easier there, since you guys have, socialized medicine, cheaper education, affordable housing, etc. All of the things we're terrible at here in the US basically. Most people want to own a home, which in the SF area will be 500k or so just for a reasonable place. Then you have to pay a ton of money for health insurance, then you pay a ton to educate them, have a babysitter, etc.
Not sure about the affordable housing. From what I've read, in many parts of Europe (for example in Germany), life-long renting is very common. In many other places (where the rental market isn't as developed or where people believe that they "must" own the property they live in), for many it takes a 30-year mortgage to buy a flat.
Having said that, I don't know how the situation looks in Austria in particular.
It depends on how much time you want to spend with your family. For example, if both parents want to stay at home to take care of the kids (admittedly rare), it'd take quite a bit of capital for a middle-class or higher lifestyle.
I think it is easier in Austria (my mother was born there). In Vienna, with a reasonable flat and public transportation, you probably don't have a lot of extra costs. I'm not sure what the Austrian parental leave policy is... one year? How much salary do they cover?
Sources of capital expense for US/Canada:
- Parental leave. Most social insurance systems do not pay full salary if you make over a certain amount of money (say, $40,000 annually). If your lifestyle is higher than that, you need to save the excess. In Canada, parental leave is usually up to 1 year. In the USA, it is often 2 to 3 months (though some insurance plans allow for longer).
- If you're both working, daycare can cost $600 to upwards of $1500 monthly, depending on quality & city.
- Depending on the child, if you want to actually sleep at night it helps for the child to have their own room by age 1 to 1.5 or so, which may entail a larger flat or house. Other children are not restless sleepers and can be tolerable in a shared room.
- Otherwise, the usual expenditure, depending on your desired lifestyle and travel needs: car seats ($500+), booster seats ($200+), clothes, toys, diapers, child-proof cupboard door clips, strollers (upwards of $1000 if you're getting a multi-purpose Chariot-type carrier)
So I'd say, a middle class family would often be advised to save at least $10,000 before having a child. An upper class / affluent family that wants some level of dual parental leave, or a nanny, likely $100,000 or more.
There's also the dark side of having a child, and that's the astronomical costs of separation, assuming you want shared custody (or are fighting for primary custody). In the US or Canada, legal costs are usually at least $10,000 to get to a custody agreement and divorce filing, and more likely $20,000 to 50,000 for minor contentions. Major custody battles can cost upwards of $500,000 (each). Legal aid can help, but only if you fall below a certain income threshold. Whereas I've seen couples split with no kids for under $5,000 each.
source: many friends with children, I have a 3 year old, also too many friends with bad divorces
I get your view and it is not an uncommon, in fact it is quite a predictable reply ... except this part ...
>Travel? Nice things? Acceptance? Popularity? You think that's why people want money? Child's play, all of them.
You've got to be kidding me. These are billion dollar industries and people certainly do work and commit crimes for such things. To dismiss that as child's play is to live in a fantasy world and to have, plainly, a tenuous grip on reality. Just being honest.
>But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.
Maybe for you but come on, let's be serious. You act as if it is silly to think there exist entrepreneur for whom the sole goal isn't ending world hunger or creating world peace. I'm flummoxed by that.
I agree with most of the things you said. In fact there are two major reasons why I want to start a company. Number 1 being that I want to be able to get my kids a great education and the other is that I want to innovate something that will help everyones life, I want to majorly contribuite to society.
The prospect of a good exit, or a successful company which would basically allow you to be "set for life" would do this. Being able to select freely where to live, what schools to go to, and what colleges to have as options will greatly affect the education prospects of your children.
So then, a good exit is the means by which you want good prospects for your children. If that so, wouldn't it make sense to have several different other methods to achieve that end?
I agree with most of the things you said. In fact there are two major reasons why I want to start a company. Number 1 being that I want to be able to get my kids a great education and the other is that I want to innovate something that will help everyones life, I want to majorly contribuite to society.
This is a great article. Looking inward is the bigger picture. When you are not impeccable about your intent, then much of your subconscious awareness is being diverted towards those hidden agendas rather than the outward goal. You come off as inauthentic, your ability to draw like-minded people to your goals are splintered.
You can get those hidden agendas directly. Why make a lot of money to change the world? Change the world. Money is a means by which one changes the world.
If it happens that your inward goals are to make a lot money, then you're much more likely to get what you need. If you're not impeccable, you're more likely to wander around lost and confused.
>I want to start a family, and I want them to have the best life and the best opportunities available. Not to be spoiled, but simply to have a good life.
This... does not always work out how you think it will.
I'm the oldest of six. (Divorced/remarried parents, 3 kids each). I'm dramatically more successful than any of my siblings, adjusted for age. According to the tests, I'm not any smarter than them; according to in-school performance, well, I'm about the worst of the bunch, academically.
Now part of this was just plain luck; I graduated from highschool in like 97-98, and had a solid sysadmin/programming job within months. If I had gone to college? There's no way I would have been able to do as well looking for work in 2002.
But, I think a lot of it was that when I was growing up? money wasn't a given. I mean, my parents weren't dirt poor or anything; they owned a house, etc... But, I watched as they moved up from renting crappy places to buying their first house. Clothing often came from goodwill. They loaned me money to get a cheap car when I got out of high school, but I was expected to pay them back. If I worked hard and got good grades and scholarships, there'd probably have been some help for college, but it certainly wasn't a given.
By the time my siblings came of age? my parents were in much better shape.
Now, I mean, when I say I'm more successful, I mean financially, maybe they are happier, I don't know. It's quite possible; I certainly wouldn't call myself well-adjusted. And certainly, that can be more important than money; but I'm pretty much the only one here that wouldn't be in trouble if our parental safety net went away, and that's kindof a big thing, I think.
But, my point is? more money does not always mean more successful children. Children look at what you do, not what you say, so if you are optimizing for successful children, it's probably best to have them watch you /become/ successful, not watch how you act after you have become successful, and have time to enjoy the fruits of that effort.
I can see how this is true when you compare poor vs. non-poor families. But the article is about staying middle class vs. pursuing riches by founding a successful company. It's probably true that the children of millionaires will be financially better off than children of middle class families, but that leads back to the point of the article: Will that affluence make them happy and more fulfilled?
I was going to complain about the same thing, but it turns out that @lsc said "more money does not always mean more successful children". Perhaps it was a poor choice of words and he really meant "happier" instead of "more successful".
I was talking about financial success, of course. I'm not qualified to speak of 'self-actualization' or what have you. I specifically said:
>Now, I mean, when I say I'm more successful, I mean financially, maybe they are happier, I don't know. It's quite possible; I certainly wouldn't call myself well-adjusted. And certainly, that can be more important than money; but I'm pretty much the only one here that wouldn't be in trouble if our parental safety net went away, and that's kindof a big thing, I think.
so yeah. it's quite possible my siblings are happier than I am. I don't know, but I am fairly certain that they would be happier than they are now if they had more money (or rather, had more independent earning power.)
I mean, sure, money doesn't buy happiness... but, at least until you have 'enough'? it makes a pretty big difference; I've had 'enough' I think, by that standard, pretty much since I reached the age of majority, and it gives me a huge degree of freedom that my siblings mostly don't have.
(that said, I probably would be a lot happier if I focused less on money and more on the other stuff. I mean, right now I'm putting a lot of effort into running a business when I could live fairly well just contracting for other people maybe one third of the time, and instead focus on other things.)
The actual data exists but is not that strong. IIRC, it says that 40% of people born in the bottom quintile remain in the bottom quintile, but 60% dont. The same goes for the top quintile.
I am just recalling these numbers from a potentially faulty memory, but if you want to see for yourself, search for "intergenerational economic mobility"
Totally agree, lots of great points there. I had much the same experience (except for the college experience) and hope to take it into account. I love the last bit about how children watch what you do, not what you say. Completely agree.
Spot on. Money is a conflation of two social processes or decisions:
a. Who gets to have private jets and get into hot nightclubs.
b. Who gets to build things of importance to the world.
Most of us are smart enough to have limited interest in (a)-- if that's what you're into, you'll never have enough-- but have an obsessive, sometimes anger-inducing and debilitating, focus on (b).
> Money is a conflation of two social processes or decisions:
> a. Who gets to have private jets and get into hot nightclubs.
> b. Who gets to build things of importance to the world.
No, its not. Those two are two of the many aspects of the one thing that money is a determinant for: power. Or, "who gets to do what they want to do".
"Have private jets and get into hot nightclubs" is just one of things people might want to do.
"Build things of [or, that they think of as having] importance to the world" is another of the things people might want to do.
People with money can do it if they want to. Other people have to try real hard. Want to have a nightclub lifestyle - become a bouncer/dancer. Want to live on private yatch - get a job on a somebody else's yatch(and imagine you are living your dream). Want to change the world - become a scientist and hope you get work on your topic of interest( or make the work that you get your topic of interest).
> But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.
From the article: Starting a multi-national company is only one way to achieve impact that a small subset of people can accomplish.
In other words, if your rationale is "I'm going to start Tumblr for Cats, and turn it into a multi-billion enterprise, and then I'm going to go all Bill Gates and become a philanthropist!", you're probably deluding yourself. (1) It's probably not going to happen. (2) Even if it happens, many people never end up following through with their plan. The money might be tied up in a trust fund on the British Virgin Islands, or there are other investment opportunity coming up. "Just one more billion, then I have enough to donate!"
If you're honest with your goals, a better way to make an impact would be to join a biotech or clean energy company, or even start one yourself (not a contradiction with the article, because your primary motivation would not be to make huge amounts of money).
> I want to make a lot of money because I want to start a family, and I want them to have the best life and the best opportunities available.
That's the short-sighted part. Money doesn't buy a great life. Sure, a good one. But it's no guarantee of a great life. (think of all the rich people who have committed suicide, for example)
If you want to give your family a great life then experience life with them instead of building a life for them. And that simply does not always require a lot money. Key words being "a lot". Sure, trips to Disney World require money but not "Oh my God I just sold my useless social network for a billion dollars!" money.
> I want to make money so I can help people.
Sorry, not buying it. This can be done on a daily basis for free.
> I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity.
You mean like how Woz invented the PC when he was a broke (by comparison) college dropout working at HP?
You've got a lot of good points there, but I think the worst problem with the article is that it oversimplifies everything. It's fundamentally wrong about a whole lot of things.
For example, it assumes that there's only one reason for wanting a lot of money. What if I want a "total autonomy over my time" and "nice things", at the same time?
As @dragonwriter said elsewhere in this thread, money is one of the means of obtaining power. That's why nearly everyone would like to make a lot of money: they want power. Power to do what? That depends on each person and cannot be oversimplified the way this article does.
The difference here is, that all your needs can be fulfilled by doing a job. When it comes to dreams, you enter into entrepreneurship. Your day job might be enough to support you, your family, travels and still leave some savings. But dreams, that translate into huge impacts need switching to entrepreneurship.
Now the question remains, what you dream about. Is it just money that you want, that you'll do great deeds with, when you have it? That's a dream you don't want to have. There is a saying for it: The dreamer is one who can look beyond what is immediately around him, family, kids and loved ones.
>This is a generally short-sighted article, that looks inward but not at the bigger picture. I want to make a lot of money because I want to start a family, and I want them to have the best life and the best opportunities available. Not to be spoiled, but simply to have a good life.
People have been doing that with 100K a year -- and much less.
>I want to make money so I can help people. To be able to invest in things which might cure diseases, solve hunger, produce cleaner cheaper energy. Things which might have an opportunity to drive humanity forward.
I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity. Things that might drive us closer to a star-trek-esque free-energy economy.
Those sound like very peripheral things people want to make money for... Perhaps you mean it, but in most cases those are Miss USA style BS.
Before you get the money, your goal is to change the world and make the biggest impact. When you get it, your priorities change. You sometimes realize it takes more than money to make an impact.
You may still make a difference but not the way you had planned, and but without money you would still be dreaming unrealistically.
Money is just a symbol of value. Who doesn't want to be highly valued. People love coming up with grand reason for justifying their desire for massive amounts of money. I suspect most people, deep down inside, just want the secure feeling that having tons of money provides. It's your license to freedom.
"I’m talking about becoming someone with strong moral fiber, a zeal for life, and complete comfort in who they are and what they’re all about."
I think that this is exactly not what you want to do to find a life partner. Whether you are a man or a woman, if you do this, you will find that (almost) all of your potential partners are shallow and extremely disappointing. Moreover, the people you are attracted to will be afraid of getting into a relationship precisely because they are, rightfully, afraid of disappointing you, or, more likely, afraid of feeling disappointed in themselves. You might get lucky, and it would help to be superficially attractive, if you choose to try to meet members of the opposite (or same) sex by improving your inner self.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try to be a better person, I'm just saying, it's terrible dating advice.
Huh? So you're suggesting setting the bar low for your inner-self just so you can avoid intimidating partners of a lower standard? That makes no sense to me. If I were single (which I'm not, because I have a satisfying relationship built on mutual admiration), I would want people of low aspirations to self-select themselves out of my dating pool.
Why? People with "low aspirations" are not necessarily bad people, nor unsuitable mates. Everyone needs something different in their lives. All I'm saying is that "self-improvement for the sake of dating" is terrible advice. Most people want to go on dates with people who are attractive, and self-improvement is often an anti-pattern for that. Yes, we'd like to think that everyone has real standards (versus superficial ones), we'd probably even like to think that we set real, personality standards for ourselves, but that doesn't get you out meeting people, and it can be extremely intimidating when you actually do.
It's merely bad advice because that's not what people are looking for. Even people who might intellectually think "oh, I'm looking for a good guy/good gal" are not six times out of ten (that's a made-up statistic)
"Most people want to go on dates with people who are attractive, and self-improvement is often an anti-pattern for that."
I don't see the contradiction. I'm fairly obsessed with self-improvement and my body and health are a big part of that. I'm certainly more attractive now than I was 5 years ago, for example.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. People with low aspirations aren't bad. I just don't view them as particularly strong candidates for dating, or even close friendship, for that matter.
What is great dating advice is to be comfortable about who you are, built on a well-founded confidence that you have a lot to offer a partner, friends, the world. "Moral fiber, a zeal for life, etc..." is on the right track.
When that is achieved your dating options will explode (relative to whatever they are now). The fact that 80% of them are shallow will be irrelevant because the pool of candidates will be much larger.
But if your pool is small and scant of fish, and is destined to always be that way, keeping your standards low would be useful advice, yes.
Following the article, maybe that falls into the category of “autonomy over your time”. I don’t normally think about money at all unless someone reminds me by asking me to pay for food, rent, bills, whatever—it’s just a means to keep me fed, programming, and travelling to see my girlfriend.
When you get down to the core, there are many reasons one might want to start a company:
Freedom,
Legacy,
Philanthropy and Charity work,
Fame,
Superiority,
You just enjoy creating value,
To scratch an itch?,
Sex... Maybe?
E.T.C
...
And you are right that we need to find out exactly what our motivations are and then truly accept and admit it..
Next, optimise your company, life and decisions so that you can achieve those goals otherwise you'll end up miserable, confused and un-satisfied.
Starting a company might not always be the best way to satisfy our desires but in some cases (like if all you desire is FREEDOM), there is no better way to satisfy that desire than to start a company.
And while money cant solve all problems (it solves a lot of problems) it makes living with said problems (and also solving said problems) a whole lot easier.
Most people are going to have children eventually even if they don't have them right now. If you are thinking ahead, you best be investing before you have children.
Most people want a certain quality of life that getting more and more expensive: a safe neighborhood to live in, decent schools for kids, healthy food to eat, some free time.
I don't like the way he just says "do something else" to achieve them. A lot of them involve making other people happy, which is something you cannot ever do. You are not in charge of other people.
Of course, there is no guarantee that by the time you have money it will still make you attractive to the appropriate sex, or earn you the respect of your peers. It does have a very good track record, though.
Seriously. It's amazing to me that this idea doesn't enter folks' minds. I would love to do my current job for 50% of the pay and work 6 months out of the year and take 6 months vacation (yes, I know the numbers would be a little different). This is not an option. You either do temp work/contracting work (a giant PITA IMHO) or you "man up" and work 40-50 hour weeks with 2 weeks of vacation.
Its because of the competition. For instance, if you do that, you have half the pay and if you want to buy a house (limited supply in Silicon Valley) then people with a full income will outcompete you for the same house. That's also what is driving up the housing prices.
What about the person that wants to make some good money while also enjoying the process. Wanting nice things and seeks financial freedom so as to provide a exceptional living for him/herself as well as for their family.
I dream big. I am realistic and I take time to enjoy what I have. It's not just reaching the summit that will be that moment. The journey is fantastic and it's the journey to that exceptional lifestyle that is all part of it.
This article just comes at it from the entrepreneur that is only coming at it for having the ends justify the means. However, a lot of people have jobs like that. Heck I'd wager to say more than 50% easily of the population have jobs like.
So I'd say to the entrepreneur that does slog away at something that he/she really isn't into and does end up with at least the experience. That's awesome. Maybe just the process of starting a business albeit tech one at first gives them experience. That down the line they are already ahead to possibly start some type of another business.
The more I write the more I feel like I'm just feeding this troll.
Troll? So now people that honestly want to help others and offer advice are trolls? He wrote the article because his introspection lead/is leading to a better life for himself. Is sharing that with other people such a bad thing?
I think this point isn't made enough. Everyone wants to "make a dent in the universe" and excelling for the simple sake of excelling is almost looked down upon. There's something to be said about the enjoying the process - getting enjoyment out of working to be better. Money is just one of many measurements of "better". I want to make money because I enjoy climbing the god damned mountain.
I can not speak for anyone but myself obviously, but I enjoy the visceral response to the highs and lows of doing, building, and putting things out there for the general public. There aren't many drugs that can recreate the high of earning your first dollar from something you have created.
1) Making a contribution to society as profound as Isaac Newton's, but leading such a harried life that they died before the age of 50 from a stress-related illness
2) Leading a content, good, happy, and unremarkable life
Next time ask them to choose between:
1) The very slim possibility of making a contribution to society as profound as Isaac Newton's, but leading such a harried life that they died before the age of 50 from a stress-related illness.
2) The pretty good chance that you can lead a fairly good, fairly happy, fairly content, but generally unremakable life.
I don't if that is a Valley thing though. Many people, particularly intellectuals would choose the first. However, let's be honest how many of those Valley startups are on a path to contribute anything remotely close to that level, even if they were maximally successful? Many of them are like "We're changing the way people sell houses" or "We are disrupting the auto-insurance industry" and that's fine but it's hardly the stuff of Newton or Leibniz.
So if you take different point from the article, it may make sense to attempt to achieve whatever your goal is another way than slaving away for 3 years on some "Growth Hacker" startup that goes nowhere, because, again, it's not going to get books written about you 200 years from now. Or not.
Money may or may not be the path to happiness, but I find it hard to believe that true happiness is going to found in trying to convince others that it isn't.
To quote the author, I'm sure there is "a much more direct path" to living a fulfilling life than focusing one's energy on asking others to question their true motivations and suggesting that if they're "brutally honest with themselves," they'll come to the same conclusions as the author.
Ironically, much of the time, public displays of introspection like this are driven by the acceptance-seeking that the author is apparently not very fond of.
tl;dr: "Chasing money is not usually the most efficient or enjoyable route to happiness. So does it make sense to waste our lives doing things we honestly don’t love to make it so we can eventually.…uhh [insert something that will eventually make you happy here]?"
I agree, and it's interesting to see the resistance around here. I think a lot of people don't really want to take a hard look at their own motivations because they're afraid they might not like what they see. I don't think the illusion of money-driven happiness is at all limited to the startup world. The rat race exists in a whole lot of other careers too--law, medicine, engineering, finance, showbiz, and so on.
I think most people chase money based on the perception that it will raise them to some higher plane of existence. But the reality is that every time you break into some new level, there's always just another level waiting above you, enticing you to double down. This article has a strong point: instead of chasing abstract advancement, figure out what it <i>actually is</i> that you want, <i>and then</i> strategize how to get it. And better yet, strategize how you can enjoy the journey. You might actually achieve definitive satisfaction that way and also be able to look back on your life and not feel as though half of it was spent in an unfulfilling chase.
"It is because you want total autonomy over your time?" Would be my #1 goal. The alternative "Find a career that is already what you’d consistently be doing..." is silly. Given complete control over my time I wouldn't be doing much consistently let alone for a career's length of time.
> He tells people “he likes building things” because that seems to be a publicly acceptable rationale for building a tech company…but super secretly he just sees starting a tech company as a means to generating an inordinate amount of wealth quickly
I have a hard time believing that anyone who is only fueled by money and does not truly enjoy 'building things' would last all that long starting a company.
I know a great many writers. Not many people get rich writing (if $1 billion tech company exits are black swans, then JK Rowling is like a rainbow swan or something), and yet there are still people who choose to write. They truly enjoy writing, they make their lives work even though they no they're not very likely to end up with a million dollar book deal.
I get the feeling from most of the really great people I've met in the tech world that they would be 'building things' even if it there wasn't the seemingly realistic possibility of millions of dollars. They're not in it for the end game of travel or sex, they're in it because they're only happy 'building things.'
This article might be relevant if you're 20 years old. For the other parts of your life, when you want to have a family, and a spouse (whom you don't spend all your time arguing about money with), and also enjoy the nice parts of life like traveling, a comfortable home in a good area with good schools, the ability to change whatever you're doing if you're unhappy, to get great healthcare should you need it, etc etc... you need wealth. Period. Btw, a high income, high expense lifestyle is not "rich" because you are a slave to your job. Wealth is an entirely different world all together.
I've come to roughly the same conclusion as the author; namely, that I should focus on figuring out my real motivations and work to fulfill them, rather than blindly follow the "more-money-more-happiness" default route provided for all of us.
I find it interesting that other commenters react so strongly to this article. I think the article is a sobering one, and that the author makes a good point. After thinking about it, if you come to the conclusion that more money _is_ what you need to fulfill your goals, then by all means go ahead. Introspection is never wrong.
When I worked on Wall Street, it was common to have a "number" in mind -- a level of wealth one wanted to earn, after which one would retire.
By way of contrast, I got out after I'd only worked there about 5 years, with enough savings to support me for only a few more.
Frankly, I wish I'd stuck with it and solved the "earning money" problem for life for once and for all.
I.e., while I'm generally in agreement with this line of discussion, there are also plenty of cases to just work at something not too unpleasant in return for the money it provides one.
(throwaway account) I have been working for 10 years as a software developer and manager of software development teams for a large investment bank. When I got started, and for the first 5 years or so, I thought that I could earn enough to save up and "solve the 'earning money' problem" doing this. Now, I don't think that's possible on this track.
I thought I'd get there in the beginning because I was doing very well at the job and getting more and more recognition and responsibility. Large bonuses were being given out to developers, and firms competed hard to get good ones. But then came the 2007-2008 financial crisis, and everything changed. The pay was reduced a lot--I have never made as much money as I did in 2006, despite having gotten a title promotion, and a larger role with much more responsibility, since then. New regulations have created a much more bureaucratic, administration-obsessed environment than I was accustomed to, making it much less pleasant for anyone interested in building and hacking.
So now I'm stuck at a local maximum--I feel like there could be a much better situation out there for me, but no direct step I could take to put myself in it. I still make enough that it would be tough to match my current salary outside of wall street, but the work environment has degenerated so much that I hate going to work, despite this taking most of my waking time and energy. So I have to make a choice: I can stay at a my current job, with its comfortable-but-not-stellar income and its ever-more-unpleasant work environment, or I could jump to another position (be it a new job or attempting to strike out on my own and develop a business and/or consulting) that could be more fulfilling, but much lower-paid, at least initially.
To those who would advise me to strike out on my own with a startup or consulting: my situation is complicated by my need to support my wife, who has a condition that would make it prohibitively expensive to get her the medical care she needs without employer-provided health insurance. (Nobody would insure us on the individual market--not at a price I could pay if I were just starting out on a business or consulting venture and attempting to live off my savings until it got off the ground, at least.)
I know this is not the worst problem in the world to have. A huge number of people would love to be in my shoes, and I can look at it from a larger perspective and see that I'm still damn lucky to be where I am and have what I have. But I'm not anywhere near able to "solve the 'earning money' problem" and I don't think I will be anytime soon. So I still find myself wishing I'd taken a leap earlier.
Of course, if I were a trader or had some other position in the actual business to make the REAL money, then it might have been a different story.
128 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadThere's a million reasons why I want to start a web company. And I don't think I'm lying to myself about any of them. If it was all about money I would be working on perfecting my pitch and just focus on getting an investment.
I want to make money so I can help people. To be able to invest in things which might cure diseases, solve hunger, produce cleaner cheaper energy. Things which might have an opportunity to drive humanity forward.
I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity. Things that might drive us closer to a star-trek-esque free-energy economy.
This is what people don't understand about money. Some people want it because it has the power to do a lot of things. It is a measure of value, and you can use that value to create more value. It might spiral so high that you don't even know what to do with it anymore; and that's okay, because all it means is that you've produced value and created something real. If I have billions of dollars when I die, I won't care if I lose it. The real reward was the creation of which it was an accidental result.
Travel? Nice things? Acceptance? Popularity? You think that's why people want money? Child's play, all of them.
I noticed you have this on your first list: "create the biggest impact possible?"
But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.
Have you seriously never met these people who think this? Hell, I've been in those shoes.
*Edit: Okay, sorry, "children" is a little harsh. You get what I mean. Of course we all want financial independence, security, and the means to not have to worry about where we eat for dinner every night. Great.
You can have that, and do more also. Look at pg—in addition to I'm certain a comfortable life, he also invests in all of you and helps create things of value.
Look at what Elon Musk is doing: SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity—they're all a means to advance civilization in leaps and bounds. Fucking awesome. Will he make a lot of money in the process? Probably, if he's successful at it. But I guarantee you that's not why he's doing it (incidentally I think that's a huge reason he might be successful, also).
If you're not doing big things like that, you can. Why not? You need a bankroll to do big things. You don't get there by vilifying money and just wanting small things for yourself—even deep things like happiness or self-respect or spirituality. I feel that is a somewhat childish self-centered idea. You're saying "what can money do for me?" The answer in this article is "You don't need money to get those things you want for yourself." Well, buster, it's not for me: it's for the world, it's for advancement, it's for creation. Money gives me no great desire in itself, but the advancement of society certainly does, and it clearly does for others too, and that's a good thing.
You might be shocked to discover that not everyone is like you. Not everyone feels sufficiently fulfilled in their own life. Indeed, some people feel that their fulfillment may come from "the advancement of society", oddly enough. But are they chasing the advancement of society for its own sake, or are they chasing it for their own self-esteem?
I'd personally like to refactor the entirety of society. But, you know, that's childish and it's also just me.
It usually takes people a long while to discover this, but hey, it's all part of the journey.
Opinion: It's almost nice and idealist for you to think this, but you ruined it by being generally sour (on my interpretation).
So you are not the audience.
It might not be your goal, but you can't deny it would be a noble one.
Until age 3, a child doesn't even need a dedicated room, so basically any apt suitable for 2 people will do.
Disclaimer: I'm in Austria, maybe it's easier here.
Sources of capital expense for US/Canada:
- Parental leave. Most social insurance systems do not pay full salary if you make over a certain amount of money (say, $40,000 annually). If your lifestyle is higher than that, you need to save the excess. In Canada, parental leave is usually up to 1 year. In the USA, it is often 2 to 3 months (though some insurance plans allow for longer).
- If you're both working, daycare can cost $600 to upwards of $1500 monthly, depending on quality & city.
- Depending on the child, if you want to actually sleep at night it helps for the child to have their own room by age 1 to 1.5 or so, which may entail a larger flat or house. Other children are not restless sleepers and can be tolerable in a shared room.
- Otherwise, the usual expenditure, depending on your desired lifestyle and travel needs: car seats ($500+), booster seats ($200+), clothes, toys, diapers, child-proof cupboard door clips, strollers (upwards of $1000 if you're getting a multi-purpose Chariot-type carrier)
So I'd say, a middle class family would often be advised to save at least $10,000 before having a child. An upper class / affluent family that wants some level of dual parental leave, or a nanny, likely $100,000 or more.
There's also the dark side of having a child, and that's the astronomical costs of separation, assuming you want shared custody (or are fighting for primary custody). In the US or Canada, legal costs are usually at least $10,000 to get to a custody agreement and divorce filing, and more likely $20,000 to 50,000 for minor contentions. Major custody battles can cost upwards of $500,000 (each). Legal aid can help, but only if you fall below a certain income threshold. Whereas I've seen couples split with no kids for under $5,000 each.
source: many friends with children, I have a 3 year old, also too many friends with bad divorces
>Travel? Nice things? Acceptance? Popularity? You think that's why people want money? Child's play, all of them.
You've got to be kidding me. These are billion dollar industries and people certainly do work and commit crimes for such things. To dismiss that as child's play is to live in a fantasy world and to have, plainly, a tenuous grip on reality. Just being honest.
>But you never responded to it. It's because it's the real reason. Money is a means to create the biggest impact possible. It is a means to create. Full stop.
Maybe for you but come on, let's be serious. You act as if it is silly to think there exist entrepreneur for whom the sole goal isn't ending world hunger or creating world peace. I'm flummoxed by that.
You can get those hidden agendas directly. Why make a lot of money to change the world? Change the world. Money is a means by which one changes the world.
If it happens that your inward goals are to make a lot money, then you're much more likely to get what you need. If you're not impeccable, you're more likely to wander around lost and confused.
This... does not always work out how you think it will.
I'm the oldest of six. (Divorced/remarried parents, 3 kids each). I'm dramatically more successful than any of my siblings, adjusted for age. According to the tests, I'm not any smarter than them; according to in-school performance, well, I'm about the worst of the bunch, academically.
Now part of this was just plain luck; I graduated from highschool in like 97-98, and had a solid sysadmin/programming job within months. If I had gone to college? There's no way I would have been able to do as well looking for work in 2002.
But, I think a lot of it was that when I was growing up? money wasn't a given. I mean, my parents weren't dirt poor or anything; they owned a house, etc... But, I watched as they moved up from renting crappy places to buying their first house. Clothing often came from goodwill. They loaned me money to get a cheap car when I got out of high school, but I was expected to pay them back. If I worked hard and got good grades and scholarships, there'd probably have been some help for college, but it certainly wasn't a given.
By the time my siblings came of age? my parents were in much better shape.
Now, I mean, when I say I'm more successful, I mean financially, maybe they are happier, I don't know. It's quite possible; I certainly wouldn't call myself well-adjusted. And certainly, that can be more important than money; but I'm pretty much the only one here that wouldn't be in trouble if our parental safety net went away, and that's kindof a big thing, I think.
But, my point is? more money does not always mean more successful children. Children look at what you do, not what you say, so if you are optimizing for successful children, it's probably best to have them watch you /become/ successful, not watch how you act after you have become successful, and have time to enjoy the fruits of that effort.
I can see how this is true when you compare poor vs. non-poor families. But the article is about staying middle class vs. pursuing riches by founding a successful company. It's probably true that the children of millionaires will be financially better off than children of middle class families, but that leads back to the point of the article: Will that affluence make them happy and more fulfilled?
>Now, I mean, when I say I'm more successful, I mean financially, maybe they are happier, I don't know. It's quite possible; I certainly wouldn't call myself well-adjusted. And certainly, that can be more important than money; but I'm pretty much the only one here that wouldn't be in trouble if our parental safety net went away, and that's kindof a big thing, I think.
so yeah. it's quite possible my siblings are happier than I am. I don't know, but I am fairly certain that they would be happier than they are now if they had more money (or rather, had more independent earning power.)
I mean, sure, money doesn't buy happiness... but, at least until you have 'enough'? it makes a pretty big difference; I've had 'enough' I think, by that standard, pretty much since I reached the age of majority, and it gives me a huge degree of freedom that my siblings mostly don't have.
(that said, I probably would be a lot happier if I focused less on money and more on the other stuff. I mean, right now I'm putting a lot of effort into running a business when I could live fairly well just contracting for other people maybe one third of the time, and instead focus on other things.)
It is very difficult to be happy when one is homeless, or is living paycheck to paycheck and has to stress about paying bills on time.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/science-money-makes-you-hap...
I am just recalling these numbers from a potentially faulty memory, but if you want to see for yourself, search for "intergenerational economic mobility"
> a. Who gets to have private jets and get into hot nightclubs.
> b. Who gets to build things of importance to the world.
No, its not. Those two are two of the many aspects of the one thing that money is a determinant for: power. Or, "who gets to do what they want to do".
"Have private jets and get into hot nightclubs" is just one of things people might want to do. "Build things of [or, that they think of as having] importance to the world" is another of the things people might want to do.
There are more, of course.
That's not the same "nightclub lifestyle" as a nightclub patron.
From the article: Starting a multi-national company is only one way to achieve impact that a small subset of people can accomplish.
In other words, if your rationale is "I'm going to start Tumblr for Cats, and turn it into a multi-billion enterprise, and then I'm going to go all Bill Gates and become a philanthropist!", you're probably deluding yourself. (1) It's probably not going to happen. (2) Even if it happens, many people never end up following through with their plan. The money might be tied up in a trust fund on the British Virgin Islands, or there are other investment opportunity coming up. "Just one more billion, then I have enough to donate!"
If you're honest with your goals, a better way to make an impact would be to join a biotech or clean energy company, or even start one yourself (not a contradiction with the article, because your primary motivation would not be to make huge amounts of money).
That's the short-sighted part. Money doesn't buy a great life. Sure, a good one. But it's no guarantee of a great life. (think of all the rich people who have committed suicide, for example)
If you want to give your family a great life then experience life with them instead of building a life for them. And that simply does not always require a lot money. Key words being "a lot". Sure, trips to Disney World require money but not "Oh my God I just sold my useless social network for a billion dollars!" money.
> I want to make money so I can help people.
Sorry, not buying it. This can be done on a daily basis for free.
> I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity.
You mean like how Woz invented the PC when he was a broke (by comparison) college dropout working at HP?
For example, it assumes that there's only one reason for wanting a lot of money. What if I want a "total autonomy over my time" and "nice things", at the same time?
As @dragonwriter said elsewhere in this thread, money is one of the means of obtaining power. That's why nearly everyone would like to make a lot of money: they want power. Power to do what? That depends on each person and cannot be oversimplified the way this article does.
(For the record I find your take on things noble, and it exceeded what I had considered)
Now the question remains, what you dream about. Is it just money that you want, that you'll do great deeds with, when you have it? That's a dream you don't want to have. There is a saying for it: The dreamer is one who can look beyond what is immediately around him, family, kids and loved ones.
People have been doing that with 100K a year -- and much less.
>I want to make money so I can help people. To be able to invest in things which might cure diseases, solve hunger, produce cleaner cheaper energy. Things which might have an opportunity to drive humanity forward. I want to make money so that I can change the world. Not in the superficial way that people think you mean when you say that, but in real ways; in ways that create true value for humanity. Things that might drive us closer to a star-trek-esque free-energy economy.
Those sound like very peripheral things people want to make money for... Perhaps you mean it, but in most cases those are Miss USA style BS.
I think that this is exactly not what you want to do to find a life partner. Whether you are a man or a woman, if you do this, you will find that (almost) all of your potential partners are shallow and extremely disappointing. Moreover, the people you are attracted to will be afraid of getting into a relationship precisely because they are, rightfully, afraid of disappointing you, or, more likely, afraid of feeling disappointed in themselves. You might get lucky, and it would help to be superficially attractive, if you choose to try to meet members of the opposite (or same) sex by improving your inner self.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try to be a better person, I'm just saying, it's terrible dating advice.
It's merely bad advice because that's not what people are looking for. Even people who might intellectually think "oh, I'm looking for a good guy/good gal" are not six times out of ten (that's a made-up statistic)
I don't see the contradiction. I'm fairly obsessed with self-improvement and my body and health are a big part of that. I'm certainly more attractive now than I was 5 years ago, for example.
When that is achieved your dating options will explode (relative to whatever they are now). The fact that 80% of them are shallow will be irrelevant because the pool of candidates will be much larger.
But if your pool is small and scant of fish, and is destined to always be that way, keeping your standards low would be useful advice, yes.
I would like just enough to afford shelter, food and internet, so I can not die and keep working on making software development better.
Freedom, Legacy, Philanthropy and Charity work, Fame, Superiority, You just enjoy creating value, To scratch an itch?, Sex... Maybe? E.T.C
...
And you are right that we need to find out exactly what our motivations are and then truly accept and admit it..
Next, optimise your company, life and decisions so that you can achieve those goals otherwise you'll end up miserable, confused and un-satisfied.
Starting a company might not always be the best way to satisfy our desires but in some cases (like if all you desire is FREEDOM), there is no better way to satisfy that desire than to start a company.
And while money cant solve all problems (it solves a lot of problems) it makes living with said problems (and also solving said problems) a whole lot easier.
Most people want a certain quality of life that getting more and more expensive: a safe neighborhood to live in, decent schools for kids, healthy food to eat, some free time.
I don't like the way he just says "do something else" to achieve them. A lot of them involve making other people happy, which is something you cannot ever do. You are not in charge of other people.
Of course, there is no guarantee that by the time you have money it will still make you attractive to the appropriate sex, or earn you the respect of your peers. It does have a very good track record, though.
What about the person that wants to make some good money while also enjoying the process. Wanting nice things and seeks financial freedom so as to provide a exceptional living for him/herself as well as for their family.
I dream big. I am realistic and I take time to enjoy what I have. It's not just reaching the summit that will be that moment. The journey is fantastic and it's the journey to that exceptional lifestyle that is all part of it.
This article just comes at it from the entrepreneur that is only coming at it for having the ends justify the means. However, a lot of people have jobs like that. Heck I'd wager to say more than 50% easily of the population have jobs like.
So I'd say to the entrepreneur that does slog away at something that he/she really isn't into and does end up with at least the experience. That's awesome. Maybe just the process of starting a business albeit tech one at first gives them experience. That down the line they are already ahead to possibly start some type of another business.
The more I write the more I feel like I'm just feeding this troll.
1) Making a contribution to society as profound as Isaac Newton's, but leading such a harried life that they died before the age of 50 from a stress-related illness
2) Leading a content, good, happy, and unremarkable life
Everyone in the Valley chooses (1)
So if you take different point from the article, it may make sense to attempt to achieve whatever your goal is another way than slaving away for 3 years on some "Growth Hacker" startup that goes nowhere, because, again, it's not going to get books written about you 200 years from now. Or not.
To quote the author, I'm sure there is "a much more direct path" to living a fulfilling life than focusing one's energy on asking others to question their true motivations and suggesting that if they're "brutally honest with themselves," they'll come to the same conclusions as the author.
Ironically, much of the time, public displays of introspection like this are driven by the acceptance-seeking that the author is apparently not very fond of.
I think most people chase money based on the perception that it will raise them to some higher plane of existence. But the reality is that every time you break into some new level, there's always just another level waiting above you, enticing you to double down. This article has a strong point: instead of chasing abstract advancement, figure out what it <i>actually is</i> that you want, <i>and then</i> strategize how to get it. And better yet, strategize how you can enjoy the journey. You might actually achieve definitive satisfaction that way and also be able to look back on your life and not feel as though half of it was spent in an unfulfilling chase.
I have a hard time believing that anyone who is only fueled by money and does not truly enjoy 'building things' would last all that long starting a company.
I know a great many writers. Not many people get rich writing (if $1 billion tech company exits are black swans, then JK Rowling is like a rainbow swan or something), and yet there are still people who choose to write. They truly enjoy writing, they make their lives work even though they no they're not very likely to end up with a million dollar book deal.
I get the feeling from most of the really great people I've met in the tech world that they would be 'building things' even if it there wasn't the seemingly realistic possibility of millions of dollars. They're not in it for the end game of travel or sex, they're in it because they're only happy 'building things.'
I've come to roughly the same conclusion as the author; namely, that I should focus on figuring out my real motivations and work to fulfill them, rather than blindly follow the "more-money-more-happiness" default route provided for all of us.
I find it interesting that other commenters react so strongly to this article. I think the article is a sobering one, and that the author makes a good point. After thinking about it, if you come to the conclusion that more money _is_ what you need to fulfill your goals, then by all means go ahead. Introspection is never wrong.
By way of contrast, I got out after I'd only worked there about 5 years, with enough savings to support me for only a few more.
Frankly, I wish I'd stuck with it and solved the "earning money" problem for life for once and for all.
I.e., while I'm generally in agreement with this line of discussion, there are also plenty of cases to just work at something not too unpleasant in return for the money it provides one.
I thought I'd get there in the beginning because I was doing very well at the job and getting more and more recognition and responsibility. Large bonuses were being given out to developers, and firms competed hard to get good ones. But then came the 2007-2008 financial crisis, and everything changed. The pay was reduced a lot--I have never made as much money as I did in 2006, despite having gotten a title promotion, and a larger role with much more responsibility, since then. New regulations have created a much more bureaucratic, administration-obsessed environment than I was accustomed to, making it much less pleasant for anyone interested in building and hacking.
So now I'm stuck at a local maximum--I feel like there could be a much better situation out there for me, but no direct step I could take to put myself in it. I still make enough that it would be tough to match my current salary outside of wall street, but the work environment has degenerated so much that I hate going to work, despite this taking most of my waking time and energy. So I have to make a choice: I can stay at a my current job, with its comfortable-but-not-stellar income and its ever-more-unpleasant work environment, or I could jump to another position (be it a new job or attempting to strike out on my own and develop a business and/or consulting) that could be more fulfilling, but much lower-paid, at least initially.
To those who would advise me to strike out on my own with a startup or consulting: my situation is complicated by my need to support my wife, who has a condition that would make it prohibitively expensive to get her the medical care she needs without employer-provided health insurance. (Nobody would insure us on the individual market--not at a price I could pay if I were just starting out on a business or consulting venture and attempting to live off my savings until it got off the ground, at least.)
I know this is not the worst problem in the world to have. A huge number of people would love to be in my shoes, and I can look at it from a larger perspective and see that I'm still damn lucky to be where I am and have what I have. But I'm not anywhere near able to "solve the 'earning money' problem" and I don't think I will be anytime soon. So I still find myself wishing I'd taken a leap earlier.
Of course, if I were a trader or had some other position in the actual business to make the REAL money, then it might have been a different story.