[lazyjones]

I'm an investor and former VC-backed founder and I'd like my stewards of capital, who are typically the best work force in the early days of startups, to work more than 40 hours. I'm sure that they do in the overwhelming majority of successful startups.

[stuffedBelly]

I work in finance and am sorry but you don't sound like a legit investor if you measure the effectiveness of your capital towards startups by work hours. What about their revenue models, plans for growth, talent structure and market niche? Why do you expect them to work longer hours as long as they have deliverables on time? Also, working longer hours may introduce potential compliance/HR costs (mental/physical problems due to overwork, people leaving due to work-life balance issue), which could be deadly for early startups.

> I'm sure that they do in the overwhelming majority of successful startups

You would need to back up this statement with evidence and show positive correlation between longer work hours and success of startups.

[lazyjones]

> I work in finance and am sorry but you don't sound like a legit investor

I don't care what I sound like to someone who develops software and pretends to be some sort of financial expert.

[stuffedBelly]

You can prove me wrong by actually arguing/answering the questions I had but instead you fell into Tu quoque...don't think this is how a healthy argument should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

> someone who develops software and pretends to be some sort of financial expert

Your assumption is baseless and does not help your argument. Commenting on HN does not mean someone develops software for a living. HN is open for everyone.

[lazyjones]

> Commenting on HN does not mean someone develops software for a living. HN is open for everyone.

You don't even understand that I can read all your comments on HN, as well as your profile, where you claim to be doing exactly that.

You're just wasting time and space with your insults and rhetoric.

[stuffedBelly]

> You're just wasting time and space with your insults and rhetoric

I engage in arguments but where do you see insults?

I know very well you can read comments and profiles. I've had an HN account since 2011 and it gave me enough time to become well versed in finance. Plus I call myself software engineer because I work in quantitative finance and software engineering is big part of it. I'm also a CFA charterholder and not putting it on my HN profile doesn't make me less versed in finance.

It's ok if you don't want to engage in arguments, but don't assume you know someone by simply skimming through their HN profiles.

[sgt101]

Truckers are mandated (in the USA) to do 60 hours in 7 days, which is more than 40 hours. If your founder works 96 hours a week for 6mths what do you think their state of mind will be?

I worked 96 hours a week for eight weeks finishing off my dissertation. I finished it, but basically went crazy - I needed some time off, which was good because I crossed the line. Startups used to be like that I suppose, but now it takes far longer to cross the line to an exit than it used to, are you making the best use of the human capital you are deploying?

[lazyjones]

> Truckers are mandated (in the USA) to do 60 hours in 7 days, which is more than 40 hours. If your founder works 96 hours a week for 6mths what do you think their state of mind will be?

What does that have to do with anything? 60 hours is 50% more than 40 hours, it's regulation and not science and it's a totally different job with different risks.

> are you making the best use of the human capital you are deploying?

If they are working 40 hours or less, the answer is "no" with 100% certainty. Above that, it depends.

[sgt101]

Well - the example I used was set to 60 hours not 40 - which was a number that you used.

On the other hand are you sure that you are reasoning correctly? Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little?

What was the least working that you saw? What was the outcome and the driver there?

[lazyjones]

> Well - the example I used was set to 60 hours not 40 - which was a number that you used.

So what is your conclusion from this? That 60 hours are too much? Or is it OK to work 60 hours (i.e. more than 40)? Why bring it up if your example basically confirms that my expectations aren't unreasonable?

> Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little?

Yes. And I know a couple more.

> What was the least working that you saw? What was the outcome and the driver there?

15-30 hours/week. No product after a few financing rounds. Lack of grit. Also, very poor decisions.

[sgt101]

>15-30 hours/week. No product after a few financing rounds. Lack of grit. Also, very poor decisions.

Oh crumbs - sounds like a disaster! Why were you invested? Didn't the managing board raise some red flags and seek liquidation early?

[afarrell]

To what degree?

There is a difference between regularly working 50-hour weeks and setting those up well, and always working 72-hour weeks, which doesn’t leave you time to do the life-admin, exercise, cooking, and sleep you need to keep a clear head.