[solidasparagus]

> still one of the most reliable ways of [...] becoming financially independent (if not outright wealthy)

There's just no way this is true. For people with the skills needed by SV startups, working at one of the startups is almost certainly financially worse than using those skills at a large company.

[dvt]

I was specifically talking about founders (but even early stage engineers can do extremely well if the startup takes off). The upside is much higher doing your own thing rather than working at BigCorp (the two aren't even remotely comparable, but neither is the risk). Not to mention the end goals/QOL of working on what you want, commanding your own ship, being financially independent, etc.

Virtually all self-made millionaires+ started companies[1]. There's really no other way to get there.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2019/10/02/self-...

[KerryJones]

Sam Altman has argued against this in a number of places, here's the first one I found: https://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec01/

Looking at the potential upside is disastrous without looking at the downside. That's what the '00 tech bubble was -- we're prone to HUGE biases and it is important to have constant reminders to bring us back to reality.

The founders who have succeeded are known to be _irrationally_ optimistic, literally irrational. This means, statistically, it's a poor choice to do what they did. It means, in some sense of the word, they got lucky. Many founders publicly acknowledge this -- luck was a huge factor.

If you want money, being a founder _might_ get you there, but odds are, it won't.

Being a founder makes the most sense when you're obsessed with solving a problem and the money is a perk, not a motivator.

Transparency: ex-founder of Series B company

[scrozier]

You're making a giant logic error. It may well be true that most self-made millionaires started a company. It is certainly not true that most people who start companies become self-made millionaires, which was the premise of your original post.

[hansvm]

I think the more salient question is whether starting a company is the most reliable way to become a self-made millionaire (one of the things they're actually claiming), which could be true even if the chances were low. The parent comment's error (or perhaps an intentional omission if for example they thought it to be self-evident) is in not taking into account the volume of people starting companies vs the volume of people doing other things which could turn them into millionaires.

On that note, I do think there's a flaw in the logic or premises (or unstated assumptions -- maybe "millionaire" is code for some larger quantity of wealth) somewhere. A decade in FAANG with conservative spending habits will easily create a millionaire with a near 100% success rate, and it would be surprising if starting a company would have better odds than that.

[dvt]

> ...most people who start companies become self-made millionaires, which was the premise of your original post.

This is a complete fabrication. I never said that, directly or indirectly. In fact, I've said multiple times in this thread that 9/10 startups fail and that startup life is a "lottery" but people still choose to do it for reasons X, Y, or Z.

[monsieurbanana]

> Virtually all self-made millionaires+ started companies[1]

The article you linked makes no sense related to your claim. Unless you're saying that millionaires+ (whatever the + means) don't exist outside of Forbes.

> There's really no other way to get there

Joining a startup as an early member? Working in finance or computer science or medicine with ridiculous salaries?

Here's a link[1] with thousands of jobs with an average income higher than $100k. If you have that kind of income, you can become a millionaire.

> QOL of working on what you want, commanding your own ship, being financially independent, etc.

How about the QOL of not knowing for a long time whether you'll succeed or fail? Or having to deal with investors, marketing, managing people, aka everything that you probably don't want to be working with? Not commanding your own ship because most of it is built with other people's money?

If you're talking QOL, I don't see how playing the lottery with your future (in your own words) is better than having a high-income job, then FIRE in your 30ies.

[1] https://www1.salary.com/Six-Figure-Income-Salaries.html?page...

[dvt]

> How about the QOL of not knowing for a long time whether you'll succeed or fail? Or having to deal with investors, marketing, managing people, aka everything that you probably don't want to be working with?

This is kind of silly to bring up. Obviously people starting a company are okay with managing people and dealing with investors (or if not, being bootstrapped). You're saying "being an elite athlete sucks because you have to deal with working out and eating healthy" like.. yeah, you kind of signed up for that. You can't be an NFL player and eat donuts all day.

> FIRE in your 30ies.

This is ironically very similar to doing a startup (but with less risk, and a lower upside). Are you forgetting that investing didn't go so well for people in 2008? I actually like the FIRE movement.

[monsieurbanana]

> Obviously people starting a company are okay with managing people and dealing with investors

I must have dreamed all the posts and comments about people learning that they were actually not made for being a founder, that marketing is more important than what they like doing (programming), and that the stress of creating a company is higher than they thought.

It's nice that you found your path in life, and I have nothing against that path being creating a company. I just don't see what's your goal by repeating that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "survivorship bias naysayer". Self-reassurance you made the right choice?

[quickthrower2]

You can also get to millions by investing while working a regular job

[dvt]

Again, the upside is significantly higher if you start a company (financial independence is just one piece). It can be risky (see OP), but it's pretty rational to be a founder, especially if you can weather the adversity. I'm not even sure how my claims are controversial (especially here on HN, of all places).

[Retric]

Looking at upsides on their own is meaningless. The mega millions jackpot is currently at $550 Million dollars in cash. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to spend 2$ on a ticket.

So sure, it’s possible to become a billionaire by writing books just look at J.K. Rawling. Hell someone got 10,000 bitcoins for the price of 2 pizza, which in theory are worth 366,790,000$ today. In the end the upside of being the founder isn’t worth much on day one. It might be worth something down the line, but it’s critical to have a fallback option.

[dvt]

> Looking at upsides on their own is meaningless.

Which is why I've been mentioning "risks" in just about every post I've made. Which is why a big part of OP is how taxing and difficult it's been. Why is why we keep talking about how 9/10 businesses fail. There's no free lunch.

But my original point was that we already know this. So it's not particularly insightful to point it out on a forum almost exclusively dedicated to people working on startups.

[dminor]

I think the problem is you called it a "reliable" route to financial independence, when the variance is actually pretty high. Anyone who can get a job at a large tech company in SF/Seattle/NY has a much more reliable route to financial independence.

[Retric]

“can be risky (see OP)” is vastly downplaying 1 in 10 odds of nominal success. Simply not failing doesn’t mean the bet paid off.

[lozaning]

If you live in a state where you can play jackpot only, which is 2 picks for $3 and no eligibility for partial matches, there's a positive EV anytime the cash payout is more than $453,863,025.00

Accounting for taxes ruins it a bit, but once the jackpot gets high enough it's dumb not to buy a ticket.

[Retric]

That also assumes single winners, more interestingly it ignores the diminishing marginal utility of money.

Consider your personal utility function, at 70 what odds would you need to play double or nothing with your entire life’s savings. If it takes more than 50.1:49.9 odds then you like most people don’t have a linear view of money.

[JanisL]

The expected utility of buying that ticket is quite poor though which is the thing that really matters for most people. You get a sense of this when you consider that the vast majority of the time you lose your initial investment. If you have any other options to get returns on your money you are going to have the opportunity cost of that to deal with too and that's what makes the lottery ticket unappealing from a utility point of view.

[quickthrower2]

Oh sure the upside is higher because you might start the next Uber or Facebook or Dropbox. However the utility of money diminishes IMO for most people past the point you no longer need to work. It depends on what you goals are and the probability distribution you are after. Also many founders end up burned and in poor physical health so there is that risk too.

[CuriouslyC]

The only problem with that is that I think a lot of people are okay with any really good upside above XXX dollars (i.e. comfortable financial independence). Given this, even though the potential dollar amount of the upside is much larger, the odds of an "acceptable" upside are significantly lower, and as a result it is a bad choice for people who aren't extremely ambitious.

[Kranar]

The comment said "one of the most reliable ways", not the only reliable way. Furthermore the two are not mutually exclusive. I worked at Microsoft and Google before starting my own company, mostly as a way to pay off student debt. A few of my co-workers at Google also left to start their own companies as well. There's no reason why you can't put in a couple of years at a large company to make some early cash, then leave to start your own company.

If it fails you can almost certainly go back to working at a big company and heck even try again later on in life.

[solidasparagus]

But it's not reliable at all. Particularly when you consider the longer and longer time to exit, the greater dilution due to those huge late rounds, the fact that you get hit with the tax burden when you exercise (which can easily be a decade before that stock is liquid), the fact that the late rounds have significantly raised the bar on what a 'successful exit' is.

Now that startups tend to stay private so long, the value of employee equity has absolutely tanked.

[Drdrdrq]

If only Mark Zuckerberg knew this back then... /s