[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.

[dvt]

> 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.

I feel like I argue this ad nauseum here on HN. No, being engineer #3489 won't ever make you financially "independent" (and by that, I mean having FU money). Financial comfort is something else entirely. Making 100-200k (even including stock bonuses) somewhere like SF/NY where rent for a 1 bed 1 bath is like 3k (and houses/condos start at $1 million) will never have the same upside as starting your own company. Let's ignore for now the very real chance of getting laid off, or otherwise fired in favor of a younger engineer that gets paid less than you do (when you hit your 40s).

But again, financial independence is just one aspect of "winning" at a startup. Everyone conveniently ignores doing your own thing, freedom, self-reliance, self-determination, etc. -- these are non-existent at BigCorp (where you're treated, at best, like a cog). I personally value freedom much more than I do money -- which is why I accept the risks of every few years throwing my hat in the ring and seeing what comes of idea X or Y.

[pedrosorio]

Have you ever heard of the FIRE movement?

Plenty of engineers working at FAANG and investing in index funds have enough money to retire comfortably in their 30s. That’s what the GP means by financial independence, I believe.

Also “senior” engineers (>5 years of experience) at these companies make a lot more than 200k a year.

[dvt]

> Also “senior” engineers (>5 years of experience) at these companies make a lot more than 200k a year.

No they don't, look up the numbers. Average salary on most websites is around 180k. Principal engineers start making north of 300k (at FAANG, which is already a subset of a subset) but it's very difficult to snag one of those.

I like the FIRE movement, but ironically, I think it's pretty analogous to doing your own startup. Obviously, it's less risk (but also less upside).

[comp_throw7]

This entire thread seems a bit silly.

1) Average comp for a senior (not principal) engineer at FAANG is 350-400k, not 200k.

2) It's much easier to get a job at FAANG and get promoted to senior (or get a job elsewhere and hop to FAANG later) than it is to start a comparably successful startup. Google alone employs 30k+ engineers, most of them in the US, which means they employee ~1% of the software engineers in the country. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that 8-10% of all SWEs in the US work for a company where standard career progression will get them to that level of comp in 10 years or less.

3) Starting and growing a startup to the point where it can provide an exit event that translates to financial independence (in a comparable time frame) is much harder than getting a job at one of those tech companies, and much less likely to succeed.

4) You don't need to earn 350k/yr to become financially independent much earlier than the typical retirement age, even if you live in the Bay and suffer with the rent. You need to save 25x your future annual outlay. This is trivially achievable by age 50 with most work/life/family configurations that include at least one software engineer (single earners, 2-income couples, 1-income couples w/1-stay-at-home, etc) earning half that (i.e. your 180k), if you don't insist on retiring as a property owner in the single most expensive city in the US. If you are in FAANG/comparable, getting there by 40 is a no-brainer if you aren't really awful at managing your money. A couple working at FAANG can easily manage by 35. This isn't "eat rice and beans, then retire in a tiny shack in the middle of nowhere" independence, either, this is "hit 5m+ net worth". 5m is "fuck you" money by any reasonable metric.

[bradlys]

> No they don't, look up the numbers. Average salary on most websites is around 180k. Principal engineers start making north of 300k (at FAANG, which is already a subset of a subset) but it's very difficult to snag one of those.

I think you're out of touch with modern TC. There are many engineers at FAANG pulling past 300k/yr - many going past 400k/yr. One management track + one senior engineer can clear $1mil/yr. I know plenty of people in the valley who do this reliably... https://www.levels.fyi/2020/ - just check out what a senior engineer can make...

[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.

[dvt]

> “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.

We know this, yadda yadda "survivorship bias." It's just boring to have the same people making the same points about every startup that made it. It's like the old "correlation does not equal causation" trope you see repeated over and over again when someone links any dataset. We get it.

Again, my point is that this is not insightful -- and you've yet to demonstrate otherwise.

[Retric]

I am not suggesting it’s insightful, just the counter argument you’re posts are largely ignoring. If your looking for everyone that made more than 10+ million in the last 40 being a founder isn’t a great route. Even if your benchmark is 100 million it’s not good overall odds.

It’s only when your benchmark is becoming a billionaire that it starts to look like the best option.

[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.