Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bsder 1792 days ago
Someone always hits the lottery. The probability that it will be you is zero.

Most people are much better served working for a company and punching the 9-to-5 clock--especially since startups nowadays rarely give contributors sufficient stock to make the risks worthwhile.

4 comments

I spent nearly 8 years at a fintech startup in London, leaving late last year. It just recently had a liquidity event (private capital) which means that my options will net me a bank deposit worth several times my after-tax annual salary.

And yet, my current total comp at Google is worth more than my final salary + (pre-tax option value at liquidity event / 8). And I reckon I was the highest paid engineer in the company.

I did forgo the options from my most recent grant when I left, but even with them, it wouldn't have exceeded Google's TC, especially considering $GOOG's recent appreciation. Since you only make money on options if the value rises, you need quite a lot late in the day for it to add up. And the 10 year expiration for the initial options was starting to come into view.

I consider myself lucky to have come out of it so well, but in retrospect, I would have been better off joining Google earlier, though it would have been at a lower level.

The less sexy way of "making it big" is get a well paying, interesting but low stress job, live below your means, dollar cost average your way into an index fund.

Instead of spending nights and weekends hacking away, spend it with your family or a hobby...become a guaranteed millionaire.

$20k invested per year, 8% average yearly return, 30 year growth = $2.5mill. YMMV based on tweaking those numbers

Perfectly reasonable path for some people. For others, like myself, not being my own boss and working a "normal job" for years on end is the definition of hell. I know I'm in the minority though.
You make it sound like getting a well paying, interesting, low-stress job is a total cake walk. For most of us it's not.

I also love how someone inevitably trots out the "just invest $<more spare money than most have> at <unrealistic rate>% for <very long time>". Nothing is giving you guarenteed 8% post tax returns, and you might want to, I don't know, buy a house in the next 30 years.

Genuinely curious...Why is it that "most of us" it's not? Because you don't like in the US? Or you live in an area w/ limited tech jobs? Or is it that you believe that all 3 criteria is unattainable?

8%...how is that over 30 years unrealistic? That is the historical going rate for the S&P since its inception...

Also I don't know why you threw in the words "post tax" as if it means something for dollar cost averaging. If you dollar cost average the S&P...even in a taxable brokerage account...the only thing you're taxed on is dividends. Your gains compound tax free....If you throw it in a 401k, where the max individual contribution is $19500 then nothing is taxed till you withdraw.

My example of $20k is drawn from a max of $19500 contribution (and hopefully you get employer matching) because ideally you are maxing out a 401k to get the tax benefits.

past returns are not indicators of future ones
no guarantee that future returns will match past returns but they are a pretty good guide
I think the exception is if you are a founder, for at least two reasons. First, if the startup does have success, you can make substantially more than any 9-to-5. Secondly, the skills you develop running even a smallish company can translate well to upper management if you do ever decide to “work for someone else”.

N.b. I do not know this from personal experience, just my observations.

> especially since startups nowadays rarely give contributors sufficient stock to make the risks worthwhile.

All startups aren't created equal. Most startups aren't worth it. Unless the founder has a good background or showed he can raise capital, always go for consulting fees.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this is a very valid point for most people by definition.