[danso]

Job security, job satisfaction, good pay. Pick any two.

This statement doesn't make much sense when you think about it. It seems to be a lazy riff off of:

"Fast, cheap, quality: Pick any two"

Each of those characteristics are in competition with each other. Doing something fast often hurts quality and/or cheapness. Doing something cheaply may take longer and may harm quality.

Job security vs. job satisfaction don't really compete with each other. In fact, being more satisfied (i.e. happy) at your job may lead to better security indirectly, as a happy worker is a more productive, engaged, and charismatic worker.

Perhaps JMJ is trying to appeal to the commonly-held notion that fulfilling, satisfying jobs are ones that don't pay well - teaching, research, social work, etc. OK, it applies to certain sectors. But not across all sectors. A failure to recognize the inherent structural differences and opportunities between job fields (and public vs. private) hurts whatever rhetorical argument he's trying to make here.

[lucasjung]

I've heard this sentiment phrased much better:

"There are three things that mostly determine how well your life goes: what you're doing, who you're with, and where you are. If you can get two of the three right, you're ahead of 90% of the human race."

Sometimes there are tradeoffs between the three, sometimes not, but it's really, really hard to get all three to line up together.

[danso]

Yes, and I'm sure that's what Jacques meant. Getting each of those qualities on their own can be difficult, but they are not in direct competition with each other. Nitpicky, maybe, but it's an important nuance.

In the limited context of tech jobs and entrepreneur, I don't think it's quite right to tell people that it's not possible to achieve all three. And it may even be counter-productive.