[jossclimb]

I never got laid off, but the whole thing left me with a bad taste, so I have decided to go out on my own. Sure, there is risk, however there is also risk being with a large company and the whole 'we are family' culture kool aid is show to be the BS most of us knew it was. Recently we have seen profitable companies drop workers for no reason other than to appease activist investors. Now sure, this is their prerogative, can't argue with that, it's my prerogative to give (or not give) them my time. So just as my own business could fail, so could my position with a corp be liquidated, yet without being able to read the financial tea leafs and see it coming.

At the end of the day though, I am going to regret not trying then I am giving it a go. Right now I am in my thirties and have some flexibility to roll with the punches of capitalism, but that won't be the case when I hit 40/50+ when the one acceptable 'ism that everyone turns a blind eye to starts to playout ; ageism.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Recently we have seen profitable companies drop workers for no reason other than to appease activist investors. Now sure, this is their prerogative

I blame stock buybacks. Reminder that theyy were illegal untill recently.

And they perform no legitimate function other than being unregulated, tax-evading dividends.

> But in the United States, capital expenditures aren’t accelerating. Instead, new cash is being used to reduce the number of equities available, thus artificially driving up their value. That practice has been exploding. It’s an irresistible temptation, partly because everyone is doing it. Nobody wants to be left out. And the cash is just sitting there, idle, because it’s a rare C suite that has continued to invest in new, creative growth rather than pick the low-hanging fruit of easy money to be made through financial maneuvers. It was a good thing that companies receiving stimulus money to stay in operation during the Covid-19 shutdown have been banned from using it for stock buybacks. But it’s too little too late.

[aketchum]

their entire function is to serve as a "tax-evading dividend". I fail to see why there is a difference besides on tax revenue for a buyback vs a dividend. Can you expand on why they are so bad? Would you be equally unhappy if an equal amount was spent as a dividend instead of buyback?

[ClumsyPilot]

Dividends can only be paid from profits, that have already been taxed.

Stock buysbacks can be leveraged, can be financed with debt and you could use them to raid the company.

They also have different effect on stock price - you pay out dividends, and then market reacts. A human being decides if now your company is more valuable.

When you buyback stock, the effect is purely mechanical - sell orders are closed, and the more expensive sell orders now sell the price - price goes up in milliseconds, without any human decisionmaking.

If you paid 1 billion in dividends, it will not raise price as much as spending 1 billion on shate buybacks.

[matwood]

> Right now I am in my thirties and have some flexibility to roll with the punches of capitalism, but that won't be the case when I hit 40/50+ when the one acceptable 'ism that everyone turns a blind eye to starts to playout ; ageism.

There have been studies which put the average age of successful founders in their mid-40s. We romanticize the kid in college making something happen, but the reality is that people need experience to see problems worth solving.

Found it: https://hbr.org/2018/07/research-the-average-age-of-a-succes...

[coldtea]

>There have been studies which put the average age of successful founders in their mid-40s.

There have also been statistics which put the average percentage of succesful founders among attempted founders at 0.0001% (number pull out of my ass, but the gist is: most startups fail).

So, this is not as reassuring as it sounds, as it amounts to something like:

"You might be fired at mid-40s under an IT sector that discriminates against hiring older developers, but don't worry: you can always start your own startup with odds of it succeeding not that different to winning the lottery".

[throwaway4aday]

That number seems excessive. There are a lot of numbers out there but the most frequent one seems to be 90% of startups fail. It should be remembered that this is also why people say "fail fast", if your business is going to fail it's better to get it over with quickly so you can iterate on the next idea. That's the second insight, you don't just get 1 shot especially in tech where the startup costs are so low.

[coldtea]

>That number seems excessive. There are a lot of numbers out there but the most frequent one seems to be 90% of startups fail.

That's still an endeavor slim 10% chance of success, offered as a "solution" to a fired mid-40s dev looking for a paycheck.

Not to mention that to create and support the startup to success takes money.

And that the 10% success rate is possibly because not every fired mid-40s dev starts one, but only those with some potential to succeed to begin with.

:)

[throwaway4aday]

I think the message is getting garbled. The person doing a startup is in their 30s and wasn't fired. The next response was someone offering assurance that even 40 isn't too late in response to their concern that it was "now or never".

I don't think we're advising any particular person, we're just talking about the potential for a dev to do a startup at any point in their life. Obviously if someone is going to attempt a startup they should know their own situation which includes knowing you have enough money and the inclination to go into business for yourself. Whether the 10% would be higher or lower if everyone did it we can't really know. A lot of people that have great ideas and can execute them well probably never attempt to go out on their own, same for the opposite.

[tdullien]

I founder one company at 23, and a second one at 39, both exited, the first after 7 years, the 2nd (stupidly too early) after 2.

I think experience does help. You have less energy but much better judgement.

[jossclimb]

right gotcha, I was more referencing being 40+ in a corp. I remember IBM trying to cull older workers and then getting caught out.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Oh yeah. Take it from me. I'm 60, and ran into this, five years ago, when I was looking for work.

As far as startups go, I would have been absolutely ideal for a risky startup, as I didn't need the money, and was willing to work cheap, if the project interested me, and take chances (and work hard). I am also skilled in a gazillion different aspects of shipping software. I've shipped software all my life (Since I was 25 or so).

All I have been doing, is shipping software. All my adult life. Deliverable has been my life's labor.

I'm also used to shepherding a project through its entire lifecycle; from napkin sketch to shrinkwrap and beyond. That usually takes years, for most halfway ambitious projects. Requires a lot of patience. Lots of boring stuff, too.

But, you know, gray hair, and all...

So, nowadays, I work for free, with folks that can't afford folks like me. I've been working on a fairly ambitious project (backend and frontend), for the last couple of years. It should work nicely.

[Yoric]

Having seen the same situation in the previous generation in my family, I'm not looking forward to be (perceived as) too old to be employable.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

From what I hear, it can start in the late thirties. It may be if you are old enough to be a parental figure of the interviewer.

I was pretty much "past my sell-by date," I guess.

[Yoric]

That's sad.

[yodsanklai]

> so I have decided to go out on my own

If I were you, I would make as much money as I can working for a big tech company (e.g. gigantic monopolistic company with too much money on their hands). When you're 40/50+, you'll see what your options are.