[matteotom]

Why "young" people? They don't have families, mortgages, car loans, etc that require consistent income, giving them the freedom to make low-mid 5 figures now, with the possibility of making more later.

Unfortunately, the problem with this is that many young people now are stuck with large amounts of student debt, so they have to take the highest paying job they can find right out of college.

So the theory is in my first paragraph, while the reality is much different, in my second paragraph.

[thrush]

You're treating the effect as the cause. Many young people don't have these obligations because they don't know what they are going to do with their lives and families, mortgages, car loans, etc. are the real risk.

It seems to me that you're implying that young people shouldn't have the right to these things until they contribute to society. I would argue that a real problem we have right now is that people can't figure out how to have families, mortgages, car loans, etc. and contribute to society at the same time. Once we figure that out, then we'll see people taking on more obligations at an earlier age.

[matteotom]

They also don't have these obligations because they are young. They haven't had time to start a family or buy a house. It's true that some people may want to go into a startup to avoid the "real risk". However, the "real risk" is the tried and true path, making it easier to fall into. And once a young person does, they have much more to lose by taking a job that may not work out in the long run.

I really don't see where I implied young people don't have the right to these things until they contribute to society. While it's fine if the majority continue on a "normal" path through life (college, job, family + house, 401k, etc), we need some young people who are willing to take the risk of not following that path.

[mjn]

Re: the first paragraph, I think that's often true comparing people in their 20s vs 40s, but many people in their 50s and 60s (especially in engineering) have considerably more financial freedom than those in their 20s. They have somewhat more obligations, but many more resources. With a paid-off house, kids through college, paid-off cars, well-funded 401(k), 30 years of savings from a six-figure engineering job, etc., they have an ability to self-fund that most 25-year-olds don't (and often, a stronger network).

I think there might be more conservatism in that someone who's had a successful 35-year career as an engineer and is used to a regular six-figure income may not be particularly inclined to quit his or her job now and start something else. But I think in terms of resources they're often actually less tied down than a 25-year-old who has no savings cushion and has to pay rent— even if the 25-year-old didn't have student debt.

[matteotom]

You have a good point, but I don't think it really stands up. By the time somebody's 50 or 60, they are looking toward retirement, not trying to start the next huge product.

I look at my dad as an example. He's not an engineer, but he makes a 6 figure salary. Once his last kid is out of the house, he'll be 60. Even looking at him now, at 50, I don't think he has the energy to take the risk and start a company. While there may be a few 50-60 year olds with everything needed to start something else, I think the norm goes in the exact opposite direction.