I was maybe a little too excited to read "When to Jump"
(https://www.amazon.com/When-Jump-Have-Isnt-Life/dp/125012421...) about taking a big risk in making a major career/life change against perhaps the wishes and/or expectations of your family, friends, colleagues, society, etc from an author I hadn't heard of before (but somehow got Sheryl Sandberg to write the forward for and Reid Hoffman to endorse) who left a cushy VC/finance job to travel around the world to play squash for 2 years.
After doing a little more research, I found that the author grew up in a wealthy east coast family, is a close blood relative to Sheryl Sandberg, went to an Ivy League school (likely aided by privileged upbringing and family connections), landed at a prestigious finance/VC firm straight from college (probably made possible again by an Ivy league pedigree/family connection), and could easily make the "jump" to doing something that paid nil for 2 years due to this enormous safety net of family wealth that most people simply don't have.
If there's one thing about the Travis Kalanick saga I wish the media would've told is that he is a rare successful founder who legitimately grew up in a middle class family and struggled for many years post-college trying to get to ramen-profitability on a series of failing startups before hitting it big. This is strictly in contract to the Zucks and Spiegels of the world who grew up very wealthy and went to the best schools and could take on the big risks associated with entrepreneurship because if everything failed they still had that big safety net to fall back on.
I participated in at the time a no name incubator on the east coast(decade ago). Only one of the ten companies got funding and its founder had offers already going into the incubator. Offers all from his rich VC father’s other wealthy friends.
I’d love to see a list of all the successful founders who came from extreme poverty. Middle class startuppers have one or two shots at it if they live at home with a relative. The rich kids can keep trying and learning from their mistakes until well they become richer.
I saw Travis K. give a talk a few years back at Failcon in San Francisco about his previous startup Red Swoosh. What I remember about that talk is how he persevered through some serious s* which was the opposite of easy & fun. I'd add that while deciding when to jump, you should honestly assess whether you're really willing to go shopping for a fire extinguisher while simultaneously being burned alive.
Just curious, what should these people call themselves? Aren't there also plenty of people that start with these advantages and squander them? The self aspect has to come into play, is it simply we desire them to acknowledge their innate advantages?
Everyone is self-made and no one is. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us and passed on their knowledge, genetics, or wealth. Wealth is just one component of inheritance and we are all lucky to have inherited what we have, wealth or otherwise.
My experience, having dealt with successful people who were also born rich, is that they often legitimately feel that they are self-made. Because the truth is that no matter how privileged you are, you do still have to put the work in if you want to be successful. It is true that rich people have much better safety nets, but being successful will always take at least some level of hard work.
It's difficult to have the perspective it takes to admit that your success may be more due to a privileged starting position and luck than solely the hard work, especially when it's so easy to claim all your success is self-made and the hero worship of self made people in the United States
I attended a talk hosted by a wealthy founder who was born into privilege, and he said something like this: "Startups are really hard. You need to use every card that you've been dealt in order to succeed."
I think the point is that there's a difference between simply "doing hard-work" and "self-made". The first is about what you did, the latter is what you think others did for/with you.
I've come to realize that hard work is not what we get paid to do from 9-5 each working day, but what we choose to do with our spare time that either improves or degrades our position in life.
And it is the thousands of choices from early years through middle age that separate those with rarified skills and high wages from those with common skills and envy for their higher paid, lesser working (now) friends.
It does not matter where you start. When you spend most of your life studying or smoking dope, the end is predictable.
The problems we face today are not explained by the difference between studying or smoking dope. There's something more pernicious involved.
Yes, if you smoke dope all the time your outcomes in life will probably be worse than if you study some "rarified" skill, to borrow your phrase.
But studying takes resources, and time, and those are bought through money and social connections and luck. And increasingly, despite what we read about MOOCs and the new educational order, it doesn't matter if we study and learn, what matters is that we have a certificate of studying, a placeholder. And those placeholders are not the same as our knowledge, or one's ability to learn, and are subject to corruption and greasing like every other placeholder.
And in the end, what does this say about how much value we should place on that rarified skill? Does our society really allocate financial reward according to actual value? Does Amazon really improve my life that much compared to the plumber or electrician who fixed my house? Is Facebook a net benefit to society? If it disappeared tomorrow, would nothing replace it? Could our healthcare be delivered under a different provider structure? Do I pay my ISP because it's the best of many choices, or because it's acceptable enough to not go without internet access? Is Amazon successful because of Bezos in particular? If Bezos was going around spouting all the ideas in his head, marshaling an army of imaginary workers, without any actual labor, would we still have Amazon?
The point of this article is it's trivial to point out that hard work should and often is compensated. The problem is that the compensation structures in many fields are completely absurd in many cases relative to the actual value created.
You make a valid point, but a lot of people spend their spare time studying common skills - basically free training for their current and/or future employers.
If my skill is common, it doesn't matter how much physical energy I expend, I probably won't make much because the supply of labor is high.
If it was easy to be a hedge fund manager, more people would do it. It's easy to cherry pick these professions that seem overpaid, but in a free market, people tend to make what the market values them at.
You could say that teachers are so important that they should be paid more and in a free market education system they might be paid differently than they are now.
Or maybe certain professions have a limited number of openings, which tend to go to people with connections, and cooincidentally these professions deal with large amounts of money, so taking 1% commission on a hundred million dollar deal for very little work seems reasonable.
> You could say that teachers are so important that they should be paid more and in a free market education system they might be paid differently than they are now.
What is the present value of a teacher's pension? How much would you have to save to produce an investment stream that cannot be exhausted no matter how long you live? What value is attached to having it guaranteed by the government instead of being subject to market returns?
> Does anyone really think that a CEO, whose pay is on average 271 times greater than that of his typical worker, works 271 times harder than his employees, who might actually be doing strenuous physical labor?
I'm not against the general mindset the author is telling, but this garbage thought process needs to stop. This isn't about working harder, but smarter and you can easily provide 271 times more value through decisions that higher ups are tasked with than a bottom level individual contributor.
***Anecdotal***
The top level people at my company are making decisions daily that govern multi-million dollar investments which can be vastly beneficial or detrimental to our profitability. When working on investments that large in size, marginal improvements on decision making provide huge sums of value which somewhat justify the pay.
Now, are these people self made? That's more open to debate but every C*O and SVP has been with the company for at least 10 years and most VPs also have also been here for that long/have an amazing track record. You generally don't get 10+ years of promotions providing nothing.
There have been many studies surrounding CEOs.[1] A large portion of them keep showing that a bad CEO is worse than no CEO, an average CEO likely isn't actually doing anything, and a good CEO is probably just lucky. This topic has been researched and had the data poured over to the ends of the earth to find that "special CEO sauce". The reality? There is likely a tiny subset of all CEOs that are actually worth 271 times what the typical worker is making (Steve Jobs comes to mind). That subset of actual talented visionary CEOs is probably a ridiculously small number (eg 1% of CEOs in a global pool). The rest of the time it's just a good ol' boys club for the already rich.
[1] an example https://hbr.org/2015/11/are-successful-ceos-just-lucky
IME, most people want to craft a narrative that lets them feel OK about themselves without too much introspection. If their lives are good, they'll take credit for their fortune like the people in the article. If their lives are bad, they'll blame everyone but themselves.
I've made a small jump in socio-economic class, and I try and keep it in perspective. I try and remember the bits of help I got a long the way. And at the same time I'm trying to let go of my resentment about people whose parents set them up with cars, tuition and house deposits - because one day I hope to be that parent.
Well, we don't know if they are philanthropic or not, but they seem to be conflicted about their wealth. It's not so much them, but how much value our society puts on money.
In reading the reactions to the article, it seems like most of HN is onto the game: Feign poverty.
That said, whom are some people that really did 'make it' from rags to riches? What can we learn from them? I'll start:
Andrew Carnegie
Jack London
George Soros
Larry Ellison
Ursula Burns
Ingvar Kamprad
JK Rowling
Sam Walton
Oprah
The only thing that I can think of that all of them had in common was that they were really hard workers that got lucky. That hard work was the price of the lotto ticket. What am I missing here?
To be fair, people are not born with a built-in frame of reference. I used to think I was good at math due to hard work/dedication but I have since met people who worked far harder than me and still were not nearly as good at math. It works the same way with money and pretty much everything. Good-looking people think they are charming, naturally athletic people think they train harder, etc. It's just what it is.
This article implicitly assumes that intensity/amount of labour should translate directly into income. Dunno why it should, but it would be interesting to think of what the world would be like if that were truly manifested in reality. I wish upon all these socialist academics that they could live in such a world as they thoughtlessly describe/claim to desire.
This article implicitly assumes that intensity/amount of labour should translate directly into income.
Perhaps because that's how employers typically exhort their staff to greater productivity? Never once have I had an employer say 'there's a fat bonus waiting for someone who can figure out a clever shortcut through this problem' or the like. For people who genuinely start at the bottom, personal initiative is often discouraged rather than rewarded and the benefits of innovation or exceptional performance often accrue to the nearest manager rather than the eager beaver.
Could you please not post ideological rants to HN, regardless of how wrong someone or some publication is? It makes for lousy conversation, and HN is supposed to be for good conversation. One needn't approve of The Guardian to see this.
I fear you're taking this article too personally. No one is discounting your personal sacrifice. You work damn hard. You stay in when others go out drinking. You've done this for a long time, and you're working towards the payout. That takes an immeasurable amount of perseverance.
The Guardian is not discounting you or your efforts. The Guardian is saying: there are those with a safety net to experiment, and there are those without a safety net. When we look at the achievements of both populations, is it truly fair to compare those with such different circumstances?
[+] [-] dawhizkid|8 years ago|reply
After doing a little more research, I found that the author grew up in a wealthy east coast family, is a close blood relative to Sheryl Sandberg, went to an Ivy League school (likely aided by privileged upbringing and family connections), landed at a prestigious finance/VC firm straight from college (probably made possible again by an Ivy league pedigree/family connection), and could easily make the "jump" to doing something that paid nil for 2 years due to this enormous safety net of family wealth that most people simply don't have.
If there's one thing about the Travis Kalanick saga I wish the media would've told is that he is a rare successful founder who legitimately grew up in a middle class family and struggled for many years post-college trying to get to ramen-profitability on a series of failing startups before hitting it big. This is strictly in contract to the Zucks and Spiegels of the world who grew up very wealthy and went to the best schools and could take on the big risks associated with entrepreneurship because if everything failed they still had that big safety net to fall back on.
[+] [-] paul7986|8 years ago|reply
I’d love to see a list of all the successful founders who came from extreme poverty. Middle class startuppers have one or two shots at it if they live at home with a relative. The rich kids can keep trying and learning from their mistakes until well they become richer.
Such is life.
[+] [-] amorphid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandrake|8 years ago|reply
* Well-off parents who funded their education, allowing them to start off without the huge debt ball-and-chain most of us start off with.
* Well-off family who can act as a safety net / backstop for failed risk-taking. Baseball is easy if you can keep swinging until you hit the ball.
* Well-connected family or friends who helped with that critical first job, which often can set an entire career's trajectory.
* Pre-populated contact list of well-off or well-connected people, drawn from family or Ivy league classmates.
I don't think you can honestly call yourself self-made with these advantages.
[+] [-] stochastic_monk|8 years ago|reply
We’re penny-wise and pound-foolish with our dispensation of public funds.
[+] [-] wmccullough|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slumberlust|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshontheweb|8 years ago|reply
EDIT: spelling
[+] [-] zippy5|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzymbaluk|8 years ago|reply
It's difficult to have the perspective it takes to admit that your success may be more due to a privileged starting position and luck than solely the hard work, especially when it's so easy to claim all your success is self-made and the hero worship of self made people in the United States
[+] [-] jdtang13|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lookACamel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Swizec|8 years ago|reply
"I am not a self-made man.
Every time I give a speech at a business conference, or speak to college students, or do a Reddit AMA, someone says it.
“Governor/Governator/Arnold/Arnie/Schwarzie/Schnitzel (depending on where I am), as a self-made man, what’s your blueprint for success?”
They’re always shocked when I thank them for the compliment but say, “I am not a self-made man. I got a lot of help.”
[+] [-] okonomiyaki3000|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jim-jim-jim|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stmfreak|8 years ago|reply
And it is the thousands of choices from early years through middle age that separate those with rarified skills and high wages from those with common skills and envy for their higher paid, lesser working (now) friends.
It does not matter where you start. When you spend most of your life studying or smoking dope, the end is predictable.
[+] [-] uyholes|8 years ago|reply
Yes, if you smoke dope all the time your outcomes in life will probably be worse than if you study some "rarified" skill, to borrow your phrase.
But studying takes resources, and time, and those are bought through money and social connections and luck. And increasingly, despite what we read about MOOCs and the new educational order, it doesn't matter if we study and learn, what matters is that we have a certificate of studying, a placeholder. And those placeholders are not the same as our knowledge, or one's ability to learn, and are subject to corruption and greasing like every other placeholder.
And in the end, what does this say about how much value we should place on that rarified skill? Does our society really allocate financial reward according to actual value? Does Amazon really improve my life that much compared to the plumber or electrician who fixed my house? Is Facebook a net benefit to society? If it disappeared tomorrow, would nothing replace it? Could our healthcare be delivered under a different provider structure? Do I pay my ISP because it's the best of many choices, or because it's acceptable enough to not go without internet access? Is Amazon successful because of Bezos in particular? If Bezos was going around spouting all the ideas in his head, marshaling an army of imaginary workers, without any actual labor, would we still have Amazon?
The point of this article is it's trivial to point out that hard work should and often is compensated. The problem is that the compensation structures in many fields are completely absurd in many cases relative to the actual value created.
[+] [-] WWLink|8 years ago|reply
At least, I feel that way..
[+] [-] acct1771|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everdev|8 years ago|reply
If it was easy to be a hedge fund manager, more people would do it. It's easy to cherry pick these professions that seem overpaid, but in a free market, people tend to make what the market values them at.
You could say that teachers are so important that they should be paid more and in a free market education system they might be paid differently than they are now.
[+] [-] tetron|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RhysU|8 years ago|reply
What is the present value of a teacher's pension? How much would you have to save to produce an investment stream that cannot be exhausted no matter how long you live? What value is attached to having it guaranteed by the government instead of being subject to market returns?
[+] [-] mrep|8 years ago|reply
I'm not against the general mindset the author is telling, but this garbage thought process needs to stop. This isn't about working harder, but smarter and you can easily provide 271 times more value through decisions that higher ups are tasked with than a bottom level individual contributor.
The top level people at my company are making decisions daily that govern multi-million dollar investments which can be vastly beneficial or detrimental to our profitability. When working on investments that large in size, marginal improvements on decision making provide huge sums of value which somewhat justify the pay.Now, are these people self made? That's more open to debate but every C*O and SVP has been with the company for at least 10 years and most VPs also have also been here for that long/have an amazing track record. You generally don't get 10+ years of promotions providing nothing.
[+] [-] knightofmars|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HumanDrivenDev|8 years ago|reply
I've made a small jump in socio-economic class, and I try and keep it in perspective. I try and remember the bits of help I got a long the way. And at the same time I'm trying to let go of my resentment about people whose parents set them up with cars, tuition and house deposits - because one day I hope to be that parent.
[+] [-] fjsolwmv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmurakami|8 years ago|reply
Especially now that social responsibility has decoupled from privilege.
Such duty and stewardship helped justify and bring balance to their privilege in days past. No longer.
[+] [-] Clubber|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Balgair|8 years ago|reply
That said, whom are some people that really did 'make it' from rags to riches? What can we learn from them? I'll start:
Andrew Carnegie
Jack London
George Soros
Larry Ellison
Ursula Burns
Ingvar Kamprad
JK Rowling
Sam Walton
Oprah
The only thing that I can think of that all of them had in common was that they were really hard workers that got lucky. That hard work was the price of the lotto ticket. What am I missing here?
[+] [-] jarsin|8 years ago|reply
I'll never give to a rich pricks charity knowing what I know now.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheFullStack|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darepublic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|8 years ago|reply
Perhaps because that's how employers typically exhort their staff to greater productivity? Never once have I had an employer say 'there's a fat bonus waiting for someone who can figure out a clever shortcut through this problem' or the like. For people who genuinely start at the bottom, personal initiative is often discouraged rather than rewarded and the benefits of innovation or exceptional performance often accrue to the nearest manager rather than the eager beaver.
[+] [-] okonomiyaki3000|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] analog31|8 years ago|reply
Arguably, the units are dollars. A dollar's worth of work is worth a dollar.
[+] [-] narrator|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RhysU|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suff|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kapauldo|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hi-im-mi-ih|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] ahstilde|8 years ago|reply
The Guardian is not discounting you or your efforts. The Guardian is saying: there are those with a safety net to experiment, and there are those without a safety net. When we look at the achievements of both populations, is it truly fair to compare those with such different circumstances?