lessthanideal's comments

Even if they don't want to host it themselves, they could partner with a host and coordinate the single button click push to production for their customers.

I'm surprised about the MPAA's threat with respect to Google's ISP shutting them down. Isn't half the problem with net neutrality that Google is their own ISP and that they have deals to work with other ISPs? If not, why are they in the middle of the proposal to the FCC? I highly doubt you could disconnect Google from the internet worldwide.

My saving/investing strategy is governed by a few guidelines and realities:

1. I have a family (meaning I have more costs and more immediate investments I need to make, for example in the education of my children)

2. I believe that investing in my own company where I control the money and the effort involved has a vastly superior return than investing in a company that already had an IPO. There's no way those companies do the return on my funds, like my company does, if for no other reason than that they are already through their major growth phase (they already IPO'd). Add to that the level of control I have in my own thing, and it's clearly advantageous to invest there.

3. I believe stock purchases are akin to gambling. This expands my universe of possibly investments to other forms of gambling. It turns out that with some knowledge and practice it's possible to tilt the odds in your favor.

Given these rules and considerations I have a threefold investment strategy:

Cash is king. I keep large cash deposits available at all times, both in actual cash and in the bank. I invest a regular amount of my earnings from my job into my side business and my side business provides excellent returns and I've developed a way to scale those returns that I'll be testing this month (the ability to use in a leveraged way the money I invest into my side business, but with a higher maximum cap than I could reasonably put into the business). For my high risk, high reward "investment" I cut out the stock market altogether and literally go to a casino.

I suppose the final part of my portfolio might be the most surprising to HN. I can report that I've had excellent results in the casino. Sustainable advantage playing is possible. In 2009, I bought a vehicle outright with the proceeds from this portion of my portfolio.

If I didn't have a family, I'd be doing a more aggressive version of this where I'd have larger cash holdings (no family = way more money left over every month), I'd invest more in my side business, and I'd risk more at the casino.

Your goal should be to produce a machine that makes you money without your involvement, normally this is called a business, but if you have enough money, then the money itself can be this machine (through interest). To have that amount of money where it is sustainable requires roughly $4 million in cash (I've seen this number other places, the fabled "FU" money). It my belief that it's much easier to build a business that produces say $100k a year with minimal involvement on your part than it is to produce $4 million in cash (though it should be noted that if you produce a business that produces that much profit you're on your way to being able to trade it for $4 million in cash).

I've been to the M Casino. It's not entirely unique, because other casinos are adding the "in game" betting using the same system, which was rolled out initially at the M. This is very different from the normal sports betting because you can bet during the game. Traditional bookmaking will take bets before an event (sometimes even a long time before, for example, the winner of next year's Super Bowl is already a bet you can make in Vegas) but not during it.

I am not sure if a "in game" system ever existing before in Las Vegas casinos to the extent that the M is doing it. The gambling radio shows seem to think it's a novel thing.

I should add that this market (sports gambling) has long had "traders" (people looking to arbitrage games and do other technical actions), "brokers" (people who tell you what to bet on, similar to a stock broker) and "value" players (in the betting case this is guys who look for an imbalance in value, undervalued positions usually caused by too many people betting on one side of a game, similar to Buffet looking for undervalued companies). Recently, I've heard of one of these brokers advertising themselves as an investment group, particularly to the extent that insider trading isn't illegal in gambling (for example, if you have better information on the seriousness of a injury to a key player you have inside information, but instead of it being illegal as it would be in the stock market, it's actively encouraged).

This market is huge. I heard on the radio that Vegas did ~$85 million in bets on the Super Bowl alone.

As a final note, if you don't think you're gambling when you put money into the stock market, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

I think you would be very surprised as to what does and doesn't sell on CafePress. Are they doing as well as you are, I doubt they are, but are they doing anywhere near the work you are, no way in hell. They are likely targeting an entirely different market than you are. You're going with viral marketing centered around Facebook. CafePress is largely populated by middle aged women. I would guess the cross over for those two groups isn't that large.

On on hand, these people are blowing a lot of money. On the other they're mostly doing what is reasonable (saving for college, paying a mortgage, paying off student loans, no credit card debt, paying for childcare because they both work, etc.). If you expect people to do everything for themselves, then $250k a year doesn't seem like a whole lot, particularly when you start taking into account the (growing?) possibility that one or both of them could lose their job at any point. Where is the saving for that? If you're spending $20k a month, losing one of the jobs means you need $10k in savings per month that person isn't working.

I wish to assert that these people are not rich at all. Here's how you know: they have salary paying jobs the income from which is materially involved in their day to day life expenses (as opposed to Fortune 500 CEOs whose salaries pale in comparison to the stock related earnings they receive). In short, if you and your wife both have to work somewhere that has the power to arbitrarily lay you off, then you're not rich. The real rich own the places these people work at.

What you're really looking for is a product. I'll even wager you are probably looking for a product that requires minimal unit production and distribution costs. That puts you in a class of products that are electronic, or products that you can convert from an electronic representation to a physical one and have a supplier to deal with those physical challenges (like shipping) for you. People often forget the 2nd option, but it's there.

A short list of items that meet this qualification: software, writing (books, novellas, blogs, etc.), digital art, digital photography, music (original), sound of other types (background sounds that can be used in the production of music, for example), designs/instructions (for building something) and a probably a bunch of other stuff. If I missed a big one, please reply to this post with it. You should also be looking for free resources online that you can leverage. Are there free services that you can leverage to make your business easier to manage? Can you do some work (collection or processing) of some freely available data that might give it additional value which you can then extract through sales or in some other way?

Because your goal is to make a living and give yourself some extra freedom, you don't have to overengineer this. This isn't your masterpiece. It doesn't have to be pretty or break new ground necessarily. Don't chrome plate it if you're writing software for it or to support it.

Frankly, I just started taking advantage of this type of business and I feel almost guilty. The code isn't that great. The idea isn't that great. It's not something to write home about in terms of engineering a solution. But it makes me money even if I don't touch it for a month at a time. I'm not living off this business yet, but I am seeing good growth and I see a virtually infinite path to expanding the digitally based offerings of the business (more offerings = more money).

I'm writing about my journey to getting in better shape as a programmer and I find stories like Paul's to be inspirational. Thanks for all the information Paul. My goal is two-fold: get in shape / live longer and to get as strong as possible. The "getting stronger" part keeps me motivated through those long and arduous cardiovascular workout sessions. Here's my journal:

http://www.strongestprogrammer.net/

I have a pet theory that says that they are the first and last generation every to retire wholesale. I'm pretty sure my generation (I'm 31) isn't going to get to retire in the same way that my grandfather did (two sets of government defined benefit package money + teacher's retirement). Don't misunderstand me, I think he worked hard for it and played the system well, but I don't even have the opportunity to play the system the same way he did.

Money is obviously part of it, but now the whole picture. The difficulty in finding programmers that are gifted is not that you are competing with other companies, it's that you are competing with the programmer taking his ability and resulting wares directly to the consumer. Between startups and lifestyle businesses the lone programmer has a lot of options that other professions don't necessarily have (nurses, for example).

You have to keep in mind that you are competing with the excitement and potential earnings of running your own show.