I disagree with the idea that the market has room for a finite number of millionaires.

See Paul Graham's essay on wealth, specifically the subject about the pie fallacy. "...although there may be, in certain specific moments (like your family, this month) a fixed amount of money available to trade with other people for things you want, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. You can make more wealth. Wealth has been getting created and destroyed (but on balance, created) for all of human history." [1]

[1]: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

For money that's true (and of course being a millionaire is about money), but for "success" it isn't. Success is a relative term, which does seem to act a lot like a 0-sum game. That is, I'm only successful if other people around me aren't.

While we might all become richer collectively, we will never feel more successful unless we have someone to compare ourselves to.

It depends on how you define "success." By your definition, it necessitates seeing someone else fail in order to feel successful. But I think that's a narrow view of it, and fewer things are zero-sum than people often assume (though plenty of things still are, yes).

A few examples come to mind. One is the craft beer scene. Microbreweries often adopt a collaborative business model with other breweries in their area, rather than being cutthroat and trying to run each other out of town. When a town becomes known for having a thriving beer scene, it attracts more customers in total, to the benefit of all the breweries there. It widens the proverbial pie. Thus, by association with that scene, all the individual businesses become more successful than they would have been otherwise. And in that case I'd say success is about more than money - name and quality recognition, and building a dedicated fan base would probably factor into it as well.

Of course there are limits to that model, such as a local market becoming too saturated, but I think it's a good example of success being a more nebulous term than only being dependent on defeating others.

Disagree. Success isn't really transferred. If I help you do something I know and you help me do something you know we are both more successful. Wealth on the other hand can't really be shared without losing it.

> unless we have someone to compare ourselves to.

Couldn't that someone be one's ancestors, or even one's past self?

There is absolutely a limit to the amount of unique ideas/efforts which make a return across a large percent of the population. That population has an upper limit on spend and time spent adopting said product. They don't have an unlimited amount of time and that's exactly what companies have been hammering on to extract more of. Facebook, for example.

It's time we stop pushing this STUPID narrative that software can make you rich if you are just willing to throw your user's interests out the window and "work harder". That is not how this works.

Wealth is finite at any given moment and it so happens that growth does not affect everyone equally.

On top of that developed economies tend to grow slower - we may all be millionaires by early 70s standards with our fast cars and air travel, but I don't think in 50 years we will be millionaires by today's standards - there simply won't be that much growth in the future.

> Wealth is finite at any given moment

Investment supposes this is not true because wealth is not an evaluation of liquidity. The hardest thing to realize is that that's poor people thinking and you're already behind if that's how you operate (ie the vast majority of the world, including me).

Investment is a promise, or actually a hope - it only gives a perception of value. It's not actual wealth.

To illustrate my point: can you imagine everyone living off passive income today?

I always found the whole idea to be contradictory. They say that the pie isn't fixed, then go on to explain all the risky things you need to do get a larger piece of the expanding pie. Which does in fact mean the pie is finite, just not definite. Because outside of these texts online, success rate is a real limiting factor.

A presidential election is zero-sum, since there can only be one winner. There is no fixed number of millionaires; every middle-class American is very rich compared to what Romans or Persians or Carolingians expected.

There definitely is a limited number of millionaires that an economy/population can support. Also, comparing across time is rather deceptive. The north korean military is much more powerfully compared to khan or alexander's armies. The comparison is pointless considering the north korean military isn't traveling back in time to fight the mongols or the greeks. Saying middle class americans are rich compared to romans, persians or carolingians is just as meaningless. You could argue that a homeless man with a smartphone is "richer" than napoleon since the homeless man has access to more computing power, better medicine, better everything. But that's meaningless and no solace to the homeless man since he isn't traveling back to the early 1800s with current technology in his pocket. If we follow your logic, a north korean starving in a political camp is wealthier than Caesar. I guess that could be true, but meaningless and empty.

It's also a deceptive tactic people use to compare apples to oranges. We have to compare today with today and even more importantly, we have to frame money within the zero-sum context of power. Money and power are interchangeable and viewed in this context, wealth is a zero sum game.

I don't agree, because there certainly are some objective measures of well being, such as access to nutrition, clean drinking water, life expectancy, exposure to violence etc. that hold true across any age in time. Most of these measures have in general increased in the course of humankind. So a homeless man im 2018 is most likely still better off than a homeless man during the Roman empire.

I understand that human society has progressed over time. That's not what I'm disputing. What I'm pointing out is that it's meaningless to compare current situation to the past. A homeless man in 2019 is better off than everyone in the roman empire - including the emperor and the homeless. So what? How does that help the homeless man in 2019. A slave in the 1800s was wealthier than the anyone in the roman empire. So what? People in 2019 or people in the 1800s weren't living in the roman empire. The north koreans in political camps are wealthier than the emperor of roman empire. So I guess that means everything is great? It's such a deceptive and insincere comparison. People live within their time and their "wealth" should be compared within it. And more importantly, wealth should always be viewed within the context of power because ultimately, that's what wealth is.

Your opening statement is incorrect - wealth can be created, indeed that’s exactly what (good!) entrepreneurs do.

"Limited" means something very different than "fixed".

> we have to frame money within the zero-sum context of power.

You can't just throw this out there. Why? In what way is power is zero-sum?

I don't really find your example of homeless people with smart phones all that convincing. Everyone knows being homeless is horrible.

It's not even that I entirely disagree with what your saying. I'm somewhat firmly planted in the vague middle area right now. But I would like to see the arguments better supported.

Given the means by which they obtain and protect their wealth, I suspect that the people and companies at the top do view wealth as a zero-sum game.

It is very unrealistic that technological level and political organisation of Ancient Rome or Persia could create the conditions that could produce and sustain a significant part of population with the level of life somehow comparable with current Western countries.

Just because the pie is growing at f(x) doesn't mean at any given moment the pie isn't limited by x. This is why I think the zero sum vs growing pie arguments are silly, both are true.

hyperinflation can easily make everyone a millionaire!

Millionaire...Zimbabwe made me an overnight trillionaire!

Your mentality is the mentality of failure...as in why bother trying because the odds are stacked against you. I see this very common among peers and ultimately...it only leads to failure. So why even bother having this mentality? You are better off having optimism that success can be achieved.

In regards to Sam's advice. His advice is correct but people are interpreting it too strictly. Sam's advice is basically the baseline rules...as in you need to do this stuff AT LEAST to have a chance at being successful. This writing is not "do this stuff exactly and you will be successful 100% guaranteed".

The truth is....execution is the hard part and that's why most people fail. Building an amazing product that people love is hard. It really comes down to that...but if you want to be successful then that's what you need to do.

Of course the odds are stacked against you. That's what makes success a wonderful thing.

And I disagree with your sentiment. When people think that X, Y and Z will lead to success and they do X, Y and Z and they fail, that produces a mentality of failure and frustration and why people give up.

Understanding what success really is and how hard work, contacts and luck play a role in it actually frees people to take risks and try again and again. Unbridled and childish optimism is why so many people fail and that leads to a mentality of failure.

And no. Sam's advice isn't necessary nor sufficient for success. There have been plenty of successful people ( extremely successful ) who didn't follow his advice.

Like I said, it is the baseline rules not an absolute. There will always be exceptions to every rule but the baseline rules still hold true. Most people who are successful have the traits that sam is talking about.

Also lets think about where sam even got these ideas from...he basically sits down with a bunch of other YC partners to discuss what they've notice as being "success traits". I don't think sam is just pulling these ideas out of his head so he can write a best selling "success in a box" type of book.

I've read a lot of Sam's work and I think he is 100% spot on and honestly I would consider him to be one of the few people giving advice on startups that is just the straight up truth about how to be successful. You need to have a genuinely good idea, convert that idea into a product that people love and monetize it (eventually). Execution on this is hard of course but if you do manage to do it then you will be successful.

While this blog post is much better than most, there is a huge market for "how to be successful, be good at business, etc" and a lot of it is misguided, empty motivational speeches, or hand waviness. There's a lot of survivorship bias and fluff. You can spend a lot of time and money you could otherwise spend on making a better product.

So I don't see the response as the mentality of failure, but more of a warning about the "How to Be Successful" market that's out there. While I agree poor execution is abundant, I think "hard work, contacts and luck leads to success" is spot on. A lot of timing is just luck. If I could perfectly execute a model-T or Amazon.com its doubtful I will be successful because that's yesterday's problem and being first to market has many advantages.

I'm from the US but currently living in Asia. I observe that in many places outside the US, the cultural context of many stories, themes, and values is scarcity, whereas in the US it is opportunity.

For example, in many Asian novels, power, wealth and opportunity is seen as an often vicious 0 sum game. Clans only have enough resources to put into 1 person. The throne of the kingdom only has enough space for 1 king, and it's a vicious fight to the top. There's only 1 space left for the exam and there's millions of people applying.

In the US, there is always the theme of you can find something better out there. Just move west. Opportunity is out there. You can pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

One thing Americans take for granted is the vast number of undeveloped resources and new opportunities America has had for the past 300 years that has shaped their thinking to be the way it is. Opportunity and exploration was abundant every century of US history - 1700s with the pilgrims, 1800s with the move west, 1900s with the reset of the world economy due to both world wars. You can make a claim that the least opportunistic time of the US is the modern era, which might be why we currently have so much complaints and unrest.

In contrast, I think China's relatively well developed historical and social maturity (it's at least 5000 year rich history) has embedded the thought of the 0 sum game into it's culture. Western Europe also seems to have similar themes. Would love if people from those backgrounds could share their perspective.

Grew up in a very traditional Chinese household - never thought of it that way - somehow connects the dots with how my culture values being conservative, being stable, not rocking the boat - because there isn't much to go around in the first place.

I grew up in Asia and currently living in US. I had never thought of it that way, so I will need more time to connect the dots with this particular view point.

My view is different: the number of people who are willing to truly do evening this post recommends is just small. But those who are willing to pay the cost of success have a real chance of getting it. It's just that most people likely conclude that success is not truly worth it.

If you do nothing else, in my observation you can go a long way by just following this advice:

you need to own equity in something, instead of just selling your time

Even if it's just owning some index funds, equity in things that grow and compound over time is the easiest way to wealth I can think of.

It’s interesting that the GP says ‘success’ and you’ve said ‘wealth’. One of those Freudian slips that belies true intention. More often than not, wealth follows success, not the other way around. But to be 100% clear, success and wealth are not one and the same.

I feel like you're arguing there's an efficient market of advice - any advice that can be widely understood has already been turned into money, and also there's a limited supply of money to go around so no advice can raise all boats.

I disagree on both counts. To use an overly relevant analogy, the market is not so efficient that successful startups cannot be built (and planned in advance of becoming successful), and it is possible for everyone in the world to become more competent and skilled and for this to just make everything better (e.g. better products for everyone).

You can have new insights that are generally true, and everything isn't zero sum.

While you are right that the market only has room for 1 president every four years, this isn't true in economics. Startups create wealth (at least they are supposed to) so while there probably is a limit to how fast the economy can grow, we certainly are not hitting that limit anytime soon.

> I find these types of articles/blogs to be relatively pointless

As opposed to comments like yours which are completely pointless. Yes, not everyone can be in the 99th percentile. But the people who do, didn't just get randomly picked out of a hat. They got there by leveraging as much advice/wisdom as they could get your hands on, and then executing on it. And that's exactly the audience this article is targeting. Completely free of charge.

If you aren't interested in being in the 99th percentile, then don't read articles like these. Why waste your time writing comments that contribute nothing of value whatsoever. It's the equivalent of me walking into a sports bar and yelling at everyone about how pointless sports are.

The vast majority of the 99th percentile didnt leverage anything outside of being born to the right family.

Their comment isn't pointless, it's posted for discussion and ideas.

I understand your thinking and do agree somewhat. That said, Sam Altman is a bit of a special case. To begin with, in this article he goes out of his way on several occasions to clarify that there are significant tradeoffs. I enjoy his writing in particular because it takes a much more sober approach. In this essay he begins by writing that much of this advice will apply best if one has already reached a certain level of wealth and success. He mentions the value of working hard many times.

I don't read this as a guide on how to be wildly successful as much as sober insight on how to reach a high level in your specific domain.

> At the end of the day, hard work, contacts and luck leads to success. The older I get, the more I realize that the latter two is far more important than the first criteria.

Extremely well-said. Skill and hard work are (typically) necessary, but not sufficient conditions for major financial success. You also need a strong network or luck, and usually both.

As I grow older, this becomes more and more evident. I wish that I had spent more time as I was younger expanding my network. As for luck, well, that's out of my hands...

Hard work will get you contacts, 100%. No one can control luck, but hard work and showing up will guarantee at least a comfortable level of success. Yeah, the rest is luck.

You're defining success in non-scalable terms. Sure, not everyone can be millionaire but what if just being "financially solvent" is considered a success? What if maximizing financially solvent people is a definition of success for a society?

I'd like to see this blog post written by a 2007 Sam Altman, or a 2006 Obama. Once you achieve your goal, your post-hoc analyses are not necessarily correct. From your example, you may ascribe your success to all of the hard work you put in, but not think about the initial meetings that were set up by a friend of the family.

One solution is to simply refuse to participate in winner-takes-all situations.

So true, I think people come to this conclusion after years...

> At the end of the day, hard work, contacts and luck leads to success

Did you read the blog? This is essentially the tl;dr without a defeatist attitude.