My father passed away when I was 12 and my mother did little-to-nothing to teach me after, and while I've been blessed with problem-solving skills and a good foundation of ethics from my father, none of that would matter without hard work, including self-reflection and learning on what I need to improve.
I think it's safe to say I had a rough start, and it's hard for me to see my peers get handed things by their well-off parents, but jealousy didn't allow me to buy a house or move up in my career. Sure, I'm no founder, nor am I by any means wealthy, but I am grateful for what I have, given I had nothing before.
For those who find themselves in a similar situation, I highly recommend the book "The Richest Man in Babylon"; for me, the most important lessons were 1) humility, 2) save money for yourself and make it earn you money, and 3) seek to improve your earning potential. I know it's easy to be upset others are given what you need to earn, but frustration won't help you retire or achieve your goals.
I am the same as you. Purely self-made. Handed nothing.
Here's a situation I saw which changed my view from yours to the person you're replying to:
My friend is successful. He did not go to college since he couldn't afford it. Rather he worked after graduating high school and attained a senior engineering role before his peers had graduated college.
Well...the company he was working for folded. He desperately took whatever the next job was because he was young and did not have much savings to fall back on nor a college degree. That next job was across the country and in his words "was a waste of two years". He stayed at that dead end job for resume purposes in a city he hated but had to relocate to.
Now I have another friend. That friend graduated college, moved to a new city. His parents paid for the first year of rent in the new city while he looked for the best possible job in software. He got a great job.
You see the massive disparity? The first guy essentially threw away two years of his youth working a cubicle farm job because he did not have inherited wealth to fall back on. Today, he's doing very well but that does not change what happened to him.
Seeing that first hand changed my "boot straps" thinking. The world isn't fair although I agree, you can make it more fair.
Meanwhile when someone is poor they are expected to have zero failures in judgment and the poor generally have better judgment but when they do have a lapse the effects are catastrophical.
You are 100% right.
And to respond to the other commenter -- the first guy didn't have much in savings because he was sending money back to his parents.
That's how bad it is. When you are born into wealth, there's a sort of "rubber band" helping you move up the ladder. When you are born into poverty, that rubber band pulls you down instead of propelling you up.
I can speak to this myself, I have helped my parents/family enormously at cost to my financial wellbeing.
And by the way....when a son/daughter does well, gets into software, makes a healthy $150k salary in SV, that does not change the financials at home. That $150k salary has to keep coming and you have to keep giving it to your family to make a real difference over time. At the same time, you have to pay SV rent, you have to buy a car, go on dates with your significant other, have a life of your own, etc.
As someone who grew up lower-middle class, who read HN for ~10 years and became slightly-upper-middle class, I think working hard is an unattractive proposition, and becomes ever less so as the timer ticks. I have seen people burn out like candles, to no avail.
My advice continues to be: "Do not ever work hard, unless you find yourself in a good strategic position where working hard benefits you". I cannot say that such positions of strategic advantage are non-existent for a normal software developer, but these became rare. Other HNers note, and I agree with them, that for someone to be raised in hierarchy for hard work is a rare occasion, especially if we talk about a real raise (say, above senior developer or a team lead). It takes a rare company and a departing higher-up to make working hard ROI > 0.
To expand on it:
* Realistically, the era of PG essays' applicability and easy startups is over, and has been over for several years. We are entering a new socio-economic regime which could be called "new guilded age/neo-feudalism". I may sound leftist saying this, but bear with me, I'm actually not leftist at all, it's just the truth of our situation. Lords became lords, the rest remain the rest.
* In this regime the low-hanging fruit is all but taken, the value has been captured, and the tech economy enters maturity, which is a polite euphemism for "MBA phase" of value extraction. It's not just me decrying this, Elon Musk has recently said the same: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-decries-m-b-a-ization... . Expect disappearance of small businesses (so, don't invest in tech skills used by small businesses). Expect more rat racing at work, more subscriptions and dark patterns in digital products. Also maybe expect slow merge of BigTech and US government in the next couple of decades, effectively giving us a BigTechGov with all that entails.
How does a generic middle class software developer rationally cope with the reality of this brave new world ? Here is my version of it, if someone knows how to enhance this advice, please do so in the comments:
1) Work as little as possible, to earn as much money as possible (basically minmax the professional game, choose high-paying moderate barrier to entry programming niches). Take breaks, fly to pretty islands with sunny beaches as much as you can. Never bear with bad workplaces if you have opportunity to switch, you have no obligations to this system, the age of corporate IBM pensions is over. For top management we are but replaceable parts, and our loyalty is neither required nor expected.
2) If you have what it takes (intelligence and neuroplasticity, basically), leetcode for FAANG while doing 1. This allows you to reach endgame - early retirement - more quickly.
3) If you do not have what it takes, do not leetcode or study algorithms (it's a waste of time without applicability to faang), go for tier-2/3 silicon valley unicorns. If you can, get a raise, become a manager as quickly as you can, because programmers have a short shelf life, while managers have much simpler day to day responsibilities, and long shelf life. I know what I'm talking about, because I have been a manager. Basically, working your life away in a position of individual contributor is a sad fate I wish everyone avoided.
4) Live frugally, do not overspend. Invest as much money as possible in a mix of index funds, bitcoin, gold, property. Again, do not "invest" money buying tech products and various products sold to you by MBAs - these money will be wasted.
5) Slow down your ageing as much as you can - take metformin if you tolerate it, use whatever interventions necessary to avoid metabolic syndrome, monitor your biomarkers, do aerobic exercise once in two days (I prefer biking for example). Monitor your spine health, avoid deterioration with any means necessary. With serious approach it is possible to feel/look 10 years younger than you are.
6) Find a loving partner, make at least three children. Children are good for everyone, and for you in your 50s-60s. Don't bother with college education for your children, you either won't be able to afford it, or it will be free by that time. The best gifts you can give your children are high IQ and good health, both of these are highly heritable (though could be ruined by environment), so look for these in your partner as well. If you have questions regarding IQ and how not to ruin it, mail me.
7) Retire as early as possible, focus on low-capital-expense high-satisfaction activities, e.g. spending time with your kids, studying abstract subjects, sports.
8) THE END.
> If you have questions regarding IQ and how not to ruin it, mail me
Well, would you mind giving us all a hint here? I'm curious.
Given IQ like many other human traits can be modeled as GxE, one can optimize the "E" part, which boils down to avoiding ruining the realization of genetic potential of the child (i.e. the influence of the environment is often negative). There is a list of small factors in early life that are associated with IQ and related life outcomes. Mostly these tend to have something to do with pre-natal, natal, and early childhood environments.
To give just one innocent example - the month of conception statistically influences many life outcomes, including lifespan (+ 6 months of it if the child is conceived in winter and born in autumn), likelihood of Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and 2-4 points of IQ difference.
One can argue here about statistical controls, but let's avoid this line of thinking.
Great advice to live by.
Question about #5 though - do you have any links to read about metformin and why you recommend it? I generally avoid putting things inside my body unless it's got a fairly extensive body of research behind it.
About metformin. I'm neither a doctor nor a biologist, but if life science jobs paid more, I'd heartily studied for a bio degree and worked in this profession. I'm a slightly educated gentleman who has read his Molecular Biology of the Cell and some hundreds of scientific papers of varying quality. It's my hobby.
While it is true that there is a vast universe of "dietary supplements" that do nothing reliably measurable in homo sapiens, and then there are some legit FDA-approved drugs that don't work as intended in most individuals of homo sapiens either, I think there are varying degrees of evidence to support the claim that some approaches to life extension do work, if slightly, for many average human beings. And then there is an interesting question of increasing healthspan, not just lifespan.
There is a spectrum of quality of evidence, with gold standard being high-powered double blind randomized controlled trial, followed by lower-powered RCT studies, followed by not-really-double-blind studies, followed by replicated large observational studies, small observational studies, and then studies in nonhuman primates, mice, worms and yeast cells. Even this evidence is not ideal, given financial incentives, replication crisis, publication bias, etc, but still.
In my more or less informed opinion, compared to other approaches for life extension in homo sapiens, metformin has shown that it lowers all cause mortality in humans (see RCTs, look at Gwern's review of metformin), both diabetic and non-diabetic. Given that metabolic syndrome prevalence approaches ~50% for people older than 60 in US, I think the case of metformin for life extension becomes even stronger (given it can likely prevent the onset of metabolic syndrome which lowers healthspan & lifespan). So, especially if you have some relatives with obesity/metabolic syndrome, taking metformin to have a chance of escaping this fate is a no-brainer for me.
There are some caveats: some quarter of people (myself included, I have to look for other ways due to personal incompatibility with metformin) do not tolerate metformin, because it interferes with digestion, and of course some people won't benefit from it or may even be harmed by it (though it's a very safe drug, as far as drugs go).
Generally, our fate is a product of GxE/genetics x environment/nature x nurture, and a case could be made that for a minority of people with exceptionally good genetics (here, related to lifespan, which is moderately heritable) most pharmacological interventions would ruin this fine-tuning. But I think that for vast majority of people, myself included, our genetics is not optimal (in absolute sense and for our current urban environment) and at best we can hope for a fate of our ancestors, regarding lifespan, intelligence, and common illnesses, if we do not change our environment (incl. pharmacologically).
To have a chance of having a slightly better biological fate than my ancestors, I research human biology/medicine and apply some findings to myself, understanding that this implies some responsibility & risks. Other people may choose to have a similar hobby, or to find something better to do. That being said, to look at one's biomarkers (for example post-prandial glucose, liver enzymes, vit-D levels, iron levels, etc) and to apply some non-drug methods to bring them into the green zone wouldn't be risky at all.
... If at this point there is still interest in deeper route, here are some starting points for research:
1) The Book http://gen.lib. rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=44EA074D6F741D2 F1FA1E005775F361E (could be incomplete)
2) scholar.google.com & sci-hub (could be biased)
3) Overviews of the topic from other hobbyist researchers https://nintil.com/longevity/ https://nearcyan.com/supplements/ (could be incorrect)
Working hard for yourself, for money, for the love of your craft or something you believe in, it is fine and dandy. But thinking about working day and night for the dreams of others, dedicating the vast majority of your time and energy to a faceless corporation who can dump you like a bored boyfriend, or doing menial, pedestrian jobs that pay little to nothing and would be unbearable for even the most flat-lined brained person living today, well, it gives a different vibe, doesn't it?
I remember when reading the Away drama that I was stunned reading that customer service representative were making less than 50k in NYC and had to tolerate the verbal and emotional abuse of a power-tripping clueless executive for 12-14 hours a day. That's hard work for the dreams of others. And it is never the hard work, it is lack of agency and feeling one's fate depending on the mood of (often) lunatics.
That said, I think the quote was taken somewhat out of context. Here’s the original paragraph from Altman:
> It’s not entirely clear to me why working hard has become a Bad Thing in certain parts of the US, but this is certainly not the case in other parts of the world—the amount of energy and drive exhibited by entrepreneurs outside of the US is quickly becoming the new benchmark.
The preceding paragraph talks about finding your joy/purpose and working hard at it as well. He also has an entire section about how to make it easy to take risks (cover your basics first) so you can take advantage of any lucky breaks where you could work hard and reap the potential gains. I agree that it is presumptuous to assume that everyone can “cover the basics” and still not have time to work hard on other things and I do think that our society and culture of individualism are to blame.
At the end of the article there’s an HN comment amended that advocates for universal basic income and laments the fact that opportunity is “unevenly distributed.” So there is an acknowledgment of the true problem, even though it’s almost negated by the assertion that since Altman has seen people go from rags to riches it’s definitely “possible.” I hope for more than the “possibility” of success for anyone when they are working hard, and I would hope that everyone else shares that sentiment.
Anyway, it’s a slightly more nuanced take than what was quoted for this article, and it’s probably worth a read in its entirety:
The peasants were poor, not stupid. That's what drove them to follow their own interests, not the lords'. For context it made sense for the lord to have peasants work more than they wanted. But the peasants often preferred not to for a number of econmic reasons, among them not being able to capture the gain, and risk minimization.
There's a lot of emotional baggage around rich people, but if you strip it down to individual situations it's pretty simple. I've worked for people ranging from small business owners scraping out $50k a year all the way up to billionaires. How hard they work has no correlation to the money they have. I don't resent a boss with money, I resent a boss who isn't working as hard as me, and most founders/business owners I've worked for have worked harder than everyone else.
Then we should first define "success" before continuing the conversation. I worry there might be a bit of a No True Scotsman problem, working backwards from the conclusion of laziness preventing success.
The typical definition of "successful" is almost synonymous with "wealthy" except for popular artists (broadly defined) who for some reason aren't able to earn from their work or achieved popularity posthumously.
Do you anecdotally know someone who said "John is a son of a magnate who does nothing all day, he is so successful"?
There is a different situation when the successor generation multiplies the wealth, but that already takes some effort and good judgment.
Yes, though they don't emphasize the doing-nothing. Further, it's easy for a wealthy person to mask doing nothing with appearing busy yet effectively being a socialite.
> There is a different situation when the successor generation multiplies the wealth, but that already takes some effort and good judgment.
It may take good judgement, but not much effort. VTSAX and chill, as the kids say.
I grew up around the kids of very wealthy people, often multi-generational wealth. Most decided to have jobs. Some had very impressive careers, but when you realize that first opportunity was only because of a parental connection, suddenly it seems a bit hollow. It's not hard to appear wise and smart when you're wealthy, and then you can simply not fuck up and the rest of the pyramid keeps chugging along.
Case in point, Trump. He is a lazy fuck-up, but somehow managed to appear "successful" to a large portion of America.
Frankly, that sounds depressing. Seen like that, people who were born to wealthy parents have no way to prove their own quality. They will always be suspected to be just lucky and riding the easy wave.
"then you can simply not fuck up"
There is nothing simple about that. I consider myself fairly smart and I fucked up royally several times in my life. It did not destroy me, I was able to put the pieces together, but none of the decisions seemed bad at that time, either to me or to people I consulted it with. There is a lot of traps out there.
For a start, don't join Dad's company as VP when you're 22.
Luckily, they don't need to prove quality, because wealth is a good enough proxy indicator for almost everyone. If you're talking about proving to oneself, then they're on the same footing as everyone else.
> don't fuck up
Easy: don't do anything. Leave the money where it is. Take an annual allowance.
I think you're saying it's hard to have the self control to not meddle, to not insert oneself into the power nexus? I suppose. Hubris is human.
The first opportunity is always the toughest. Also grew up around wealthy people, vast majority of them fall into the category you describe.
I was lucky to meet someone early in my adulthood who would always stress "What part did YOU do?" "Show me YOUR code"
What I like about him is you can't get the bullshit you describe past him. He always breaks down what you say into the most simplest form to ascertain what truth exists within your words. He won't let you ride another person's coattail.
In a modern economy most "business owners" are passive shareholders who literally do nothing for that money. I am a partial business owner of many enormous corporations via my retirement account. I don't do any work for any of them, and yet, they continually send me money. Strange!
When investing in a corporation, there is no guarantee that you will gain profit from it, you can even lose your entire investment.
If you were a long-term Nokia shareholder, you would have lost a lot of money since, say, 2005.
When you invest, you put the value of your previous work at stake. You can retroactively sink your work (= money that you earned from it) into a black hole.
> When you invest, you put the value of your previous work at stake.
What was the "previous work" I did when I inherited my father's Walmart stock?
Let us hope that they won't get sucked into plots of the next Bernie Madoff, who will likely come one day.
> What was the "previous work" I did when I inherited my father's Walmart stock?
True, I was thinking about investments of surpluses from your salary.
China: Wealth does not survive three generations
Japan: The third generation ruins the house
Italy: From stables to stars to stables
Australia: From goon to Grange to goon
England: Clogs to clogs is only three generations
Scotland: The father buys, the son builds, the grandchild sells, and his son begs
- Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum
IT is rife with examples and it trickles out to other disciplines.
In a good scenario. Many hard workers are just seen to be suckers and exhorted to work harder. In my experience only about 50% of companies promote or give raises primarily based on merit.
You would think that by now, YC knows where to look for good startup founders. So if they are increasingly going to Africa to recruit founders, it tells you that at least in their experience, privilege is not a good metric to optimize for.
Perhaps it's easier to succeed in finance or some other industry if you come from a privileged background, but in startups grit matters, and the privileged kids don't have it in the same amount as immigrants and anyone else who had to fight for survival.
Hard work is part of the equation of success, a necessary part I would argue. There's not a lot of successful lazy people - inherited wealth is not success, it's just a higher baseline. Success to me is something you achieve, not something you can inherit.
The money quote is:
> You can get to about the 90th percentile in your field by working either smart or hard, which is still a great accomplishment. But getting to the 99th percentile requires both....
That seems beyond debate to me. Being at the 99th percentile is a relative measure and you don't get there unless you work smarter and harder than most everyone else.
Once you get in a position of leadership (that is you have leverage) I'd argue working smart is far more important because that is a force multiplier on everyone working for you.
If you somehow do both then you're Elon Musk.
Economist Gregory Clarke has found that social mobility is/was about the same in modern America, modern Sweden, medieval Europe, ancient Rome, and the Communist bloc.[1]
If the specifics of a society's class structure had a substantial effect on most or even many people's ability to pursue economic opportunities, then we wouldn't expect Clarke's findings to uphold. Instead there's hardly any variance in long-term social mobility between human societies. Certainly modern democratic socialist Scandinavia must impose less overt class privilege than 16th century aristocratic Scandinavia. Yet the two have nearly identically low mobility.
(Note that social mobility and inequality are two different things. A country like the Soviet Union, may have the rich be only slightly richer than the poor, but still makes it hard to move from the latter into the former.)
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/social...
Don't get me wrong, I know wealth inequality exists and it's incredibly unfair, but I don't think it makes sense as a counterpoint to what he's saying.
> It's not entirely clear to me why working hard has become a Bad Thing in certain parts of the US.
I am shocked because this sentiment is entirely clear to me: most people must work hard to survive and their work will likely never be rewarding, financially or personally. Meanwhile, inherited wealth allows a class of people to "work hard" with zero downside risk, all the while claiming they have earned their due. The fact that someone as wise and reflective as Sam Altman cannot understand this is puzzling. He says earlier "I have yet to meet a slow-moving person who is very successful." Again, I cannot fathom how one can fail to observe how class privilege bestows automatic success to certain people regardless of the speed at which they move. Trust funds accumulate, there is never concern over making rent or providing food, and they can easily take low-paying internships or found a startup without any personal risk whatsoever. People without this kind of leverage do not have the luxury of seeking "alignment" in their jobs. They do the actual hard work at the firms owned by the warrior class of inherited wealth, and are then admonished for not working hard enough to enrich the owners further.