
The Other Money Problem - smcgivern
http://www.evanmiller.org/the-other-money-problem.html
======
jsnell
> If he tells you not to start a start-up, his co-founder wife, and all the
> start-up friends he’s made over the last several years, will be mad at him.

One of his essays from a couple of months ago very clearly made the point that
a certain group of people shouldn't be doing startups (college students). That
certainly seemed to be a big change in attitude to the essays from 10 years
ago, and exactly in the opposite direction compared to your theory.

Edit: [http://paulgraham.com/before.html](http://paulgraham.com/before.html)

~~~
friendstock
Regarding college students, I think this is a matter of becoming more
responsible in his advice, now that he's become so prominent.

~~~
michaelochurch
More to the point, he has more data.

The startup world is a community that only wants to hear from the successes.
Those who fail are laughed off as being bitter. PG has enough insight and
decency to see a larger spectrum and speak on it.

------
bokonist
If I was pg, unless I was writing essays based directly on the YCombinator
experience, I would write under a pseudonym. Once you achieve a certain level
of fame, it is simply too dangerous and aggravating to write honestly under
your own name. This has only gotten worse in the past few years with the rise
of angry twitter and tumblr mobs. The world is full of people who wish to
punch upwards and tear someone down of higher status. And then on the flip
side you have too many groupies who will agree with you just because you are
successful. Of course, maybe he already is writing and submitting essays under
a pseudonym, we may never know ...

~~~
mathattack
There's too much of a benefit to his brand to not write. YC gets first pick of
so many startups because people say, "I want to get advice from THIS guy"

As for the overall issue of "Talking your position" \- everyone does it. Left
and Right leaning economists get different research conclusions. You just have
to be aware that it exists. And despite this, the advice from PG, Peter Theil,
Marc A and others is different, despite them all being long startups.

~~~
nostrademons
Your second point needs more emphasis. _Everybody_ has their own story, and
it's always biased by their personal experiences and worldview. There's no
such thing as a "fair and balanced" perspective, there are just people who
pretend their perspective is balanced and end up introducing another sort of
bias into it.

The article and some of the comments here seem to suggest that there's
something more "authentic" about a piece when it comes from a subversive, low-
power position. Why? What makes the perspective of someone in a position
without power more authentic than the perspective of someone with it, other
than the fact that it will probably resonate more with the personal
experiences of many more people since power tends to be a pyramid with a much
wider base than top?

The real answer is to carefully consider where the perspective of whomever is
speaking is coming from, and identify how closely it aligns with where you are
and want to go. The perspective of a billionaire on how hard it is to make
ends meet, if you're living at the poverty threshold? Probably not that
relevant. The perspective of a billionaire who started out poor on how he got
to where he is? Probably pretty relevant.

~~~
xrange
>What makes the perspective of someone in a position without power more
authentic than the perspective of someone with it...

Well someone not in a position of authority or power doesn't have to worry
about losing said authority. If you tell too many uncomfortable truths or
offend the wrong people, you may in certain instances loose some of your
power. So it makes sense that the likely hood of getting an "authentic" story
seems to get less and less as the person telling it rises in stature, power,
authority.

~~~
nostrademons
Someone who's in a position of authority or power doesn't have to worry about
gaining said authority, while someone who's not very often does. Rationally,
the two situations are equivalent. (Psychologically they aren't; there's a
cognitive bias that causes people to weight losses higher than gains, but
there's also a cognitive bias in others that makes it easier to avoid losses
than enact gains, so they roughly cancel out.) You can't draw significant
conclusions either way along this dimension: the willingness to sacrifice
authenticity for power is a mark of the security<=>insecurity axis, not
power<=>powerlessness.

~~~
xrange
I don't know that those two axes are orthogonal. It seems like there is an
asymmetry between gaining power and losing power. I think we can agree
empirically (if not definitionaly) that there are fewer people with power /
status. There are a lot of things besides not offending those others that
keeps people in a position without power. If you know that these other factors
are keeping you low status, then you have less incentive to pretend to be
something you are not. But a single offensive comment can sometimes dislodge
someone with power.

------
jraines
Seems to me this weirdly presumptuous post--imagine for a second a stranger
pontificating to the world on how your wife would feel about you doing some
hypothetical thing--is refuted almost entirely by Graham's lecture & essay
"Before the Startup".
[http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html)

He's not telling people unconditionally not to start a startup, but he is very
frank about reasons why one shouldn't.

~~~
debacle
Exposing yourself to the Internet creates a strange sort of voyeurism where
you have a personal connection to someone, but that connection tends to be
one-way. This creates strange dynamics for prominent bloggers and especially
for people on twitch.tv or YouTube where people are giving you life advice and
telling you what you should/shouldn't do, or are questioning your actions like
they are your close friend, even though you have no idea who they are.

------
vinceguidry
> The problem is that if he doesn’t say this, well, his essays will be lacking
> in their erstwhile authenticity.

That's silly. He believed in startups, that's why he started YCombinator. That
he's no longer at the helm of the startup he created doesn't mean he doesn't
believe in startups anymore.

It just means that he's done them and helped others do them enough to where
he's ready to move on. I'm a Ruby developer right now. If I switched to Rust
tomorrow, that doesn't mean that I found Ruby lacking. Just that I want to
explore a new kind of programming. They both fit the bill nicely for the types
of problems they were intended to solve.

Don't focus on solutions. Focus on problems. The solution will come out of the
problem. The startup 'solution' solves a particular kind of social problem. It
still solves that problem. PG is finding a different problem, that's all.
Perhaps at the junction of the funding problem and the founding problem, if I
were to make a guess.

~~~
JonFish85
My personal opinion is that he still believes in startups, but that the timing
was right for him to get out for awhile. Regardless of what he _says_ , what
he _does_ is far more telling. My guess is that the fever pitch of huge
valuations and fund-raising rounds is getting to a point where it might just
make sense to step aside and find something else to do for a few years to see
what happens with the market.

The idea would be that the Paul Graham "brand" has a lot at stake among
startups. If the bottom falls out of the market in the next 2 years (or
whatever you want to define as "short term"), then he'll come out the other
side looking that much better, that he got out in plenty of time. If
everything continues on its current trend, he still sleeps perfectly well at
night and his reputation hasn't taken a hit at all.

Don't misconstrue this as criticism of anyone. I have nothing whatsoever
against either Paul Graham or Sam Altman. This is just my personal opinion on
the matter.

~~~
eldavido
Maybe this is just the efficient market hypothesis at work - everyone has
(thinks they have?) figured out the signals that lead to success?

In any case, I wonder how companies with such massive escalation in their
valuation will hire and raise subsequent funding. It really makes me wonder,
you look at companies like Uber with $xx billion valuations, what's left for
someone who joins now as an employee or investor?

~~~
vinceguidry
> It really makes me wonder, you look at companies like Uber with $xx billion
> valuations, what's left for someone who joins now as an employee or
> investor?

That's always been the case. The opportunity for outsized gains in any risky
venture is at the beginning where the risk is the greatest. Where there's no
risk, there's no opportunity.

------
clamprecht
The article says: "Paul Graham has been thinking about start-ups the last
several years, and he is almost certainly going to write about start-ups now."

Maybe. But I've noticed many of PG's tweets lately have been more political,
dealing with other problems in the world.[0] I think it would be awesome if PG
started attacking these kinds of problems more. Police violence, government
surveillance, stuff happening in Israel, etc. Imagine a YC for politics.

tl;dr, I think PG needs to start a new country. I'd apply.

[0] [https://twitter.com/paulg](https://twitter.com/paulg)

~~~
JetSpiegel
Grahamtown.

~~~
jzwinck
Nottingham, Tottenham, Birmingham, Buckingham.

Graham.

------
Alex3917
I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure pg is more worried about
people following his advice uncritically than he is about promoting YC. Ever
since HN launched he has been pretty wary of encouraging people to drop out of
school or quit their jobs when they have no reasonable chance of being
successful.

------
rglover
_The thing that was so striking about Paul Graham’s original essays was that
they read almost as a kind of paranoid thriller. The world was out to dupe and
enslave you, but he, Paul Graham, was — disinterestedly, dispassionately —
going to get you out of here alive, armed only with Lisp, random facts about
medieval Florence, and deep knowledge of Business Things._

I laughed out loud at this part. Classic.

------
untilHellbanned
This reminds me of the trouble musicians have in creating that 2nd album after
their debut was such a big hit.

It's not anybody's fault but somehow whatever the musician subsequently does,
it never sounds as pure as that first album.

------
gus_massa
If I understand correctly, pg didn't quit YC completely. He only resigned as
YC president and now is a normal partner. If he was making millions, now he is
probably making only 3/4 millions, not in the unemployment row.

He also resigned as the main HN
moredator/administrator/spokeman/programer/whatever and put a few people to
cover those tasks. He didn't earn money directly from that work, it was a side
project that grew out of control. (I suspect he's still watching from the
shadows. Hi!)

------
sytelus
Let's not forget that pg probably doesn't have money as driver or motivator
for his next adventures given that he has plenty of it. I would trust pg to
say FU to any VC in world as needed although he might do it much more
elegantly. Also given that he is much less involved at YC I would think his
essay topics will change sooner or later. It's like Bill Gates who now writes
almost nothing about software even though that's what he did for 30 years. One
thing I would however agree is that something is different in his last two
essays. Especially public praise for highly subjective physicic abilities of
wife kind of took me of guarded from otherwise logical pg.

------
poppup
The author of "The Other Money Problem," seems to assume readers are not aware
of change or that Paul Graham can't continue to be honest and interesting now
simply because he makes more money than he did previously. According to this
theory, J.K. Rowling would be less interesting to read now that she's rich,
but I would argue that her new work is better. Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock,
same thing.

Each of Paul Graham's essays were written as he slowly evolved into the man he
is today. He was changing the entire time. Also, he knows more now than he did
before.

The thing that saddens me is not Paul Graham getting advice from friends, it's
people who try to take some of the shine off.

~~~
phpnode
Your comparison is invalid, e.g. JK Rowling doesn't write books about how you
should become a magician

~~~
poppup
There's more to this than meets the eye.

It depends on how you perceive writing. For example, "Old Man and the Sea"
might be the greatest essay about criticism ever written, despite the fact
that it's not an essay. You have to see through the story to get to the essay.

I think the reason so many people enjoy Paul Graham's writing is not only due
to the subject or the genre, it's that he transcends the category, much like
Hemingway did when he wrote "Old Man and the Sea."

~~~
polarix
For others who might be curious about the Hemmingway connection,
[http://petersencj14.blog.com/2013/02/15/an-
essay/](http://petersencj14.blog.com/2013/02/15/an-essay/) seems to explain
what you're referring to

------
friendstock
For that "paranoid thriller" sort of feeling, try reading these blog posts:
[http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/)

~~~
michaelochurch
I would actually like to be retired from the public politics-of-software
within 5 years, focusing instead on the constructive and technical. (I'm
looking for a replacement.)

I want to be successful, and so far things are going well and I think I will
be, but I also think that success will make me less perceptive on what's
actually going on. Ultimately, the way to know a society is to talk to the
people at its bottom. In my case, most of the things that have awakened me to
the evil lurking in our community (meaning technology, not just "startups")
happened 2-3 years ago. Ten years from now, I hope to be an expert on other
things but my evilology will have rusted.

~~~
friendstock
Just wanted to say, I'm a big fan of your essays!

Another blog I like that seems somewhat related to "evilology" is
[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/), especially the
essays on the Gervais principle.

------
jgalt212
>I admit to feeling a twinge of excitement last summer when I read that Paul
Graham was leaving his jillion-dollar job to write more essays

rather apocryphal claim. I bet PG makes just as much money now as he did when
he was running Y Combinator as most of his earnings are investment earnings,
not salary from being Y Combinator President.

Sam's salary doesn't come out of Paul's pocket. It comes out of the management
fees, of which, Paul's only charged a small part of.

------
drcomputer
> It’s the other money problem. Just as having a lot of money drives a wedge
> between friends, power drives a wedge between writers and their audience. It
> spoils all the fun. Sure, things might look the same as before. But they
> just won’t feel the same. But they just won’t feel the same.

How do you know how you will feel in the future? Do you read things assuming
you already know what they are trying to say?

------
porter
Maybe he'll write essays on being a good parent. Sort of like a being a good
startup founder, and likely just as counter-intuitive.

~~~
drblast
Surely PG doesn't have an ego big enough to allow him to write prescriptively
about intractable problems in good conscience.

~~~
jgalt212
perhaps, but PG does tweet a lot about parenthood. mostly general
observations, not directives.

------
rokhayakebe
You know what man, critical reading/thinking. We should read just everyone in
the same manner: with an open mind, but not one that just receives everything
written as the ultimate truth.

------
JoachimSchipper
This seems gratuitously mean. Why not let pg write some essays first?

------
hawkice
Who cares who writes the essay? If you aren't reading the content without
regard to who wrote it, yes, it will be less credible. You're using a system
of authority / ad hominem, and those two sides of the same coin are not a good
barometer for truth.

Who cares that he made money on it? If you want to really get into this
discussion, anyone who writes about startups has a vested interest in
advocating them -- that way their work is relevant instead of confusing ("let
me tell you about how bad this thing you weren't going to do is" doesn't make
sense to write). This whole line of thinking leads no where.

------
pain
Beautifully written. The other money problem is talking about money.

------
CurtMonash
Oh, bull.

We all have biases. We all, if we're known to our readers, are perceived as
having biases that are not a perfect match to the biases we actually have.

Being credible despite those obstacles is a skill commonly self-taught.

------
tptacek
This is silly.

~~~
logicallee
I glanced through it but nothing caught my eye that much. you should elaborate
why this is silly if you're going to take the time to leave a comment here. :)

------
facepalm
What an utterly superfluous article. Why not just wait what he will write (if
anything). There is no point in speculating about it.

------
mkramlich
I thought that was too meta and strained of a piece. I suspect his goal was
just to say something that could make HN front page and then get some portion
of that eyeball stream siphoned through to look at his commercial software
Wizard. (and here I've helped with that further perhaps, haha.) But it was a
very strained, strawman-heavy piece. Though I liked the writing in terms of
craft.

------
karmacondon
PG essays aren't going to change, he isn't going to write exclusively about
startups and he has no conflict of interest. One of his main messages in the
past was "You don't have to take a corporate job like people may have advised
you to, you can start your own company". I don't think his stance on that has
changed, he just doesn't have to say it as loudly. Dorm room startups have
become part of the cultural zeitgeist and the word has gotten out. Oscar
winning movies have been made about prototypical startup founders, everyone
has become familiar with the companies, the people behind them and the amount
of money that they make. If you told someone at a cocktail party that you were
going to start a software company back when PG wrote some of his first essays,
you would have been looked at as a crazy risk taker. Now someone will say
"Going to make a billion dollars, huh?". PG hasn't changed, the culture around
him has.

Any conflict of interest is marginal at best. Paul Graham is in a situation
where more startups will help his business interests, but only by a little
bit. He's already built a world class brand and he doesn't need to hype it up
like a late night tv commercial pitch man. It wouldn't change his financial
standing if he did, and that's just not his personality. He's too smart, too
wise and has much more to lose from damaging his image and reputation than he
does to gain by convincing yet another college kid to start yet another photo
sharing site. "his co-founder wife" won't be mad at him if he tells people not
to start companies, or to start companies, or to study art instead. Make no
mistake: Paul and Jessica are grown and highly intelligent people. They are in
a place where petty greed isn't going to influence their decisions in any way.

Paul Graham is not a perfect man, but he sure as hell isn't weak minded. He's
incredibly careful and he's usually right. All of his essays may not hit the
mark, but I'm always looking forward to the next one.

~~~
freshhawk
Human beings are affected by conflicts of interest. Not weak minded people,
not immature or stupid or unwise or careless people. People. All of them. It's
how the heuristics in our evolved brains work.

I agree, if you have a view of people being rational actors, then Paul Graham
seems like the kind of guy who would be able to rise above this kind of thing.
We now know that this model of human behaviour is a fantasy. These types of
biases affect your thoughts before they rise to conscious awareness.

