
No, You can't retire rich at 30 if you sell your startup - charliepark
http://www.tonywright.com/2010/no-you-cant-retire-rich-at-30-if-you-sell-your-startup/
======
muhfuhkuh
Can we conclude that this is the wistful daydream equivalent of the "Maserati
Problem"[1]? I can definitely say that if 30 years we're looking at half a
million dollars as a "cost of living adjustment", that world will for the
people who don't make that kind of money be Thunderdome. I mean wages have
barely kept up with inflation. In the last 40 years (between 1967 and 2007),
median wages have only gone up US$10000 (from 40k to 50k). How the hell are
all of our parents going to fare when you need 500,000 to maintain an upper-
middle class lifestyle?

I see the numbers adding up (and it is a nicey-nice spreadsheet), it just
doesn't make any kind of a sense. I guess that's why I'm only middle-class. I
don't see this heinous future coming for all of us.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1444003>

~~~
yummyfajitas
_How the hell are all of our parents going to fare when you need 500,000 to
maintain an upper-middle class lifestyle?_

If the past 40 years are a guide to the future, then the lifestyle we
currently define as "upper-middle class" will be redefined as "poverty" and
will be available to virtually everyone, including people who can't even be
bothered to find a job.

People will continue to complain about the declining middle class, how the
median family can barely afford to live in a 4000 sq ft house with a robotic
kitchen/laundry/bathroom and about how unaffordable their stem cell therapy
and cloned organs are [1]. They'll watch TV news reports lamenting the bad
economy on their 108,000p 10' 3d full immersion TV's, while the uber rich
(income inequality will go up as well) do much the same thing, but in a
100,000sq ft house and a 50' TV. Also, the quality of stem cell therapy and
robotic surgery available to the rich will be slightly greater.

[1] They will of course lump all medical goods and services together under the
catch-all term "health care".

[edit: clarified that I'm thinking about 40 years here.]

~~~
cageface
_If the past is a guide to the future, then the lifestyle we currently define
as "upper-middle class" will be redefined as "poverty" and will be available
to virtually everyone, including people who can't even be bothered to find a
job._

For many reasons I doubt that the last few hundred years are going to tell us
much about the next hundred. So many critical trends are following exponential
curves that can't continue on indefinitely.

~~~
joe_the_user
Exponential curves indeed can't continue indefinitely.

At the same, most of the reasoning about the future by even intelligent people
still tends to involve linear extrapolation rather than exponential
extrapolation - that's what makes sense to us. Thus it's more likely for a
standard prediction is go wrong in the direction of the exponential trends
continuing rather than in the direction of the trends stopping.

Moreover, one or another exponential trends might stop but the overall mine
that Moore's Law comes out of, _miniaturization_ , is not going to be
exhausted at least until human construction reaches the nano scale.

~~~
cageface
That's exactly why I think trying to predict what the world is going to be
like in 40 years is just about impossible. The only thing you can say with
much confidence is that it's likely to be very different from the way it is
today.

~~~
elai
It will also stay very similar. The outline of life in the 1970s vs 2010 is
still fairly similar. Drive around in cars, live in a house, take the subway,
read the newspaper, watch tv, go to the movie theatre, buy food at a grocery
store, call people on a landline, plug stuff into the wall, use your fridge
and hair drier, drive around in your RV, fly an airplane at supersonic speeds,
rent an apartment, have a family reunion, go to the doctor, get surgery, take
drugs, read a book, go to the public library, go to school, flush a toliet,
use an AC, open the windows. The dragon ball Z live action movie, although
pretty horrible has a pretty accurate deception how high school will look like
in 20 to 40 years. Pretty much the same with more flat screens and computers.

~~~
cageface
_It will also stay very similar. The outline of life in the 1970s vs 2010 is
still fairly similar._

That's the entire point of this (sub)thread. Making predictions of the next 40
years based on the last 40 is likely to lead you astray. A whole _bunch_ of
things are coming to a head. Coming revolutions in biotech alone are likely to
seriously shake things up, IMO.

------
_pius
I think it was Jadakiss who said "Entrepreneurs don't retire, they just get
chubby and become angel investors."

I don't know of many people in this business who actually plan on being
utterly retired while they blow hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Most
just want to not be _obligated_ to work on things that don't interest them.

~~~
webwright
But you ARE. Or at least you are obligated to work on things that throw off
meaningful amounts of money. What if what interests you is poetry? Raising
foster kids? Working on open source projects?

If what interests you is not an income source, then you're going to need to
avoid "living rich". Which, IMO, is fine and dandy. I get very little joy out
of huge houses, expensive wines, and 1st class travel.

~~~
sigstoat
all kinds of things can be turned into income sources if you're serious about
them and any good. making money off of poetry and open source is obvious. (not
at the sports car level, but below that, sure.)

i'll admit it isn't not immediately obvious to me how you could profit from
raising foster kids in a moral fashion, though that does not mean there isn't
one.

~~~
Luc
Easy. Set up a non-profit dedicated to the foster kids' well being. Accept
donations and funding from other organisations. Pay yourself a wage as an
administrator. Sell the movie rights and retire rich!

------
maxawaytoolong
He's right that you won't get rich as an early stage employee unless you
worked somewhere like Google. I learned that the hard way.

He's wrong about not being in it for the money. I've known about 10 serial
entrepreneurs in Boston and Silicon Valley who were in it for the money, and
they were all focused and successful at it. The key is to have a clear idea
and a clear exit plan, and adjust to the market as quickly as possible. These
guys were all like minor versions of Mike Cassidy. 3+ successful exits, each
more money than the previous. All doing stuff you've probably used as a part
of another product, but you've never heard of the original company or the
founders.

A lot of guys know can't decide whether they are in it for the money, or the
love, or to be famous on Hacker News, so they fail. Lack of focus and not
knowing why they were in it is why they failed. Guys who know they are in it
for the money and can execute often win. If you're really in it for the money
and lose, you might just suck. That's just the way it works. YMMV.

The other thing he's wrong about is living to 90. Working at a desk 16 hours a
day, living on soda and junk food, no exercise, estranged from families and
friends... most hackers are going to need a lot of luck or serious medical
breakthroughs if they want to make it to 70.

------
jdc
...where retiring rich is defined as spending $300,000 annually.

I'd personally move somewhere cheaper once my income no longer depended on my
location.

~~~
kscaldef
Yeah, I'm not getting where that number comes from. (And I love the suggestion
that it's merely "upper middle class".) Personally, I can live a pretty nice
lifestyle on "only" a couple thousand in disposable income a month. I really
can't imagine what I would do with $20-25,000 / month to spend.

With that in mind, I tried a few numbers in the spreadsheet. Just to be more
"realistic" I dropped the payday back down to $4.5mil. I'm also assuming that
the first thing I would do is to pay off my mortgage, so what remains is
basically entirely discretionary spending.

On a restrained budget of $50K/yr ($4K/mo), my assets grow faster than I'm
spending, and I die with $20M in the bank. On a more extravagant $100K/yr
(over $8K/mo), things are a bit closer, but still earning more than I spend
and leveling out at about $7M in the bank. The crossover point is about $125K,
leaving you broke at 70.

So, I'm going to say that, yes, I really could retire and not work again with
a $5-10M payout.

~~~
sambe
I seriously don't mean this in an insulting/trollish way but I think you are
either lacking imagination or underestimating how quickly you can adapt to a
richer lifestyle. Given you are even here and thinking about entrepreneurial
rewards I'd guess the latter. On the other hand perhaps I underestimate how...
modest you like to live?

Whilst I also raised my eyebrows at "upper middle class", I know people in
that range who have spent rather too much and fallen (not totally) in only a
handful of years. They never seemed stupid or excessive. It's probably partly
to do with expectations: exactly the bias this article tries to correct.

~~~
kscaldef
It was more of a rhetorical device. It's not that I can't imagine how to blow
through tens of thousands of dollars a month. It's that that lifestyle just
isn't appealing to me.

~~~
drusenko
Spending 10's of thousands a month is getting up there, but "blowing through"
more than $4k per month isn't necessarily an extravagant lifestyle. My guess
would be that you don't live an as expensive a metro area as the author is
basing his calculations on.

In a place like San Francisco, a few non-frivolous expenses can add up
quickly:

\- Your residence. A decent 2 bedroom place in a desirable part of San
Francisco will run $3,000 per month in rent, a mortgage will be much higher.
We're not talking anything extravagant here, just 600-900 sq ft.

\- Travel. Paying for more than one person to travel to visit family/friends a
few times a year can easily add up to $1,000 or more per month. We're not
talking luxury vacations here, either -- just basic airfare (coach) and
accommodations.

\- Health expenses. As you earn more, you'll probably be more likely to spend
more on optional health items. Things like LASIK for example. Also, as you get
older, these expenses will get much larger.

\- Kids. It doesn't even have to be private school we're talking about, but I
imagine that clothing/feeding/entertaining more than one person adds up
quickly.

\- Any time/money trade-off. You have a limited amount of time and, similar to
health expenses, you will be more likely to spend money to save time as you
earn more. Each person's choices will be different here, but again, we're not
talking luxury. Maybe paying for parking instead of a time intensive bus trip?
Or arranging for laundry service? Or paying an unjust $40 bill that would
otherwise take you 5 hours to fight?

Notice there's no talk of fancy cars, big screen TVs, luxury trips, large
mansions, or extravagant dinners. I think this is the definition of "upper-
middle class" that Tony is talking about. Nothing fancy, but a few things to
make your life more convenient.

~~~
kscaldef
> Your residence. A decent 2 bedroom place in a desirable part of San
> Francisco will run $3,000 per month in rent, a mortgage will be much higher.
> We're not talking anything extravagant here, just 600-900 sq ft.

As I said, "I'm also assuming that the first thing I would do is to pay off my
mortgage, so what remains is basically entirely discretionary spending." Now,
I've chosen not to live in one of those 3 or 4 ridiculously expensive cities.
You might not consider spending $3K for < 1000sqft extravagant, but let me
assure you that most people do. (Also, FWIW, I have friends with a 2 bdrm
apartment, across the street from golden gate park, surrounded by good
restaurants, which they only pay $1600 for.)

> Kids. It doesn't even have to be private school we're talking about, but I
> imagine that clothing/feeding/entertaining more than one person adds up
> quickly.

You imagine, but I actually live it. Kids don't actually eat that much, and
amuse themselves much more easily than people seem to give them credit for.
Their clothing is fairly cheap, and since they usually grow out of things
faster than they wear them out, you can pick up a lot of stuff even cheaper at
second-hand shops.

I certainly enjoy travel, and it's a non-trivial portion of my discretionary
spending. My point is not that you need to live live a pauper, just that you
don't need as much money as you think to have an enjoyable life. There was a
time in my life when I blew through twice what I spend today. And I use that
phrase because I literally couldn't tell you how I did it. An attitude of
"we've got money; might as well spend it" caused money to seemingly evaporate
with nothing to show for it. I don't feel any less well off today. Honestly I
feel better and richer knowing that I'm not spending every cent I make.

------
pg
There's little that's specific to startups here. What he's arguing is that
being independently wealthy doesn't work the way one might naively think. But
few things do work the way one might naively think.

Certainly his title is false though. Obviously it depends how much you clear.

~~~
huhtenberg
> _But few things do work the way one might naively think._

A bit cryptic. Can you elaborate?

~~~
kragen
Everything that has been written about how anything works explains how it
doesn't work the way one might naïvely think. So, read everything that's ever
been written about how anything works, and you'll have your answer.

------
geophile
I've been doing startups since I was 31 (22 years ago), and figured that out
quickly. And I've been at successful startups (IPO, acquisitions).

Much more realistic to aim for being employed (you do love working for
startups, right?), but having your kids' college paid for, buying nice
vacations, taking long unpaid leaves, buying nice toys for yourself and your
family, having retirement (in your 50s or 60s) taken care of, and so on.

Also, for someone who really does love startups (technology, business side,
whatever), "retirement" probably means doing the same thing you've been doing,
but at a more leisurely pace, and that will probably earn something.

~~~
TotlolRon
> _I've been doing startups since I was 31 (22 years ago), and figured that
> out quickly._

When you are 31 it is easy to figure out you won't retire rich at 30. Just
saying.

------
jonknee
A more accurate title would be "No, you can't retire rich at 30 if you sell
your startup and not think about money ever again". It's perfectly doable to
retire at 30 with $4m just as it's perfectly doable to blow through $100m at
50.

------
rchi
1\. If 4 mil at 30 is not enough, it would never be enough. 2\. Someone with
the drive, intelligence etc to accumulate 4mil by age 30 would be extremely
bored retiring at 30. 3\. There are different forms of wealth (relationships,
experiences, reputation, health, intelligence, peace of mind etc), and money
is merely one kind.

------
noodle
most people can live quite richly on around $50k/year, depending on where they
live and what they're doing. especially if you're willing to pony up some cash
up front to buy your house/car if you want to own one.

but, if your idea of richly is tainted by popular culture, and you want to buy
some yachts and collect expensive cars, then yeah, you're going to go broke.

~~~
sliverstorm
It depends on your idea of yachts and fancy cars.

My dream boat is one of these:
<http://yachtpals.com/files/userimages/laserworlds.jpg>

------
nadam
I don't want to be rich, for me being free on my (an my family's) current
standard of living is enough. I live in Eastern Europe (Hungary) and my
current net income is $24000 per year. $30000 per year would be enough. (It is
a very strong middle-class level here, maybe I can say upper-middle class
especially if you don't have debts and already have a reasonable house.) I am
35 years old and let's say I want this money to last until I am 80. So I need
$1.350.000. Provided that I will most probably always be a single founder and
most probably will always bootstrap because no one will want to give me money,
it will be enough to sell my company at $1.350.000, which I think would be
more than doable if I would succeed with my current idea.

Edit: and also it is hard to imagine that I would absolutely not make any
income with the lots of fun-projects I would do after my 'retirement'.

------
jim-greer
15% tax on $4M is only if you live in a state with no capital gains tax. In
California it would be 15% + 9.3% = 24.3% - this makes a big difference.

State by state rates as of a few years ago:
[http://www.thereibrain.com/realestate-
blog/2007/10/capital-g...](http://www.thereibrain.com/realestate-
blog/2007/10/capital-gains-tax-rates-state-by-state/)

Luckily, my take from the Kongregate sale was enough to be real FYM (though I
enjoy running the site enough to want to keep doing it for a long time
anyway).

------
illumin8
The main problem with the premise of this article is that someone with $4
million is just going to stick it in a money market fund and live off of the
pitiful interest. The interest rate in a money market fund is below inflation,
so of course your money is going to dwindle.

If you took the same $4 million and invested it wisely, in something like the
Permanent Portfolio, which has averaged 9.3% annual returns over the last 40
years and avoids all market timing, you'd probably be fine for the rest of
your life.

[http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2008/12/22/permanent-
portfolio-...](http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2008/12/22/permanent-portfolio-
historical-returns/)

~~~
robryan
Similar things were said about property in America to, that it was a sure
thing that had gone up every year for 50 years. Unless your somehow beating
the market in general return is going to correlate with risk being taken on.

------
dgallagher
Microsoft held a launch event for the original Xbox back in Fall of 2001 for
retailers. It showed what it was all about, let people play almost-complete
versions of Halo and several other launch titles, etc...

One of the speakers started talking about demographics, such as who they
expected to buy the console. One point of their market research jumped out:
The average male Xbox consumer in the (approx) 18-25 year old range expected
to be a millionaire by age 30.

Hmmm, that's me! (I was 21 at the time) But this would be an impossible goal
for 99.9% of us. At the time a lot of paper-millionaires were recently minted
in the dot-com boom, likely throwing off my perception and that of others.

It turns out I felt "entitled" to be a millionaire by 30. But in reality,
entitlement usually disappoints since it discourages hard work, dreams get
shattered, and expectations are eventually lowered. It's a chronic disease
best avoided.

Fortunately this triggered a wake-up-call and encouraged me to work harder.
Being a millionaire by age 30 isn't as important anymore. Instead, being
intelligent enough and positioned properly by age 30 to do great things, and
maybe eventually become a millionaire, is far more important. The goal of
money is still desired as it brings elevated freedom, and the sooner you get
it the better, of course. But it can be blinding if that's all you care about.

------
wccrawford
Or, and here's an idea, don't spend $200k a year. When you were creating that
startup, you lived on a lot less.

~~~
quanticle
That gets to the idea at the bottom of the piece: "You can live rich, or you
can retire early. But don't think you can do both."

------
wallflower
I think I could get by on $30,000 a year and working on my own ISV in a nice
Latin American country. Is anyone doing that here?

~~~
thailandstartup
About $35000 here in Thailand gives me a lifestyle that I think of as lavish
and decadent, but I guess the OP would consider frugal and cautious. 120sqm
condo beside the sea, eat out every night, tennis and language lessons. I
could probably cut the budget down to around $20000 in a pinch and still live
comfortably. The major downside is that there aren't many hackers about.

~~~
dstein
May I ask how you received a visa to stay there? I looked into Thailand but
axed the idea when I could only get a 30-day visitor visa.

Whereas Costa Rica lets you stay for 3 months before you need to cross the
border to extend your visitor visa. And apparently obtaining a permanent
residency isn't difficult if you can prove income from foreign sources.

~~~
thailandstartup
Thailand has an education visa program - you need to be learning something for
a minimum of 4 hours/week to qualify. Technically, it can be pretty much
anything, but languages are popular. People do the visa run thing too - every
sixty days I think.

Costa Rica sounds like a good destination - I may check that out one day.

------
daveschappell
I think the 'retire' desire is more of something that first-timers or non-
wealthy (at some level) most aspire too. I've realized that it's more about
getting comfortable to the point of being able to do things that you're
passionate about, and being able to say no to the opposite, that's most
important.

~~~
martyhu
Agreed. while exiting one startup may not be enough to retire, its a pretty
good start for plowing it into your next one.

------
jmhobbs
I live in the Midwest, and I think I would have a hard time spending 200K a
year. Maybe my idea of happiness is wrong?

~~~
loewenskind
Right or wrong is difficult to pin down but living in the Midwest isn't
something that most of the developed world would aspire to.

------
bialecki
I don't really get the obsession with wanting to be retired at 30. What would
you do for the next 60 years? Honestly, the math here is pretty encouraging.
If you're the founder of a company that makes a smallish exit, you've just
freed up about 20 years of your life when you've only been alive for 30 years.

------
jacquesm
I'd be rather more worried about retiring at 65 when your 'contributions' have
been locked away in some pension fund than if you sold your startup at 30 for
a good chunk of cash.

Who knows, you might not even live that long, life is fickle.

------
mattmaroon
While the math isn't glaringly erroneous, the assumptions used are.

For one thing, it's looking at nearly risk-free rates of return while assuming
a long-term horizon. (30 year treasuries are paying 3.65% now.) Sure it's easy
to point out during the worst financial crisis of the last 70+ years that the
S&P has fared poorly over the last decade. However even now, in a time of
relative disaster, over the last 50 years (the timeline we're looking at if
we're retiring at 30 and dieing at 80) it's returned about 8.5%. (That's using
this chart
[http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?sym...](http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?symbol=%24INX&CP=0&PT=11)
and a little math). Average since the Great Depression is more like 10%. While
many people now believe it will be lower going forward even the worst skeptics
are talkinng more like 7-8%. I don't know that I buy it because, as the old
joke goes, economists have predicted 9 out of the last 5 recessions, but even
if so that's a vastly different picture than 4%, and excludes the fact that
there are many investments with higher ROIs to be found readily if you're
either willing to do more work or accept more risk.

That's not to mention, FU money doesn't have to mean a jet-setting lifestyle.
It just means enough to do what you want. One could live very happily in most
of America spending $100k/yr, including their home. That's actually quite a
bit when you consider that you're not paying income taxes, just capital gains.
It's like making $150k, or 3x the national average. With $4m this is
achievable even at money market rates.

------
JoeAltmaier
> There are too many mechanics out there to make sure that the folks taking
> the real risks (investors and founders) make the real money.

I resent this attitude, that somebody investing a fraction of their (somebody
else's) money is taking the "real risk".

------
sbov
> There are too many mechanics out there to make sure that the folks taking
> the real risks (investors and founders) make the real money.

If a founder invests little to no money in the startup, what is the founder
risking that someone working under her isn't? One could argue that employees
are risking more - in hard times they are more likely to be out of a job.

------
zmmmmm
I can't imagine needing $200k / year to live comfortably. I'd like to see this
analysis performed with a $100k / year income. That is still very comfortable,
especially if it means you can afford to live somewhere cheaper and cut a lot
of your other expenses.

~~~
asmosoinio
Open the spreadsheet link, File / MAke a copy, and enter in 100000$. Voila: it
works, you never run out of money with the 4M$.

------
quizbiz
What startup entrepreneur would want to retire at 30?

~~~
crpatino
One who wants to devote himself to philanthropic pursuits for marginal pay (or
none at all)?

------
charlesju
I don't think stock options have "zero" value. For a lot of people working on
a salary it's hard to save money, so when a startup sells and an employee gets
a sizable chunk of money from the sale, it's huge relative to their cash-flow
perspective.

~~~
maxawaytoolong
Except a liquidity event rarely happens. When they do, it's often a shell game
for the investors to mask losses. The early stage employee's options are from
the common pool; the investors get preferred options which are paid out first.
Generally it's quite easy for the board to zero out employee options if things
aren't going as well as hoped.

~~~
gaius
Many years ago, at the first company I worked for that IPO'd, I think I was
something like employee number 30. Employee number 1 was a good friend of
mine, and after the event we and a few others decided "I'll show you mine if
you show me yours". Jewel was big at the time, total honesty was all the rage.
Now I had made "a bit" of money on my stock options, not an amount to be
sniffed at, but far from a life-changing amount. Think on the order of, a car,
or a year's tuition, or an amazing vacation. What was shocking tho' is that
we'd _all_ made that much. We all had exactly the same options package.

Executives hired well after me, mere months before the IPO, were buying
racehorses. Go figure.

~~~
maxawaytoolong
Yeah. I've worked at a company where I was middling employee 250 but had the
same number of options as important employee 8 simply because I was bros with
the founder. I think hackers think the non-technical side of the business is
going to be merit based and "fair" but that's generally not the case in my
experience.

~~~
gaius
The difference here was 5-figures for the technical types who'd been there for
years vs 7-figures or more for business types who'd been there for months. If
nothing else it was a real eye opener into how the world really worked. Not
that I'd had any illusions that I was going to retire there and then, mind.
But still.

I believe they were "bros" with the VCs rather than the founders, tho'. The
founders didn't do too badly but today, they aren't retired either...

------
wonginator1221
The second major programming assignment I was given during my freshman year of
college was a retirement calculator. Although the main goal of the assignment
was to implement a interest compounding program, I believe my professor used
this assignment to get us out of the get rich retire early mentality.

If I recall correctly, an average single person would need to save well over
$1 million USD by retirement if they wanted to live comfortably for the next
10 years.

------
jackowayed
To play with the numbers yourself, File->Make a Copy.

My personal numbers: I upped cap gains to 30% since apparently that's coming.
If I get a $4M check when I'm 20, I get $2.8M after taxes. At a $100k burn
rate (leaving the investment yield and inflation at 5% and 3% respectively),
I'm set 'til I'm 68.

I'm pretty happy with that. That gives me 48 years to angel invest, do another
startup, marry someone who works and cuts my burn rate, etc.

------
jdvolz
Let me make sure I understand this: The supposition is that if you take your
millions and put it in a money market account you're not going to earn enough
interest to offset inflation? No kidding. How about putting your money into
something that makes money at a much greater rate - like a business. Is your
risk increased, sure. Is your potential profit considerably increased,
absolutely.

------
stoney
It's interesting how the calculation is quite sensitive to your initial
capital - if you start with 6.2 million then at age 70 you have about 4
million remaining. Which you then burn through in the next 7 years.

------
vanhouse
This is true! Instead I'm looking for a scenario where I wouldn't have to
retire

------
sabat
As someone who just witnessed two non-founders of a startup that had a recent
IPO become wealthy enough to retire -- B.S. You can do it with stock options
(even without an IPO). Tony seems to be making a binary argument: it's not
guaranteed, so you may as well give up on the idea.

Of _course_ I'm doing it for the money. I'm also doing it for other reasons.
Did someone die and tell Tony Wright that the world is only comprised of
on/off states?

~~~
sosuke
I couldn't agree with you more sabat, it isn't an either or scenario. I'm
hoping for my first success to just be a springboard into more money making
ventures.

~~~
sabat
A good point that I'd thought but not expressed! Who says any one startup
experience will be your only one? If you like startups and the kind of people
they attract, you'll want to spend some time in those kind of environments.
It's not wham-bam-thank-you-startup.

------
aarong
Depressing.... but,

------
ichverstehe
Screw that. I want to retire rich at 23.

------
erikstarck
If you want to retire at 30 you're not the kind of person that can execute a
startup and retire at 30.

