

Early Retirement is a False Idol - ph0rque
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1121-early-retirement-is-a-false-idol

======
staunch
This is a classic strawman. Most people I know who are aspiring entrepreneurs
don't despise their current work and think everything will be roses after
they've made a lot money. Most just want enough money so they never have to
worry about it again. It's a question of _security_ and _flexibility_.

 _Choosing_ to work doing something you love is worlds apart from _having_ to
work doing something.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_This is a classic strawman._

I don't think you're using that word correctly. The person works 80 to 100
hours a week and is miserable is a strawman? That's odd, because I've met so
many of them. I've _been_ one of them.

Which is not to say that there aren't a few people in the world who want
_nothing more_ than to work 100 hours a week. If you are one, good luck with
that.

 _Most people I know who are aspiring entrepreneurs don't... think everything
will be roses after they've made a lot [of] money.

Most just want enough money so they never have to worry about it again._

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction between these two sentences?

And just how much is "enough money that you never have to worry about it
again"? I know people with _no_ money who never worry about money, and I know
people with _pots_ of money who worry constantly. The worry has very little to
do with the amount of money. _The worry comes from you._

DHH is suggesting that one way to be happy is to get a job you like, work a
sustainable number of hours, live within your means, and then _stop worrying
about it all the time_. You've got an education, a skillset, and a salary that
is the envy of the world, so _what are you so afraid of?_

~~~
staunch
I may be mistaken, but I'm not using the term "strawman" incorrectly. I
believe his portrayal of an overly extreme and super naive entrpreneur is
intentionally used so that it's easily refuted. How many startup founders feel
the work they're doing is so unbearable as to consider it "evil"?

> _I know people with no money who never worry about money, and I know people
> with pots of money who worry constantly._

This seems really bogus. I know poor people, wealthy people, and ultra rich
people. The kinds of things they each worry about are totally different. Sure,
they may all technically "worry" about money, but that's where the similarity
ends.

> _You've got an education, a skillset, and a salary that is the envy of the
> world, so what are you so afraid of?_

A serious medical condition with myself, a family member, or a friend.
Generally any problem that would prevent me from being able to work for an
extended period of time. You don't have to be paranoid to worry about this.
Unfortunately, it's just not that rare.

More personally I'm afraid of having to significantly limit my interests to
fall within relatively limited amounts of expendable time and money or to
things that are profitable.

~~~
mechanical_fish
"Strawman" implies a fictional or marginal debating opponent. You may believe
that burnout is more rare, or less rare, but it's not fictional. People really
do (try) to work 80 to 100 hours a week, it's not really that rare (I have
several friends who are doing it right now), and it really does burn people
out.

Fortunately, burnout is usually cureable. And it's a great learning
experience. One learns how to avoid it in the future.

 _A serious medical condition with myself, a family member, or a friend._

Insurance. Yes, the insurance market in much of the USA is hideously broken,
and so it might cost quite a lot. But I assure you that, for most people, it
is easier, cheaper, and surer to get disability insurance than it is to become
independently wealthy.

(For many people, it's probably easier to _become a citizen of a country with
a better insurance system_ than it is to become independently wealthy. I
wouldn't recommend that strategy to just anyone, but if that's what it takes
to stop worrying...)

 _I'm afraid of having to significantly limit my interests to fall within
relatively limited amounts of expendable time and money..._

Well, some people solve this problem by having _no outside interests at all_ ,
working 80 to 100 hours a day until they become rich. That's one method.

Other people take out insurance: They work a little, but then they play a
little. That helps hedge against the prospect that you'll die of a stress-
induced heart attack, or succumb to RSI and become disabled, before you get
rich. If that happens you'll never get to play at all. Or, if your hobby is
"having kids", it gives you a chance to pursue it before you grow too old.

------
alex_c
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that most startup founders (those
who stick with it, anyway) enjoy it a lot more than a 9-to-5 job or consulting
work. In this context, then, the smallest value of "early retirement" really
means "never having to take a 9-to-5 job or do consulting work again", not
"never doing anything productive ever again".

~~~
diego
But you don't have to do a 9-to-5 job or consulting work ever if you don't
want to. You are working on a startup now and you don't have millions, I
presume. There are endless possibilities for earning money in this world that
are not mindless 9-to-5 jobs.

------
ojbyrne
Early retirement is a euphemism for "fuck you" money. That's what people
really want.

~~~
leelin
I assume that refers to dropping the F-bomb on the
(lame|stupid|unappreciative|mean) boss that you toiled under pre-retirement.

Now, if you got your money from doing a startup, who gets your F-bomb? :P

~~~
pm
Depending on how much you hold a grudge...

Everyone who picked on you at high school, everyone who picked on you at
primary school, the disapproving family members who told you to go get a real
job, the insecure best friend who constantly undermined your confidence, and
generally anyone who ever doubted your ability to finish what you started in
style.

At least, that's my motivation. It may not be very healthy, but it gets the
job done.

~~~
globalrev
Scary how true that is too me.

But I most of all want to create something to help people and I get very
satisfied by solving problems.

------
pavelludiq
Why retire after your startup succeeds? Why not just start doing something fun
thats is not easily monetizeable? The idea is that you can have some real
freedom. You can work on whatever you want. You can start another startup or
continue your education or anything you want you can even start a music band
or go traveling or anything that you find fun. Thats why people love money.
They are a means to something, not a goal. You don't just get rich and then
live some happy rich life, you get rich and get to do whatever you like, if
you get rich enough, you could ignore laws too. I know a lot of people who if
given a lot of money their first reaction would be to buy a lot of booze and
celebrate. I have a friend who if given that amount of money would buy a
biology research center and just play god with nature. My first reaction would
be to buy a turn table and some 70's punk records or something, and then maybe
a guitar. People want different stuff. And money gives it to them.

------
smoody
It's too bad they perceive long hours at their job as a chore -- and they must
since they are prescribing both short hours and four-day work weeks. When I'm
in the groove doing something _I truly love to do_ , then 16 hour workdays fly
by as if they're perhaps three or four hours in duration and in those moments,
there's _nothing_ I'd rather be doing more -- including sleeping. I've been in
that grove at my own startups and working for a big company where there's no
chance that my efforts will translate into a pot of gold. And I love it.

Funny thing is, you seldom hear people give that advice to obsessed painters,
sculptors, musicians, etc. Why? Because artistic passions are viewed
differently than "jobs." But, what if your job IS your artistic passion? Why
shouldn't entrepreneurs be viewed as "artists" instead of "workers?"

~~~
cstejerean
i'm assuming 37 signals doesn't kick people out of the building and/or prevent
them from doing extra work at home. But it's nice to have the option to work 4
days a week and short hours.

------
mechanical_fish
_If you come to the realization that work in itself isn’t evil, you can stop
living your life as a waterfall-planned software project._

This simile is awesome.

------
aston
It's like 37signals is writing blog posts to specifically reply to news.yc
posts...

~~~
mechanical_fish
It's a good idea. One that I need to do more of, really... my blog is
echoingly empty, but it's not as if I don't write. I just do most of my
writing here.

I should really do more blogging and less news.yc, or crosspost my blog
entries as comments, or vice versa.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
I think posting your comments as blog entries is of more service to the
news.yc community than the converse.

------
nazgulnarsil
The vast majority of people do not like vast quantities of leisure time. They
get bored. I do not get bored. I have never been bored nor will I ever be
bored. I have never been wanting for things to do. I have never had too many
hours in the day and not enough to do. People whose time isn't valuable can't
understand someone like me. Every second of my time is valuable, not in a
DOLLAR value, in a personal value. I have vastly many more interests than I
have time to indulge all of them. Work is a cancer on my life.

------
utnick
i dont like the do what you love and you will never have to retire saying...

Many of my hobbies and things I do for fun are not monetizeable.

~~~
krschultz
Do what you love is not "do what you would do if you had infinite money". If I
had infinite money I would be heli-skiing every day. That is not monetizeable.
I could be a ski instructor for a lot less, but that is not what I want to do.
So moving down to one of my interests, robotics, I work for a company doing
close to that. Thus I'm happy at work.

I guess by extension if you did what you loved most we'd all be porn stars. It
is more about doing something you like.

------
globalrev
The point of a big score is not to retire.

It is having the privileige of not having to worry about money and being able
to do exactly what you want.

If I sold a company for 200 million dollars I'd give half of it to charity,
keep 10 millions as my own money and then put the rest in some big hard
interesting project.

~~~
run4yourlives
Couldn't you just do exactly what you want in the first place?

~~~
pchristensen
No, since the big hard project might require lots of money to do. Normally,
money has strings attached (must be paid back, must give equity in a company
with potential for liquidity, etc) which restricts what you can do. Do you
think pg could have started YC w/o his ViaWeb $$? Or could tlb start AnyBots?
Sure, you can work on stuff like that in your spare time, but huge projects
usually require a bigger commitment than fits into spare time. Not having to
sacrifice time or focus on earning money gives you a whole lot more to throw
at a problem.

------
cconstantine
It does seem like 37signals is responding to HN...

Anyway. If done right; Work is a hobby that makes you money, and a hobby is
work that costs you money. Why retire when you can make money working on a
hobby?

~~~
redorb
thats the way to think about it! - I don't think its healthy to do anything
for 90-110 hours a week, no matter how much you enjoy it

------
bayareaguy
I think the end of Frost's "Two Tramps in Mud Time"
<http://www.etymonline.com/poems/tramps.htm> captures my sentiment about
retirement

    
    
      But yield who will to their separation, 
      My object in living is to unite 
      My avocation and my vocation 
      As my two eyes make one in sight. 
      Only where love and need are one, 
      And the work is play for mortal stakes, 
      Is the deed ever really done 
      For Heaven and the future's sakes.

------
strlen
is there a real correlation between working 100 hours weeks in isolation and
earning enough of a "jackpot" to retire? the people who i know who _did_ make
enough to retire (if they wish) almost all still have friends and families
(caveat: if they didn't have friends, they would also be less likely to know
me).

both the post (and the sentiments) that inspired seem to be based on false
premise: you can't, realistically, expect a jackpot in one year. working 100
hours won't create a jack pot for you either (but it may alienate those who
are likely to increase your chances - co-founders, employees and helpful
friends).

------
edw519
_If you come to the realization that work in itself isn’t evil, you can stop
living your life as a waterfall-planned software project too._

Nothing wrong with "waterfall-planning" if it's done properly. Problem is, it
usually isn't.

I understand that sometimes you need to release early and often. This is when
you _can't_ conduct proper anaysis. Why not? Because you're trying for a home
run building something big and you don't know where your project will take you
or who will eventually use it. Like a Web 2.0 or social site.

But for the rest of us, "waterfall-planning" is just another name for the
Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC), which is an _excellent_ way to develop
systems. But you _must_ conduct analysis first. You must answer the question
"what" before you examine the question "how".

Most developers _do not_ know how to do this. How can you tell? When their
waterfall phases take too long (more than a month for analysis for most
projects). When they say things like, "The user doesn't know what he needs."
Yes he does. You just have to keep digging until you know.

Once a good programmer learns how to conduct analysis he becomes a good
developer. Then projects become like shooting fish in a barrel. You biggest
problem will be convincing your customers that you can do what they think
can't be done.

~~~
run4yourlives
You've just highlighted everything wrong with the waterfall method, and the
SDLC for that matter.

You said it yourself: Most developers don't know how to perform the level of
front loaded analysis required for a successful SDLC project. Ergo, "most"
waterfall methods fail miserably. The method is out of sync with how humans
work.

When your process boils down to creating a team so elite that they would
succeed regardless, it's not much of a process.

~~~
edw519
_The method is out of sync with how humans work._

Wrong.

The method works perfectly when done properly. _Because_ it's perfectly in
sync with how humans work.

So why don't most people know how? 2 possible reasons:

\- All we really have to do is stay one step ahead of the users. So we don't
have to be very good.

\- The field is so young we still don't have adequate well-established
standards and procedures. Imagine "release early and often" as the standards
for law, medicine, or bridge building.

I've heard this argument too many times from people who have never done it
right so they think it can't be done.

~~~
run4yourlives
Your argument is contradictory and therefore self-defeating.

If the method was in sync with normal work patterns, we wouldn't be having
this discussion.

------
sabat
"False idol"? Work until you drop? DHH must've been raised Catholic. Or, wait,
Protestant.

I'll do what I want to do the way I want to do it, thank you very much Mr.
Hansen.

~~~
jrockway
I think it's just a figure of speech. You are reading in to it a bit too
deeply.

~~~
run4yourlives
...or not reading at all.

