The condescending and closed-minded tone detract from the author's obvious point (startup GOOD, job bad). A more serious consideration of both sides would have proved more useful.
For example, a very serious benefit of having a lowly 'job' is to have a set schedule and be able to make it to every one of your kid's baseball games. The debate is not a clear cut good vs. evil argument so it should not be treated as such.
Not to mention, if it weren't for jobs, who would work at his startup? The 'jobs suck' mentality fails on the criterion of universality.
And, though it sounds boring, stability and routine are big advantages, and they don't necessitate becoming a drone. I find that having a job provides me with a basic structure around which my non-job activities can more readily crystallize.
It's important to compare like against like. There's a bias in favor of startups because the relative positions are different; he's comparing being the owner of one against being an entry- or mid-level employee in the other.
Working for a company can be good if you do it right. The issue is that, in order for it to still be worth it to come in to work after about 6 months, you need to become someone's protege and get beneficial consideration regarding project allocation, career development, and responsibilities. Much of whether or not this happens is based on luck, not performance or even talent, so it usually takes 3-5 rounds before getting it to work. Most people conclude after 1-2 rounds that the game is just rigged against them and that jobs suck.
The article is obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there are some upsides to simply being employed. By the time my first startup was crashing, I was so happy that someone offered me a simple "Do this and you get money" option, I nearly gave them a hug after being hired.
Entrepreneurship is an emotional rollercoaster that's a blast to ride, but sometimes you need to step of in order to steady yourself for a bit.
...That said, I'm loving it this time around, and making sure I won't have to stop.
I grew up in business, and I have to say, seeing my Dad change careers after 25+ years of running a fairly large business, was a relief to me.
I think it's a natural part of being an entrepreneur that you're likely going to need a break now and then.
Also, with two small children, insurance, a stable paycheck and dental are worth it to me. My desires to run a business can wait until the risk:reward ratio means less impact on their lives, because really, it would be selfish to punish my children for my own fun.
11. Being forced to use crappy vendor software that they refuse to provide documentation for and then get yelled at when it doesn't work and told that it is your job to MAKE it work.
12. Blind Carbon Copies
13. Being forced to do things the wrong way.
14. Being woken up in the middle of the night and having to walk somebody through how to check if their ethernet cable is plugged in for an hour and a half and STILL being required to be there at 8:00 the next morning.
15. Providing a "this-must-work-now" temporary hack because somebody can't figure out how to work an excel spreadsheet, then having providing them with this spreadsheet every week become part of your job.
It's also worth noting that there are some fields in which you have to "have a job" in order to be taken seriously. E.g., medicine, academic research, etc.
There need to be players that hold jobs, put in regular hours, advance work at a consistent pace, draw a paycheck, sometimes hate what they do and end up on the lower side of risk.
There also need to be players that risk much to not hold jobs, develop ventures, advance things by an order of magnitude, create significant wealth that is far beyond what the player needs, and enjoy relative freedom.
The game will be hugely unbalanced and spiral out of control if one side decides in large numbers to jump to the other. You need both sides.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to whether you're able to enjoy life and find yourself in an environment that is in equilibrium with your inner.
Why not have both? These articles are pretty annoying, honestly. Everyone seems to think you can't do both at the same time. It depends on the start up, and I realize that, but it isn't that clear cut and dry.
Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur or take the risks necessary to create wealth beyond that of a full-time job.
There are as many reasons for this as there are people but to strike a condescending tone towards their decisions is arrogant.
Some, like the readers here, like to see things succeed by being able to contribute to the success.
I enjoy HN and I try to make it better by creating comments I hope others will read. But I don't spend my day trying to write my own version of HN. I'd rather work on my own stuff.
Employees are the same. Just because they have full-time jobs doesn't mean that's their end-all and be-all.
For example, a very serious benefit of having a lowly 'job' is to have a set schedule and be able to make it to every one of your kid's baseball games. The debate is not a clear cut good vs. evil argument so it should not be treated as such.