> I was deciding whether this venture was worth committing to another year of 70+ hour weeks. I need a higher level of certainty than investors do because my time is more valuable to me than their money is to them.Investors place bets in a portfolio of companies, but I only have one life.
Both startup founders and investors alike seem to forget this (for obvious reasons) so it is good to put this on your toilet wall so you see it often.
Love this quote. As a cynical counterpoint to all the apparent glamour to being a CEO of a small startup, especially one that has taken investor money, I came up with this expansion:
CEO = Chief Enslaved Officer.
Enslaved to your investor obviously.
Enslaved to your customers.
And even enslaved to your employees. This one may need some elaboration — the CEO constantly needs to manage their motivation through ups and downs and ensure they are productive, and be responsive to them.
You're missing a lot with that analogy - which is that of everyone involved in the veature, the CEO has the most power.
They have the most knowledge of anyone and are the ultimate decision maker about the future of the venture. The CEO gets to make the choice: they can walk away any time, they can quit and they can shut things down.
If they don't want to walk away, they get the strongest voice in decisions about what paths to take. They have all the knowledge they need about the venture on which to base those choices. They have the full picture, access to all the financial knowledge, the conversations with the investors, the data from the customers - everything.
No one else in the venture has that. Even if others have the knowledge (in the case where the CEO operates with a rare level of extreme transparency) - they don't have the choices.
That is not enslavement.
With power, naturally, comes a lot of responsibility and that can feel heavy. Especially if you are ethical. But that is not enslavement.
I hope you're very careful about who you throw slavery metaphors around with.
Anyone with not-too-distant relatives that were _owned_ by wealthy old white dudes may find the equating of CEOs with slavery an "I have no time for this person" level offense.
This silly notion that there has only ever been a single form of slavery, and that there's no point in discussing any other than what occurred in America in a specific time period is so very harmful.
I understand why the topic at large is a sensitive one, and more for some than others. That doesn't mean I'll be overly concerned with someone who responds to such an analogy with some variation of "I have no time for you".
As someone who does have Black enslaved ancestors: Sure, we can discuss comparisons among transatlantic chattel slavery, the treatment of the helots, or the people trafficked south along the Volga.
The problem with a CEO calling themselves a slave is that it pretends that someone who has made an active choice to start a company is a victim. As this article shows, a CEO can choose to walk away from their company without fear of violence or starvation. If I meet a CEO who labels themselves enslaved, that tells me they are unwilling to recognize their responsibility for their own choices. That mindset makes them unfit to hold the power of the leadership position they aspire to.
It’s really not that deep. The acronym is just a tongue in cheek silly nothing. Being the CEO (or any kind of founder role) of an early stage can be a lot of effort and sacrifice without the “privileges” of power, influence, etc
Sure, if Zuckerberg jokingly called himself “chief enslaved officer” that’d be a little tone deaf given his power and privilege, but the founder of some pre-pmf startup working 10hr days 7 days a week jokingly commenting that is just a small way to soothe the pain. Obviously they aren’t a slave in any real sense (no one in America currently is), it’s a comment on the real sacrifices and effort and stress of the job.
And upon hearing it, I would decrease my trust that their words were shaped to portray reality clearly. It’d be much more clear to say, “man, I’ve been carrying a heavy weight of stress and loneliness.”
> no one in America currently is
Sadly, this is false. If I knew more about the current state of human trafficking, I’d provide some links.
You don't need to get into serfdom or other historical forms of slavery. As I mention in a sibling comment, there's multiple types of modern slavery that get discussed with varying degrees of frequency- labor slavery, sex slavery, and wage slavery.
Wage slavery obviously is nothing like the others, but in the context of applying to a CEO, and given the frequency that it comes up (especially with the recurring universal basic income discussions), I think it is a much closer analogy that jumping straight back to the time before the american civil war.
Indeed. The OP was able to quit relatively easily because he had not yet taken investor money. Imagine trying to quit after taking their money. That is where the element of "servitude" comes in, which admittedly sounds extreme but makes a point.
I don’t think the problem is discussing other kinds of slavery, because wage slavery is a thing that’s discussed, but there is a type of slavery that is very recent, still relevant because we’re still feeling the effects of it, and it does seem in bad taste to compare being a tech CEO to something people are still digging themselves out of the effects of.
We’re all on someone’s dollar and beholden to them so by the “chief enslaved officer” logic we’re all slaves which really cheapens and nearly erases a very real and very recent thing.
The purpose of an analogy is to short-circuit a long explanation by appealing to an already deeply understood concept. It's important to understand how the referenced concepts are understood and experienced by the audience if it's going to be an effective analogy. Comparisons to how the concept could technically be defined in a dry academic context are a bit irrelevant, since the whole point is to trigger a flash of intuition. Anyone who's reaction is "no, that's no the way you were supposed to experience that analogy" should probably not being using analogies to convey anything at all.
Using a trauma that you haven't experienced as a point of reference can also be seen as minimizing that trauma. Especially if you're going for a purposefully extreme juxtaposition like "being at the very top of a business with control over other people's labor and livelihoods is just like being a slave."
Because it's nothing like that at all to someone with deeper experience with the subject, and is as false to them as other shocking juxtapositions like "stubbing your toe is like having your entire family murdered in the holocaust (because they both hurt!)" or "needing to have a license to operate a car is like being gangraped (because you don't want either!)." Those kinds of analogies can be interpreted as purposefully trivializing and mocking that trauma, because there are quite a few people out there who really enjoy doing that sort of thing.
So when language is used like that, people who are hurt by the reference have to decide whether the speaker is simply ignorant of how it's going to land or if they are doing it on purpose. Some of them are going to chuck Hanlon's razor out the window and assume it's done on purpose as part of some sort of power game or sadism.
Since we're talking context here, I think it might be important to assess the various possible contexts:
- recent historical labor slavery (predominantly but not exclusively race based, US focus)
- modern labor slavery (less common in the US than other parts of the world)
- sex slavery (with a debate over when sex work counts)
- "wage slavery": being in a position where you must work to sustain yourself, without an expectation of receiving compensation based on the value you create
Wage slavery is not an uncommon phrase, and you see it bandied about on HN semi-regularly, especially whenever the topic of universal basic income comes up.
I would peg wage slavery as the closest context for analogy, though it's not perfect; in this case, the startup CEO is working predominantly for equity in the hopes that the equity will eventually be worth more than if they had taken a standard salary.
70h per week, I really can't imagine a world where I could accept this.
Sometimes I try to imagine how the alternative would be in a planned economy for software.
On one hand, it would be very slow and very inefficient.
But on the other hand, venture capitalism also has its flaws. Sometimes it sounds like there is an "excess efficiency" that leads to burnout and non-sense, where you constantly need to quote-unquote "innovate".
In my view there is a limit about innovation, you can't always "disrupt" over and over and over again.
If I get paid that much money, I'm going to work on my own terms, there is no way somebody will compromise my health like that.
I dislike this trope of a single person having nothing better to do than work. Single people have responsibilities too and have quality lives. They don't need to work themselves to death
And I dislike the trope of working being orthogonal to quality of life. Sitting in front of the computer working on my own thing is the ultimate enjoyment. That's what's giving me a quality life.
Yeah there's work (activity) and there's work (job)
I love working (activity) -- coding is a hobby I long ago made the mistake of monetising haha.
My stuff? I'll spend a weekend chasing a dead end without a second thought.
General sort of cog in the machine day to day work? You're paying me to be a bit bored a lot of the time. Not a complaint or anything, just the routine stuff that can't be automated yet.
Fun comes from learning new things, money comes from being paid for what you already learned.
Of course this is just me, if everyone was like me the world would suck. Absolutely no judgement if you get your fun outside of an IDE!
E: bit of context I'm currently single and have no dependents, I would imagine (hope) my priorities would change if that changed
Working for somebody else, where I have little stake in the company? I won't just put in the bare minimum to not get fired, but I also won't work absurd hours, especially on a salary.
My own stuff? I'm ready for the 40 (job) + 60 (my own projects) work week!
For reference, I'm very young and no where close to having a family.
> My own stuff? I'm ready for the 40 (job) + 60 (my own projects) work week!
Since you said you're very young I assume you're still at school/university and haven't had a tech job yet.
This doesn't work. Time is not the biggest factor, energy and focus are. You can only put in 40hrs and be extremely drained.
It's very unlikely you're going to be able to perform well at work and then be productive for another 60hrs on personal projects, especially not at your first job when you're learning a very large amount of new stuff.
Even just 60hrs of personal projects is probably way too much time relative to energy and focus (Your energy and focus will likely be drained before the 60hr mark).
I think this is where the Elon Musk is so detached from reality. Because he can do exactly what he wants all day, and he loves what he is doing what he does all day is not work. Certainly in the sense that say, assembling parts of a weird electric car for 12 hours a day whilst being trapped in the factory for 24 hours is work.
I see it in smaller business. I once got a phone call from my then boss, a sort of VC, who was clearly drunk, who could not make my meeting because he was doing BD. They worked collosal hours on this, in the corporate entertainment suites of the local sporting venues, in the city bars etc. Even lunch was a work activity for them.
I think the word work has a specific meaning. It's work is a phrase. Nobody is saying you should not enjoy your work but work is associated with drudgery and tedium in the common usage
I think it’s not that single people have nothing better to do. It’s that you would need to be single and have basically no life to do this kind of 70h work week (or be prepared to end up single, cuz you sure won’t be tending to your relationships/responsibilities )
As a consciously single I disagree along the lines of this argument (not with the argument itself). You’re seeing lost relationships as something destructive, and sure it is, but also disregard what others do as something that you can get rid of without any harm (“no life anyway”). I like my life, who’s anyone to judge what is important in it or not. Our world-wide society has this trope. “Hey, these people have kids(!), and these are in relationships, etc etc. And you are single nolifer, your rights and opportunities can wait”. As if a kid or a partner were some kind of a universal voucher.
I’m not judging people who are single w/o kids. just saying if you’re in a relationship or have kids that is a commitment and time needs to be spent on there.
I don’t think you should overwork yourself cuz you don’t have kids. Do what you want with your life.
You’re right on projection, and I shouldn’t have written “you” and “disregard” in the same sentence. I meant some part of normal-life folks, addressing them via that line. My mistake, sorry all for confusion.
It depends on what point in your life you are. I was at one point single and fully committed to work. I worked sometimes even 12 hours per day, every day, pulling in weekends too and I had a payoff for that. I’m single now too, but I’m not doing that. I’m focusing on dating. Different people, at different times have different priorities. It’s not any one individual thing that’s bad, it’s elevating one above the rest.
How is that a trope? Everybody here who has kids used to not have kids, and all would agree that before they had kids they had significantly more time to dedicate to non-kid-raising activities.
Nobody is saying single people have "nothing better to do". Just that they very often have more flexibility with what they can reasonably choose to do.
I’m not trying to speak for everyone. I’m saying that I personally can absolutely see myself doing it in these situations. Not trying to imply anything about anyone else.
Careful there -- relaxing or enjoying something mundane is not wasting time.
We have been conditioned to call things like this a waste of time but it doesnt mean it is. Not for everyone. Capitalism would have us believe we must constantly be delivering value that is defined by external standards but that is a dangerous game.
4000 Weeks is a pretty good book with more on this topic.
This isn’t really relevant to the current discussion about how much extra time is spent on “work” beyond normal working hours. Working ~40 hours a week and choosing to spend most of your other conscious hours consuming media is a different situation from spending most/all of your hours on the latter.
Not sure I see your point. "Choosing to spend most of your other conscious hours consuming media" is certainly choosing to waste a significant part of one's lifetime. Doing it all the time is wasting most of it, and likely being broke (with exception of rare edge cases). The question we touched in this particular branch: whether extra work constitutes a better alternative to more gaming/media in the absence of other obligations/fields of activity (such as family)
Please see your comment I was replying to for context on this thread. Addiction is what I was referring to, which is a different issue than whether one is wasting time to any degree. I have no real issue with folks debating on the latter.
“Capitalism would have us believe that…” if you were lazy in a hunter gatherer tribe they’d just no give you food, otherwise punish, or exile you. Some things are more fundamental than capitalism
In the US 70 hr work weeks at startups and even certain industry's are not abnormal. Are those people usually making good decisions, thinking clearly, and not being jerks? Nope, but it's what a lot of people willingly do. I've seen people pull 80 hr weeks
> On my own company, when single, and living in my one room apartment? Absolutely.
Speak for yourself. I have hobbies, a workout routine, friends to meet up with, family members to visit, and beauty sleep to catch. If you're working 70h a week you're sacrificing most if not all of those things.
He already said he was single. You can have a workout routine and plenty of sleep even when working 70h weeks. Just skip the Netflix and other people, for a time.
I'm single too... I don't see the relevance, though. You don't just have to like working. You have to actively decide against doing much of anything else. If you are working ten hours a day with no weekend, or 14 hours a day with one, you're going to be exhausted for the rest of that time.
You can fit working out in there (~30-60 min a day, plus travel time if you don't have your own equipment) if you're willing to burn the candle at both ends like that. At that point you will have committed the overwhelming majority of your time, and if you try to add anything else to your life, any kind of unexpected outing or emergency, or even just waking up one day and not feeling up for it, will have to come directly out of the time you've budgeted for your work and health.
I forgot that some people still commute. I assumed that you have an office in your residence and a gym in the garden. You will have committed most of your time, yes. Still at least in my experience it let me do more in a quarter than in a year of taking it easy. You can retire after a few years, which should still be early enough to enjoy life.
I have never done a 70h week. probably 50h the top. I think it would be impossible for me. I mean I could be physically in an office for that long… but that is not the same thing.
For how long? Not that I think it's healthy or anyone should do this, but for most of the past two decades, American military services regularly deployed units of thousands at a time for 15 months overseas, during which they worked up to 20 hour days with 2 hours of sleep, 7 days a week for the entire 15 months. And they did this with zero chance or expectation that they might get rich, also knowing there was quite a good chance they'd end up permanently disabled.
For better or worse, devotion to a cause is a proven motivator of human action.
As for alternatives in the business world, we'd need some economic system that wasn't analogous to warfare in which one firm outcompetes all others to take most of the winnings. If you want a lesson from the US losing in Afghanistan, and arguably losing in Iraq, in spite of being able to drive its labor force to such extreme exertion, consider that a massive advantage of the insurgency was their ability to mobilize a part-time gig-based workforce that mostly worked from home. But which lesson does business learn from that? Allow work from home? Or getting part-time contractors with no benefits to kill themselves and sacrifice children for you?
>70h per week, I really can't imagine a world where I could accept this.
I can think of several. The grandiose ones: your kid has cancer, the kind that might be fixable, but there is no treatment, and you have to design one. You have a viable theory for nuclear fusion or carbon sequestration and need to get funding for and then perform the experiment. There is a verified meteor/comet strike and there's some hope of saving people underground, but it needs to be built and stocked.
In reality, you don't need grandiosity. This life is 'acceptable' to a lot of people, especially small business owners, the store owner/operator, or car mechanic, who effectively lives at their store. For others there is "paying your dues", doctors doing a residency, grad students doing slave labor on something only tangentially related to their degree. For others, like farmers, they work like this for some part of the year, every year.
Because there are 0 successful examples for it. And as someone born in USSR let me say if you like to experiment with planned economy you better choose a country nobody will regret leaving in dust afterwards
That's not a good reasoning, there were 0 successful examples of democracy for millenia, until stable Western democracies emerged.
Anyways, more concretely: huge vertically integrated megacorporations behave much like centrally planned economies, and they seek to be doing just finem
Your first argument could be somewhat interesting point for debates if the latest planned economy attempt were some hundreds years ago. The second one is no argument at all: planned economy is a radical departure from the feedback loop of the current economy within which all corporations operate.
Computing and software was researched and invented in a planned manner (NASA etc).
Maybe you can't "expand" and "generalize" software in a planned economy, if you want everything to be made with software. The article talks about about 80 competitors, so it can easily be said something should be planned.
Because they wouldn't be. A planned economy just takes the power of business owners and adds it to the pile of power politicians have. These algorithms would just 'happen' to suggest things favorable to those in charge.
Funny to me that these are seen as novel concepts, and all over the comments are people going on about how this is so true for founders.
What about the workers actually building the product, making far less, and probably putting in more time. Why is the issue of their valuable time compared to money almost never discussed.
We all only have one life and ot should be able to be enjoyed. Why do we always forget the pursuit of happiness, except as it applies to the upper class.
Both startup founders and investors alike seem to forget this (for obvious reasons) so it is good to put this on your toilet wall so you see it often.