New college grads: Don’t sell your time for a living(andrewchen.co)
andrewchen.co
New college grads: Don’t sell your time for a living
http://andrewchen.co/2013/06/03/new-college-grads-dont-sell-your-time-for-a-living/
20 comments
No, just Make Something, it will Take Ten Thousand Hours, but remember, Startups. Study those who have Made Something, and then copy them by Making Something of Your Own.
lol. well put.
i do think there is wisdom in joining a startup run by veterans out of college. at least then you get the experience in running a startup.
if you join a big company, you get educated in the skills needed to succeed at a big company, which unfortunately are very different to the skills needed to doing something on your own.
i do like his quote though that it will take about 10,000 hours to get good at anything...
i do think there is wisdom in joining a startup run by veterans out of college. at least then you get the experience in running a startup.
if you join a big company, you get educated in the skills needed to succeed at a big company, which unfortunately are very different to the skills needed to doing something on your own.
i do like his quote though that it will take about 10,000 hours to get good at anything...
[deleted]
What a bunch of fluff. Most jobs involve "making things" it's just that the opportunities for leverage are low. Being an employee versus an entrepreneur isn't "selling your time" versus "making things" it's about how much leverage you can utilize in the things you make.
You have an excellent point. And all this advice to graduates really has to depend on what the person wants to do and how they want to do it.
The individual maker/consultant/contractor model of living is fine.
Then there is the model where you employ other people to do things for you and leverage their skills (and your risk) to get more money. For obvious reasons that can't work for everyone but it is a very reasonable plan for some people.
And finally you can be part of someone else's business. This can actually be a very rewarding thing. My point to prove this is that we could not have placed men on the moon without a massive organisation with a lot of people following other peoples plans.
Blanket advice just smothers individuality. We don't need simple solutions today.
The individual maker/consultant/contractor model of living is fine.
Then there is the model where you employ other people to do things for you and leverage their skills (and your risk) to get more money. For obvious reasons that can't work for everyone but it is a very reasonable plan for some people.
And finally you can be part of someone else's business. This can actually be a very rewarding thing. My point to prove this is that we could not have placed men on the moon without a massive organisation with a lot of people following other peoples plans.
Blanket advice just smothers individuality. We don't need simple solutions today.
But the business model isn't making things, it's butt-in-seat time.
Nobody pays anyone to keep a seat warm...
For a counter-factual to the article, consider a Subway franchise. The people who really make things in that business are the sandwich line workers getting paid $8/hour. Everything else is in support of that core productive function.
So why don't you want to be a "maker" at Subway? Because while the sandwich line workers are the ones making things, it's the store owner that has the leverage--he gets other people to make things for him. You want to be the guy with the leverage, not (necessarily) the guy making things (though sometimes, if what you make is valued/rare enough, you have a lot of leverage).
For a counter-factual to the article, consider a Subway franchise. The people who really make things in that business are the sandwich line workers getting paid $8/hour. Everything else is in support of that core productive function.
So why don't you want to be a "maker" at Subway? Because while the sandwich line workers are the ones making things, it's the store owner that has the leverage--he gets other people to make things for him. You want to be the guy with the leverage, not (necessarily) the guy making things (though sometimes, if what you make is valued/rare enough, you have a lot of leverage).
OK maybe the term "business model" is confusing. What I meant is what the sandwich makers actually get paid for.
No matter how many people get served, or how well, or how many sandwiches get made, or how many bags of chips and cups of soda are up-sold, or how many other people worked with you that day, your pay won't change. The only thing that changes your pay is how many hours you were there.
As for the employer/owner of the store, what does he get paid for? The amount of sandwiches, chips, and soda sold. So the employees sell their time, but the owner sells sandwiches.
No matter how many people get served, or how well, or how many sandwiches get made, or how many bags of chips and cups of soda are up-sold, or how many other people worked with you that day, your pay won't change. The only thing that changes your pay is how many hours you were there.
As for the employer/owner of the store, what does he get paid for? The amount of sandwiches, chips, and soda sold. So the employees sell their time, but the owner sells sandwiches.
So why don't you want to be a "maker" at Subway? Because while the sandwich line workers are the ones making things, it's the store owner that has the leverage--he gets other people to make things for him.
This also perfectly describes the relationship between startup founders and VCs.
This also perfectly describes the relationship between startup founders and VCs.
Amazing what controlling the means of production can do for you.
Amazing what controlling the means of production can do for you.
Well, if others want to control the means of production, let them go out and take out loans, burn through their life savings, and crib money from friends, family and fools, to take a chance on a business that might or might not succeed, possibly leaving them broke, penniless and destitute. Let them figure out how to promote and market the business, design all the processes needed to make the business work, and develop the ulcers and headaches that come from stressing over the possibility that the business might fail and you might have to lay off your entire workforce, putting good people... people that you hired, trained, trusted, and worked, sweated, laughed and bled alongside.. out of work.
Because "owning the means of production" IS a total cakewalk after all. Just retreat to your robber baron mansion, burn a few thousand dollar bills for heat, and march down to the (store|factory|plant|refinery|etc) every few days and kick the shit out of the lazy workers who are probably stealing from the company anyway. Oh, wait, did I say "march"? I mean, "be driven by your chauffeur in your Rolls Royce Silver Ghost". Because all business owners have chauffeurs and a Rolls Royce.
Well, if others want to control the means of production, let them go out and take out loans, burn through their life savings, and crib money from friends, family and fools, to take a chance on a business that might or might not succeed, possibly leaving them broke, penniless and destitute. Let them figure out how to promote and market the business, design all the processes needed to make the business work, and develop the ulcers and headaches that come from stressing over the possibility that the business might fail and you might have to lay off your entire workforce, putting good people... people that you hired, trained, trusted, and worked, sweated, laughed and bled alongside.. out of work.
Because "owning the means of production" IS a total cakewalk after all. Just retreat to your robber baron mansion, burn a few thousand dollar bills for heat, and march down to the (store|factory|plant|refinery|etc) every few days and kick the shit out of the lazy workers who are probably stealing from the company anyway. Oh, wait, did I say "march"? I mean, "be driven by your chauffeur in your Rolls Royce Silver Ghost". Because all business owners have chauffeurs and a Rolls Royce.
To my knowledge, limited though it be, actual entrepreneurship is neither as cushy as you imply that I implied, nor as ultra-depressing as you imply directly.
Your average failed start-up entrepreneur probably doesn't even get an acqui-hire, but he certainly doesn't wind up "broke, penniless and destitute" either. Solving this kind of problem is in fact the entire point of joint-stock companies as we know them: the founder comes on-board as a majority shareholder, a capital-adding founder, and with a salary paid by the company (once it has any money at all, but why are you founding a company if you have no personal runway?). His personal survival becomes separate from the company's survival, through that wondrous mechanism of investment.
But of course, if what we're really talking about is 1-3 cofounders and a small but growing group of investors beginning a joint-stock company in a fashion explicitly designed not to personally endanger anyone, then there's no reason you couldn't run the whole thing as a Mondragon-style cooperative in the first place, with some charter modifications to allow for issuing equity.
Now, you could say we need to give the founders an outsized reward for their outsized risk, but after multiple rounds of investment diluting their share ownership, VCs and accelerators and other investors taking spots on the Board of Directors and then further dilution of the founders' individual ownership and control of the firm by the time it reaches any kind of Liquidity Event...
Well, it ends up looking less like we're giving outsized rewards to the founders specifically, and more like we're giving outsized rewards to an investor class within a large collective enterprise that could, if the founders were clever and lucky, contain the founders as a large or dominant component.
But of course, there's also a dozen ways for the founders to wind up basically proletarians in their own company.
So while I do think the cooperative model could do more to honor founding entrepreneurs, I can't say it does distinctly worse than our current model of investor-driven enterprise, ie: capitalism.
Your average failed start-up entrepreneur probably doesn't even get an acqui-hire, but he certainly doesn't wind up "broke, penniless and destitute" either. Solving this kind of problem is in fact the entire point of joint-stock companies as we know them: the founder comes on-board as a majority shareholder, a capital-adding founder, and with a salary paid by the company (once it has any money at all, but why are you founding a company if you have no personal runway?). His personal survival becomes separate from the company's survival, through that wondrous mechanism of investment.
But of course, if what we're really talking about is 1-3 cofounders and a small but growing group of investors beginning a joint-stock company in a fashion explicitly designed not to personally endanger anyone, then there's no reason you couldn't run the whole thing as a Mondragon-style cooperative in the first place, with some charter modifications to allow for issuing equity.
Now, you could say we need to give the founders an outsized reward for their outsized risk, but after multiple rounds of investment diluting their share ownership, VCs and accelerators and other investors taking spots on the Board of Directors and then further dilution of the founders' individual ownership and control of the firm by the time it reaches any kind of Liquidity Event...
Well, it ends up looking less like we're giving outsized rewards to the founders specifically, and more like we're giving outsized rewards to an investor class within a large collective enterprise that could, if the founders were clever and lucky, contain the founders as a large or dominant component.
But of course, there's also a dozen ways for the founders to wind up basically proletarians in their own company.
So while I do think the cooperative model could do more to honor founding entrepreneurs, I can't say it does distinctly worse than our current model of investor-driven enterprise, ie: capitalism.
It's a fair point that taking investment money, as opposed to debt, changes the equation. Even so, I personally don't mind seeing founders get rewarded for taking the initiative and stress involved in founding a company, as long as all the transactions involved (re: employees, investors, etc.) are all voluntary.
then there's no reason you couldn't run the whole thing as a Mondragon-style cooperative in the first place, with some charter modifications to allow for issuing equity.
I'm not real familiar with the Mondragon Corporation specifically, but from looking at the Wikipedia article[1] just now, it sounds pretty interesting. I'm a fan of the idea of employee owned collectives and cooperatives (both for profit and non-profit), and see them as just as much a desirable part of our overall society / economy as "traditional" corporations. Maybe more so.
Being a libertarian / voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist / $pick_your_label, I find the modern corporation problematic, in that it explicitly breaks the premise of "liability for the outcome of your actions" for the individual investors. Arguably that's a good thing, because it makes it easier for people to pool their capital and more or less allows for the existence of the modern mega-corporation. Arguably it's a bad thing, because it allows for the existence of the modern mega-corporation.
In either case, I'd love to see worker owned collectives, and /or private coops replace both many traditional for-profit companies AND many government agencies / services.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
then there's no reason you couldn't run the whole thing as a Mondragon-style cooperative in the first place, with some charter modifications to allow for issuing equity.
I'm not real familiar with the Mondragon Corporation specifically, but from looking at the Wikipedia article[1] just now, it sounds pretty interesting. I'm a fan of the idea of employee owned collectives and cooperatives (both for profit and non-profit), and see them as just as much a desirable part of our overall society / economy as "traditional" corporations. Maybe more so.
Being a libertarian / voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist / $pick_your_label, I find the modern corporation problematic, in that it explicitly breaks the premise of "liability for the outcome of your actions" for the individual investors. Arguably that's a good thing, because it makes it easier for people to pool their capital and more or less allows for the existence of the modern mega-corporation. Arguably it's a bad thing, because it allows for the existence of the modern mega-corporation.
In either case, I'd love to see worker owned collectives, and /or private coops replace both many traditional for-profit companies AND many government agencies / services.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
For replacing government agencies/services, look into the concept of a "commons trust". The basic idea is that the organization for managing the resource or providing the service holds a property title over the necessary resources, but holds it in-trust on behalf of the general public so that they have strict, legally-enforcible limitations on what they can do with the resource and to whom the benefits must accrue.
In general, we can actually make a lot of progress on what I would call "engineering socialism" once we get our brains out of the "individual capitalism versus government socialism" paradigm, a paradigm they only got trapped in by the peculiarities of the Cold War.
In general, we can actually make a lot of progress on what I would call "engineering socialism" once we get our brains out of the "individual capitalism versus government socialism" paradigm, a paradigm they only got trapped in by the peculiarities of the Cold War.
Very nicely put!
It's interesting that if you want sandwiches made, you don't necessarily have to make them yourself. In fact, it will be slower. Yet getting into a position where you can incentivize other people to make them for you is quite tricky, but rewarding.
It's interesting that if you want sandwiches made, you don't necessarily have to make them yourself. In fact, it will be slower. Yet getting into a position where you can incentivize other people to make them for you is quite tricky, but rewarding.
[deleted]
Why do you call it the business model? It's the 'payment model for employees'. Some jobs (typically older, simple manufacturing jobs) pay by-item, but that doesn't work for e.g. software. (Paying by the line of code wouldn't work really well, for example). Therefore most jobs where it's difficult to estimate employee's performance fallback to by-hour wages.
The business model has nothing to do with how the corporation pays it's employees.
The business model has nothing to do with how the corporation pays it's employees.
Well I thought it was used somewhere else in the conversation... Sorry if it was confusing. Specifically I meant the employee's way of making money :)
There is a reason people sell their time: they need money to live. Advising new graduates (most of whom will have student debt) to eschew a "job" and go it alone "making something" is dubious advice.
A professional-level graduate career gives a ground to hit running after college, and in terms of steps in the direction of one day managing one's own affairs it provides experience, connections, and a chance to build up savings.
Going straight from school to no job and making "an app, blog, table, YouTube channel, or video tutorial" is very unlikely to lead to equivalent success, and don't let survivorship bias trick you otherwise.
The people I admire are those who have worked professionally but even in cases of soul-destroying office politics, bureaucracy, and mismanagement, have never given up on their "plan", slowly moving in the direction they want and eventually being in a position (e.g. financially, domain-experience, network) to break free and do it their way.
In the case of many HNers, I observe a movement from salaried employee to consultant with the freedom to work on their own stuff to...well a tonne of interesting things. I think that kind of approach is much more likely to succeed than the extremism and anti-"job" mentality of the submitted article.
A professional-level graduate career gives a ground to hit running after college, and in terms of steps in the direction of one day managing one's own affairs it provides experience, connections, and a chance to build up savings.
Going straight from school to no job and making "an app, blog, table, YouTube channel, or video tutorial" is very unlikely to lead to equivalent success, and don't let survivorship bias trick you otherwise.
The people I admire are those who have worked professionally but even in cases of soul-destroying office politics, bureaucracy, and mismanagement, have never given up on their "plan", slowly moving in the direction they want and eventually being in a position (e.g. financially, domain-experience, network) to break free and do it their way.
In the case of many HNers, I observe a movement from salaried employee to consultant with the freedom to work on their own stuff to...well a tonne of interesting things. I think that kind of approach is much more likely to succeed than the extremism and anti-"job" mentality of the submitted article.
As a recent college grad (Carnegie Mellon University Class of 2012), I take issue with the "working on a startup is more meaningful than working a 9-5 corp job" stance. It's not about skills, it's about security and certainty, especially in this job market (which still isn't great), even if you have the technical skills and education to do basically whatever you want.
There's no harm for a college grad to wait a few years before doing a startup once they've built up savings and a positive reputation.
It's worth noting that very few Computer Science students my year created a startup relative to the amount of CS students who instead decided to work for a large startup/Microsoft/Google/Amazon.
http://www.cmu.edu/career/salaries-and-destinations/2012-sur...
There's no harm for a college grad to wait a few years before doing a startup once they've built up savings and a positive reputation.
It's worth noting that very few Computer Science students my year created a startup relative to the amount of CS students who instead decided to work for a large startup/Microsoft/Google/Amazon.
http://www.cmu.edu/career/salaries-and-destinations/2012-sur...
Agreed. Just after college is the time in your life when you're freest to take the biggest risks. However, way too many people are saddled with crazy college debt that the only logical option is to "play it safe."
An unfortunate dynamic. At http://www.thinkful.com/ I've encouraged our interns to consider how much savings or debt they'll have upon graduation. It's something they basically never consider, and immediately when they do all sorts of priorities change about their spending habits, goals, etc.
Well worth the exercise.
An unfortunate dynamic. At http://www.thinkful.com/ I've encouraged our interns to consider how much savings or debt they'll have upon graduation. It's something they basically never consider, and immediately when they do all sorts of priorities change about their spending habits, goals, etc.
Well worth the exercise.
I know I'm taking this article out of context... so who is it targeted towards? Some background would likely help this article tremendously because as-is it's obviously ridiculous.
Most people out of college are not in a position to forego a job to vaguely "build something". The issues are numerous: money, knowledge, ability, a realistic world-view, etc. I'd suggest the opposite to most smart engineering grads: sell your time (i.e. get a 9 to 5 job) and invest the money, knowledge, and free time you get into learning how to build things.
Most people out of college are not in a position to forego a job to vaguely "build something". The issues are numerous: money, knowledge, ability, a realistic world-view, etc. I'd suggest the opposite to most smart engineering grads: sell your time (i.e. get a 9 to 5 job) and invest the money, knowledge, and free time you get into learning how to build things.
My reaction to this article:
"That'd be nice, but I live in New York".
That's why that Onion headline is so brilliant: you HAVE to do the thing you love on nights and weekends until you get good enough at it to attempt to do it full time. In the meantime, you have to pay your rent, you have to buy your food and have a social life and a girlfriend and all those other things that make life pleasant.
"That'd be nice, but I live in New York".
That's why that Onion headline is so brilliant: you HAVE to do the thing you love on nights and weekends until you get good enough at it to attempt to do it full time. In the meantime, you have to pay your rent, you have to buy your food and have a social life and a girlfriend and all those other things that make life pleasant.
"At least the traditional version of a job, in which you do something you sorta hate, from 9-5p, and are paid for your time to just grit your teeth and do it. Let’s call this the “sell your time” version of a personal business model: You sell your time to an employer, and they pay you for that time."
This is called being an adult and getting a job, much like the other 99% of the adult population. Some of us just end up being happier with what we do than others. Some people don't care about what they do at all as long as their non-work life makes them happy.
This is called being an adult and getting a job, much like the other 99% of the adult population. Some of us just end up being happier with what we do than others. Some people don't care about what they do at all as long as their non-work life makes them happy.
Whenever I hear this, I think: Is this just meant to be advice for the elite, gifted few? Or does the author mean that nearly everyone should eschew wage labor? If the latter, then who will do all the only-mildly-interesting things in our world? There is a need for people who are willing to get work done. And by work, I mean stuff that's not fun or glamorous, but still important. Yes, you can hand-wave all that away with some vague claims about technology making drudge work obsolete. Except it hasn't yet, and we don't know if it ever will.
Besides that, not everyone has the right attributes for self-employment. I suspect that much of what makes traditional employment painful is bad coworkers/bosses. Do we expect these same people to be successful running their own enterprises?
Besides that, not everyone has the right attributes for self-employment. I suspect that much of what makes traditional employment painful is bad coworkers/bosses. Do we expect these same people to be successful running their own enterprises?
Better advice would be to know what you're time is worth, and don't sell it for less - even to yourself.
Could somebody please explain what andrew chen does? Is he an entrepreneur?
He apparently trains "growth hackers."
Ah, so he's the proverbial shovel seller in the gold rush.
If working has taught me something, it's that every job is "selling your time for a living", including entrepreneurship of any kind (selling your time to your clients, not your boss, but it's not different), and unfortunately that's a necessary evil if you want luxuries like a steady amount of food, clothing or shelter. Also, that every job is a day job, or becomes such after not many months. If you don't think so, you're either deluding yourself, a very boring person without a life, or extremely lucky (and remember, no matter how much do you believe this last option represents you, it's still extremely unlikely).
Also: don't fall into the "be passionate" trap. Be passionate about your life, and don't conflate your work with your life. Keep your job out of your life, and if possible, consider yourself unemployed from 5pm to 9am.
Also: don't fall into the "be passionate" trap. Be passionate about your life, and don't conflate your work with your life. Keep your job out of your life, and if possible, consider yourself unemployed from 5pm to 9am.
Don’t sell your time for a living.
Starve.
I'm graduating college with a BS is software eng next year so this grabs my attention. Programmers of the real world: Is it this bad? I can't imagine that it can be. I enjoy what I do. I even often enjoy frustrating programming assignments. Can a job really be that bad? I'm inclined to say that this attitude that we (programmers) are better than regularly jobs is a little too forward thinking.
No, it's really not this bad. I "sell my time" for a living and I frakkin' love it. I work with really talented people I respect and love, working on interesting products that I like, with little to no bullshittery.
It's not like this everywhere, but these spots in the industry exist, and if you're halfway decent at what you do, they will want you also.
As rayiner said also, entrepreneurship is also "selling your time" - you're just trying to sell it at a very high price with no guarantee that anyone will end up paying you for that time.
There is also no guarantee in entrepreneurship that you'll spend a substantial portion of your time doing things you enjoy. A lot of startup life is thankless toil. Putting together a startup is a lot more than writing some code and slapping together some designs - as a founder you will go neck-deep in territory you do not enjoy, whether that's sales, marketing, business development, design, or something else.
It's not like this everywhere, but these spots in the industry exist, and if you're halfway decent at what you do, they will want you also.
As rayiner said also, entrepreneurship is also "selling your time" - you're just trying to sell it at a very high price with no guarantee that anyone will end up paying you for that time.
There is also no guarantee in entrepreneurship that you'll spend a substantial portion of your time doing things you enjoy. A lot of startup life is thankless toil. Putting together a startup is a lot more than writing some code and slapping together some designs - as a founder you will go neck-deep in territory you do not enjoy, whether that's sales, marketing, business development, design, or something else.
> There is also no guarantee in entrepreneurship that you'll spend a substantial portion of your time doing things you enjoy.
If your start-up turns into a successful business with real customers, you almost certainly won't.
At the start up I worked for, I watched as the founder quickly became too important to do much if any technical work. Can't very well spend time sitting and futzing with algorithms when you're busy making PowerPoint presentations and poring over contracts.
If your start-up turns into a successful business with real customers, you almost certainly won't.
At the start up I worked for, I watched as the founder quickly became too important to do much if any technical work. Can't very well spend time sitting and futzing with algorithms when you're busy making PowerPoint presentations and poring over contracts.
I think it's just bad advice. Yes, jobs 'suck'. That's why they pay you. If it were awesomely fun, you'd probably do it without getting paid. Making something is great, but let's be honest here, most college graduates aren't going to change the world. You might make a piece of software and sell a moderate amount to make a decent amount of money, but your chances of becoming a multi-millionaire is less than 0.3%. So, taking a job gives you the financial stability that you'll enjoy when you have a wife and chidren and health problems. If you are young and have none of those things, go for it - build a product, make a startup. I think the best advice to give a college student is: Invest in your company's 401k if they offer one, put in at a minimum the maximum amount that will be matched, and live frugally. It would also help, if you are getting a BS in software, that you invest your 401k in software companies, since that's your field of expertise, and you want to remain employed, don't you?
I've been "selling my time" for 27 years, and if I had it to do over, I'd do it again. Probably for different employers, probably with some sort of career strategy, but I'd definitely do it again.
Why? because to succeed, an entrepreneur needs to be more than a great software developer (or whatever other product you want to create and sell). An entrepreneur needs a number of business skills, like crafting policies, schmoozing vendors, wooing customers... Those aren't my strong suits.
I am perfectly content to let someone else handle all the business stuff, and pay me an agreeable salary to handle the software end of things. That gives me the freedom to shine at design, development, user-education, and self-improvement. If someone who doesn't know me wants to dismiss that as "selling my time," well, that's his problem, not mine.
Why? because to succeed, an entrepreneur needs to be more than a great software developer (or whatever other product you want to create and sell). An entrepreneur needs a number of business skills, like crafting policies, schmoozing vendors, wooing customers... Those aren't my strong suits.
I am perfectly content to let someone else handle all the business stuff, and pay me an agreeable salary to handle the software end of things. That gives me the freedom to shine at design, development, user-education, and self-improvement. If someone who doesn't know me wants to dismiss that as "selling my time," well, that's his problem, not mine.
No, jobs can be great, and if you're anything like me you greatly value the security, built-in social nature, team spirit, and the sorting out of all the boring crap (accounts, admin, even cleaning) by other people. I could probably make a bunch more money as a contractor, but money isn't everything by a long shot. You do have to pick the right company, though. Do your research and follow your instincts about the culture. Good luck!
I think the "don't work, but start a business" mantra is overdone. Starting a business IS working -- probably much harder than you'd ever work at a 9-5 if you plan to be successful. Even people that are passionate about what they do can burn out. There is no "quick fix" to having a job and it certainly isn't "just follow your passion and start a company."
After 10 years in the workforce it seems to me the most important thing to focus on is getting a job that'll give them exposure to new things.
Our students at http://www.thinkful.com often find themselves a couple years out of school, languishing in their 1st jobs since college, wishing and yearning for more.
Unfortunately, incredibly talented people take the safest job they're offered because they have crazy college debt. A couple years later they're totally unfulfilled and want more.
Planning how to "not sell your time for a living" while in college (or before) is just as important as not being compelled into a "steady" job at the point in your life when you should be exploring new things.
Our students at http://www.thinkful.com often find themselves a couple years out of school, languishing in their 1st jobs since college, wishing and yearning for more.
Unfortunately, incredibly talented people take the safest job they're offered because they have crazy college debt. A couple years later they're totally unfulfilled and want more.
Planning how to "not sell your time for a living" while in college (or before) is just as important as not being compelled into a "steady" job at the point in your life when you should be exploring new things.
[deleted]
One's life != a business
Some people don't view work as an end goal of their life.
do what you're interested in. don't do boring things for the money, provided you have alternatives that let you live comfortably and afford interesting opportunities.
it took getting hit by a car going 50mph for me to really have this sink in. We shouldn't need a potential near death experience to convince us to abandon our vanity and achievement chasing and do what we really want to do.
it took getting hit by a car going 50mph for me to really have this sink in. We shouldn't need a potential near death experience to convince us to abandon our vanity and achievement chasing and do what we really want to do.
Good use of Onion News article.
Instead, take everything you have (inexperience, limited funds, lack of domain expertise, etc.) and invest it in making "something."
If all else fails, which it most likely will, join a startup, ideally one filled with a bunch of other young people trying to learn how to make "something" too.