= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
praxis comments on Which College Major? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
Depends on what your passion is. If it's something that allows you to make a lot of money, and doesn't otherwise obstruct you from taking part in other things that you enjoy, then your best bet would probably be to choose that - even if there is another, passionless option, which gives you more money.
If on the other hand the things that you are passionate about you do not make money (which will hamper your ability to produce utilons in a variety of ways), then your best bet will probably be to become wealthy by means of doing something you're not passionate about. With something like tech entrepreneurship you can become a millionaire in 5-8 years, and then focus on producing utilons at optimal exchange rates for your entire life.
Personally, I'm not passionate about any careers that make a ton of money, so my current plan is to become a millionaire through tech entrepreneurship, and then focus on studying/writing philosophy and dancing afterwards.
I wonder what the ratio of "people who plan to become millionaires through tech entrepreneurship" to "people who become millionaires through tech entrepreneurship" is. Really, I wonder what it is. I would assume it's rather low, but then, a million dollars isn't really that much. Can moderately successfully start-ups provide a million dollars (in short order), or is it win/lose?
As one with similar plans to jpulgarin (minus the dancing?), I too am quite interested in relevant research. I know Carl Shulman has investigated entrepreneurship success rates but I don't know exactly what he found - I think I'll email him to find out. I am particularly curious about that '9/10 startups fail' statistic, which is repeated everywhere but I haven't yet seen confirmed.
I've spoken to Carl about the subject and he pointed me to this paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14219
This paper puts the success rate of venture-backed companies at ~18%.
Not everyone gets VC backing, though, which lowers your odds.
That's not the raw data, it's adjusted to match groups for a comparison. If you look elsewhere in the paper:
That's for IPOs only, adding in companies that were acquired, and companies that remained private but made their owners a good amount of money via compensation packages and future sale or IPO would further boost the stats. See my 80,000 hours posts on this.
Carl wrote a blog post over at 80,000 Hours where he discusses success rates for startups, and how these data might affect your career choice if you're aiming to donate a lot of money to effective charities:
Salary or startup? How do-gooders can gain more from risky careers
It's more or less win/lose. Being the average venture-backed founder actually has negative expected utility.
I went and read that paper. I don't think it says that at all. Their exact conclusion is:
"An individual with a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 2 and assets of $0.7 million would choose employment at a market salary over becoming an entrepreneur. With lower risk aversion or higher initial assets, the entrepreneurial opportunity is worth more than alternative employment"
I didn't understand relative risk aversion, so I looked it up. Here is an example:
"[if you have constant relative risk aversion utility and] If you would give up 2% of your wealth to avoid a 50-50 risk of losing or gaining 10%, then you have a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 4." If you would give up only 0.5% of your wealth to avoid the same gamble, you have a coefficient of 1.
source: http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/cat_economics.html
Maybe I'm just not risk averse, but I would not be willing to give up much at all to prevent such a gamble. I'm WAY below a coefficient of 2, and I suspect that many people here on LW are as well.
This is why I said "average" venture-backed founder. You may have tons of assets such that losing/gaining 10% is not a big deal, or you may be naturally less risk-averse than the average person.
Some level of risk-aversion is rational, and it's not obvious to me if people are naturally over or below that level. it's also not obvious to me at all that people on LW would have unnaturally low risk-aversion.
Ok, I now think it's possible that you were right about the "average" founder, but for a different reason--it only depends on what assumptions we make about the distribution of rationality within the set of all founders. I'm not really interested in that right now.
However, I am assuming that the audience of LW is MORE rational than average. They should be LESS risk averse, because "A risk averse agent can not be rational" (source: http://lesswrong.com/lw/9oe/risk_aversion_vs_concave_utility_function/ )
Thus, I believe that it is somewhat disingenuous to use that paper to say that founding a startup has negative expected utility--actually, the EXPECTED utility is very high (because the average outcome is great), and it is very rational. We should definitely be encouraging people here to start startups.
Risk aversion, as it applies to wages and startups, is measured in money not utility. If you spend money only on yourself it has diminishing returns: the first $50K has a huge effect on your happiness, while the $50K that takes you from $5M to $5.05M much less. So you'd be quite rational to be risk averse in terms of money, preferring a certainty of $1M to even odds of $3M.
(I give away 30% of my money, and if I suddenly earned a large amount I would probably give away more. Charity doesn't have diminishing returns until you're giving huge amounts of money, so I'm not very risk averse.)