Hey, if you are thrilled to be working at a large company, awesome. But Paul is taking the risk here and in most of his essays with the generalization “if you work at a large company you probably aren’t as happy as you could be”. He isn’t saying “you suck” as commenters have been fond of thinking he did. He doesn’t hate you or think you are a lesser being for not founding a company. Shit, many of his friends and people that he brings in to talk to founders are actually employees at other companies. He is just offering some advice on how he thinks you probably can find a happier path, even if you aren’t aware of it.
It’s all anecdotal of course, but its absolutely insane how many people you and I know hate their job. They liked if for 6 months maybe and immediately begin dreaming of what they can do on their own. And its crazy how many founders love their job, and couldn’t dream of going to work for a boss. Of course some do go back and of course it’s not ALL employees at ALL companies. But it’s a ridiculously large number.
He’s not trying to say he hates you or you suck. If you love what you do you are golden and you probably aren’t reading his essays about starting companies. He’s just saying how much he’s noticed that getting out of the controls of a large company (many of them even necessary to keep order) brings a sense of freedom that just can’t be matched. Even the author of this blog had that urge to see what life is like outside the zoo.
It’s the guru trap. When you stop actively working on your own enlightenment and your job is to collect followers in order to aggrandize yourself, the only thing left in the world is you.
It’s like when you were 13 and dreamed of being a rock star. What you didn’t know is that the record company ends up owning all your content.
And Paul Graham is the record company. He’s telling you it’s all fame and fortune, but the real money is in capitalizing those with the big rock-star ideas… and then eating them up.
Pretty heady talk from someone who funds one useless web 2.0 company after another. Has he created anything of lasting value or just bits of this year’s fashion?
All this startup fever is about is egoist in the very essence. You do no want to build something that will help other people, you want to build things that is going to satisfy your ego by making you tons of money doing something you like. Or written in another way; The American Dream (for Programmers). The thing with The American Dream (for Programmers or not) is that very, very few actually make it happen. Like someone said in an earlier comment, 0,0000…1 == 0.
hackers and pastry chefs was funny, but your righteous anger is silly dude. you’ve got your panties in a bunch over nothing. so he says taking action to shape your own future makes you more human than being a corporate slave. so what? is there anything more obviously true? how could anyone be upset about that?
and all this anti-PG stuff. can you really criticize anyone for being boring after doing a post on Mac vs. PC?
this is, as somebody else said, linking to your own 2005 post, blogging about blogging. it’s boring fucking bullshit and you used to be better than that.
keep in mind that if a person believes that one of the most popular bloggers on the Web owes his audience to the fact that programmers are desperate for anything to read, that person is probably going to blog accordingly.
What percentage of startups fail? Isn’t it kinda like getting into the NBA? Yes, entrepreneurship is the backbone of America but not everyone is tempermentally suited for it - has nothing to do with “ability” or intelligence. Einstein was a patent clerk when he did some of his best research - he hated the job but it gave him a base to pursue his interests.
Not criticizing startups, just pointing out that not everyone’s cut out for every job and maybe, for once, on this little corner of the Internet, it might be a good idea to dial the rhetoric down a little bit.
Jeff - I suggest you revist this topic after you have had more experience being out on your own as a founder. Paul speaks from experience and is expressing an opinion. Just because you don’t like the implications of his opinion, it does not necessilariy make it wrong. Additionally, if you recall some of Paul’s writings, you’ll remember that ideas that many people consider as heresy at a particular point in time tend to replace other things that history proves to be only fashion.
I had the same reaction to the essay-a bit too much egotism and blowing your own horn. At the same time, I have to recognize a grain of truth in what he’s saying.
I’m currently working in a fairly small company, but found to my horror upon starting that the prevailing culture is very much the “inmates of the zoo” culture, overpoweringly so. There’s most definitely a cultural difference that PG is talking about, and for me you can see how people approach their tasks, not only as programmers but in the rest of their lives as well.
As a “drone” you approach a task with the mindset of “what am I supposed to do here? How do I fulfill the task I have been given?”. As a “founder” you approach a task with the mindset of “what can I do here? What will work/be usefull?”
Of course, there’s no clear dividing line between the two, and no one is either/all, but it is true that certain organizations pressure you more to “shut up and do what you’re told”, and in the long run it’s not a good thing for you as a person.
Africa’s wild spaces leaves a major imprint on someone; it is fairly easy to see the wild in its natural state and want to draw analogies between that entanglement of selves and relationships and the one that we call society. That’s as far, however, as I think Graham’s analogy was meant: as a story about restriction, nor as a comparison of hired developers to animals (after all, he also implies that founders are also a different sort of animal.) Not all analogies must involve higher beings or structures; when one says they are free as air, are they saying something about a sense of being unhindered, or are they saying that they are no better than a lot of hot gas ?
I would personally prefer that you write about how great it was to work for a company using MSFT tools without wasting so much as a word discussing Paul’s opinions.
Similarly, I would prefer it if Paul talked about how great it was to work as a startup founder without wasting so much as a word explaining how traditional employees are wasting their time.
The fallacy here is the “must tear down X to make Y look better” strategy he pursued.
Where X = traditional employment and Y = startups.
Honestly, am I the only person in the world who has had jobs I liked? That I found fulfilling? Such things are not mythical beasts like unicorns and the ends of rainbows-- they do in fact exist. I swear!
you started reading something and didn’t finish! How is that blog-worthy?
Hopefully it’s blog-worthy because the 99% of programmers who aren’t founders realize they have more than one path to success, and it doesn’t have to be the one Paul Graham chose for them.
Here’s a thought experiment. Let’s say every programmer did take Mr. Graham’s advice. How is it even possible for every company to be a startup, and everyone be a founder?
Always interesting when someone puts others in a box or drop a label on them or decide that those other folks can’t possibly be happy or fulfilled because they aren’t doing it “the right way.”
Paul Graham remains a non-factor in my software developing life. While he and others blather or about what I should be doing or shouldn’t be doing to be successful, I’ll keep slinging quality code and developing strong ties with my customers. It is THEIR opinion that carries weight in my professional life, not someone like Graham.
Graham’s point is that established companies should try to maintain or create the atmosphere of a startup – the entrepreneurial challenge, the risk-taking, the work-all-night drive.
Instead, they listen to their lawyers. They draw up policies (note how close that word is to “police”) on everything from what kind of jokes employees can tell, to what hours they can serve drinks to one another on the premises. And what proof.
Then they try to compensate for all the rule-making with managed-fun exercises like a scavenger hunt.
Not every established company can act like a startup. But they don’t have to act like totalitarian theme parks, either.
I’ve always loved Paul Graham. He’s a very talented individual, and has many insights into programming. But you’re right. For the past year, every essay he’s written has been about startups and startups alone. Being that focused makes you ignore the environment outside your narrow focus. And unfortunately, Paul Graham has lost contact with the rest of the industry.