Makes sense to me. Know what you're getting into, discuss it and get the approval of your partner, but if it's what you're set on doing, you can probably find a way. Tim O'Reilly started his company after the birth of his first child, if I'm not mistaken. I don't suppose it qualifies as a "startup" in the sense of Google but he seems quite successful to me.
I would agree that startup, family and full time job is untenable in the long term, but everyone's situation is different. I think it's pretty evident to most people that it's not an easy road, but what I disagree with is your blanket "don't". I'd simply say "it's rough, and you're not going to be able to do it for long without cutting corners somewhere".
It's fuzzy on the timing, and I guess my memory is off, but it seems as if his company was his job at that point, but it still hadn't hit the big time.
I tend to think in terms of EV. Your hours would probably be better spent working at Wal-Mart. And there are much better ways to attack the problem, such as saving enough to not have to work, then starting up.
Way less likely than what? If quitting your job without funding isn't an option because you've got a family and no savings, it would seem that you are way more likely to succeed working on your startup after hours than simply doing nothing, at least to me.
Yes, it's an unfortunate position to be in. You are at a huge disadvantage. But the answer isn't 'don't do it' - which, without other options, roughly equates to 'give up'.
Only if your definition of success is extremely one-dimensional. It isn't "giving up" to acknowledge the implications of the choices that you've made in life, and to learn to define success within the constraints defined by those choices. It's part of being an adult.
Actually, I agree with you - in many circumstances the cost of doing a startup (mostly paid by your family) makes attempting it a bad idea (or even irresponsible).
But what I'm saying is that once an adult has defined success for themselves and decided that they want to start a startup, and are willing to pay the price for it, it's not our place to judge the risk as not worth it.
Matt wasn't judging the risk as "worth it". He said that a startup founded under those circumstances is less likely to succeed, which is entirely true. He also clearly believes that it's a bad idea. As do I.
That said, I think it's totally appropriate to judge someone who makes such a foolish decision (i.e. pursuing a startup when you have no savings and little time) when children are involved.
Comments
In a nutshell, don't.
In fact, exactly the opposite. Do it - just be aware of how to handle it.
Don't be afraid. Go for it. I did.
Makes sense to me. Know what you're getting into, discuss it and get the approval of your partner, but if it's what you're set on doing, you can probably find a way. Tim O'Reilly started his company after the birth of his first child, if I'm not mistaken. I don't suppose it qualifies as a "startup" in the sense of Google but he seems quite successful to me.
Did Tim O'Reilly also have a full time job? And even if so, does one data point show anything?
I've nothing against startup + family. It's startup + full time job that I think is a bad idea, and adding a family makes it worse.
I would agree that startup, family and full time job is untenable in the long term, but everyone's situation is different. I think it's pretty evident to most people that it's not an easy road, but what I disagree with is your blanket "don't". I'd simply say "it's rough, and you're not going to be able to do it for long without cutting corners somewhere".
Here's the article about O'Reilly:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.10/oreilly.html
It's fuzzy on the timing, and I guess my memory is off, but it seems as if his company was his job at that point, but it still hadn't hit the big time.
I tend to think in terms of EV. Your hours would probably be better spent working at Wal-Mart. And there are much better ways to attack the problem, such as saving enough to not have to work, then starting up.
It can work. But it's way less likely.
Way less likely than what? If quitting your job without funding isn't an option because you've got a family and no savings, it would seem that you are way more likely to succeed working on your startup after hours than simply doing nothing, at least to me.
Yes, it's an unfortunate position to be in. You are at a huge disadvantage. But the answer isn't 'don't do it' - which, without other options, roughly equates to 'give up'.
Only if your definition of success is extremely one-dimensional. It isn't "giving up" to acknowledge the implications of the choices that you've made in life, and to learn to define success within the constraints defined by those choices. It's part of being an adult.
Actually, I agree with you - in many circumstances the cost of doing a startup (mostly paid by your family) makes attempting it a bad idea (or even irresponsible).
But what I'm saying is that once an adult has defined success for themselves and decided that they want to start a startup, and are willing to pay the price for it, it's not our place to judge the risk as not worth it.
Matt wasn't judging the risk as "worth it". He said that a startup founded under those circumstances is less likely to succeed, which is entirely true. He also clearly believes that it's a bad idea. As do I.
That said, I think it's totally appropriate to judge someone who makes such a foolish decision (i.e. pursuing a startup when you have no savings and little time) when children are involved.