next »

[Moczan]

Also, 10 Reasons You Should Never Get a Job.

What an utterly terrible article.

Some of his point are valid though, especially one about getting paid for value, not for time. While he goes crazy with calling employed people cowards and pets, it's important to know that being employed vs being self-employed needs a whole different mindset.

[Christian Knudsen]

it's important to know that being employed vs being self-employed needs a whole different mindset.

Of course. But his point is that you're a moron for being employed. And his arguments to back that up are completely ludicrous.

And most people are paid according to their value. If not, everybody and all positions would be waged the same, regardless of skills, experience and educational background.

(I'm self-employed, by the way.)

[James Coote]

If you're sitting around not working, then the cost of living is just going to be eating into the money you have, meaning that money is not being invested in schemes to make you even more money.

I.e. your body is a cost centre, literally eating up money whilst you can't just get rid of it. Whilst you wait for investments to mature, you can at least break even, or ideally make a profit by working that body. Otherwise it is just an asset sitting idle and slowly depreciating in value

The real problem is most people don't have multiple revenue streams and don't have a wide portfolio of assets and investments (usually a house and maybe some shares or petty cash savings). At the same time, they are barely breaking even when it comes to the cost of living vs the revenue their salary produces

The house traditionally works as a low risk investment that has other benefits such as reducing the cost of living (you can live in the house even whilst you pay off the mortgage), and you can leverage the equity to get a loan for a car (an investment that lets you get a better paid job, saves you time etc)

The trick IMO is to find out what things you can do, that make you happy, but which don't cost much. You can't completely stop spending on stuff 'you don't need' as otherwise you'll live a very dull boring life and probably be less efficient at work because you're unhappy, miss that promotion or sales target, and put yourself into a downward spiral of depression. Instead, evaluate everything just a bit more carefully. Instead of gym membership, you could buy a push bike, which will keep you fit and get you out to the park (with extra added happiness and health benefits) and cut the cost of running the car (as you can cycle to the shops for bread and milk)

Slowly, you can work your way out of the cycle of the daily grind and build up some savings that you can invest in whatever

The other thing about just up and quitting your job is that it is a high-risk strategy. It is bad advice to tell a risk-averse person to do something risky, as chances are they'll bottle it and make the whole situation worse than if you'd never said anything

[nico]

What an utterly terrible article.

Oh it's stee pavlina... Yeah it's probably very dumb.
I used to read his blog, as second degree humour

Sorta drifting off topic here, but yeah, it's Pavlina. One of his most popular posts, probably in part because it rubs some people the wrong way (and I suppose that's intentional.) I personally think it's insightful and quite funny.

The point really is just to deconstruct people's preconceived notions and the reasons people usually give for staying in a job vs. seeking self employment. Many reasons people give are really based more on fear of the unknown, than on actual fact. Like the belief that jobs are overall "safer", for example. Self employment isn't for everybody, but if it IS for you then it's useful to get to see these things from the perspective of someone who's already living that way.

[Christian Knudsen]

Most of his arguments are in no way based on fact either. In most cases, a steady job is safer, since it often comes with health insurance and the company pays towards your retirement fund. And (at least in Denmark) if you're fired, the company will often help you in finding a new job or offer training or 3-6 months with pay.

Let's look at the rest of his arguments:

1. He claims that you'll only be paid for the hours you work, not for the value you bring to the table. As I mentioned previously, that's ludicrous. Your salary is based on your skill level, i.e. exactly the value you can bring to the table. That this salary is (sometimes) based on an hourly wage is completely besides the point.

2. He claims that you won't get any experience from your job, and if you do, you'll only be able to use it in that exact job where you'll be for the next 20-30 years. Disregarding the fact that most people in middle to high wage jobs (I'm using these as a basis, since the argument is aimed at people that would be able to successfully run their own business) often switch jobs every 5 years, a lot of companies will pay for their employees taking courses to further their skills.

3. Having a steady job is like being in a cage and companies want you to be a good pet. Plenty of companies challenge their employees because they don't want mindless worker drones -- they want employees that are able to push the company forward and think for themselves, if for no other reason that not having to spend time and resources on constantly monitoring them.

4. Employees pay higher taxes than the self-employed. I'm not an expert on the US tax system, but here in Denmark, personal income is taxed the same regardless of how it was made. You pay a lower business tax, but the money will be tied up in your company. As soon as you pay yourself a salary, it'll be taxed at the same rate. Furthermore, he's disregarding stuff I mentioned earlier such as health insurance and payments to your retirement fund that are often included with a steady job (people that have been self-employed often end up being unable to retire simply because they weren't "forced" to pay towards their retirement fund). A lot of companies also offer other free stuff such as free daycare and free lunch.

5. Having a steady job is riskier than being self-employed because you can be fired. I guess you can't be fired if you're self-employed, but you can definitely lose clients. And without clients, you may still technically be employed, but you're not making any money.

6. When you work in a steady job, you can't just walk away if you get an idiot for a boss. Guess what, when you're self-employed, you don't always have the luxury to turn down stupid clients because you still need an income.

7. In a steady job, you'll have to "beg" for money to increase your income. Beg? Really? No, you negotiate your salary based on your skills and the value you bring to the company. Guess what. When you're self-employed, you negotiate your price with your clients as well. Trust me. Even though I have clearly stated fixed prices, all clients want to negotiate a lower price.

8. Many people have their colleagues as their only social life. What? So because some people only have friends from their job, getting a steady job is for morons. Some self-employed people don't have any friends at all, so I guess becoming self-employed is for morons as well!

9. Working at a steady job makes you a slave to pointless rules and regulations. I'm sure some companies have a bunch of stupid rules. I'm also sure there are a bunch of stupid rules for running your own business.

10. You'll become a coward that constantly whines about work if you get a steady job because you'll be too afraid to tell your boss if you think something's wrong. I don't see how this is an issue with having a steady job. This is an issue with some people being afraid of confrontations. Those people would be just as afraid of a confrontation with a client if they were self-employed. Besides, most modern companies that aren't run as if we were still in the 1960's encourage employees to bring up issues. Most companies have one-on-ones where employees can bring up issues in private with their immediate superior as well as getting valuable feedback on their own performance. A bunch of companies also have their employees regularly fill in questionnaires where they evaluate their boss.

It's like he's taking the worst job he can think of, almost turning it into a caricature, then comparing it to some idealized version of self-employment, where you apparently have ultimate freedom and no obligations (sometimes I can't tell if he's talking about self-employment or winning the lottery!). I guess it's entertaining as satire or a stand-up comedy routine, but as actual advice with value, no. Just no.

I love being self-employed, but there are just as many cons with being self-employed as having a steady job. They're just slightly different.

[nico]

I don't feel any particular need to defend SPs points or writing style, as neither are my own and aren't really the topic of this thread. Also I'm sorry if my posting offended you in some way.

So instead I'll try to answer this from the context of the original question: whether jprogram should get a game job or start a game company.

1. He claims that you'll only be paid for the hours you work, not for the value you bring to the table. As I mentioned previously, that's ludicrous. Your salary is based on your skill level, i.e. exactly the value you can bring to the table.

I think his point was simply this: in a job you can never, ever be paid in full for the value you produce, because that would mean the company loses money on you. If you're good the difference can be quite substantial - the majority of what you produce will usually be going to shareholders, not to you. Thus if you're really worth your paycheck, you may be able to do better on your own.

3. Having a steady job is like being in a cage and companies want you to be a good pet. Plenty of companies challenge their employees because they don't want mindless worker drones -- they want employees that are able to push the company forward and think for themselves

That's true in some companies, and I guess especially young and cool companies (like game companies) try to be more open. But at the end of the day you're still answerable to someone. You're still expected to show up 9-5 every weekday. And you're still expected to work on what you're told to work on, you can't just switch to a side project on a whim because you think it's a cool idea.

For most people this is fine. Others are willing to go up in risk to get the extra freedom. Personally I've never been as productive in a job as I am on my own, mostly because I can work on whatever I'm most passionate about at the moment.

4. [...]Furthermore, he's disregarding stuff I mentioned earlier such as health insurance and payments to your retirement fund that are often included with a steady job (people that have been self-employed often end up being unable to retire simply because they weren't "forced" to pay towards their retirement fund). A lot of companies also offer other free stuff such as free daycare and free lunch.

And all that is coming out of your paycheck. From the company's perspective, everything you cost them (health insurance, employment taxes, free food etc) has to be subtracted from the value you produce, and you have to produce a net profit on top of that. If you can produce that same value on your own (and that IS a big if...) and you can budget it correctly (another if), you can get all those things and more.

5. Having a steady job is riskier than being self-employed because you can be fired. I guess you can't be fired if you're self-employed, but you can definitely lose clients. And without clients, you may still technically be employed, but you're not making any money.

I guess you're talking about a personal service business here. From the point of view of a game company, this doesn't make much sense. Your "clients" (customers) can number in the tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions. Losing a few of them is irrelevant. Ditto for point 6.

It's like he's taking the worst job he can think of, almost turning it into a caricature

This I can agree with.

then comparing it to some idealized version of self-employment, where you apparently have ultimate freedom and no obligations (sometimes I can't tell if he's talking about self-employment or winning the lottery!)

No, he's comparing it to his own real life. The guy built a business system that produces passive income, and intentionally so. Before he did it with his blog, he had already done it with his game company. He's written more about this elsewhere.

[Christian Knudsen]

If the guy's point is that it's more risky to have a steady job than owning your own completely established successful business where the money just keeps on pouring in, then, duh, yeah. But very few people get to that point. Most crash and burn. And a large number of the people that don't crash and burn end up working more hours than they would at a steady job, consequently earning less and getting paid less for the value they have to offer. The guy is painting a rosy red picture of being self-employed that is neither factual nor realistic for 99% of the self-employed people out there.

[Moczan]

If the guy's point is that it's more risky to have a steady job than owning your own completely established successful business where the money just keeps on pouring in, then, duh, yeah. But very few people get to that point. Most crash and burn. And a large number of the people that don't crash and burn end up working more hours than they would at a steady job, consequently earning less and getting paid less for the value they have to offer. The guy is painting a rosy red picture of being self-employed that is neither factual nor realistic for 99% of the self-employed people out there.

What you say may be true, but it's worth noting that for some people, amount of money is not their number 1 priority in choosing the type of work they do. It's not a matter of maximizing your income, but trying to make your life more enjoyable. That's why I think it's important to get experience (if it's possible) of being employed and self-employed.

[Christian Knudsen]

I'm specifically arguing against the points made by Steve Pavlina that having a steady job is more risky than being self-employed and that you'll be working less hours self-employed. I'm not at all touching on why some people and how many people would prefer to be self-employed. Again, I'm self-employed myself, very much for the reasons you just posted.

[nico]

I'm specifically arguing against the points made by Steve Pavlina that having a steady job is more risky than being self-employed and that you'll be working less hours self-employed.

That depends entirely on what you're doing and how you doing it. If you just 'start for yourself' in a consultant-style business, then obviously you'll get enormous risk. Those kinds of businesses are really just glorified jobs with a less steady paycheck.

If however you start out by planning a sane business model, you can create a business that scales. And if you can scale it to serve many thousands of people, you can make a lot of money in any field. A business model doesn't have to be complicated though: "creating and selling games" will work. But your plan has to include HOW you'll be able to create games, and WHY you think they will sell in a crowded market. You can't just slap something together and hope for the best.

Will you have to work hard? Sure. Is success instant and automatic? No, duh. But that's the way business works: short term investments bring long term rewards. Of course I'm not saying anything new here.

[Christian Knudsen]

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing that having a steady job is generally more risky than being self-employed? Are you really saying that starting a video game company is less risky than having a steady job?

[nico]

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing that having a steady job is generally more risky than being self-employed? Are you really saying that starting a video game company is less risky than having a steady job?

Starting a company? No. Having a (good) company? Yes. But in order to get to point B you have to go through point A. Short term risk, long term safety.

And what are you "risking" by starting a company, exactly? Worst comes to worst you can just go get a job again. Or start one on the side.

[Christian Knudsen]

And equally, if you're fired from your steady job, you "can just go get a job again".

I'm not saying being self-employed is the most risky thing in the world and sure to get you evicted from your apartment and send you into poverty and drug abuse. I'm saying that it's more risky than having a steady job because you're not guaranteed success nor a paycheck if you start your own company -- while you are guaranteed a paycheck at the end of each month if you have a steady job. Like you said yourself, you're exchanging safety for freedom and a shot at making your own (minor or larger) fortune.

Again, of course having a successful no-risk company that brings in a steady paycheck that's equal to or more than what you'd get from a steady job is less risky than having a steady job. But that's twisting the argument, as you're basically saying that being self-employed with a low-risk company is less risky than having a high-risk steady job. Well, duh.

People in steady jobs aren't dumb or morons -- they're just not willing or interested in the risk associated with starting up your own business. Because no matter how much you try to twist the argument, starting your own business and becoming self-employed is more risky than having a steady job. There are numerous statistics to support this fact.

And that's all from me on this subject. I fell like I'm arguing that the Earth is indeed round.

[Mofko]

Very interesting that you mention "beat them, or join them".  It really depends on whether you just need the money, or whether you are determined enough to beat your competitors.

[Richard Kain]

I don't know...I've been out of work for a few months, and I'm beginning to think the self-employment route might not be so bad. I got fired from my last job as a cost-cutting measure. The upper management decided to outsource my duties to India. My performance reviews were better than ever, and I was getting along well with the rest of the team I worked with. I didn't do anything wrong and was good at my job, and I still got canned.

In the current business environment it just seems like there isn't any stability or loyalty anymore. Companies treat their employees as disposable resources, discarded as soon as a lower-cost alternative is available. At least working for yourself you can have some level of control over your own direction.