Hacker News Reader

Comment by tempsolution | Hacker News Reader

Exactly. I always find it amusing when people say they did something for 0$ by working in their spare time.

This calculation doesn't make any sense. Can you build the initial Google project in your spare-time? Probably, if you find enough qualified volunteers.

Does that mean it's a viable business?

Absolutely not.

You need to check how much you would have get paid when working in your last highest paying job... (Even when you do things in spare time)

View on HN

I get your point, but taken to its logical conclusion, no one should ever stop working, because it costs them money to do so.

If my alternative is sitting in front of the TV, or reading a book, or gardening, or... whatever but I choose to do something like this, the cost of that time is effectively zero because that's what I would have been doing with it otherwise.

So, by "working" at something I enjoy and that I'm doing by choice, I'm basically being paid to entertain myself.

However, there is a real difference how much you have spent in labour vs how much you have spent in capital. Although time is arguably more valuable than capital as a human, capital is often harder to come by. Whenever I read "I did X with only $Y", I don't think it actually cost $Y when taking into account labour and other externalities. I think it cost $Y of capital and that is a viable thing to talk about. Even in startups you hear that someone gets $1 million in seed money and works for a year receiving almost no salary -- just enough for a bed in a closet and ramen 3x a day. It's basically the same thing.

Many people are salaried and won't get paid any additional money for working more hours at their job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com