Title: In "How to Make Wealth" PG puts forward the following argument:<p>1. Assume a hacker can make a good wage working for someone else.<p>2. Assume a hacker can in turn be significantly more productive working for themselves.<p>3. All things being equal, a hacker should be able to make significantly more money by working for themselves (albeit at the cost of increased risk and stress).<p>The relevant quote: "If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard ... should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year."<p>My question to HN is as follows:<p>Excluding outliers such as Gates/Zuckerberg, is the inference that a good hacker can make more from the market directly actually valid?<p>If so, why does it seem most hackers struggle to capture even <i>half</i> their regular wage from the market directly?<p>All advice/experiences appreciated.
Upvote: