What's happening with founders over 40?(justinjackson.ca)
justinjackson.ca
What's happening with founders over 40?
https://justinjackson.ca/over-40
81 comments
+1
And the statistics would agree with this intuition:
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2020/comm/busi...
Over half of business owners are over 55 years of age. This includes small businesses, IT startups, etc.
But even within tech, the majority of founders and CEOs I worked with, from small startups to large enterprises, tended to be 40s and up.
And the statistics would agree with this intuition:
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2020/comm/busi...
Over half of business owners are over 55 years of age. This includes small businesses, IT startups, etc.
But even within tech, the majority of founders and CEOs I worked with, from small startups to large enterprises, tended to be 40s and up.
a business owner being 55+ is different statistic from a founder being 55+
This is true! However, "age" might be less of a deciding variable than experience, connections, and resources.
Here's the research on older entrepreneurs being more successful: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/younger-old...
> "Among the very fastest-growing new tech companies, the average founder was 45 at the time of founding."
However, the deciding factor appears to be experience:
> "founders with three or more years of experience in the same industry as their startup are twice as likely to have a one-in-1,000 fastest-growing company."
Here's the research on older entrepreneurs being more successful: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/younger-old...
> "Among the very fastest-growing new tech companies, the average founder was 45 at the time of founding."
However, the deciding factor appears to be experience:
> "founders with three or more years of experience in the same industry as their startup are twice as likely to have a one-in-1,000 fastest-growing company."
There's a lot of talk in this thread about age-related wisdom. One thing that didn't take me long to figure out was that this...
> your kids [...] might even help with your business.
...is a really, really bad idea. N=1 and everything but I've seen this backfire far more times than it has worked out. A few of the more common scenarios:
- Somebody loans somebody money even though both parties know (and refuse to admit) that the loan will never be repaid. Much consternation and gnashing of teeth ensues a year later when the inevitable happens.
- The business owner asks for a project to be done and it ends up not being done to their satisfaction because they didn't feel the need to spec it formally/properly which then leads to partial or non-payment for said project. Everybody is unhappy and worse off.
- Long, difficult work days with somebody that you live with continue after you get home at 2AM because you don't have time apart to process the interpersonal conflict from the day. Occasional distaste turns into outright protracted hostility.
- Friends of friends are hired, do a bad job because of entitlement or incompetence, then get terminated for cause. This creates hostility between the business owner and the person that referred them in the first place. Much shit is talked and everybody's reputation is tarnished.
- Non-related employees develop bad attitudes towards related ones because of perceived nepotism. The team at large then underperforms due to low trust and bad morale.
Occasionally things are resolved amicably but I've seen multiple families outright broken because they chose to do business together. Best to steer clear altogether in my experience.
> your kids [...] might even help with your business.
...is a really, really bad idea. N=1 and everything but I've seen this backfire far more times than it has worked out. A few of the more common scenarios:
- Somebody loans somebody money even though both parties know (and refuse to admit) that the loan will never be repaid. Much consternation and gnashing of teeth ensues a year later when the inevitable happens.
- The business owner asks for a project to be done and it ends up not being done to their satisfaction because they didn't feel the need to spec it formally/properly which then leads to partial or non-payment for said project. Everybody is unhappy and worse off.
- Long, difficult work days with somebody that you live with continue after you get home at 2AM because you don't have time apart to process the interpersonal conflict from the day. Occasional distaste turns into outright protracted hostility.
- Friends of friends are hired, do a bad job because of entitlement or incompetence, then get terminated for cause. This creates hostility between the business owner and the person that referred them in the first place. Much shit is talked and everybody's reputation is tarnished.
- Non-related employees develop bad attitudes towards related ones because of perceived nepotism. The team at large then underperforms due to low trust and bad morale.
Occasionally things are resolved amicably but I've seen multiple families outright broken because they chose to do business together. Best to steer clear altogether in my experience.
Particularly as the idea of “micro-startups” is becoming both more popular and accessible.
Not sure I see the next Facebook or Google being founded by folks 40+, but the older I get the less I aspire to that
(Yes, I recognize the irony of posting this on a website that is associated with YC)
Not sure I see the next Facebook or Google being founded by folks 40+, but the older I get the less I aspire to that
(Yes, I recognize the irony of posting this on a website that is associated with YC)
Comments so far are sort of singling out the "negatives" i.e. make it seem like 40yo just don't want to put in the time anymore (for one reason or another) but the article also mentions stuff like:
- At 40+ you're more judicious about where you put your energy
- In your 40s, you have some accumulated wisdom: you recognize patterns faster and are more willing to change course
Do I have the blind faith to grind it out 5+ years in a stagnating startup on an off chance it might take off someday - especially if I've done that before? Looking for a better way is not always a bad thing. On another hand - my 20yo self wouldn't have believed my 40yo self - some things you just have to live through.
- At 40+ you're more judicious about where you put your energy
- In your 40s, you have some accumulated wisdom: you recognize patterns faster and are more willing to change course
Do I have the blind faith to grind it out 5+ years in a stagnating startup on an off chance it might take off someday - especially if I've done that before? Looking for a better way is not always a bad thing. On another hand - my 20yo self wouldn't have believed my 40yo self - some things you just have to live through.
I'm the author of the post. I think you've discerned the central tension I was exploring here.
Part of what I'm identifying is a simple truth: in your 40s, you don’t have that same kind of “raw firepower” you had when you were younger.
That doesn't mean you can't still be ambitious or leverage your accrued wisdom, network, and resources to launch a company; it just means the dynamics are different.
Part of what I'm identifying is a simple truth: in your 40s, you don’t have that same kind of “raw firepower” you had when you were younger.
That doesn't mean you can't still be ambitious or leverage your accrued wisdom, network, and resources to launch a company; it just means the dynamics are different.
Generalizing always misses things. I'm 65, and until recently, sometimes worked 15 hour days with no breaks. I value "being able to work" increasingly more with each passing year.
It's possible only because I've a had a lot of years to learn and experiment with how to have MORE "firepower". I had so many health issues when I was younger, I couldn't accomplish much. It affected my life goals and perspective tremendously. At the same time, if I don't do enough things right now, I suffer faster. Even with my issues at a younger age, I could get away with much more when I was younger.
It's possible only because I've a had a lot of years to learn and experiment with how to have MORE "firepower". I had so many health issues when I was younger, I couldn't accomplish much. It affected my life goals and perspective tremendously. At the same time, if I don't do enough things right now, I suffer faster. Even with my issues at a younger age, I could get away with much more when I was younger.
As the saying goes... work smarter, not harder :)
I'm only 30 and honestly, sometimes I sit down at a side project and think "How the heck did I just sit here and grind out this entire desktop application" when now I'll struggle to work on it for an hour at a time.
Part of it is motivation in that it went from being a personal project I use to something others primarily use but I also constantly ask myself "Is this really what I want to spend my time on" which was never really a thought back then when it was just fun (and something I needed)
Not exactly the same but echoes of the raw firepower thing where it's easy to fully commit if you either have nothing else or you're fully sure of your dedication otherwise you're sort of one toe in the pool and aren't sure whether to save your energy
Part of it is motivation in that it went from being a personal project I use to something others primarily use but I also constantly ask myself "Is this really what I want to spend my time on" which was never really a thought back then when it was just fun (and something I needed)
Not exactly the same but echoes of the raw firepower thing where it's easy to fully commit if you either have nothing else or you're fully sure of your dedication otherwise you're sort of one toe in the pool and aren't sure whether to save your energy
> Part of what I'm identifying is a simple truth: in your 40s, you don’t have that same kind of “raw firepower” you had when you were younger.
I wish this self-harming myth would stop being repeated as a "simple truth". It's a simple falsehood. It comes from a 100-year old idea about scientific productivity, that science (and specifically mathematics) is a young person's game. This has been widely debunked for many decades now.
The reality is that a lot of people use this myth to not admit the fact that they burned themselves out and lost their drive. Then they don't take care of their mental health and use this unscientific nonsense as the excuse for why things went wrong.
I see it in colleagues all the time in science. Some burn out, others get far better, smarter, and can get things done that they couldn't have a decade before. It has nothing to do with wisdom, network, resources, etc.
I wish this self-harming myth would stop being repeated as a "simple truth". It's a simple falsehood. It comes from a 100-year old idea about scientific productivity, that science (and specifically mathematics) is a young person's game. This has been widely debunked for many decades now.
The reality is that a lot of people use this myth to not admit the fact that they burned themselves out and lost their drive. Then they don't take care of their mental health and use this unscientific nonsense as the excuse for why things went wrong.
I see it in colleagues all the time in science. Some burn out, others get far better, smarter, and can get things done that they couldn't have a decade before. It has nothing to do with wisdom, network, resources, etc.
"In a study published in the journal Nature Aging in August, a team of Stanford scientists described “waves” of aging, where major biomolecular shifts happen in the body around ages 44 and 60."
Source: https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/feeling-suddenly-older-s... Mirror: https://archive.ph/7C1Wl#selection-2469.0-2473.75
Source: https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/feeling-suddenly-older-s... Mirror: https://archive.ph/7C1Wl#selection-2469.0-2473.75
It's one data point, here is another perspective that says that depending upon the field of endeavor, people can become more proficient with age. "Old Masters and Young Geniuses" https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w8368/w8368...
> I wish this self-harming myth would stop being repeated as a "simple truth".
In an industry that exploits a pool of young workers, paying them less but assuring them that they're smarter and their skills are more up-to-date than those middle-aged coders of yesteryear, it's still effective rhetoric.
In an industry that exploits a pool of young workers, paying them less but assuring them that they're smarter and their skills are more up-to-date than those middle-aged coders of yesteryear, it's still effective rhetoric.
Then why are chess champions young? You can offset the loss with experience, but there is a loss, otherwise experience would easily win.
Chess champions mostly haven't been young, but the dominant ones have often been dominant from the time they were young. Here's a list with ages: https://sportstar.thehindu.com/chess/world-chess-championshi...
The WCC is just a tournament though, and the winner isn't always the best player. In 1993 for example Kasparov split from FIDE, and nobody thinks of FIDE's champions as "real" until Kramnik brought the titles back together in 2006. Meanwhile Kasparov lost a match and his title to Kramnik in 2000, but remained the highest rated player until he retired. And Magnus outranked Anand for years before bothering to contest the championship.
The top three classical players today are in their 30s (with Arjun right there behind Fabiano and Hikaru). The most impressive to me though are Anand in his fifties and Aronian in his forties, in the 10th and 11th spots. And then of course there's speed chess, where the youngsters are barely competitive.
The WCC is just a tournament though, and the winner isn't always the best player. In 1993 for example Kasparov split from FIDE, and nobody thinks of FIDE's champions as "real" until Kramnik brought the titles back together in 2006. Meanwhile Kasparov lost a match and his title to Kramnik in 2000, but remained the highest rated player until he retired. And Magnus outranked Anand for years before bothering to contest the championship.
The top three classical players today are in their 30s (with Arjun right there behind Fabiano and Hikaru). The most impressive to me though are Anand in his fifties and Aronian in his forties, in the 10th and 11th spots. And then of course there's speed chess, where the youngsters are barely competitive.
I do think youthfulness can mean better performance, but don't forget that in modern times youth development has been much more optimized than ever before so the youth have advantage of that, getting the best development while the brains are most plastic to improve.
>On another hand - my 20yo self wouldn't have believed my 40yo self - some things you just have to live through.
As Otto Von Bismarck once said: "Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others."
As Otto Von Bismarck once said: "Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others."
He also said "What we learn from History is that no one learns from History."
He was the Prussian friggin' Yogi Berra.
He was the Prussian friggin' Yogi Berra.
[deleted]
"Family obligations and priorities are prominent (kids in high school/college)."
Maybe it's my bubble but I'm 41 and most people I know my age have kids in the 2-12 age range, not high school/college.
I would love to be a founder but I am tired as hell, and don't have the wealth to quit my job to start a company.
Maybe it's my bubble but I'm 41 and most people I know my age have kids in the 2-12 age range, not high school/college.
I would love to be a founder but I am tired as hell, and don't have the wealth to quit my job to start a company.
I guess it depends, but I know a few folks in their late forties with kids in college. They had them in their late twenties. I wouldn't call it rare.
Over 40 is a wider bracket than just 41.
I’m 46 and my oldest is 18 and will start college next year (southern hemisphere), not that different from you after adjusting for our age difference :)
I’m 46 and my oldest is 18 and will start college next year (southern hemisphere), not that different from you after adjusting for our age difference :)
Yeah especially these days when people are having kids older and older as it requires much more lengthy education to establish a stable career.
Here in Germany it has become extremely common to have children in your mid 30s or later.
Here in Germany it has become extremely common to have children in your mid 30s or later.
My mother is 50 and I am over 30...
OK, but are you most people, or are you a people?
I'm most people in my bubble. I'm sure there are many different bubbles with completely different stats.
average in the US is around 28 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2024/05/18/graphi...
Yeah, I'm European. Nowadays it's getting similar, but it was very different under communism - and the regime spent a lot of money to convince people to have children early.
[deleted]
The VC's want someone dumb and impressionable.
it's like the army. a youngster will do what you tell them without asking why. a 40 year old will ask what the plan is, and you better have a good one.
Is it that 40 years are more skeptical? Or that they have their own manner of working that’s not unlearnable?
they've probably been around long enough to see a lot of stuff going on and are less likely to fall for empty promises.
if you give me a gun and point me at the Russians invading England, I'll probably head over and shoot in their general direction.
if you put me in a camp and i have to suffer a drill sergeant shouting at me, I'll probably shoot him in the knee.
if you give me a gun and point me at the Russians invading England, I'll probably head over and shoot in their general direction.
if you put me in a camp and i have to suffer a drill sergeant shouting at me, I'll probably shoot him in the knee.
> if i have to suffer a drill sergeant shouting at me, I'll probably shoot him in the knee.
Ive been around the corporate world and the equivalent of this pretty much never happens. And when it does it’s always been a young person standing up for themselves. So I think this is just big talk.
And by that I don’t mean a personal insult. But your answer doesn’t give me confidence in your view.
Ive been around the corporate world and the equivalent of this pretty much never happens. And when it does it’s always been a young person standing up for themselves. So I think this is just big talk.
And by that I don’t mean a personal insult. But your answer doesn’t give me confidence in your view.
I suspect the older people in your experience have a mortgage, it might make a difference.
In other words, they are bound by social obligations that encourage them to support the system, and their leadership. Just like the young people.
the difference is that in a corporate environment, an older person will generally have a mortgage and be less willing to stand up to management, while a young one can't afford a house yet and will have more freedom to move around if needed.
an older person who can't afford a mortgage, has no friends or family, and not much to live for other than work/food/shelter is one who is a lot harder to coerce.
an older person who can't afford a mortgage, has no friends or family, and not much to live for other than work/food/shelter is one who is a lot harder to coerce.
The article only mentions bootstrapped founders.
So "founder" is not in the context of Silicon Valley startups.
But "startup" only means "new company" to most people these days.
So "founder" is not in the context of Silicon Valley startups.
But "startup" only means "new company" to most people these days.
Breaking news: Founders find out people in midlife have young kids.
Another option is to put that experience to good use. I just turned 43, I should probably have retired. But instead I founded Tech for Palestine, doing whatever we can to help end the oppression on Palestinians by Israel. Hard tiring work, but it feels like a good leverage for all those skills I spent my 20s and 30s building. Maybe that perspective will change once I have kids, which is in slated for the next few years.
That is such an admirable and honorable cause. May God Grant you Success.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Eh. I was quite willing to take risky bets on startups when I was laid off, at 55.
I had experience in myriad aspects of releasing and maintaining software, managing release-level projects that were hybrid hardware/software (I originally hailed from a hardware genesis), and the myriad "soft skills" that are required of anyone that is going to ask cynical, hard-boiled people with bags of money (think Japanese executives) to help fund their efforts. I had (still have) a guaranteed income for life, so I would have been quite willing to work on equity, and had (still have) no problem, putting in a huge amount of hours (my GH Activity Graph is almost solid green. I keep busy).
My experience: no one cared about that. They wanted young jargonauts. I assume that's the formula that gets VCs to pony up cash.
They were probably correct, in pushing me away. I am not particularly enamored of the business plan model that seems to be in fashion, these days.
I had experience in myriad aspects of releasing and maintaining software, managing release-level projects that were hybrid hardware/software (I originally hailed from a hardware genesis), and the myriad "soft skills" that are required of anyone that is going to ask cynical, hard-boiled people with bags of money (think Japanese executives) to help fund their efforts. I had (still have) a guaranteed income for life, so I would have been quite willing to work on equity, and had (still have) no problem, putting in a huge amount of hours (my GH Activity Graph is almost solid green. I keep busy).
My experience: no one cared about that. They wanted young jargonauts. I assume that's the formula that gets VCs to pony up cash.
They were probably correct, in pushing me away. I am not particularly enamored of the business plan model that seems to be in fashion, these days.
"jargonauts" is amazing. I've not heard that before, but what a well-fitting shoe. :D
>I am not particularly enamored of the business plan model that seems to be in fashion, these days.
More work, more chaos, more micromanagement for less pay, what's not to like?
More work, more chaos, more micromanagement for less pay, what's not to like?
Most VCs want a founder that will spend years grinding away earning nothing and in the off chance they have something successful, sign away their rights, so the VC can make their millions. By 40, most people see right through the bullshit.
Im in my 40s and I even turn down good paying jobs at startups, when I see no upside for me (long hours, terrible business model).
Im in my 40s and I even turn down good paying jobs at startups, when I see no upside for me (long hours, terrible business model).
Wow. It's amazing how quickly this crashed off the HN frontpage. Not a popular topic.
When you’re young, if your startup fails, you’re still young.
But when you’re in your 40s or more, and your startup fails, it hits you harder, you lost some last good years to the stress of building a startup, for nothing. And now you’re even older and more tired.
It’s like there’s no point unless you’re sure you have something very promising, not just snake oil BS. Better to spend time with family and your hobbies.
What’s the point of getting rich at like 70? You’re old and all the romance of life has been drained. Your wealth just pays for better end of life care.
But when you’re in your 40s or more, and your startup fails, it hits you harder, you lost some last good years to the stress of building a startup, for nothing. And now you’re even older and more tired.
It’s like there’s no point unless you’re sure you have something very promising, not just snake oil BS. Better to spend time with family and your hobbies.
What’s the point of getting rich at like 70? You’re old and all the romance of life has been drained. Your wealth just pays for better end of life care.
Then think of what it means if you have a person in their 40's that is really investing times in startups. Either they're stupid or they are committed in a way that 20 year olds likely aren't.
I will tell you right now, the worst founders are young. Probably great for the VC, but not great for anyone else.
My best learnings have come from founders who were in their 40s when they started their businesses. One was even 58 when he started.
My best learnings have come from founders who were in their 40s when they started their businesses. One was even 58 when he started.
The average age of a successful business founder in the US is in the early 40's - these days I see 42 and 45 thrown around based on available data.
It's always been the case. 20 years ago I remember seeing the number 38 being thrown around.
By middle age you've had enough time to accumulate skills, a network, and capital, which can far outweigh the downsides of this period of your life.
Young adulthood is your fuck around period. Middle age is your find out period. It's really when the rubber hits the road and whatever you've been turning into a reality through your actions for the last 20+ years, happens.
Old age is when you live with the consequences.
It's always been the case. 20 years ago I remember seeing the number 38 being thrown around.
By middle age you've had enough time to accumulate skills, a network, and capital, which can far outweigh the downsides of this period of your life.
Young adulthood is your fuck around period. Middle age is your find out period. It's really when the rubber hits the road and whatever you've been turning into a reality through your actions for the last 20+ years, happens.
Old age is when you live with the consequences.
Youth are easier to get more work out of than the value they will get in return. By 40 you have less tolerance for BS, can better judge if a venture will succeed, and when the risk/reward no longer make sense to continue.
Some would call it higher risk tolerance, others might say its risk ignorance.
Some would call it higher risk tolerance, others might say its risk ignorance.
Are there even enough sane founders that VCs can be picky about age?
nextworddev(1)
Honestly? I think they are just rationalizing away their respective midlife crises.
I dont get the idea of a family. We should fund a more stable foundation.
Like what? Were you orphaned or had an unsupportive family that brings you to put no value in them? Do you consider that an advantage such that the rest of us would be better off with less care and love in our lives? Or do you have plans for a different institution to provide those things better?
Hard to find the best match and easy to get a divorce after unhappy marriage with too much bad side effects.
I perceived having "old" (co-)founders as a subtle but immanent disadvantage in the prototypical deep tech startup scene. When you talk to VC youngsters who barely started a university studies this is awkward at best and not successful in average. Things change dramatically when you talk to partners in the VC firms where the aged founder and partner meet at a similar age. This may sound trivial but these non-technical human interactions are quite dominating in my life, unfortunately. Age is as important as degrees or previous experience as founder.
Aye, ageism can creep up on us all if we assume age means disadvantage despite knowing that experience is a massive advantage. Many older founders have both age and degrees, and many even teach those that get degrees. Older folks typically know the market much better, having lived it, and are better at garnering trust if they aren't a complete muppet.
- You have more time since your kids are more independent, and they might even help with your business.
- Your significant other might have a full-time job, giving you a safety net with steady income and insurance.
- By now, you have a network of friends and colleagues, making it easier to find your first customers and get honest feedback.
- Hiring is easier because you already know people in your industry or community.
- You understand your industry better, which gives you an advantage. However, this can also be a downside—you might avoid risky, “crazy” ideas that could lead to huge success.