I find this especially surreal because I live in Pasadena near San Marino and know most of the places he mentions. We may even have crossed paths. It's also virtually certain that we know at least one person in common, as I have a cousin who held various positions on "Roseanne", including head writer. Come to think of it, I once went to a taping of the show, so we may have crossed paths then, too. Wild. Glad he bounced back.
In my mind, this is an important bug report. Often when you deal with users, the problem is between the keyboard and chair: "The calculations are all wrong!" "Yes, that's because you uploaded an excel spreadsheet with all the wrong numbers..."
But sometimes it isn't the users fault. Sometimes programs crash because you made a coding error. So you fix your code and the users become happy.
To me, this story is the latter. Guy didn't do drugs, isn't a suffering a mental disorder, have a gambling problem, alcoholic and still becomes homeless! Then I think the problem can not be blamed on a user error, but is a system problem. Perhaps this user didn't behave exactly as the system programmers expected, but there still needs to be enough error handling builtin so you don't get homeless from the errors he made.
Supposedly he tried his best and he seems like a smart person. I think a very large part of the population would have taken even worse decisions in the same situation.
Reading comments in this thread just confirms the old saying that it's easy to be a good general after the battle. But David himself says at the beginning of the text: "I made a thousand decisions, large and small, that seemed reasonable at the time but cumulatively led to our situation."
Of course it's easy to analyze what went wrong after the fact. But it's not easy to see the trends when you're amid them. (Continuously monitoring the ongoing trends is one of the advices in the Book of five rings. A pile of small seemingly incremental changes amounts to a big shift. It's hard to notice them when they happen over an extended period of time.)
The whole "8 kids" thing is off-putting for a lot of people. It's certainly not a great idea, but I feel that, even for people with few or no children, catastrophic failure is still lurking in the shadows, ready to reach out and drag them into the abyss.
The best thing you can do is acknowledge its presence and build your defenses by prudently saving and spending.
I enjoyed reading his story -- not the actual sequence of events obviously, but in the telling. It bears some similarities to "The Jerk" and "Life Stinks" but it could be a worthwhile movie (hope I didn't jinx it.)
Some things I might have done differently --
1) Left LA for someplace cheaper once I decided to take the sabbatical.
2) Not have eight children. Four would have been plenty.
As others have pointed out, most who flock to LA to work in entertainment leave without much to show for it except a healthy dose of cynicism.
How many jobs did he apply for which he was well qualified? The "economy" failed this guy, not the other way around. And under no circumstances should people end up homeless. There are too many empty homes. I will go so far as to say that no one should have to take charity from family or community in order to have some type of home, regardless of their income.
This is a very sick and outdated Social Darwinistic society we have.
I wonder how much this fellow paid in Social Security taxes over the years. I don't understand why people can't use their own resources when they need them, rather than when other people think they need them.
The rules of a 401K and IRAs allow you to borrow from your own retirement funds (albeit with penalty if not paid back within a certain window). It seems like that would be more desirable than the funds being untouchable.
The concept of social security as a form of investment/retirement account is a bit of a misconception. In reality, your immediate payments into social security are for the current population that is elderly or disabled. The "promise" of social security is that when you're elderly or disabled, you'll benefit from the system. It's a slight but important difference.
That said, he may have qualified for some sort of federal or state assistance while he was in this state.
Takeaway: socio-cultural is the most important sort... Without a large baggage of skills to bounce back on, this story would not have ended the same way.
To solve a resume gap, just say you were a consultant.
To make sure it's truthful, get a few gigs, no matter how low-paid (this guy did). If you're likely, some of the customers will serve be willing to serve as references.
Most interviewers will not ask much about what you did as a consultant. You can tell them truthfully about the gigs. No interviewers will ask exactly how many hours a week you were billing.
It seems to me that he did not plan appropriately. He invested and what not, but it seems to me he could have just been doing a part time job the entire time he was in "the gap" and he would have been fine.
Further, eight kids...
He seems nice, just planned VERY poorly. Also, kudos for him tugging back from homelessness. I am impressed.
(I enjoyed the story and feel tons of compassion for him. But there do seem to be some unexplained factual gaps in the story that my brain wants to make sense of. Who paid for college is the main question I haven't seen anyone else mention yet).
Wow. There're experiences that you may think of but never really anticipate to encounter. For me it was feeling shame for buying a Kindle edition of the book. But I really want to read it and if so I need to buy it in the Kindle form.
It's a good story, people should think about the fail carefully before commit to a startup. I shall read this story 1 year before, it's too late to think about it when you are facing it.
For those who would like to help him, the most direct way is to buy and then review his book on Amazon. He will receive more money for the paper edition than for the Kindle.
IMHO, stories like these have the effect of people who should feel really really comfortable financially continue to work hard (aka paying underlings as little as possible).
They discussed this before but I can't find the link. Priceonomics has started consulting on data analysis and visualization and make significantly more money doing that than they do with their price search tools.
This is a very sad story. Even more sadly, it reflects many similar stories.
All this calamity for this family of 10 came from bad planning. This guy had a career that would have likely lasted until retirement, but he took a risk and quit it. That was a smallish risk, not nearly the risk he took while in his next job.
He admits that writers careers don't usually don't last into their 50s. Why did he not save more money so he could retire early? Why did he choose to have more and more children? Why did he not position himself for transition into another job as his writing career progressed? Why did he just quit without having another (less demanding) job lined up?
He was making upwards of a million dollars a year at one point. I had some neighbors while growing up in the 90s, they had 8 kids too and their father probably make 2-3 million dollars over his entire life. They were never homeless (in fact they had a pretty nice 5bd house), never hungry, cold, had decently new cars and clothes, ETC. This guy blew his wad all at once like a pro athlete.
All bad choices.
After his job, why did they not cut back on their spending? They should have downsized and cut back dramatically rather than continuing their expensive lifestyle.
At the time he quit, he was probably worth over 2 million dollars Add half a million that they borrowed after that and you still can't make that last more than 6 years?
I know someone who did something similar. The person that I know took a couple of years off like this. He got so used to it that when he started looking for a job again - it was half-assed (he was spoiled with still living lavish on savings and not having to work). He sabotaged many interviews, turned down some for bogus reasons and when he got jobs, he could not keep them for long (self sabotage again). It was like he was mentally ready for retirement already, but he was only 40.
It is a sad story, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who has grossed over 10 million dollars over his lifetime but squandered it.
Well he admits that he made bad choices. Obviously quitting his job was a bad choice - though I have spent several years around Hollywood folks and social norms regarding work amongst entertainment industry people in LA are a little different from the rest of us. There is a lot of pressure to show off your success - not always with flashy things but for the older guys, with freedom. Giving off the illusion of an early retirement is a status symbol with these guys. I'd say that factored into his thinking quite a bit - he wanted to show off that he could take a break like the other guys but ignored the fact that he had 8 children to feed. If he didn't have 8 kids he probably could have pulled it off even if he never found a job again.
And I've been in the situation where I had a comfy lifestyle and the income source to support it drops off. Its hard to let go of these things, your emotions get in the way. Scaling back is admitting failure, its damaging to the ego. So you ignore the warning signs and keep on living at the same standards - you keep the house, the car, go out for fancy meals with your friends etc like always. Meanwhile the debt racks up and up, but hey you have the credit to cover it. And you'll get the money back again soon, so don't worry. Until you don't, and shit hits the fan and one day you're packing up the house and living out of your car. Its of course his fault, but people don't always operate on logic
> All this calamity for this family of 10 came from bad planning. This guy had a career that would have likely lasted until retirement, but he took a risk and quit it. That was a smallish risk, not nearly the risk he took while in his next job.
To be fair his career would have quit him shortly after he quit it. The industry changed.
True but remember being in the game makes a whole lot difference, than entering it after a break. To add to that you are old so you are facing age discrimination issues.
If he had stuck to his job, he would atleast noticed the change in trends so could have changed to something better.
I feel like the "fuck you, I've got mine" culture of Hollywood and, thanks to the VCs, also the Valley leads this way for a lot of talented, creative people (such as OP). The problem is that no one thinks age discrimination will happen to them, and people who've realized that it can and does have been rendered irrelevant.
Also, I know that a lot of people will think that this is a shitty thing to say, but it's just the truth, so here goes. Unless you have dynastic wealth (and various generational protections against losing it, such as trust funds that skip a generation) having 8 kids is just fucking irresponsible. You're betting on 5+ of them being 150+ IQ types who can make it on their own without top schools and bought connections, and that's just not a reasonable bet no matter how good your genes may be. Sorry, but them's truth. I'm not sure I can even condone bringing one child into this fucked-up, horrible society. I certainly wouldn't even consider it if I lived in the ex-hippie-now-hypocrite fuck-you-I've-got-mine paradise of Hollywood/Silicon Valley.
This guy WAS one of the I've got mine people. He is self described as a rock star type. He made many millions of dollars. I have knows middle class families who have not only raised 8 kids, but have retired and maintain the same standard of living on LESS money than this guy made in two of his peak (one million dollar) years. Having eh 8 kids is not the irresponsible part when you have made upwards of ten million dollars in your life. That much should be crystal clear (the money was squandered).
this was the only thing i could think throughout the whole article.
of course it makes no practical or moral sense to discuss after the fact, and his tale is both cautionary and oddly inspiring; but ultimately the entire situation could have been side-stepped with a bit of family planning.
it definitely has a parallel, if even less acknowledged, in the wider world.
Honestly, with 8 kids, what kind of job do you expect to have that doesn't take the majority of your time up? It will either be one long job or a regular job and a night job.
"All of our children do as well. Germany has a stronger social safety net, so she decided to return with our two youngest daughters. They spent their high school years there and received a great education"
This part doesn't make sense to me. So his wife would rather divorce, which is even more unhealthy for the children because there is no dad around to utilize a safety net than have a husband with a job with long hours. He was making $600,000/year. This is enough to support them for many years.
His wife sounds like the selfish one and this was all an excuse to go back to Germany. Many women want the family and the money, but don't realize the time and sacrifice that it actually takes to get it.
"Since I moved to the Bay Area, I’ve worked on two startups. I had a substantial equity stake in one of them and was promised an equity stake in the other once the next round of financing came through."
Good story. And sad. But still not following Mom's advice and betting on something that has a very small chance of success.
I wonder how much salary he is giving up to get that lottery ticket?
There always is the possibility that startups are the only place that would accept a homeless guy with little experience.
He seems to have writing skills, which is a useful skill, but with very little "resume fluff" to prove it. A white-collar job looks down upon even 6-months of unemployment... seeing years and years of unemployment / odd jobs is just a giant red mark.
Even if someone is fully qualified, you are simply going to favor the resume with a "solid work history" over someone with a whole bunch of holes.
Startups on the other hand, cannot afford that luxury. They often need the skills immediately and don't about those sorts of matters as much.
> There always is the possibility that startups are the only place that would accept a homeless guy with little experience.
From reading HN I get the impression he'd have very little chance because of his age. This guy has white hair, and posters here seem to think that over 26 is past it.
While the ageism of the startup scene is legendary, I think it's incredibly myopic. The assumption seems to be that older people who are hardworking and exceptionally intelligent are likely not to be conversant with the latest technology/programming language du jour and therefore have nothing to offer. I also wonder if startups feel that they can more easily exploit younger workers with airy, hand-wavey promises of future payoffs that older workers would be less likely to accept.
"seeing years and years of unemployment / odd jobs is just a giant red mark."
Guess what? In that case you have to be smart enough, for survival purposes, to make something up. For god's sake you can say you are a consultant. Or say you worked at a company that recently went out of business. And if you get caught later? Who cares by then you will have hopefully used it as a stepping stone to something else. Of course if you want to be honest you can continue to live on the street and hope for the best.
I am not doubting that it is difficult if you are living w/o a home to present an image that is consistent with that (so maybe you need to get a job care taking a property in order to have a place to live and using a po box) but it is not impossible. Very hard but not impossible.
or maybe survival? Lol some bullshit bias against holes and some guy tries to survive and it's said and done in your eyes. profile:jodrellblank tow-the-line drone
You're both right. He's suggesting to lie for survival.
Nonetheless, it is lying, and that has its own risks associated with it. Beyond honor, if people notice that you are lying on your resume, you start getting added to blacklists and those blacklists start spreading around.
You see, if you fail the typical interview, you are simply not hired. If you LIE in the typical interview, and the interviewer notices it, you may be banned for life from that company.
This is doubly-so for consultants. Consultants are sold based on their resume. IE: They may have found a Government Contract position that requires 3 years of experience, and naturally... they'll then look for people with 3 years of experience. They may be put in a very perilous legal position, and their Government Contract may be terminated. You aren't only putting yourself at risk here, but also the company that just hired you.
PS: its much much worse now that Mr. Snowden ruined it all for Contractors without a degree and little experience. Mr. Snowden has been cited explicitly as a case WHY you don't hire non-graduates.
He's got several years as a staff writer on a hit TV show, and his magazine publishing experience before that. The gap is real, and obviously important, but what came before is a lot more than "fluff".
He is _MISSING_ fluff. He just needs some job, ANY job that proves that he wasn't wasting his time during the gap.
He clearly has real world working experience. But any resume that is missing out on even a couple of months worth of experience signals a red flag to me.
This is the culture of corporate America. Holes are EXTREMELY bad in your resume. Period.
you were on the run from the Feds living in Argentina
you went to Pakistan to attend a Jihadist training course (BTEC-diploma)
you were kidnapped by aliens and given daily anal probes (that never impresses the interviewers)
you were being trained in cutting-edge industrial espionage techniques by a rival company of the interviewer
you spent the time going through sex-reassignment procedures and changed your name to Gladys
you worked for the NSA
The average interviewer will think all of the above and more in the space of two milliseconds, whether any of these delusional thoughts have any basis in reality.
There is no logic in it. Holes are bad because holes are bad. I'm sure I can make up a reason for you, but IMO, its better to cut out the bullshit and just tell it to you straight.
Holes in a resume are bad because most people who look at resumes think that holes are a bad thing. Its simply the bias that exists in most jobs (that I've come across... anyway)
That was my take as well. It seems he wants that long-term, corporate job, but it's just not there for the taking. The startups seemed to be the step-up from the Craigslist gigs.
"Sir, are you sure you want stack loaves of bread here at Trader Joe’s? Yes, I really do. Well, we’ve decided to hire the 24 year-old woman with purple hair and nose piercings instead."
He tried to get more traditional jobs, but they don't want him.
Jobs are hard to find. No doubt. But the truth is of course the manager at Trader Joe's knows he's not going to stick around for a long time. If you do hiring (in a traditional business) you will always run across people who are desperate and overqualified. They will tell you anything and everything to get the job. But a business is not a charity it's a business. And it needs to hire the person that (from experience) will stick around more than a short period of time. Doesn't mean the manager was right about him. But we have to assume that his judgement was based on what he ran into in the past in similar situations.
And the example he is giving is for dramatic effect anyway. We have no statistics on how many jobs he applied for that he was overqualified for but more on the mark that made sense for the person hiring (like writing for priceonomics on a per article basis).
"knows he's not going to stick around for a long time."
Why? I worked my way thru school in retail and then a short stint in retail management (long enough to learn I'm not doing that for a living if there's any way to avoid it...)
So our annual turnover rate ranged from 100% to 200% and this was not considered noteworthy in the biz. Retail is not like working for Ma Bell for 40 years and retiring in place. This dude was unemployed and/or homeless for what, like 5 years, at what point do you think a retail manager will think, hmm, he's been unemployed 10 times longer than the average employee lasts here, maybe, just maybe, he's going to stick around?
The other pure bogosity is I actually worked retail management and my three favorite employees were a carpenter and two accountants. God knows he wouldn't be the first dude trying to work a second job part time nights to make ends meet, and managers love to hire a guy (or woman) who the boyz will look up to as something of a parental figure or at least older bro figure (basically they were team leads working under me). High school kids were a dime a dozen but the store really rose or fell based on the adults...
You never, ever hire some high school or college student slacker if you can get a real dude with a real work ethic. Strange claims from people who haven't been there, while I have been there, strike a discordant tone.
Gotta be some "other" issues. Such as maybe 100 other applicants in the same situation who did get hired. Perhaps this "Rosanne" show writer didn't get hired because they hired a dude from the "Cosby show" or 100 other guys in the same situation.
I guarantee he didn't get hired because the kids would obey him like a parent, or because he had too intense of a work ethic, or too much life experience, or too focused on the prize aka paycheck.
But the truth is of course the manager at Trader Joe's knows he's not going to stick around for a long time.
You're right on average. Interestingly, one of the part-timers at my local (Menlo Park) Trader Joe's is apparently a retired multi-millionaire tech entrepreneur. He does it just to be around friendly people for part of his day.
