Paul Graham wrote that startups are a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four.

On the surface that sounds right. But I’ve always felt it misses something. I don't think he literally meant that founders simply squeeze the same amount of work into fewer years, but I also feel he didn't go deep enough on this to explain the real forces at play here.

I think startups can create more wealth than "regular work" with fewer hours total. One reason is focus. In a startup you're often working on the 20% of things that have 80% of the effect because of your lack of resources. You never get around to the rest and just keep chasing the next 20% most important things.

Another thing is leverage. The nature of the products is different between startups and "regular work". Most startups build scalable products, meaning an hour creating something can generate value for millions of people. I'm guessing this often is different from "regular work" done at low intensity for forty years.

There is also compounding. In a huge market and if a product starts spreading through word of mouth or other things, value continues being created without you spending hours on it.

And then there's motivation. Founders are working on their baby so I'm guessing their hourly default speed is set to 1,5x versus the non incentivized "regular work".

Startups can create more wealth than regular work with fewer hours total because they're operating in a different system — one where each hour has the potential to change more.