I had 3-4 years runway when I started and it wasn't obviously long enough (I remember hearing the exact same comment you just posted when I asked for advice). I ended up starting up, failing, and taking another job (still have 2-3 years runway left) and don't regret it at all.

People with 6-figure salaries and 3-4 years runway tend to be calculated risk takers. They don't jump in unless it looks like there's a decent probably of success. That doesn't mean they won't take any risks, just that they want the odds to be in their favor.

All that said, I'd say go for it. You can always get another job, and 3-4 years means you won't be in dire financial straights when you're looking. Starting your own company often uncovers other opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be there if you just sat in a secure day job, too.

Umm... you left your job, tried a startup that failed, and you still have 2-3 years of runway left. It's pretty obvious to me that you had a long enough runway.

I'm not saying this to be mean (plenty of startups fail), but your startup did fail. Your experience isn't exactly a knockout blow to the argument that anyone hesitating to jump in even though they have 3-4 years of runway might be too risk-averse to be successful with their own company.

Someone who has a failed startup is in a better position to give advice than someone who has not.

You seem quite willing to deem someone not ready or not in a position to give advice. Also, before you make a bold claim about someone's character it would be helpful if you read their previous comments.

What are you talking about? When did I say anyone wasn't ready or in a position to give advice, and when did I say anything about anyone's character?

Opinions were asked for, I gave mine, someone disagreed with me, and I disagreed with their reasoning. Nobody's feelings should be hurt, grow up.

It didn't really hurt my feelings. We're all (well, mostly) adults here; we can disagree without taking it personally.

I just thought it was kind of odd that you'd suggest someone might not have enough risk appetite for a startup, and then when someone else replies that most entrepreneurs take calculated risks, point out that they failed. Failure is a part of risk. All those folks who did take the risk of starting a startup...well, most of them failed. Does that make them unqualified to give startup advice? Kinda contradictory, given your original point.

I never said you were unqualified to give advice, and I wasn't trying to insult you for your startup's failure (of course failure is a part of risk). My original point was that risk-averse people probably won't have successful startups, and I didn't understand why you would hold up your failed startup up as evidence to the contrary.

Here's another bold opinion: if some jackass like me can persuade him not to do a startup by pointing out that startups aren't for the risk-averse, then he probably shouldn't be doing a startup.

Ya that's fair, but it's reasonable for someone to ask a question without being judged.

Who's judging anyone? He asked if he should leave his job to do a startup, I said "probably not" based on the fact that he's hesitating even though he has a really long runway.

Everyone tries to be realistic about risk tolerance. I'm more concerned about people who don't hesitate over big decisions than those who do.

Okay, fine. I'm more concerned about people who have 3-4 years of runway and still aren't confident enough to jump into a startup without first consulting a website full of strangers. To each their own.