Any work in big tech or finance companies that would pay at least 100k per year.<p>This is because on what you've written, you've defined financial success for yourself as "a surefire way to retire by forty". Retirements, however, given a large and stable income, become primarily expense driven, when you run the numbers: reducing the amount you spend and consume when your salary exceeds most of your material needs is a far more reliable route and speedy path to retirement than making more.<p>This is because if you're already pulling 100k or more, are saving at least 30-40% of that (which for most people should be doable, as the median single person income is about $35,000, and the median family income, in total, is $75,062 [1]), and do that for 20 years, the interest on the 600k principal will exceed a 3% withdrawal rate and inflation for 30 years with 90% certainty [2], meaning if you can live on $18,000 (fairly doable in cheaper parts of the country), then you can retire at 40, if you so choose.<p>I would argue the above retirement plan is far more surefire than the startup-based one, because it only requires a single, disinterested employer willing to pay you at least that much for those 20 years, rather than getting repeated possibly-not-going-to-happen payouts from successful IPOs. Additionally, it assumes somewhat meager, defensive positions: The 3% withdrawal rate is aggressively low to account for bad downturns, and this plan assumes you never get a raise, never get awarded stock, never save more, never accrue interest on your deposited principal before you begin retirement, and never develop any income streams besides your job, despite being a programmer for over 20 years.<p>Additionally, Dan Luu argues with several salary increases programmers regularly get, you could pull this off in 8 years with my 30% estimate [3]. If you can, for example, increase your savings rate in my setup to 50%, you can have the above 600k based retirement within 12 years, in your mid 30s.<p>Families make this analysis more complicated, because of housing and the possibility of new income streams and drains, but assuming a two income family, I still would assert the fundamentals of the above situation haven't changed.<p>So for financial success defined as "able to retire", I would advocate for aggressive savings and living below your means - they're the surest route for high earners, and have comparable speeds and timetables as riskier options<p>[1] <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-12/u-s-household-incomes-rose-to-record-in-2016-as-poverty-fell" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-12/u-s-house...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://time.com/money/4689984/safe-withdrawal-rate-retirement/" rel="nofollow">http://time.com/money/4689984/safe-withdrawal-rate-retiremen...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/" rel="nofollow">https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/</a>