
SoftBank launches $100m minorities startup fund - willvarfar
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-softbank-group-investments/softbank-launches-100-million-fund-investing-in-people-of-color-idUSKBN23A1RK
======
Impossible
Class is a problem, but the class issue isn't "poor Black kids from broken
homes" (to quote some comments here) vs upper middle class FAANG employees and
MIT grads. Being poor and uneducated is a barrier to being an employee in
tech, but it's not the only barrier to getting funding. Anyone that can
leetcode can get a job in tech. Raising requires a strong network, involves
quite a lot of signaling and bias and gut feeling.

You have to be rich for class to be a major advantage when starting a startup,
middle class isn't enough unless you're willing to expose yourself to a lot of
personal risk. For various reasons middle class Black people with the skills
to start a startup are more risk averse than white counterparts. For other
reasons those same Black people get less funding than counterparts of other
races.

I say this as a Black engineer from a middle class background that has been a
founder, worked at FAANG and personally knows many Black founders that tried
to bootstrap and failed to raise, even with strong pitches and profitable
products. It's possible that these companies are fundamentally worse than all
white founded companies that raise, but I rarely see Black people given a
chance to fail. Class is not the only issue and it's not the main barrier for
most Black people.

~~~
imtringued
A lot of investors aren't actually interested in profitable products.
Companies get over funded to the point where it is impossible to make a return
by simply offering a product.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> SoftBank also runs the $100 billion Vision Fund, which is headed by Rajeev
> Misra and invests amounts larger than the entire new fund in startups around
> the world.

Neither Rajeev Misra nor Masayoshi Son sound like “white” names. I find it
fascinating how Asians in general are excluded from the term “people of
color”.

~~~
blackoil
Asians do not have a historical baggage in USA. Do they face similar
racism/bias in general (ignore temporary surge like now by Corona)?

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
You'd be surprised at how wrong that is.

Asians used to face a lot of discrimination in the US and very
institutionalized one, not just of the "making fun of them by calling them
Ching Chong" variety. There is a long and storied history, but it is never
brought up because it provides some rather uncomfortable cognitive dissonances
when trying to explain how Asian-Americans today are so much better off but
other discriminated-against groups aren't. So you see the common trope where
Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans are just passed over when talking about
historical injustices because they don't fit the narrative.

The link below has a full history but, one of many points—

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act—the only United States Iaw
to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race—which
restricted Chinese immigration for the next sixty years. The "Chinese Must Go"
movement was so strong that Chinese immigration to the United States declined
from 39,500 in 1882 to only 10 in 1887.

[https://asiasociety.org/education/asian-americans-then-
and-n...](https://asiasociety.org/education/asian-americans-then-and-now)

------
Thorentis
Limiting initiatives like this based on skin color, implies that the reason
for them needing help is their skin color. What about white people that come
from low-socioeconomic backgrounds? Broken families? Didn't finish high-
school? Abused as a child/teenager? Single parent family? Aren't these the
real reasons why people are disadvantaged? People of all colors come from
these backgrounds.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy of people saying "Black people aren't more
likely/less likely to x, it's their education/family/etc. that affects them"
... and then immediately turning around and giving help to people based on
their skin color, rather than these other traits.

EDIT: What about somebody who is black, and comes from (yes, one of the rare
unfortunately) a rich family or well off family? While not a majority, many
POC work for FAANG companies. Are they eligible for this money purely because
of their skin color, but disadvantaged people of any color are not?

~~~
sillysaurusx
That's a valid stance. But reflect on why it matters to you. So what if
someone is giving special opportunities to someone based on their skin color,
or their gender? There are plenty of special opportunities to go around for
all of us.

I think you'll get a lot of flak for this sentiment. But I used to feel the
same way as you. What helped me change my mind was to realize that no one is
taking away opportunities from me by giving them to someone else.
"Opportunity" isn't a fixed pie. If we believe that wealth isn't a fixed pie,
why not apply that same logic to opportunities and initiatives like this? It's
worth thinking about, and deeply reflecting on.

And, you know, if someone was giving out special opportunities to certain
people while denying them to us, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the
world. Parents have been doing that for their own children since people were
people. It's their money; they can put it toward whatever causes they want.

~~~
nostromo
> So what if someone is giving special opportunities to someone based on their
> skin color, or their gender?

Because it’s racist.

~~~
hnhg
Say there was a disease that predominantly affected a given race. Would you
then object to a health system producing a tailored response to that group
based on group characteristics?

e.g. [https://www.gaucherdisease.org/blog/5-common-ashkenazi-
genet...](https://www.gaucherdisease.org/blog/5-common-ashkenazi-genetic-
diseases/)

~~~
Thorentis
Of course not, if race was proven to be the actual underlying factor. The
point in the OP was that the underlying cause is not race, but other group
traits (low socio-economic status, poor family background) - which people of
all races can and do possess.

~~~
hnhg
I'm not replying to that.

------
MattGaiser
I'm curious, how are all these initiatives defining who is eligible? Are half
black people permitted? 1/4?

------
semi_good
Based on past threads, I think that a majority of HN views startup funding as
competitive, and acknowledges the risks from a lack of funding - some from
first hand experience, and that adversity is not evenly distributed among non-
minorities, and that for technology product adoption nobody looks at the team
just the usefulness, so anything other than a level playing field will be
frowned upon here.

I am an immigrant where I live, so i will take the liberty to ask:

\- Do the behaviors we have been seeing on television from law enforcement in
the US extend to offline business relationships in the US in more subtle ways?
For example would a minority with a new product be given a lower preference to
demo their stuff at a technology meetup? Would they be passed up for a
promotion at work because the boss preferred someone who looked like him?

\- Is there a systemic variation in the quality and accessability of human
relationships for some groups? (vital for recruiting, selling, partnering,
fund raising, launching, ecosystem and user community building). For example
would it be harder to sign up beta users for an enterprise product?

Those are the core issues they could face, and they are very real in some
places in the UK.

If this is a case, perhaps it is warranted or you will have capable people
unable to contribute.

------
roenxi
This is a good idea; it makes sense to test for opportunities to profit from
racism and pick up high-value entrepreneurs of colour.

The HN title should be changed though, it says 'minorities' while the original
article says 'people of colour'. I assumed it would be targeting Asians from
the HN title.

------
invalidOrTaken
Japan is not known for having senses finely tuned to the shifting winds of
American race relations.

~~~
RivasPT
Japan can issue a special Visa for Black Americans immigrate there.

------
renewiltord
I like it. Very clever. If there are founders out there who are capable but
underserved sorely because they're not in the right social circles then this
is a good attempt at capitalizing on that.

I love watching the market in action. Wonder if it will pay off.

~~~
quickthrower2
Isn’t YC this too? Anyone can apply. I don’t get the impression it’s about who
you know.

~~~
renewiltord
Well, the theory is that they think YC’s selection process drops capable
people for whatever reason (insufficient room, poor selection criteria, etc.).
It’s definitely worth a tiny bet.

------
sadmann1
Trying to launder their reputation by using minorities as an excuse, shameful
and transparent

~~~
fiblye
These past few months have been endless blunders and bad news for SoftBank.
They’re definitely not putting $100 million into a goodwill and equality fund.
They’re putting 100 million into PR and advertising with the benefit of
getting some returns.

But companies do this because they know it works, so I guess I can’t say it’s
a dumb financial move.

~~~
malandrew
> with the benefit of getting some returns.

I've never understood this argument in the context of investing. If there was
an opportunity to get outsized returns by investing in the people this
targets, then investors would already be going after these opportunities,
motivated by the returns alone. They wouldn't even need the social signaling
aspect of announcing a fund like this. If anything, they'd probably keep such
details of these good deals to themselves to avoid having too much money chase
after such deals and raise the price of the deals and make their investing
terms worse.

~~~
fiblye
If maximum returns meant picking people based on race, they’d do it. If it
doesn’t, they’ll announce that they’re picking people based on race as a good-
will move. They’re probably not burning money with this decision, but they’d
probably make more if they picked based on some other metric. The PR is the
important thing here, which is why they’re making a point of announcing it to
the world.

~~~
malandrew
Yeah. I wasn't disputing what you're saying. I'm just disputing the point I
was replying to where they talked about getting returns.

That thesis makes sense in some markets such as lifestyle products and
services catering to a market segment. Fashion and entertainment are a perfect
examples.

In the context of technology however, there's nothing about building the next
platform as a service for example that would lend itself to be more successful
if it were built by a specific demographic. If that were the case, investors
would already be chasing those opportunities.

------
jimbob45
Heh is there a better canary to do a 180 and run away than SoftBank investing
in something?

------
theredbox
The CEO of Softbank is an ethnic korean that grew up in a largely racist
country (Japan).

------
neximo64
I hope the venture fails. It's just racism under another name.

~~~
blackoil
A person snatched stick of a blind man and threw it, another helped him cross
the street. Both treated him differently because he was blind. Only one of
them was asshole.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
Try this argument the next time someone calls you racist for assuming all
Asians are good at Math.

Maybe the blind guy did not want to be patronizingly helped with crossing the
road. Maybe he would have asked for help if needed it and could have done
without a sighted knight.

If these arguments sound perverse just swap out some other 'issue' and they
will start sounding familiar.

~~~
mc_blue
I'm not sure I understand your counterpoint analogy. Regardless, I take issue
with your second statement on the blind person asking for help if needed.
Minorities do ask for help, I think it's disingenuous to imply that minorities
have never requested assistance in being treated more like the majority. I
think many times we push responsibility for achieving equality onto those who
are treated unequally, the old 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps'. Martin
Luther King Jr: "it's a nice thing to say to people that you oughta lift
yourself by your own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless
man that he oughta lift himself by his own bootstraps."

------
blackrock
This is a cute little gesture, but it is ultimately bound to fail.

The root cause of the problem of poverty for minorities, is far beyond the
scope that this idea can even solve.

We effectively need a reset in our capitalistic system.

For far too long, we have used GDP as the measure of wealth of a country. But
we now live in a world, where money essentially has no bounds to reality
anymore. It is tied to nothing, but it is the driver of everything.

The Fed and other central banks, are used to print money out of thin air, and
give it to banks, to lend out, or to buy back loans from corporations.

People blindly believe that this will not cause inflation, but instead, it
drives up asset inflation, which drives up the cost of everything else. This
is the hidden inflation, that takes money out of your pocket, and is beyond
your control.

This is where the government needs to step in and put in policies to protect
the people.

Instead of GDP, we need to measure QOL, or the Quality of Life.

This is the measure of how well the median person’s quality of life is, in
terms of how much they earn, and how much their rent and mortgage is. As well
as other factors like, access to modern basic necessities: electricity,
shelter, clothing, healthcare, transportation, communication, and food.

No person, should be required to spend over 50% of their income on housing.
There is just no money left over afterwards to pay for anything else. You will
forever be, bound to a life of poverty and destitution, as well as your
children.

Additionally, we need to remove housing as an investment vehicle. Instead of
creating wealth for all, this has become the driver of massive inequality.

Housing needs to be for people to live in, and not for speculation. The
government should mandate the building of more housing, to increase
availability, and to drive down costs. And people should be able to afford and
own their own homes. And maybe to kickstart a post-industrial society, the
government should back the mortgage, where you just need to work a meaningful
job in society, for 20 years, and the house is yours. The government will pick
up the remaining tab on the house afterwards.

This will give you a home, and the security you need to be safe and whole. You
can raise your family and your children, without the fear of poverty, or
crime, or a lifetime servitude of debt.

And for things like food, the vegetables and fruits, can be grown in massive
automated vertical farms. And one day, tended to by robots, for monitoring and
harvesting. No more need for back breaking labor performed by humans. Let the
robots do all the work. The software for it will be developed by programmers,
and the fruits and vegetables will be monitored by using adaptive machine
learning software.

These are bold challenges, and we need bold leaders to think beyond their
myopic economic view of the world, where they only think of enriching
themselves and their cronies, and actually do their job to govern, and to lead
and guide the people.

------
mydongle
How about $100m in the pockets of impoverished people who actually need it,
regardless of race/skin color? :)

------
RivasPT
Why jornalists write "minorities" and not "Black and Latino"? This is what
they are doing, they are promoting two ethnicities. Even more, when White
America is becoming a minority in many places in the US and soon in all the
US.

