
Entrepreneurs don’t have a gene for risk – they come from families with money - jmngomes
http://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money/
======
uptown
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9913774](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9913774)

------
radmuzom
Ten years back, when I was fresh out of college, I joined a startup - not as a
founder but as the first employee. A lot of it was driven by reading Paul
Graham's essays, and I was naive and immature enough to believe that I was
doing something great (as an aside, I came from an economically disadvantaged
family; and every cent of my assets today is something I have earned and not
something which I have inherited or obtained from anyone including my family).
Two important things I learned from the experience - 1\. The experience as an
employee is completely different from being a founder; a lot of my friends
have deluded themselves into believing that early employees enjoy as much
benefits as the founders. 2\. It is very hard to take risks when you are not
financially secure; yes, I am pretty sure that there are counterexamples but I
believe my statement is true on average. Now after ten years mostly working in
large companies, I have some savings which will allow me to last two years in
case I lose my job. Also, I like to think that I have enough skills not to die
of hunger if it happens. This has resulted in me being much more
"entrepreneurial" and I am already working towards starting a company in the
next two years.

TL, DR; On an average, it is much easier to start a start-up if you have some
basic level of financial security in your life.

~~~
maratd
> It is very hard to take risks when you are not financially secure

There's a caveat here. It depends on your responsibilities. If you have
children, fixed expenses, then absolutely.

If you have nothing to your name and no responsibilities, it's very easy to
take risks without anything to fall back on. After all, you have very little
to lose.

~~~
Jacqued
You can always lose your own life, pretty much. If you can go back to your old
room at your parent's room while you find a job and start earning again, sure,
it's easy to take risks (I've done it this way).

On the other hand, if you come from a rather poor background and have no one
to fall back on, finding yourself with a failed company, in debt, maybe kicked
out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say that rather terrifying.

I'm all for entrepreneurship, but if failing means living in the street, then
let's just not start a company for now.

~~~
maratd
> in debt, maybe kicked out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say
> that rather terrifying.

There are two types of businesses out there. Those that make money from day 1
and simply need to be scaled up. Those that require substantial investment and
time before you even make a penny.

For anyone who isn't financially secure, doing the latter is idiotic. There
are plenty of business models that you can pursue that don't involve you
ending up on the street. A business model where the worst-case scenario is
that you wasted some time.

~~~
fataliss
While it is true that you have profitable businesses from day 1 or almost, it
still reduces your chances to be able to be an entrepreneur coming from the
bottom. This article doesn't say it's impossible. Just that it's less
likely/harder. That's a hard truth. You can build around all you want, there
is no denying it.

------
pkorzeniewski
In other words, starting a business isn't much different than it was in the
past - capital and connections are essential. Sure, there're exceptions when
someone with little money and hard work managed to grow their business, but
they're that - exceptions. The older I am the more I realize how naive
thinking "I just need to create something better than my competitors!" really
is. You can have a mediocre product but with capital for heavy marketing and
connections to acquire early customers you've much bigger chance of success
than "just" having a good product.

~~~
eugenekolo2
I think it's quite different in the software startup industry. You usually
don't need much capital, it's more that you need to have a failsafe in case
you go bust to not end up unemployed and unable to pay bills.

~~~
crdoconnor
>I think it's quite different in the software startup industry. You usually
don't need much capital

You still need a distribution channel. That requires either capital or
connections.

~~~
eugenekolo2
Networking is still invaluable, but capital isn't a necessity in software
startups. I do think that either bravery or a nesting egg to fall back on is
though.

~~~
crdoconnor
It depends upon the market. You couldn't really do health-care software
without connections or capital, for instance. Same for anything finance
related.

Also, the markets that require the least capital/connections tend to be low
margin and flooded with competition.

~~~
ci5er
That is certainly true, but you can work the deal on parallel tracks. With the
customer (say HSBCor MD Anderson) you spec what you are planning to build, to
be installed/deployed in 4 chunks, every six months over two years. Call this
a $20M project. Then you go to the investor and say that you need the funding
to satisfy the contract.

Now, you usually would need to work this out in advance with the investor.
After they've looked over your deal and poked at you some, tell them that you
are going to go get a big customer with the permission to declare that funding
is lined up pending contract.

It doesn't seem to take much more time out of your day than doing one after
the other, and often the investor will get so distracted by the large pending
customer that the due-diligence process becomes a pretty cursory check-box
affair.

------
botswana99
If you work your way through school, you end with ‘deficits’ relative to your
peers whose parents paid their way through University (and provided a rich set
of ‘cultural’ experiences along the way). It is a tough having tens of
thousands of debt for your CS degree, as well having spent all your free time
in crummy jobs to pay the bills along the way. Walk through a co-working
center in Cambridge or San Francisco – how do all those 23 year olds afford
rent in some of the most expensive cities in America? And how can they afford
to have a bright shiny two grand MacBook on their desk?

If you are like me, a working class kid interested in technology and startups,
it can be tough to see your peers with those breaks.

I’ve had every startup role from individual contributor to VP, CTO, COO and
CEO under my belt. My perspective is that you can always go to a few museums,
read a few books, and catch up (or surpass) your well healed peers. Take it
from a 51 year old -- if you have worked your way through school and can’t
afford to found a company in your twenties don’t despair – you’ll have a long
life and many chances. But the determination that drove you to work your way
through school is something precious and remarkable.

It’s not a deficit at all.

~~~
patkai
No, in the long term it isn't. In the short term there may be all kinds of
deficit, but they will eventually disappear. It has also been a great source
of self-esteem for me, the fact that I left home without a penny.

------
synthmeat
After teenage angst, came a time of value/family fallout for me. At one point,
I haven't even been face to face with any of them for a period of almost 2
years. Not that anything was particulary wrong with anyone, mind you. After
100+ hour workweeks slaving for someone else, ending up in ER several times
(but still showing up 8AM sharp day afterward), finally burning out, quitting
job, breaking up, and living in windowless installation-free underground
solid-cement garage for better part of year (life's paraphernalia funded
entirely by sale of single iPhone), I've come home.

I cannot even describe what sort of relief I felt having my meals provided
for, laundry taken care of, having bed to sleep in, someone to talk to, help
to, care for... That was when I figured, given this bare essentials provided
by family, I have basically nothing to lose by taking much more risks in life
and working on what I care about. I like to think I've instilled that
appreciation to my siblings, as well as parents.

Three months after that, I've found investors, moved to freeload in one of
their penthouses, while I work in a high-risk field of game development. We'll
see how that turns out, but I have no fear - I have family to fall back on.

\---

I'm aware not everyone has what I have with my family, but I'm certain many
more do not appreciate what they already have.

------
whoiskevin
This is just common sense but amazingly this bit of common sense is ignored in
the valley. Probably because too many want to believe in the dream that the
successful were "just smart enough" or "just risky enough" when the majority
were simply able to gamble with minimal risk.

------
grandalf
People with more money do more of everything... they have more fun, more sex
partners, better sex, more entertaining lives, more meaningful lives, more
profound moments, more meaningful relationships, and make more of an impact on
humanity.

This is not a value judgment. Having access to resources means having more
freedom. That's freedom to do what you want, to think about what matters, to
exercise, to eat healthy, to take time off to spend with friends, to
participate in humanity rather than just working to meet your basic needs.

All this is trivially true or full of counterexamples depending on where you
draw the line between rich and non-rich.

~~~
mojuba
Sad and true, and it's because we still live in a survivalist world. We talk a
lot about sharing and doing good, but our instincts tell us the opposite.
Nobody's going to share their wealth with you except your parents (if at all),
that's even _natural_.

------
metasean
I missed it the first time round
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9913774](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9913774)).

This aligns with Maslow's Hierarchy -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)
In other words, to reach a level where one pursues respect or self-
actualization, one has to have their physiological and safety needs met first.

~~~
tezza
Maslow says that the layers overlap and that one does not need 100% of a lower
level before one starts reaching for higher layer.

[http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm](http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm)

 _Degree of relative satisfaction. -- So far, our theoretical discussion may
have given the impression that these five sets of needs are somehow in a step-
wise, all-or-none relationships to each other. We have spoken in such terms as
the following: "If one need is satisfied, then another emerges." This
statement might give the false impression that a need must be satisfied 100
per cent before the next need emerges. In actual fact, most members of our
society who are normal, are partially satisfied in all their basic needs and
partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at the same time._

~~~
metasean
From the same source (highlighting mine):

Human needs arrange themselves in hierarchies of pre-potency. That is to say,
_the appearance of one need_ usually _rests on the prior satisfaction of
another, more pre-potent need_. Man is a perpetually wanting animal. Also no
need or drive can be treated as if it were isolated or discrete; every drive
is related to the state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other drives.

------
brightball
If the middle class didn't lose so much of its income on taxes, it would be a
lot easier to save money for them to start businesses. The tighter you get
squeezed, the longer it takes to save money and the more the actual risk
increases based on sheer time value.

The unfortunate result of that is that in order to start a business that
requires more than an investment of spare time and professional skill
(programming or a service based business) everything else is left to the mercy
of investors.

It's an unfortunate reality.

------
mindcrime
Wow, talk about an article that is completely devoid of value. That stands out
as soon as you see "cult of the entrepreneur" in the first sentence.

OK, now we know that most entrepreneurs come from "families with money"
(according to their definitions anyway). Great, so what do I _do_ with that
particular bit of information? I'm most definitely _not_ from a family of
means, so do I just quit now? Have I been deluding myself? If so, so what,
it's my right to spend my time and money however I want anyway.

It's not like I can go back and change my parents.

If you're not from a family of means, do things differently. For example: work
a day job making a reasonable salary and work on the startup on the side,
supporting yourself with your salary until you have a product built. Not every
entrepreneurial scenario involves gambling with homelessness.

Whatever. I smell bullshit with this article anyway. This is just propaganda
from the sect of people who hate individualism, hate capitalism, and will take
any opportunity to bash the idea that anyone can advance in life through hard
work, grit, determination and moxie.

~~~
govindkabra31
There are lot of people who fall for the encouragement from PG and such and
take risks without being aware of the expected financial impact. Read through
comments here and there are some first hand anecdotes.

It is hugely more efficient for someone to take into account this research
result, rather than learn that after years of toiling, the hard way.

Perhaps, it was not as insightful to you personally. But not every piece has
to be valuable to everyone for it to avoid being classified as _devoid of
value_.

~~~
mindcrime
I don't see how you can say it offers any value. There are no actionable
insights here. You can't change your family, so in the end, every individual
still faces exactly the same choice: pursue the entrepreneurial path, or not.
What other people did and what their circumstances were is irrelevant.

If the article purported to _prove_ that it is impossible to succeed as an
entrepreneur without coming from a rich family, and if there were no counter-
examples disproving that assertion, then I could see saying it had value. But
we know that's not the case. People do succeed as entrepreneurs despite coming
from poor families.

 _There are lot of people who fall for the encouragement from PG and such and
take risks without being aware of the expected financial impact._

A "lot" of people do that? I'd need to see some evidence to accept that
assertion. And even if that is so, this article doesn't help them. They still
can't change their backgrounds / families, and they still face the same
choice.

 _who fall for the encouragement from PG and such_

That's some interesting language. You make it sound like encouraging someone
to chase their dreams is some kind of scam. Oh, pity the poor gullible fool,
who "fell for" the idea of trying to make a better life for him/her-self...

A more useful article, to my way of thinking, would have been one that
presented the data from this article and then continued by saying "OK, so if
you're not from a wealthy family, here are the things you can do to improve
your odds of succeeding anyway..." That what I mean by "actionable
information. Give people something they can actually use. That would be a
valuable article, and a valuable discussion. All I see here is negativity and
anti-individualistic rabble-rousing.

~~~
thyrsus
The article summarizes imporant _data_. Action items I take from the article:

    
    
        * Plan that most of my competitors are better funded than I am because of family and social strata.
    
        * Compensate for those deficits before engaging in a startup, either as founder or employee.  E.g., look for an angel investor (difficult, because there are none associated with my family or friends).
    
        * Stick to my day job.
    
        * Be open to government policy proposals that would even the playing field - not to take it away from the wealthy, but to provide an on-ramp for the non-wealthy.  E.g., regulated monopoly universal internet service.  Public housing in my town does not provide internet: those kids can't even do their homework, since the teachers *assume* internet access.

~~~
mindcrime
_Plan that most of my competitors are better funded than I am_

That should be your assumption anyway. "Hope for the best, plan for the
worst". Besides, most startups aren't killed by competition, they're killed by
building a product nobody wants.

 _Compensate for those deficits before engaging in a startup_

Again, anybody founding a startup already knows they are facing an uphill
battle. This article doesn't present any data that would change that.

 _look for an angel investor (difficult, because there are none associated
with my family or friends)._

You think everybody who ever got angel investment got it because their friends
and family knew angels? How about going to entrepreneurial themed events in
your area and networking and meeting angels, VCs, and other founders there?
Don't live in an area with that kind of thing? Move. (That's what I did,
FWIW). Check AngelList and/or scour LinkedIn to find local angels, and find a
way to work your way into an introduction to them. Hint: founders of existing
startups are often very open to helping new founders network and meet
investors and what-not. Cold email celebrity investors (low percentage, but
Mark Cuban has done deals that came in as cold emails). Apply to go on Shark
Tank.

 _Be open to government policy proposals that would even the playing field -
not to take it away from the wealthy, but to provide an on-ramp for the non-
wealthy._

Meh. These kinds of policies may be well-intentioned, but most have unintended
consequences that outweigh any good they do.

------
myth_buster
The risk taken by risk takers (entrepreneurs) is disproportionate as partly
expressed in the article.

Apart from financial risk, there is the risk of employebility once you are off
the radar and are asked for references once you try to join the workforce.

For immigrants the risk of maintaining the status to stay in the country. This
is perhaps a major reason why graduates go back to their home country to start
companies.

Additionally there is conscious/subconscious biases at play when startups
filter people based on "fit" which is to say "birds of a feather flock
together". Hence it could be rather daunting for people from a different
demographic to gain relevant experience which paves their way to a successful
startup. Once the startup grows, they usually become more accepting in this
regard.

------
clavalle
This seems like common sense -- those that have some sort of solid safety net
tend to be able to stick to their search for a business model that works
longer than someone that doesn't. Obvious. There are examples of people that
take other paths but they tend to need more raw luck than people at the other
end of the scale.

But I also notice that these people need not be from _great_ wealth. They just
need to know that they won't starve or go homeless and, perhaps, get a bit of
help with business expenses. It just turns out that even that level of wealth
is a bit hard to come by and doesn't apply to the majority of people in the
US.

This is why I advocate for some sort of 'solid floor' socialism in the US. If
people knew that they always had a meal and a place to live we'd see a lot
more 'risk taking' because we will have removed a risk singularity from the
market. We are really, really close to this already -- it would not take that
much more to make our 'soft floor' welfare into something people can
unquestionably count on.

We'd also see a lot more entrepreneurs serving currently underserved
populations just because they will be drawn from that population and will know
their pain points and how best to serve them.

------
gregpilling
Every third world country I have been too is filled with entrepreneurs
hustling to make a buck. Having money helps with big scale business; having no
money means you are buying a bag of oranges and selling them off individually
on the street corner.

I do not come from a family with money. I grew up below the poverty line in
fact. This article is crap. It is like saying "Entrepreneurs are all white
males" because a lot of entrepreneurs are - but it marginalizes all the
people, the many many people, who have succeeded as entrepreneurs despite
starting from a very small seed (and who weren't white males of privilege).

I have a company because I couldn't imagine working for someone else. I have
tried a couple times for a few months, but in the end I can't do it. So I work
for myself, and have for 25 years. I start companies because I can't not do
it. I have too many ideas, and I want to see if they work so I do little
experiments that sometimes turn into viable projects.

While I agree I can't take on Tesla unless I had a spare billion laying
around, that ignores that there are lots of businesses that can be started for
a few dollars. This article ignores all of those business too. Not every
business has to be the next Uber.

~~~
imauld
I'm not sure this article is trying to down play successful ventures from non-
stereotypical entrepreneurs but it's making the argument that that the image
of the bold, risk taking entrepreneur might not be so accurate in the sense
that that aren't really risking that much.

It doesn't say that all successful entrepreneurs are white, male and
privileged. It just says that a lot of them are and that the largest indicator
was being white, male and privileged.

This comic does an excellent job of summing it up:

[http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-
plate](http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate)

~~~
gregpilling
I understand this issue perfectly. In the referenced comic strip, I am Paula
on the right and my children are on the left side.

What is left out in that strip, is that because of the way I grew up, I am
left with a drive to accomplish things that I simply do not see in my own
children. The hunger, the drive, the ambition are all from a crappy childhood.
The drive is where my success came from, it is what gets me off the floor when
life knocks me down. It is the drive that provides the "I refuse to lose"
mentality.

I don't claim that this drive is all good. A lot of times I think it makes me
a little obsessive and crazy in my need to succeed and reduces the number of
days I relax.

~~~
kelukelugames
My parents own a 2 million+ dollar house in Saratoga and raised me like a
starving immigrant. Maybe the drive comes from the parenting style. ;)

------
ausjke
Agreed, but nothing really surprised me. It's just some of those start-up
pumpers keep ignoring this fundamental truth.

It's not entrepreneur gene, however statistically, it's still the gene from
your family tree, it normally takes generations to build the foundation for
most people to take risks via education and efforts, and most if not all
'rich' families started from their disadvantaged ancestors.

Rising from poor like what's in Godfather movies is still possible, but very
unlikely.

~~~
mindcrime
_It 's just some of those start-up pumpers keep ignoring this fundamental
truth._

And they should, because it's irrelevant. You can't change your parents, ya
know. In the end, you play the hand you're dealt. If you're not from a rich
family, maybe you just have to work that much harder, but I don't think the
moral is "you were born poor, so just STFU and accept your lot in life".

If someone wants to be an entrepreneur, they will find a way, even if they're
from a poor family. Note that I'm not saying they'll all build billion dollar
Internet companies - the range of what "entrepreneur" encompasses is pretty
broad.

 _Rising from poor like what 's in Godfather movies is still possible, but
very unlikely._

So? There's a binary difference between "unlikely" and "impossible". Should we
all avoid striving for anything that's "unlikely"? Most kids who play high-
school football will never even get a scholarship at a BCS school, much less
play in the NFL. Most kids who play football for BCS schools will never play
in the NFL. Should kids stop dreaming of being NFL players?

What if nobody bothered to dream anymore? What if nobody said "Fuck it, I can
overcome the odds and do the unlikely?" Personally, I don't want to live in
that world.

~~~
nostrebored
Football analogy is probably actually pretty apt. You're playing a game where
the vast majority don't get what they're hoping for, sacrificing opportunities
along the way, while a large percentage get sports related injuries. The
opportunity cost and actual cost of football greatly outweigh the likely
benefit. Yet still, people think that they are the exception, and that the bad
things can't happen to them.

I think that your latter point is fair, we do need people who are willing to
challenge the squo, and we do need people with good ideas to try to make them
realities. But going in blind doesn't help anyone, and ignoring the reality of
the situation (which from your other comments, it doesn't seem like you're
doing) doesn't let you think of potential solutions.

------
kbutler
The article's assertion is simply that people with a safety net have a reduced
risk. Marginal reduction in risk increases entrepreneurship.

There's probably also a marginal reduction in reward, as the reward of
entrepreneurial success for the poverty-stricken would include safe housing,
food, education for children, etc., which the wealthy already have, but it
seems we have no problems desiring to spend more than we currently have.

------
jmzbond
This is also why I think people should be very careful before comparing two
entrepreneurs, or saying something like: "why is ___ so much less busy than
you and more successful?"

Well, because ____'s parents are literally billionaires. I have to work so
much harder because my bank account is actually decreasing everyday!

------
jackgavigan
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9913774](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9913774)

------
known
You need Cash/Caste to succeed as an Entrepreneur in India;
[http://goo.gl/NFK0A](http://goo.gl/NFK0A)

~~~
mangamadaiyan
Cash, yes. Caste - IMHO, not really.

Could you substantiate your statement with something other than a change.org
link, please?

------
dlo
Here's how you can simulate coming from a wealthy family.

1) Reduce your personal burn rate. 2) Save money, enough to last more than a
year on your reduced burn rate. 3) Develop high-demand, valuable skills so you
will always be able to get a job if things go south.

------
mafribe
While it is clear that one's access to capital is an important consideration,
the article is weak, because it overlooks several important points, some which
have been mentioned here by others. I'll mention two that I haven't seen being
pointed out elsewhere in this discussion. I hope they are of interest.

1\. The article states:

    
    
        ... and found that most were white, male, and highly 
        educated. “If one does not have money in the form of a 
        family with money, the chances of becoming an 
        entrepreneur drop quite a bit,” Levine tells Quartz.
    

Given that the daughters of rich families are just as well-off and educated as
the sons, and have as much access to parental/familial capital, having a
wealthy family background cannot be the whole story. We can have long
discussions about why this is, but the key point is that this disparity really
undermines the article, regardless of cause.

2\. The article doesn't reflect on the what exactly entrepreneurship is. One
could argue that poor people in the developing world are much more
entrepreneurial because most of them are in some form or other self-employed,
ie. are entrepreneurs: the cigarette and waterbottle seller on the street
corner, the coconut seller on the beach, the fisherman fishing with his own
boat and net, the garbage picker who sells empty plastic bottles by the kilo
for recyling ... They often are not employed. In a sense it's poverty that
forces them into Entrepreneurship. It's the absence of large structured firms
with the stability of employment that provide that's missing. By cherrypicking
specific forms of glamorous entrepreneurs, they arrive at a skewed conclusion
that more careful analysis would undermine.

------
EGreg
This is what I've been saying. The ability to quit college or stay with a
startup long enough until it starts succeeding, or better yet, borrowing money
to pay off those loans you took on while believing deeply in your startup,
depends on being able to ask your parents for money while things are going
not-so-good.

For everyone else, there's Limited Liability.

------
xhrpost
I can understand the argument of money means you're more likely to start a
company. But the article is titled at addressing risk. Perhaps I'm just being
pedantic with semantics, but if you have the money then doesn't that actually
reduce the risk? "when you know you have a safety net, you are more willing to
take risks." If you have a safety net, it's arguably not a risk then. Perhaps
a better way to look at it would be, if you have money, what is a risk to
someone else is less of a risk to you.

I still feel like risk aversion as a whole can hold us back from things we
would enjoy in life. What is this? "a 31-year-old woman who runs in social
entrepreneurship circles in New York, and asked not to be named, told Quartz"
This could be any random person with an opinion on startups. We have no idea
what influenced this view point or where she is coming from. Blindly listening
to it sounds dangerous.

------
jasonlfunk
Of course it's true that people with access to capital can afford to be more
risky than people who don't. But the majority of the "rich" aren't
entrepreneurial and there are plenty of the "poor" who are. There is more to
the average entrepreneurial story than simply privilege.

~~~
merpnderp
Noisy signal, weak effect, usually equals lots of headline grabbing
papers.....that end up being disproved.

I saw 'paywall' and guess the actual research is hidden.

------
bobjordan
I mostly agree with the article in that at some point you must gain access to
capital in either cash or credit and then put it at risk. That said, I was
born in WV to 17-year-old mother and 20-year-old father. I was their second
child. My father was a coal truck driver, mother a secretary, neither college
educated. By the time I was four, my father was in prison two years, and my
mother was a struggling 21-year-old with two kids and no family support.
Anyhow, I worked my way up from that start, became a bootstrapped entrepreneur
in 30's after raising $15K seed, no salary for two years, bought back my seed
equity, now a millionaire net worth by 40. If sufficiently hard-headed,
stubborn, and unwilling to quit trying to find any way to succeed, it can be
done without family money.

~~~
ant6n
Within the context of this discussion, one wonders how you paid the bills for
two years without salary. (And where the 15K seed came from)

------
Plishar
It's a blanket statement that obviously applies to some, but not all.

In my mind, that makes this a click-bait article.

------
themoops
tl;rify: risk is a privilege of capital.

I've always thought the framing of capital risk as the primary basis for
allocating reward was suspect for this reason.

------
puranjay
Exact same thing I've felt. I've met a number of founders and while there are
definitely the ones who had nothing but smarts and a strong degree, the
majority had this idea that if things don't work out, there's family to back
them up.

------
zeveb
That makes sense: they have a better tolerance for risk because they inherited
their money, and thus are young enough to take slightly foolish chances
(someone who has made his money the hard way is more likely to be responsible
with it).

Which leads one to wonder what the unintended consequences of tinkering with
gift, inheritance and other family-related tax rates might be. For that
matter, if Mike Markkula had not received all those stock options at Fairchild
& Intel and been able to retire, would we all have smartphones and personal
computers today, or would we be stuck with an OSI/ITU-type centralised
consumer-only network?

------
kseshadri
One cannot be unmindful of risk. Those with family money know they can afford
the risk. It is really that simple. I started a venture, and assessed the
status after a period, and had kept a stop loss for how much I can afford to
lose. I closed at the limit and shut it down. I must of course mention that
business schools teach you to a project feasibility report first and then
proceed. But quite often, I suspect, misguidance and insincere encouragement
makes one launch a project without a strict and impassioned appraisal.
K.Seshadri

------
jasonkester
Entrepreneurs in other industries may need family money. Software
Entrepreneurs can use their own.

Working in an industry where $120k/year is considered a starting salary, and
where you know for a certainty that you are roughly one Twitter post away from
having your pick of three companies that will fight to get you, you can feel
free to pursue any goofy idea you like without fearing much for your financial
safety should things go wrong.

Yet another reason this is the best industry to be in right now.

~~~
mtberatwork
Outside of a few hot spots like SV, $120k/year is certainly not starting
salary.

~~~
jasonkester
It's a shame we see so much denial about this. The rational response when
shown that you are dramatically underpaid should be to take steps to get one's
self back up to the level of the market. Sadly, the more common response is to
call whoever filled you in a liar.

I've noticed this happening a lot in the last few years, as developer salaries
have skyrocketed but guys who had secured jobs before that still quote 2005
numbers as though they were the case today.

You don't need to be in Silicon Valley to make six figures as a developer.
Taking that on board rather than rejecting it offhand can only lead you to a
better place.

~~~
mtberatwork
You initially mentioned starting salary, now you are just mentioning 6 figure
developer salaries in general. Again, $120k starting salary for your average
junior developer fresh out of college isn't a reality outside of places like
SV.

~~~
jasonkester
Apologies if I wasn't clear. By six figure developer salary, I meant more like
$250k. That is in fact achievable as a mid to senior level developer working
remotely.

A kid from a good school capable of working for a Facebook or Google would be
we'll served by holding out for that unrealistic Bay Area starting salary.
It's not as unrealistic as you believe.

------
troels
Since no one else is calling it out, I will - This article starts with a
radical statement, but when you read it, it seems to be essentially an opinion
piece with a couple of studies hand picked to support its claim. That's not
very scientific at all. Which is a pity, since I suspect the claim has some
truth to it.

------
orky56
Whether it's your savings or capital from investors, spare cash gives you the
leg up to artificially scale faster than you would organically. This increases
the risk but also helps you capitalize on timing when an opportunity is short-
lived.

------
michaelvkpdx
Remember, in the post-WWII USA we live in a feudalist society. If we lived in
a true capitalist society, with societal mechanisms in place to keep wealth
circulating, this wouldn't be a problem.

And we'd still know how to get to the moon, too.

------
dahart
The article is arguing as if Social Darwinism is an accepted theory of
business success. Is it really? I don't think so. I followed several of the
links the article was using to support the Social Darwinism claim. One only
was actually making that claim (inc.com) and it was obvious pseudo-science, it
has the wonderful line: "Self-employment income is heritable".

To the people taking offense to this because they didn't start out with a lot
of money: the article is talking about probability, not possibility. Just
because most entrepreneurs start with some money doesn't mean there is no-one
who starts without family financial support. And it's talking about genetics
vs financial support, and not about the people who challenge the odds with
hard work.

~~~
Terr_
> I followed several of the links the article was using to support the Social
> Darwinism claim. One only was actually making that claim (inc.com) and it
> was obvious pseudo-science, it has the wonderful line: "Self-employment
> income is heritable".

Your post confuses me, because I think you're lumping two _very_ different --
almost contradictory -- claims together under the vague banner of "Social
Darwinism".

The inc.com article you are referring to suggests a _biological_ mechanism
(DNA molecules and genes), while this article refers to a purely _social_
mechanism ($$$, influence of kin, learned behaviors.)

~~~
dahart
Have you heard of Social Darwinism before? Its not a term I made up, and
you've succinctly identified the exact reason it's so questionable.

From Wikipedia:

Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that
emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s,
which claim to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of
the fittest to sociology and politics.

You seem to be agreeing with me in pointing out the contradiction between some
parts of the article and some of the sources the article used to back up its
own claims. It was Aimee Groth that used inc.com to make her points, not me.

Aimee's article is inferring biological mechanisms, both through her sources,
and directly in the language:

“Genes probably matter, as in most things in life, but not much.”

"..and found that environmental factors (not genetic) most influenced
behavior..."

Do you read purely social from those uses of the words "genes" and "genetic"?
To me they reflect the biology meanings, or at the very, very least are
intentionally conflationary.

~~~
Terr_
> the sources the article used to back up its own claims

You've got it all backwards: The article is _ARGUING AGAINST_ the inc.com
thesis of an "entrepreneurship gene", calling it a _myth_ :

> New research out this week [...] found that environmental factors (not
> genetic) most influenced behavior, pointing to the fact that risk tolerance
> is conditioned over time (dispelling the myth of an elusive
> “entrepreneurship gene“).

~~~
dahart
Disagreeing with inc.com assumes that inc.com's Social Darwinism argument has
merit in the first place. You are agreeing with me and making the same point I
am.

------
ThomPete
I wonder how that explains the fairly high risk averseness in the Scandinavian
countries? It's literally safe to fail yet failing is frowned upon.

I don't think that article is telling the right story.

~~~
api
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those countries have a massive amount of
micromanaging regulations around things like employment practices?

If that's the case, that certainly will stifle entrepreneurship even if
everything else is in line.

~~~
ThomPete
Not for startups. For larger institutions with unions etc. sure, but startups
aren't regulated very tightly, it's easy to hire and fire too.

You can start a company in less than a week. All digital.

------
robocat
Let's call it an "orderly" mind, and Austrians and Swiss seem to have it too.

A Bosnian recently said that Slovenia was more "Austrian" than Bosnia when
talking about this trait to me.

------
sklogic
And this is just another great argument for the basic income idea.

------
alexfisher
Step 1: Spend less than you make. Step 2: Take risks when you have enough of a
safety net. Step 3: Fail/retry or succeed.

You don't need to be from a rich family to do these things.

~~~
speik
> Step 2: Take risks when you have enough of a safety net.

Someone from a rich family has more of a safety net, straight out of the gate,
than someone from a poor family.

------
arielm
Wow, talk about complete BS... I'm an entrepreneur that started because I
didn't have access to capital. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

~~~
s73v3r
Yet, you had access to money to meet your basic needs.

------
stabilo
"The average cost to launch a startup is around $30,000..."

And how much does YC invest (loan)?

------
BurningFrog
That something depends on your family does not rule out a genetic component.

------
rebootthesystem
I'm sorry, I am going to call this nonsense.

I am second generation from immigrants who arrived at these shores with
nothing but the clothes on their backs. They escaped Genocide and other
horrors.

When they got here they grabbed whatever job they could. They had nothing.
They saved their money. And when they could, they started their own small
businesses (yes, both of my grandparents behaved the same way without knowing
each other).

No, there was no IPO. These were small neighborhood stores. One was a little
general store and the other was a shoe repair store. Yet, they had their own
businesses and were able to support their family through their own efforts.

My parents, in turn, followed a similar path. No, they were not handed money.
They worked at my grandparent's stores and learned an entrepreneurial work
ethic. As they got older they got jobs working elsewhere, my mom as a clothing
designer at a factory and my dad as a salesman at an insurance company.

Years later, after saving every penny they made, they decided to launch their
own business, a clothing manufacturing business. My childhood memories are
filled with moments in this little shop with both my mom and dad slaving away
behind industrial sewing machines. Yes, the "factory" was mom and dad for the
first year or two in a little 500 square foot industrial unit. Today we might
call that a "minimum viable product". Yet the idea was that they where all-in,
quit their jobs, found a contract somewhere and did whatever was necessary to
deliver, make money and grow. My parents were no strangers to sixteen hour
days behind industrial sewing machines while the kids did homework, played and
slept in the background.

Of course, through hard work and pure grit they eventually grew out of there
and, years later, found themselves running a shop that was about 50,000 square
feet, with two or three dozen employees and dozens of machines of all kinds.
I, as a kid, loved spending time at the factory messing around with stuff. I
eventually learned enough about the machinery that, as a young teenager, I
could fix the machines better than my dad or the technicians he would hire
from time to time. And yes, I also learned to sew and worked the various
machines from time to time. In the weekends my dad and I would go to the
factory and prepare work for the coming week.

The work ethic was strong. We worked. And, no, we were not millionaires. Yes,
my parents did well but the clothing industry was disintegrating slowly and
they were very aware of this. Also, I think my parents worked so hard that
they really didn't have time to develop strategies. Years later the factory
had to be shut down due to the impossibility of competing with cheap Chinese
imported goods. Dozens of good people lost their jobs and my parents went back
to work for others. Funny enough, my mom went to work designing clothes and my
dad went back to insurance. Exactly where they started when they were young.

Throughout this I never heard them complain about a thing. They did whatever
had to be done to take care of the family. I think those were different times.
People were tougher. There was real grit out there. Particularly from
immigrants or first generation children. Compared to then, today's population
seems neutered. Crying foul at the dumbest things. Filing for disability if
they pull a muscle. Such bullshit. Such wasted human potential. I watched my
parents and grandparents work no matter what. In fact, I can't even remember
any of them ever staying home sick. Hero's, in the true sense of the word, at
least as it pertains to the families they took care of.

When I got older I followed a similar path. I got nothing from my family other
than this insane drive to do whatever was necessary to succeed. My first job
was washing dishes at one of those companies that delivered food to airplanes
(back in the day when they gave you real plates and silverware). I didn't last
long because I had other goals in mind. I quit that and got a job at a
professional photography lab and studio. I went to school at night while I
held down that job. I actually started to function in an entrepreneurial way
as I started to do some professional photo work during that time. It was fun
work for a young 19 year old because I was going out to do photo shoots with
stunningly beautiful models who I later became friends with. It was an
interesting time.

As my school work in electrical engineering got past the basic requirements
and got more into engineering I felt I needed to get a proper engineering job.
And that I did. I worked at a company that made industrial robots, did some
basic design work and helped with support and maintenance.

I saved as much money as I could. I stayed there nine years. And, yes, I did
little entrepreneurial things here and there but nothing major. Nine years
later I felt I was ready to launch my own business. And I did. It was a
moderate success. I launched another and then another. I have done very well,
I've gone bankrupt, recovered and have done well again. The basic formula is
to be fiscally responsible, patient, save money and be willing to work hard
and smart as needed. Success isn't given, it is earned.

I don't doubt there are many who are handed tens, hundreds or millions of
dollars by their families to start businesses and play "entrepreneur". Those
people do exist. And quite a few fail and never try again (or keep burning
cash) because they are what I called "neutered" in terms of the grit required
to be an entrepreneur.

The fallacy in an article such as the one posted is that money isn't the
magical pixie dust that makes an entrepreneur or make him or her successful.
No, the pixie dust has nothing whatsoever to do with money. Money is a tool.
The pixie dust is a combination of many things, including smarts, timing,
frugality, boldness, grit, determination, no fear of failure, the ability to
get back up when knocked down and more.

You don't need to come from a privileged home to learn these things. A mom
holding down three jobs to provide for the family is as much of a positive
role model as my parents were. She can teach the kids lots of lessons they
will never forget. What does not lead to entrepreneurship is a neutered
existence where people are afraid of their own shadows, don't take risks, want
the government to provide everything and become dependent on mysterious
external magic to survive. This is how a lot of people freak out when the
power goes out while others see it as an opportunity to do something else with
the kids (and entrepreneurs try to figure out what product to come up with to
address the problem).

In entrepreneurship money makes things easier if and only if the
entrepreneurial foundation is there to begin with. That's why shops like YC
need multi-founder teams and, even at that, they have to become their virtual
parents and role models in order to ensure success and teach them the culture
and ways of entrepreneurship. Young single founders without this "grit" would
crumble inside of a year, money or not.

I would venture to say that the millions of small business entrepreneurs out
there do not come from wealthy families. I don't have any data to back this up
but it is simply impossible to think that my local ice cream shop, cleaner's,
barber shop, AC guy, gardener, etc. fell into their businesses because they
got some money from mom and dad. I think the opposite is far more likely to be
true. They worked their asses off, saved some money and launched.

~~~
karambahh
Although your parents built their business from scratch, they benefited from a
social, cultural and economic background which led them to more easily attempt
and succeed at starting a business.

I am a business owner myself, not coming from a high-income family. I am now
part of a network of young entrepreneur/lending scheme for innovative
business.

A wild guess: 75% of our alumni come from privileged environment: 50% from
very wealthy family, 25% had parents who had intellectual jobs (parents were
teachers for instance), and about 25% "others".

It's all anecdotal evidence, as much as your personal experience is.

From your "mother with 3 jobs" example: of course she teaches a lot to her
children, of course she has merit! But their children won't feel like they
have a "safety net" around them, be it strictly financial or not, provided by
their background.

Wherever I like it or not, I know that if my business fails tomorrow, my
family will be there for me. It can be conscious or not, but for many of "us"
entrepreneur, we took a risk and consciously or not, we have a safety net.

~~~
rebootthesystem
I think our scale and perspective, by being in tech, can be skewed.

Over 540,000 new businesses are started EACH MONTH in the US. The sheer number
of them should be evidence enough that the vast majority are not started in
the context of privilege, wealth or perhaps even a safety net that protects
the would-be-entrepreneur from failure. I just don't think this world view is
correct.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surpris...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surprising-
statistics-about-small-businesses/)

While it is hard to find this data, the following article claims that "472
million entrepreneurs worldwide attempting to start 305 million companies,
approximately 100 million new businesses (or one third) will open each year
around the world."

That's one hundred million businesses per year world wide launched by nearly
half a billion entrepreneurs. I think we can agree there aren't that many
wealthy families or entrepreneurs with "I can fail without consequences"
safety nets in the world.

[http://www.moyak.com/papers/business-startups-
entrepreneurs....](http://www.moyak.com/papers/business-startups-
entrepreneurs.html)

~~~
notahacker
Sure, but this being HN, we're interested in the "disrupt an entire industry"
type business, which are overwhelmingly started by people with good
connections and a top university degree that hasn't burdened them with
unsustainable debt. Not to mention overwhelmingly involving people who have
chosen to relocate to the highest cost of living parts of the US to try to get
on the radar of VCs, and are foregoing the >$100k a year they could easily
command in a regular job there.

Obviously there are opportunity costs and expectations associated with
starting your own plumbing business too, but entrepreneurially minded
tradesmen or professional services providers not only possess a higher chance
of success, but also much more willingness to shut it down and get a job if
it's not generating revenue quickly.

And by the time you get to "half a billion entrepreneurs" worldwide we're
including people offering goods and services to sale not because of the lure
of entrepreneurdom but simply because that's pretty much the only opportunity
to earn money that exists in their locality.

~~~
rebootthesystem
Someone putting it all on the line is putting it all on the line, it doesn't
matter if they are selling flowers at the corner or doing something larger
than that. A plumber (or a small or trades entrepreneur) doesn't take failure
lightly as you've suggested. Regardless of scale, a failure is a traumatic
event and fighting against it can take months or years.

If you've never lived through the anguish of having a business go bad you
might not be equipped to understand this. I have. It's not fun. And, no, you
don't think "fuck it, I'll just get a job" three weeks into it. Again, you
have to have walked in those shoes in order to truly understand it.

I am not trying to insult you, just stating a fact. It is really easy to have
all kinds of nice sounding opinions from the outside yet there's only one way
to truly understand what it is like to make the decisions to take out a second
mortgage on your home to keep people employed, make payroll and try to rescue
a business (as I have done).

It is impossible to understand something like that without having had skin in
the game at some non-trivial business. Talking to a "well weathered" business
person is very different from talking to someone who worked for the government
or as an employee in the private sector all of their lives. Their
understanding of reality is very, very different. That's how you get people
saying things like "you didn't build that", because they simply don't have a
clue.

~~~
notahacker
I certainly didn't mean to belittle plumbers, or so-called "lifestyle
businesses". Just to point out that the "1 in ten people is an
entrepreneur"-type business-founding statistics are filled with people that
are less playing VC-roulette and more hoping/expecting they can make more
money as a contractor than an employee (I even had the "maybe you should form
a limited company for your work on this project" conversation myself this
morning). The tech startup bubble, on the other hand, is filled with people
that will quite seriously advance the argument that bringing in actual revenue
is something that should be postponed until a much later stage even if
possible from day one. You tend to need a certain amount of privilege to think
like that.

SV survivor-bias success stories are also littered with companies which might
well have been allowed to fail if it came down to putting the founders' houses
on the line...

------
ilaksh
For most people there is no risk available for them to take.

------
yourilima
well that's... discouraging... depressing...

~~~
kome
but true :)

rich people have it easy. because a failure is not really a failure for
them... it's an attempt.

But for the rest of us a failure is a failure. Deal with it.

------
ghufran_syed
This entire thread is the most amazing Rorsach test, on the basis of the
flimsiest data. Many of the points made in the comments may be true, but it's
a disappointing for a HN thread to have so much impassioned comment but so
little critical analysis of the underlying data.

The first issue worth noting is that the definition of 'employed'(not
discussed in the article or the original paper) vs self-employed incorporated
vs self-employed non-incorporated are based on self-reporting from the census
[5]:

"CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person’s chief job
activity or business last week. If this person had more than one job, describe
the one at which this person worked the most hours. If this person had no job
or business last week, give information for his/her last job or business.

Mark (X) ONE box. \- an employee of a PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business,
or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions? ... several other
answers elided... \- SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business, professional
practice, or farm? \- SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business, professional
practice, or farm?"

So if you are getting a salary from your startup, do you think there might be
some ambiguity about which one you tick? If you are working at company A, but
working on your startup on evenings and weekends, you would mark 'employed' if
you followed the instructions.

Once you understand where the data came from, you might not infer the same
meaning to the underlying paper, whose abstract is here: "We disaggregate the
self-employed into incorporated and unincorporated to distinguish between
"entrepreneurs" and other business owners. We show that the incorporated self-
employed and their businesses engage in activities that demand comparatively
strong nonroutine cognitive abilities, while the unincorporated and their
firms perform tasks demanding relatively strong manual skills. The
incorporated self-employed have distinct cognitive and noncognitive traits.
Besides tending to be white, male, and come from higher-income families, the
incorporated—as teenagers—typically scored higher on learning aptitude tests,
had greater self-esteem, and engaged in more disruptive, illicit activities.
The combination of "smart" and "illicit" tendencies as youths accounts for
both entry into entrepreneurship and the comparative earnings of
entrepreneurs. In contrast to past research, we find that entrepreneurs earn
much more per hour than their salaried and unincorporated counterparts."

So they are using 'incorporated' as a proxy for entrepreneur, by comparing
them with 'unincorporated self employed'. Let's see if that makes sense, and
if their 'entrepreneur' is the same as what we might call a 'startup founder':

\- The ratio of unincorporated to incorporated is 2:1 (approx 10 million vs 5
million in 2009 [1])

\- The SBA says 600,000 new ventures are started each year (that they know
about) [2]

\- There are around 70000 angel deals in one year (2013) [3]

\- There are about 4000 venture deals in one year (2014) [4]

We can probably agree that the angel and venture deals are 'real' startup
entrepreneurs. Some small indeterminate proportion of the incorporated and
unincorporated self-employed probably are too. However, doesn't it seem a
little silly to analyze the 5 _million_ incorporated self-employed vs the 10
_million_ non-incorporated self-employed, and assume it's telling you anything
about _start-up entrepreneurs_ ?

[1]
[http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/09/art2full.pdf](http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/09/art2full.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf](https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf)

[3]
[http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/data/Documents/Resour...](http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/data/Documents/Resources/ACA-
AngelBackground2014.pdf)

[4] [http://nvca.org/?ddownload=1868](http://nvca.org/?ddownload=1868) (2015
NVCA Yearbook)

[5] [http://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/methodology/ques...](http://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/2015/quest15.pdf)

Edited to fix formatting issues

------
johanneskanybal
duh

------
spacehome
I miss Michael O'Church.

------
wageslave420
Why would I want to contribute to a society that punishes starving artists
trying to complete their masterpiece?

------
totallystupid
Friends! If you find someone trying to criticize your achievement as being
"just because you are privileged" say

"I'm now further from where I started, than where I started was from where you
started. So if you couldn't even make it from where you started to where I
started, how do you expect that you could have made it from where I started to
where I am now?"

People may choose to respond to this by saying something that confirms their
idea that they are fundamentally more worse off than you. They may call you
privilege blind. They may say it is easier if they had X more capital. The may
say anything that confirms their hypothesis that without having whatever they
credit you with possessing, they are less capable.

I implore you, be not discouraged, nor believe your success any the lesser.
Recognize that they are disempowering themselves and, that by believing that
success is something that must be given to them rather than something they
create, they are acting privileged and entitled, the very things they are
trying to say you are. Recognize and, if you like, benevolently point out,
that this chosen self-disempowerment, this unworkable attitude, is a poverty
of the spirit that will disadvantage them ( by their own choice ) far more
than any difference between how much they started with, and how much you did.

For if at every step of the way, people are looking to those who have more
than them and, "proving" to themselves that this difference was all about
different starting points rather than about a different sequence of choices,
then such people are disempowering the power of choice, and, how likely do you
feel such people will be, to ever make a string of choices that leads to
success?

No, friends, heed not their admonishments, and keep your children away from
their siren songs, for they are only the delusional whispers of a people
soothing themselves into apathy by telling themselves they never coulda,
instead of believing that they fully could have, had they only chosen to take
responsibility for success, instead of deluding themselves that it was owed to
them.

To put it in more general terms : Being a fake victim doesn't work, you just
disempower yourself. When you see people better of than you, choosing to be
inspired and to acknowledge their achievements works. Choosing to pretend to
yourself that success is something that must be given to you, instead of
something you create yourself, is just acting privileged and entitled, and it
doesn't work and it actually, this attitude, makes it less likely for you to
succeed. An attitude that acknowledge the choices that lead to success, and
that takes responsibility yourself to create your own success through your own
choices, this attitude works, and makes it more likely for you to succeed.
Anything else, any stories you choose to tell yourself about how it's so
unfair, is just you choosing to substitute the fake payoff of feeling like a
righteous fake victim of unfairness, for the real payoff of actually creating
results.

Trying to spread to others the claptrap that people are powerless, so you can
confirm your own delusions that they are, is just incorrectly trying to
disempower others, and it's just wrong.

TL;DR -- Deluding yourself that success is given, rather than created, is not
an attitude that works to help you create your own success.

I hope this cleared some things up for some people. Those too far gone in
excusing themselves a lack of success due to a fantasy of disadvantage may or
may not be beyond the reach of such simple words, and I hope they can be
reached. For everyone else I have even more hope.

Keep the faith, it is up to you.

~~~
totallystupid
How can people even read this to disagree with it -- wouldn't it be too faded
out? o_O

~~~
klibertp
The colors used for downvoted comments are customizable in your account
settings.

------
paulhauggis
It takes very little money to start an internet company these days. If you
dont have the capital, work and save it. Stop making excuses.

~~~
jchrisa
It took me a couple of years after college working in restaurants etc before I
had the skills to pat the bills. The only way I could afford the time to teach
myself code was due to the relaxed schedule that comes from knowing you can
ask your parents for help.

------
millermp12
I guarantee you that far, far more trustafarians are using their "privilege"
to indulge a negro fetish or whatever "social justice" meme happens to be
trending rather than risking anyone's equity in something entrepreneurial.

You think that a typical person would use the millions they made and plow it
back into not one but three hair-brained ventures (Musk with Tesla, SpaceEx,
Solar City)?

Consider one of the comments below, something like "I would be entrepreneurial
too if I didn't have to pay for rent and food."

Bullshit. If that poser inherited millions he would scarcely summon the energy
to snap selfies at some BLM "protest".

Seriously: eugenics can't come fast enough.

~~~
aeturnum
Nice.

So you disagree with the article because there are some number of trust fund
kids who aren't entrepreneurs? The article does not make the claim that having
money is required for entrepreneurship, simply that it is extremely
influential (more influential than any genetic component).

That said, maybe this comment is a parody of a viewpoint. If I've missed
something, excuse me.

------
warkid
“This whole bulk of the population is being seduced into thinking that they
can just go out and pursue their dream anytime, but it’s not true.”

Cool. Know your place, leave enterpreneurship to blue bloods - that's the
conclusion?

~~~
bildung
_> “This whole bulk of the population is being seduced into thinking that they
can just go out and pursue their dream anytime, but it’s not true.”_

 _> Cool. Know your place, leave enterpreneurship to blue bloods - that's the
conclusion?_

No.

"When basic needs are met, it’s easier to be creative; when you know you have
a safety net, you are more willing to take risks. “

The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the
population to pursue their dream.

~~~
patrickaljord
> The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the
> population to pursue their dream.

We have a huge "social safety net" here in France and yet we are way less
entrepreneurial than in the US. I moved to Peru for 4 years to save some money
and then came back to start a business, the entrepreneurial spirit was way
strong stronger there even though the social safety net is inexistent.

Fact is, having a social safety net makes people comfortable in their poor
economic situation and does not require them to take risks. Even in the US,
the number of new companies created each year has decreased as the welfare
state has grown.

~~~
notahacker
Peru might have a lot more entrepreneurially minded people, and more self-
employed people but France certainly has more successful tech startups (even
on a per capita basis).

Just as lack of a safety net biases towards action and self reliance, it also
skews the risk/reward ratio of those actions firmly towards those most likely
to keep the roof over ones head.

~~~
patrickaljord
The reason there are more tech startups in France is because people are better
educated.

~~~
notahacker
True, but then arguably education (and especially several years of heavily-
subsidised tertiary education) is part of the safety net, and the safety net
certainly contributes towards choice to pursue that education rather than
accepting the first shitty informal sector opportunity that enables them to
support themselves.

Obviously there are plenty of other social and economic differences between
Peru and France, but the fact that even Peru's relatively small number of
highly-educated people is still highly likely to be underemployed doesn't
exactly speak wonders for the potential of all these entrepreneurially-minded
Peruvians to actually create jobs.

~~~
patrickaljord
Peru does have public education too so I don't think that's the issue. It's
just that people are less educated in general so schools are not that good.
South Korea has half of its schools private and they're doing great so I don't
think you even need public schooling to be doing great as a country.

------
sebastianconcpt
Article's thesis mixes means with cause. Quite poor.

------
bobjordan
I mostly agree with the article in that at some point you must gain access to
capital in either cash or credit and then put it at risk. That said, I was
born in WV to 17-year-old mother and 20-year-old father. I was their second
child. My father was a coal truck driver, mother a secretary, neither college
educated. By the time I was four, my father was in prison two years, and my
mother was a struggling 21-year-old with two kids and no family support.
Anyhow, I worked my way up from that start, became a bootstrapped entrepreneur
in 30's after raising $15K seed, no salary for two years, bought back my seed
equity, now a millionaire net worth by 40. If sufficiently hard-headed,
stubborn, and unwilling to quit trying to find any way to succeed, it can be
done without family money.

