I'd say it's simply that the opportunities for programmers (demand) outweighs the number of people trying to make it (supply). For actors, musicians, chefs, and yes entrepreneurs, the number of opportunities (demand) is outweighed by the number of people trying to make it (supply). This is possibly awkwardly true for entrepreneurs in a strange way; at least for actors, musicians, and chefs, the path forward is clearly laid out, you know where the opportunities exist. For entrepreneurs, you need to figure out where the opportunities exist, besides being able to deliver the goods too. Maybe it's better to say that for entrepreneurs, there's a qualifying matching supply and demand problem, while for actors, musicians, and chefs, there's simply a volume matching supply and demand problem.
I don't think it's about luck. I think it's about supply and demand.
> I don't think it's about luck. I think it's about supply and demand.
In a supply/demand imbalance situation, it very much is about luck for an individual. If for each open position there are 100 candidates, then whether or not you'll get that job is mostly a matter of luck (and to some degree contacts).
An extra problem here is that "luck" doesn't mean lottery. It also means making all the right choices for the past years, including back before you even figured out you're in competition for a position.
I completely agree with you about programmers, but what you are saying about entrepreneurs doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying there are too many inventors and not enough ideas...
I don't think it's about luck. I think it's about supply and demand.