Is success tied to having rich parents?(old.reddit.com)
old.reddit.com
Is success tied to having rich parents?
https://old.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/ssbf2j/is_success_really_tied_to_having_rich_parents/
136 comments
>They don't want cockroach people in my estimation.
This is true. It matters much more who you are than what you bring to the table (unless you're bringing in something spectacular).
This is true. It matters much more who you are than what you bring to the table (unless you're bringing in something spectacular).
Agree, and obviously my history and K1's can make the case for a whole slew of other traits besides that one.
By "who you are" do you mean a persons intrinsic traits?
I think the fact that "who you are" in these cases implicitly includes a persons network, access to capital and other _extrinsic_ traits should be spoken aloud and acknowledged.
There are a lot of poor, smart kids who feel _less than_ as a result.
A trait I have that is hard to present is that for every dollar invested in me the ROI has been a minimum of 25x, those numbers start at 15 when I dropped out of HS to pay my families rent (with an "illegal" w2 smb network admin job I turned into a coding/marketing automation job) because of my mothers cancer diagnosis.
Many of us end up being out leveraged early on and our map to success takes far more personal torque and grit than others born into more connected and wealthier circumstances.
By "who you are" do you mean a persons intrinsic traits?
I think the fact that "who you are" in these cases implicitly includes a persons network, access to capital and other _extrinsic_ traits should be spoken aloud and acknowledged.
There are a lot of poor, smart kids who feel _less than_ as a result.
A trait I have that is hard to present is that for every dollar invested in me the ROI has been a minimum of 25x, those numbers start at 15 when I dropped out of HS to pay my families rent (with an "illegal" w2 smb network admin job I turned into a coding/marketing automation job) because of my mothers cancer diagnosis.
Many of us end up being out leveraged early on and our map to success takes far more personal torque and grit than others born into more connected and wealthier circumstances.
By who you are I meant whether you come from a rich and privileged family or not.
>I think the fact that "who you are" in these cases implicitly includes a persons network [...]
Yes, you're right, in some sense a person with a good pedigree is bringing these implicit connections to the table, and that has value, for sure. But then that leaves outside the other 90% of people who do not pass that litmus test.
And then, some bad patterns emerge, like this one pointed out by our beloved Michael O. Church: https://twitter.com/MichaelOChurch/status/149157622891411456...
>I think the fact that "who you are" in these cases implicitly includes a persons network [...]
Yes, you're right, in some sense a person with a good pedigree is bringing these implicit connections to the table, and that has value, for sure. But then that leaves outside the other 90% of people who do not pass that litmus test.
And then, some bad patterns emerge, like this one pointed out by our beloved Michael O. Church: https://twitter.com/MichaelOChurch/status/149157622891411456...
Yes, the problems continue to compound in this almost invisible way to people who haven't experienced it.
My luck of course is that my parents were brilliant observers and educators (just lacked any financial background.) Just unplugged from material humanity due to their respective upbringing. Which was lovely, and in many ways very wholesome, but killed them and devastated my family in the end, I still miss them dearly.
Can confirm the Michael O'Church quote.
Long before I had financial security I learned to code switch, to present that demurring, almost embarrassed and indifferent attitude towards money, if you met me in person I can come across as a pretty standard tech bro from a wealthy background. It helps immensely with the leverage imbalance, to appear as an almost gadfly, but it's all very complicated and there are trade offs and unlearned implicit things that I don't have an intuitive grasp on.
I don't really talk about poverty and climbing out of it except on HN, it's usually not personally fruitful and not part of my daily headspace. Everything is smoother when you focus on the similarities of your conversation partners and commonalities. We are all one humanity after all, even if not everyone grasps the depth of that truth.
My luck of course is that my parents were brilliant observers and educators (just lacked any financial background.) Just unplugged from material humanity due to their respective upbringing. Which was lovely, and in many ways very wholesome, but killed them and devastated my family in the end, I still miss them dearly.
Can confirm the Michael O'Church quote.
Long before I had financial security I learned to code switch, to present that demurring, almost embarrassed and indifferent attitude towards money, if you met me in person I can come across as a pretty standard tech bro from a wealthy background. It helps immensely with the leverage imbalance, to appear as an almost gadfly, but it's all very complicated and there are trade offs and unlearned implicit things that I don't have an intuitive grasp on.
I don't really talk about poverty and climbing out of it except on HN, it's usually not personally fruitful and not part of my daily headspace. Everything is smoother when you focus on the similarities of your conversation partners and commonalities. We are all one humanity after all, even if not everyone grasps the depth of that truth.
Absolutely, as an orphan with many different ideas and no safety net I was frequently put in places where I should have been a co-founder since I was technical and the idea was mine, but basically until I was 29 I had no leverage because I had to have income (and health insurance, I was born with a couple heart defects.)
It sucks, and I'm sorry that you had this experience. That's basically how it works. The people who get the good jobs are the people who don't need jobs at all. The people who need jobs get the lousy ones that lead nowhere but more lousy jobs, and it is this way because the owning class can threaten us with starvation and homelessness into taking whatever terms they offer.
What is truly weird is that, if you advocate (I don't, and I'm not) for tearing down the capital-owning class using indiscriminate and total violence--and, just to be clear, I consider "indiscriminate, total violence" a terrible outcome, almost as bad as letting the bourgeoisie continue to win--you'll probably end up in jail, even in the US where they claim to love "freedom of speech"... but, at the same time, rich people can use survival pressures (threat of starvation, homelessness, and criminal medical negligence) and that's just taken as how the world works. To advocate for a final revolution against the bourgeoisie that might take 100,000 lives is a crime; to advocate (or even lobby!) against "socialized medicine" and kill far more people is legal.
It's weird how certain types of violence fade into the background while others are considered severe and deviant, to the point of receiving international scorn and attention. Worker-initiated worksite violence is a bad thing, no doubt--I am staunchy against it, since other workers, often innocents, are invariably the victims--but compared to the millions that have been killed by the US health insurance system, it's not newsworthy at all. It's just the Right is very skilled at using criminal anecdata to convince people the world that the poor are far more dangerous (and the rich, less so) than they actually are.
It sucks, and I'm sorry that you had this experience. That's basically how it works. The people who get the good jobs are the people who don't need jobs at all. The people who need jobs get the lousy ones that lead nowhere but more lousy jobs, and it is this way because the owning class can threaten us with starvation and homelessness into taking whatever terms they offer.
What is truly weird is that, if you advocate (I don't, and I'm not) for tearing down the capital-owning class using indiscriminate and total violence--and, just to be clear, I consider "indiscriminate, total violence" a terrible outcome, almost as bad as letting the bourgeoisie continue to win--you'll probably end up in jail, even in the US where they claim to love "freedom of speech"... but, at the same time, rich people can use survival pressures (threat of starvation, homelessness, and criminal medical negligence) and that's just taken as how the world works. To advocate for a final revolution against the bourgeoisie that might take 100,000 lives is a crime; to advocate (or even lobby!) against "socialized medicine" and kill far more people is legal.
It's weird how certain types of violence fade into the background while others are considered severe and deviant, to the point of receiving international scorn and attention. Worker-initiated worksite violence is a bad thing, no doubt--I am staunchy against it, since other workers, often innocents, are invariably the victims--but compared to the millions that have been killed by the US health insurance system, it's not newsworthy at all. It's just the Right is very skilled at using criminal anecdata to convince people the world that the poor are far more dangerous (and the rich, less so) than they actually are.
This may be disappointing but I've always been a pacifist, my family on my mothers side comes from some dictatorial/war torn areas and democracy and democratic change seem to be an approach that engenders less overall suffering in the long run. I like that people exist in our world who have never appreciably had "need" in their life and I don't begrudge it. I personally wouldn't be alive if I had even been born 3-4 years earlier (or in a lower tech location) due to my heart defects and the technology required to address them early in my life.
I like that HN is a place to discuss ideas with other nerds, be inquisitive, share experiences and perspectives in a mind expanding way, tech and peaceful community have both helped me immensely in tangible ways. I want to widen the road behind me as much as I can.
I hope you can appreciate my personal perspective, I've not found many places online where outrage and strong speech isn't the dominant mode of interaction. Thanks.
I like that HN is a place to discuss ideas with other nerds, be inquisitive, share experiences and perspectives in a mind expanding way, tech and peaceful community have both helped me immensely in tangible ways. I want to widen the road behind me as much as I can.
I hope you can appreciate my personal perspective, I've not found many places online where outrage and strong speech isn't the dominant mode of interaction. Thanks.
> I eventually co-founded a company with two others and it went well,
Success!!!
> but after exiting I am still not plugged into VC.
Isn’t this moving the goal posts ?
Success!!!
> but after exiting I am still not plugged into VC.
Isn’t this moving the goal posts ?
All successes is relative, so I'm not sure there is such a thing as moving the goalposts. I do think it's best to frame "success" based on the question as originally posted instead of some undefined framing from one of the two of us, so let's do that:
Vitalik Buterin is extremely successful. It appears he has never had to worry about finances, even as an extreme outlier for my cohort I still have to mind my p's and q's and worry about financial decisions.
I am successful for my impoverished cohort. At one point it looked like I would hit financial escape velocity where I could essentially retire, which of course would just have gotten me to Vitalik's childhood starting point.
The ability to sit and work on a moonshot for an indefinite period of time, or follow new trends at my leisure, follow a hunch, passion, what have you, without worrying about a safety net?
No, never had that. What he had in his childhood I still to this day do not have as an adult that represents the top %1 of my cohort. Even with my %1 outlier level of "success attributes", escaping the well of gravity costs a lot. In terms of real cumulative stress, health outcomes, missed opportunities, etc. just calculating using a simple base rate I would have been far better off being born into the upper middle class.
I know many individuals who are far less driven, far less creative, people who have generated far less wealth, who had childhoods and young adulthoods well into their late 20's who are still financially ahead of me.
Children/People love to have mastery and create and be recognized, children are mostly born curious, a hungry belly helps no one achieve greatness, we celebrate and immortalize the improbable stories whose success effectively represent _achievement statistical noise_ and we should be honest about that I think.
Vitalik Buterin is extremely successful. It appears he has never had to worry about finances, even as an extreme outlier for my cohort I still have to mind my p's and q's and worry about financial decisions.
I am successful for my impoverished cohort. At one point it looked like I would hit financial escape velocity where I could essentially retire, which of course would just have gotten me to Vitalik's childhood starting point.
The ability to sit and work on a moonshot for an indefinite period of time, or follow new trends at my leisure, follow a hunch, passion, what have you, without worrying about a safety net?
No, never had that. What he had in his childhood I still to this day do not have as an adult that represents the top %1 of my cohort. Even with my %1 outlier level of "success attributes", escaping the well of gravity costs a lot. In terms of real cumulative stress, health outcomes, missed opportunities, etc. just calculating using a simple base rate I would have been far better off being born into the upper middle class.
I know many individuals who are far less driven, far less creative, people who have generated far less wealth, who had childhoods and young adulthoods well into their late 20's who are still financially ahead of me.
Children/People love to have mastery and create and be recognized, children are mostly born curious, a hungry belly helps no one achieve greatness, we celebrate and immortalize the improbable stories whose success effectively represent _achievement statistical noise_ and we should be honest about that I think.
> I am successful for my impoverished cohort.
Extremely successful
> At one point it looked like I would hit financial escape velocity where I could essentially retire, which of course would just have gotten me to Vitalik's childhood starting point.
You have more control over the assets than a child - it was not their money
Maybe you are supposed to be Vitalik’s parent instead of Vitalik
Extremely successful
> At one point it looked like I would hit financial escape velocity where I could essentially retire, which of course would just have gotten me to Vitalik's childhood starting point.
You have more control over the assets than a child - it was not their money
Maybe you are supposed to be Vitalik’s parent instead of Vitalik
Who "supposed" me do you reckon?
> I still find it impossible to find and get in front of investors
Any ideas why?
Any ideas why?
My startup that was successful was bootstrapped by us founders, so it just seems like a lack of network, I apply through different programs but I think a more personal touch seems neccessary if "friends and family" rounds are not possible.
I see, thanks!
Once you don't have to worry about not having to pay rent, not having to pay electricity etc then your appetite for risks grows. To get to that point you either need to start from a rich household (parents) or get to a certain age, have some money to support you (from previous work) and then go into entrepreneurial experiments. This is a big reason why you see older entrepreneurs embarking into that journey.
then your appetite for risks grows
Sigh.
No, it's not an appetite for risk. It's that those risks get less risky.
People become more "risk tolerant" when those risks are less of a threat to them, their survival, their future, etc.
That's a little like saying "Rich people eat at more expensive restaurants than poor people because they have the appetite for it." No, they don't. They have the same appetite as a poor person. They just have more ability to pay for the better restaurant.
Duh.
Sigh.
No, it's not an appetite for risk. It's that those risks get less risky.
People become more "risk tolerant" when those risks are less of a threat to them, their survival, their future, etc.
That's a little like saying "Rich people eat at more expensive restaurants than poor people because they have the appetite for it." No, they don't. They have the same appetite as a poor person. They just have more ability to pay for the better restaurant.
Duh.
It depends what you are measuring as the risk. The risk of lowering your quality of life may decrease with wealth, but the risk of your business failing likely stays roughly the same. Thus, more appetite for risk.
[deleted]
Yes, that's the implication.
E.g. Poor and rich alike are at risk of losing the capital they put into the business. For the rich that might be daddy's money, while for the poor that might be their life savings. Both are at risk of being unemployed and without healthcare. For the rich that might be fine, but for the poor that could be life-threatening.
E.g. Poor and rich alike are at risk of losing the capital they put into the business. For the rich that might be daddy's money, while for the poor that might be their life savings. Both are at risk of being unemployed and without healthcare. For the rich that might be fine, but for the poor that could be life-threatening.
It's fine to associate risk with increased reward. It's the same as saying the richer the gambler, the more appetite they have for higher stakes.
I experienced that at around 30, when someone invited me to found a startup, but I just didn't have the money to survive.
Now I'm 40, I've got more financial independence but dont really have the drive anymore.
Now I'm 40, I've got more financial independence but dont really have the drive anymore.
You also don’t have the time to recover should the startup fail. Because of that I think rich parents holds much more influence than having built up a safety cushion (retirement fund) later in life. The risks are much much higher in that case.
your appetite for risks grows
Your need for success diminishes with wealth though. A lot of founders struggle to motivate themselves to push through the hard stuff, get over the pits of depression, and to drive themselves following mistakes and rejections if they have resources to fall back on. It's a lot easier to take a month off and book a nice vacation after you've been told "no" by an investor or a major customer than it is to keep going and fire up your IDE or pick up the phone to chase another sale.
Many of the founders I've met work crazy hard because they won't be able to pay the rent if they don't. They literally don't have a choice except to succeed. That's a hell of a motivator that wealthy people will never have.
Your need for success diminishes with wealth though. A lot of founders struggle to motivate themselves to push through the hard stuff, get over the pits of depression, and to drive themselves following mistakes and rejections if they have resources to fall back on. It's a lot easier to take a month off and book a nice vacation after you've been told "no" by an investor or a major customer than it is to keep going and fire up your IDE or pick up the phone to chase another sale.
Many of the founders I've met work crazy hard because they won't be able to pay the rent if they don't. They literally don't have a choice except to succeed. That's a hell of a motivator that wealthy people will never have.
They literally don't have a choice except to succeed
Most founders I know can easily find a normal 9-5 job if they wanted to.
Most founders I know can easily find a normal 9-5 job if they wanted to.
As a poor kid who recently failed to get a startup off the ground, I'll second this. It may have been hard to pay rent, but I knew I could have a 200k base salary whenever I needed to give up. "Getting by" is just not something a reasonably talented engineer in the U.S. ever has to worry about, no matter their background.
Other motivators are required.
Other motivators are required.
> "Getting by" is just not something a reasonably talented engineer in the U.S. ever has to worry about, no matter their background.
Yes it is. Injuries & medical care/accessibility/costs can fuck you harder than you could ever imagine. Even when you may have been previously making mid-deep into 6 figures.
Yes it is. Injuries & medical care/accessibility/costs can fuck you harder than you could ever imagine. Even when you may have been previously making mid-deep into 6 figures.
Motivation is nice, but building something new and novel requires skill and being on the edge of the right social/environmental phenomenon (timing).
The skill development part requires free time (to learn and practice) and access (to computers, tools, people, etc.)
If we're talking about creating just any kind of business, then sure hard work and determination are enough. If we're talking about outlier success stories in tech, then privilege is almost always a component of the story.
The skill development part requires free time (to learn and practice) and access (to computers, tools, people, etc.)
If we're talking about creating just any kind of business, then sure hard work and determination are enough. If we're talking about outlier success stories in tech, then privilege is almost always a component of the story.
> Your need for success diminishes with wealth though
I'd consider that a feature, not a bug for the question of global stage level founding: the subset of rich parents offspring who goes after building something aims for building something actually big, not just for the first best thing that promises access to the world of fancy cars and being someone's boss.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with starting a business aimed at bootstrapping itself and funding a car, later a house and in the end maybe even a boat. I have much greater sympathy for those than for people aiming to be the next unicorn (that term hasn't really made the jump into this decade, or has it?). But when it does come to this scope, I'd take it for granted that the born rich run a considerably higher chance of not getting blinded by high numbers and not deluding themselves.
I'd consider that a feature, not a bug for the question of global stage level founding: the subset of rich parents offspring who goes after building something aims for building something actually big, not just for the first best thing that promises access to the world of fancy cars and being someone's boss.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with starting a business aimed at bootstrapping itself and funding a car, later a house and in the end maybe even a boat. I have much greater sympathy for those than for people aiming to be the next unicorn (that term hasn't really made the jump into this decade, or has it?). But when it does come to this scope, I'd take it for granted that the born rich run a considerably higher chance of not getting blinded by high numbers and not deluding themselves.
No. A smart person can always get a well paying job and still be considered successful by his peers or family.
The son of a wealthy family may think going to Google is the same as failure. He has the money to try over and over again and does so because working for someone else is like being a sheep.
The son of a wealthy family may think going to Google is the same as failure. He has the money to try over and over again and does so because working for someone else is like being a sheep.
You’re subtly implying that this smart person also has the resume to be allowed to be interviewed in the first place. (A common bias of thought by people working in tech, from my experience).
There are people out there whose problem is not that they aren’t smart, but that they don’t have the resume that is aligned with HR filters. Their two biggest and relatively substantial hurdles are: 1) not getting a chance for even a first interview because they are immediately being rejected purely based on their resume, and 2) having a weak position going into salary negotiations.
So, imho “a smart person can always get a well paying job” is a gross oversimplification often made by people who are not in such circumstances.
There are people out there whose problem is not that they aren’t smart, but that they don’t have the resume that is aligned with HR filters. Their two biggest and relatively substantial hurdles are: 1) not getting a chance for even a first interview because they are immediately being rejected purely based on their resume, and 2) having a weak position going into salary negotiations.
So, imho “a smart person can always get a well paying job” is a gross oversimplification often made by people who are not in such circumstances.
Agree with everything you said, but just want to add a couple additional hurdles to even being considered “smart”:
- going to a bad public school because you live in a poor area has ripple effects that may put you in a worse position than some private prep school kid
- if you grew up in poverty, your brain will literally grow differently due to chronic stress, environmental toxins, lack of stimulation, etc. [1].
We pretend like filtering for “smart” is fair, but the opportunity to be smart is heavily weighted by privilege.
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4811314/
- going to a bad public school because you live in a poor area has ripple effects that may put you in a worse position than some private prep school kid
- if you grew up in poverty, your brain will literally grow differently due to chronic stress, environmental toxins, lack of stimulation, etc. [1].
We pretend like filtering for “smart” is fair, but the opportunity to be smart is heavily weighted by privilege.
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4811314/
Years ago, I saw a study that said that there is as much child neglect and drug abuse in rich neighborhoods as in ghettos. Good parents tend to be middle class because, yes, you need to be able to feed the kids adequately etc but you also need to actually spend time with the kids and care about them.
Money can't buy you love.
Money can't buy you love.
It can’t buy love, but it can buy food security, shelter, medical care, and decent schooling.
I’m not saying growing up rich is always easy, but the point is it’s _more likely_ to be easy than if you’re poor.
I’m not saying growing up rich is always easy, but the point is it’s _more likely_ to be easy than if you’re poor.
Cher once said "I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better."
Certainly, all other things being equal, it's generally better to have more resources. But life isn't quite that simple and sometimes the price involved in successfully pursuing money involves a human cost.
If you can have lots of money and also have time for the children and also are a decent person, etc, cool. Some people pull that off.
And some people don't.
Certainly, all other things being equal, it's generally better to have more resources. But life isn't quite that simple and sometimes the price involved in successfully pursuing money involves a human cost.
If you can have lots of money and also have time for the children and also are a decent person, etc, cool. Some people pull that off.
And some people don't.
"Your need for success diminishes with wealth"
Depends on your definition of success. One's need of work to pay the bills might decrease with wealth. Yet one's mindset may change to not consider themselves successful until they attain some higher thing (like a big house, fancy cars, expensive vacations, etc).
These founders you're talking about, are they also choosing to live in expensive areas? If they change their definition of success, it's possible they could do different jobs or live in cheaper areas.
It's all about the definition.
Depends on your definition of success. One's need of work to pay the bills might decrease with wealth. Yet one's mindset may change to not consider themselves successful until they attain some higher thing (like a big house, fancy cars, expensive vacations, etc).
These founders you're talking about, are they also choosing to live in expensive areas? If they change their definition of success, it's possible they could do different jobs or live in cheaper areas.
It's all about the definition.
If they'd fail, they'd just have to do something else (less fun) to pay the rent. Perhaps moving to a cheaper housing. That's a negative prospect, but much less negative than getting evicted ('not able to afford rent'). And if you got rich parents, you can always live in a room (YOUR (large) room) in their house. Or have them buy you a house. Its a massive difference from the prospect of having to move to a cheaper, less likable neighborhood but neither is going to kill you.
I have a decent backstop and quite frankly I still have a relatively middle of the road risk tolerance. I've done one startup and quite frankly just grinding and doing stuff I like is starting to sound like a much better route as I'm entering my mid to late 20's. For me the bigger force pushing me away from startups was just the amount of stress / energy it takes relative to just working somewhere. To be frank, I think people with decent money and more importantly social energy / connections give you a leg up. Being able to afford living in a place / attend a university that lends itself to these kinds of connections is also incredibly relevant.
The notion of having roommates or not a few years of savings just isn't as cool or interesting as it once sounded. Granted, it feels weird to think about giving up on something I thought I wanted to do for a really long time, but that's just life sometimes.
The notion of having roommates or not a few years of savings just isn't as cool or interesting as it once sounded. Granted, it feels weird to think about giving up on something I thought I wanted to do for a really long time, but that's just life sometimes.
> Once you don't have to worry about not having to pay rent, not having to pay electricity etc then your appetite for risks grows
You could say the opposite, and it would be just as true. Risk is an individual choice, not an environmental one.
You could say the opposite, and it would be just as true. Risk is an individual choice, not an environmental one.
This is the thing that drives me crazy. The true rags to riches stories are incredibly rare. In the USA we love the stories about the person that came from nothing and the self-made millionaire but in the vast majority of cases if you look at the person's history you will see they grew up in at least an upper middle class family.
This applies to a lot of actors and musicians as well. After all, most of us couldn't afford to be a struggling artist for years without some financial support.
Yes, there are exceptions but those are exactly that: exceptions.
For something that is "incredibly rare", I sure seem to know an enormous number of people that managed to bootstrap their way out of real poverty and into real wealth. At least a dozen. It isn't that exceptional, you are overfitting on having heard of them; the vast, vast majority are never going to be written about nor advertise the fact. In many contexts, it is beneficial to pretend like you had an upper-middle class upbringing, so people learn to wear that facade well.
When I see assertions like the above made, it makes me think that it is an assumption made by people that haven't actually spent much time living among the lower economic classes.
When I see assertions like the above made, it makes me think that it is an assumption made by people that haven't actually spent much time living among the lower economic classes.
Yet I know none and have lived in SV for the last 7 years. Every person I’ve met has come from a middle class family at the least. And an educated one - if not high earning as well. Anyone who has significant wealth is from a privileged background or at the least married into one.
I’m always from the poorest background, least educated, etc. I’ve yet to meet anyone who gets close to where I was. I don’t even feel like I truly was that bad off but then again - I’ve seen how low it goes and most people in SV cannot even comprehend what the bottom looks like in the US.
I’m always from the poorest background, least educated, etc. I’ve yet to meet anyone who gets close to where I was. I don’t even feel like I truly was that bad off but then again - I’ve seen how low it goes and most people in SV cannot even comprehend what the bottom looks like in the US.
I lived in Silicon Valley a long time, and I knew several of these people from when they (and I) were still very poor. They are hiding in plain sight and "pass" as generic upper-middle class people because many have gone to great lengths to project that image and erase the affectations of their background. Obscuring whence they came has significant social advantages. There is still a lot of visible bigotry in Silicon Valley against e.g. an escapee from a trailer park in rural Appalachia that bootstrapped a software career in Silicon Valley without a college degree (real example), even if they are highly successful, and they'd rather avoid dealing with it. Much easier to blend in if you can.
A significant percentage of the ones I knew were not even in tech, which in Silicon Valley means you fly completely under the radar. For example, I know a formerly poor immigrant that made their money in old school book publishing, of all things. The common thread is smart people willing to work hard. There are a lot of them.
A significant percentage of the ones I knew were not even in tech, which in Silicon Valley means you fly completely under the radar. For example, I know a formerly poor immigrant that made their money in old school book publishing, of all things. The common thread is smart people willing to work hard. There are a lot of them.
How long ago and how much money - because I'm speaking of recently... I think things have changed over the last 10 years and I don't really see anyone who is like what you're talking about. If you're talking about someone who managed to get into a 6-figure job - not really a significant talking point. I'm speaking more of fatFIRE type money - which is common among people here and that is downplayed quite often.
I've really not met anyone under 30 in the last 7 years who fits anything near what you're speaking of. Almost everyone is from an affluent background. About half of my colleagues went to Ivy Leagues or adjacent. It's not very common to see people here who are from poverty and are young. Maybe it's more common among the 50+ crowd where it was more plausible to make your way here with little money (when your average 1000sqft home wasn't $2m+) - but it's basically unseen among the young here.
Again - I'm one of these people you're speaking of. So, it's not really like I don't exist but I've yet to meet someone like myself here. (And, I'll admit - I mostly speak to people in tech who are under 40 and are currently living here)
I've really not met anyone under 30 in the last 7 years who fits anything near what you're speaking of. Almost everyone is from an affluent background. About half of my colleagues went to Ivy Leagues or adjacent. It's not very common to see people here who are from poverty and are young. Maybe it's more common among the 50+ crowd where it was more plausible to make your way here with little money (when your average 1000sqft home wasn't $2m+) - but it's basically unseen among the young here.
Again - I'm one of these people you're speaking of. So, it's not really like I don't exist but I've yet to meet someone like myself here. (And, I'll admit - I mostly speak to people in tech who are under 40 and are currently living here)
I'm talking about people that I know are at least in fatFIRE range that started life somewhere between abject poverty and burger flipper. Their income is not relevant here, and some make seven-figures today. I am in Seattle now, but it is essentially the same as Silicon Valley in that regard. Little has changed; I know young people that started on that journey quite recently that are well on their way.
Your "under 30" criterion may be your problem, that selects for a very narrow set of circumstances while excluding most actually wealthy people. Virtually no one becomes wealthy before 30. Especially if you are starting from less than zero, like people that come from true poverty. Anecdotally, they usually enter fatFIRE territory in their 40s. Until very recently, tech did not pay a typical wage where someone could fatFIRE easily. Most of the people I know did it before that was a thing, without any big exits to pad their net worth. They did it the old fashioned way.
Again, I find it pretty bizarre that people in the US think it is exceptionally rare that people born into poverty become quite wealthy. In that community, there are often many examples of people that "got out" by various means, many going on to become quite wealthy. In the tech locales, that is multiplied dramatically because it is so easy for a moderately ambitious person to make silly money. Easiest ticket to wealth for a poor person ever, if they are willing to put in the effort.
Your "under 30" criterion may be your problem, that selects for a very narrow set of circumstances while excluding most actually wealthy people. Virtually no one becomes wealthy before 30. Especially if you are starting from less than zero, like people that come from true poverty. Anecdotally, they usually enter fatFIRE territory in their 40s. Until very recently, tech did not pay a typical wage where someone could fatFIRE easily. Most of the people I know did it before that was a thing, without any big exits to pad their net worth. They did it the old fashioned way.
Again, I find it pretty bizarre that people in the US think it is exceptionally rare that people born into poverty become quite wealthy. In that community, there are often many examples of people that "got out" by various means, many going on to become quite wealthy. In the tech locales, that is multiplied dramatically because it is so easy for a moderately ambitious person to make silly money. Easiest ticket to wealth for a poor person ever, if they are willing to put in the effort.
Aren't there a lot of immigrants from poorer countries in California?
> Aren't there a lot of immigrants from poorer countries in California?
Poorer countries - maybe. Immigrants who are poor but end up being wealthy? No.
Most people who immigrate to SV are wealthy or at least upper middle class in their home country. (US or otherwise - actually. This is prevalent across all countries - again - I don't meet people who are from poor backgrounds in SV, regardless of country)
Poorer countries - maybe. Immigrants who are poor but end up being wealthy? No.
Most people who immigrate to SV are wealthy or at least upper middle class in their home country. (US or otherwise - actually. This is prevalent across all countries - again - I don't meet people who are from poor backgrounds in SV, regardless of country)
What's frustrating is that it used to be more common in the US in mid-20th century, after the break up of large companies 100 years ago, but is now regressing back to what's been the norm for almost all human civilization.
its because appearing humble is a much better PR than saying "yeah I did it, it was easy"
And also because the public likes the idea of themselves moving up the socioeconomic ladder (“temporarily embarassed deca-millionaires”). I think a lot of the political strife in the recent past is due to the increasing inability to ignore how unlikely and how unrealistic this goal is for many.
Rich parents means you eat better, have access to higher quality resources, have more time for fitness, more time to go to the doctor for preventative issues.
Rich parents means you don’t have to work two jobs or work while studying. Means you have free “consulting” on life decisions from the perspective of the upper class. Means you access to new things like computers, phones, cars, etc.
It’s a huge advantage to come from a successful family. It means you don’t have to spend the majority of your time in survival mode but can instead invest in growth opportunities.
I would say there’s an enormous advantage coming from a rich family but it’s not the only requirement.
Rich parents means you don’t have to work two jobs or work while studying. Means you have free “consulting” on life decisions from the perspective of the upper class. Means you access to new things like computers, phones, cars, etc.
It’s a huge advantage to come from a successful family. It means you don’t have to spend the majority of your time in survival mode but can instead invest in growth opportunities.
I would say there’s an enormous advantage coming from a rich family but it’s not the only requirement.
I would agree with a lot of this. On the flip side, there's the sayings "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times." and "Wealth does not last beyond three generations".
I've anecdotally seen this where kids from rich parents take a lot of their wealth for granted and don't understand fully what it takes to build-up and retain wealth for the long-term. They usually get high-end jobs in society - CFO of company a dad started, doctor, lawyer, etc however it feels some depth to that wealth may have been lost...
I've anecdotally seen this where kids from rich parents take a lot of their wealth for granted and don't understand fully what it takes to build-up and retain wealth for the long-term. They usually get high-end jobs in society - CFO of company a dad started, doctor, lawyer, etc however it feels some depth to that wealth may have been lost...
I've always had a gripe with the "Hard times..." saying, because in reality, hard times just crush people. The few people that survive hard times are of course exceptionally strong or lucky, but they are exceptions.
I can say through my personal experience since I've worked in Switzerland and India: Just because India is having a harder time, doesn't mean we are stronger people, quite the contrary. I don't think good times are anywhere near for India and I don't think hard times are anywhere near for Switzerland.
(Switch Switzerland with any developed country.)
I can say through my personal experience since I've worked in Switzerland and India: Just because India is having a harder time, doesn't mean we are stronger people, quite the contrary. I don't think good times are anywhere near for India and I don't think hard times are anywhere near for Switzerland.
(Switch Switzerland with any developed country.)
Agree. The hard times thing is about survivor bias. In reality - hard times create many broken men who never escape the shackles they were born into. I know this because of where I grew up - very few who encountered difficulty ever truly escape or become strong. Most that I know are weak and in a bad cycle. Even the ones who were crowned as the smartest end up working the front counter at a pizza shop. It’s only the ones who had some wealth behind them (anomalies in the town) that were able to truly get out.
You talk to a professional if you want to retain wealth for the long term. Would you roll your own auth? Rich -pepper have better access to talented professionals.
There’s obviously a balance between wealth and stress that is useful for happiness/success. But I believe it’s very easy to accidentally traumatize with unbridled stress on a developing person. For example I’m still healing a year from a shoulder overuse injury. Would have been wiser to focus on backing away from the stressors at that point. From what I have seen, rich environments have plenty of bridled stressors, and these rich kids are developing plenty thick skin, just with adequate supervision.
Maybe this generation is different from past ones due to our access to the internet and it’s human refining nature.
There’s obviously a balance between wealth and stress that is useful for happiness/success. But I believe it’s very easy to accidentally traumatize with unbridled stress on a developing person. For example I’m still healing a year from a shoulder overuse injury. Would have been wiser to focus on backing away from the stressors at that point. From what I have seen, rich environments have plenty of bridled stressors, and these rich kids are developing plenty thick skin, just with adequate supervision.
Maybe this generation is different from past ones due to our access to the internet and it’s human refining nature.
There are also a lot of dumb sayings. There is a large amount of scientific evidence demonstrating large and lasting impacts of things like nutrition and parental involvement in education (both early education and ordinary primary education). Hard times might create some hard men. They also just kill a lot of people.
I've anecdotally seen people from impoverished backgrounds struggle to work in a healthy manner for long term success because of trauma dealing with short term needs on a consistent basis.
I've anecdotally seen people from impoverished backgrounds struggle to work in a healthy manner for long term success because of trauma dealing with short term needs on a consistent basis.
Wealth doesn't last beyond three generations?
Wasn't that debunked?
Outside of external cataclysm or far bell curve "bad luck" I don't think most born into wealth (defined lets say as the investor class that commands "decent" capital holdings) pass poverty on to their kids.
Wasn't that debunked?
Outside of external cataclysm or far bell curve "bad luck" I don't think most born into wealth (defined lets say as the investor class that commands "decent" capital holdings) pass poverty on to their kids.
Pretty much skewed towards many countries with exorbitant tuition fees though.
I don't think I remember any students here in Germany working 2 jobs. Sure, there's some inherent privilege in getting there to be able to study in the first place, but it has not a lot to do with 'wealth', being middle class and living at home (which kinda used to be the default until you were finished anyway) because we don't have so many campus universities and the majority would study at the closest uni anyway.
But I think I misread your comment as too generic, in the narrow sense of starting a company, yes, but my point is that your 'safety net' doesn't have to be your parents millions in the bank - just keep living at home would be fine.
I don't think I remember any students here in Germany working 2 jobs. Sure, there's some inherent privilege in getting there to be able to study in the first place, but it has not a lot to do with 'wealth', being middle class and living at home (which kinda used to be the default until you were finished anyway) because we don't have so many campus universities and the majority would study at the closest uni anyway.
But I think I misread your comment as too generic, in the narrow sense of starting a company, yes, but my point is that your 'safety net' doesn't have to be your parents millions in the bank - just keep living at home would be fine.
Not to mention the safety net you always know you can fall back on. I would do everything in my power to avoid asking my parents for help but at the end of the day if I lost my job, couldn't find a new one, and fell on hard times I know I could go to them. I have not lived my life in a way where I might need that (aka taking big risks) but it's in the back of my head and that's a huge peace of mind that many people don't have. In the same vein I could join my parents in their profession (I don't think I'd enjoy it but it's good money and I'd be a shoo-in), that has to affect me on a low level that I don't even realize.
I consider myself to have been fairly successful in my career and while I've worked hard for it, I know at the same time I was born with massive advantages. One of the most depressing things is when I see people who I know have relied on their parents a ton who are completely against any type of social programs. It's frustrating that they can't see that they had "free healthcare" (on parent's plan) till they were 26, that they have UBI in the form of weekly/monthly allowance deep into their adult years, or that they have guaranteed housing when they had to move back in for a few years.
I consider myself to have been fairly successful in my career and while I've worked hard for it, I know at the same time I was born with massive advantages. One of the most depressing things is when I see people who I know have relied on their parents a ton who are completely against any type of social programs. It's frustrating that they can't see that they had "free healthcare" (on parent's plan) till they were 26, that they have UBI in the form of weekly/monthly allowance deep into their adult years, or that they have guaranteed housing when they had to move back in for a few years.
Successful is not the same as rich though if it's run for a few generations it likely will be. The difference is important.
I don't say it very often but I'm going to say it again now:
I'm dirt poor. I have been for at least a decade and was homeless for nearly six years of that.
I also have nearly six years of college and my mother's mother came from a low level noble family. They sold the title when they fell on hard times so I'm not nobility, though I finally realized in recent years the conservative "dress code" I was raised with sounds like what I've read about the rules the British royals are expected to follow.
Currently, my failure to make ends meet gets blamed on me and any complaints I make about my gender being a barrier to effective networking, etc, get routinely handwaved off dismissively like I must just be doing something wrong.
I imagine if I ever get successful, people will rewrite their perception of me and focus on the privileges I've been fortunate to have.
No one is a monolith. We all have both good things and bad things in our lives.
It's useful to get some idea of how it was really done as a means to help you figure out how to find a path forward. Money per se is never the whole story.
Plenty of people from monied backgrounds do not become the next Bill Gates.
I would like to think the human race has finally achieved enough that it's possible for us to provide some basics to everyone so most people have maneuvering room and choice in how they live their life. But trying to talk about that seems to get me branded an SJW or something when similar interests from millionaires gets viewed as philanthropy or something.
There's a huge bias in the minds of most people that filters things in what seems a strongly classist fashion. I have yet to find a way around that.
I'm dirt poor. I have been for at least a decade and was homeless for nearly six years of that.
I also have nearly six years of college and my mother's mother came from a low level noble family. They sold the title when they fell on hard times so I'm not nobility, though I finally realized in recent years the conservative "dress code" I was raised with sounds like what I've read about the rules the British royals are expected to follow.
Currently, my failure to make ends meet gets blamed on me and any complaints I make about my gender being a barrier to effective networking, etc, get routinely handwaved off dismissively like I must just be doing something wrong.
I imagine if I ever get successful, people will rewrite their perception of me and focus on the privileges I've been fortunate to have.
No one is a monolith. We all have both good things and bad things in our lives.
It's useful to get some idea of how it was really done as a means to help you figure out how to find a path forward. Money per se is never the whole story.
Plenty of people from monied backgrounds do not become the next Bill Gates.
I would like to think the human race has finally achieved enough that it's possible for us to provide some basics to everyone so most people have maneuvering room and choice in how they live their life. But trying to talk about that seems to get me branded an SJW or something when similar interests from millionaires gets viewed as philanthropy or something.
There's a huge bias in the minds of most people that filters things in what seems a strongly classist fashion. I have yet to find a way around that.
I'd say the more important part is a baseline of stability. I went through two evictions by the time I was 19, and I ultimately had to estrange myself from my family to avoid getting evicted for a third time.
I'm very happy with my current level of success. I've made 6 figures for a good amount of time and have more than enough saved to take a long vacation.
I can't stress enough how important it is to cut out toxic people. Hell a big part of why I left LA is just how lame folks are.
The typical personal I went out with in LA was around 30 , and simply didn't want to work. Bad things happen when your around people like this.
The moment I moved to Chicago, I was dating a beautiful, amazing career- driven girl. More than worth moving for.
If you date someone who doesn't want to work your life will be very very hard.
I've met a good amount of people from privileged backgrounds ( for me this means you've never been evicted) who squandered their privilege. For ever rich kid that started a million dollar company, another 2 sat around all day doing nothing. These tend to be the most entitled people on earth. If you work at the local pet store cleaning up animal droppings I have way more respect for you then if you live off a trust fund.
Keep in mind alot of lifestyle gurus fit the trust fund kid stereotype. Mark Manson comes to mind, because of family wealth he's never had to work. Then he made millions writing a book about not needing to worry about anything.
I'm very happy with my current level of success. I've made 6 figures for a good amount of time and have more than enough saved to take a long vacation.
I can't stress enough how important it is to cut out toxic people. Hell a big part of why I left LA is just how lame folks are.
The typical personal I went out with in LA was around 30 , and simply didn't want to work. Bad things happen when your around people like this.
The moment I moved to Chicago, I was dating a beautiful, amazing career- driven girl. More than worth moving for.
If you date someone who doesn't want to work your life will be very very hard.
I've met a good amount of people from privileged backgrounds ( for me this means you've never been evicted) who squandered their privilege. For ever rich kid that started a million dollar company, another 2 sat around all day doing nothing. These tend to be the most entitled people on earth. If you work at the local pet store cleaning up animal droppings I have way more respect for you then if you live off a trust fund.
Keep in mind alot of lifestyle gurus fit the trust fund kid stereotype. Mark Manson comes to mind, because of family wealth he's never had to work. Then he made millions writing a book about not needing to worry about anything.
> I'd say the more important part is a baseline of stability.
Hear, hear. I'm pretty sure I've seen studies that show the initial situation most likely to yield later success is the upper-middle class. Rich enough to have some resources and the stability you mention, but not so rich that "the pressure's off" and one is tempted to just rest on parents' laurels.
I think stability is also part of the argument for UBI (or similar). The burdens and instability associated with poverty are drags on the whole economy. Free people from those, and they're better able to contribute back to the economy as both producers and consumers. Unfortunately, too many people would rather limit their own prosperity as long as they can limit someone else's even more, either because they don't understand how the system works or due to a nasty quirk of human nature.
Hear, hear. I'm pretty sure I've seen studies that show the initial situation most likely to yield later success is the upper-middle class. Rich enough to have some resources and the stability you mention, but not so rich that "the pressure's off" and one is tempted to just rest on parents' laurels.
I think stability is also part of the argument for UBI (or similar). The burdens and instability associated with poverty are drags on the whole economy. Free people from those, and they're better able to contribute back to the economy as both producers and consumers. Unfortunately, too many people would rather limit their own prosperity as long as they can limit someone else's even more, either because they don't understand how the system works or due to a nasty quirk of human nature.
I'd be happy to just get rid of the FASA system which assumes family stability.
A good friend of mine has to estrange herself from her family since they were extremely abusive. If someone is mistreating you,the only real option is to leave.
But in America you basically can't get college aid if you don't talk to your parents until your 24.
We should give everyone aid for college regardless of income. Hell, this would even help intact middle class families.
Just because your household income is 200k doesn't mean you have a spare 30k per child to attend college. These middle class households are taxed to pay for everyone's else's education anyway.
A good friend of mine has to estrange herself from her family since they were extremely abusive. If someone is mistreating you,the only real option is to leave.
But in America you basically can't get college aid if you don't talk to your parents until your 24.
We should give everyone aid for college regardless of income. Hell, this would even help intact middle class families.
Just because your household income is 200k doesn't mean you have a spare 30k per child to attend college. These middle class households are taxed to pay for everyone's else's education anyway.
I fell into exactly one of those traps because financial aid was predicated on a parental contribution that was not really possible (because my mother had to spend that money on her own uncovered medical expenses). I know many others who have also been denied the aid they needed, and no few who received aid they didn't need. Basically every system in the US - not just education and health care but also housing, transportation, 90% of the legal system, etc. - is set up to create an interlocking set of burdens and traps for those who don't already have the means to rise above them.
Same here, I ended up dropping out of college at 22 and by the time I came back to finish I was making six figures.
I don't really think a lot of these systems are intentionally malicious, But they assume a very specific type of family structure.
If you don't have stable parents, even just tracking them down to ask him to fill out a FAFSA can be impossible.
We have the money as a society, if you do something stupid, they'll find $70,000 a year to lock you up.
I don't really think a lot of these systems are intentionally malicious, But they assume a very specific type of family structure.
If you don't have stable parents, even just tracking them down to ask him to fill out a FAFSA can be impossible.
We have the money as a society, if you do something stupid, they'll find $70,000 a year to lock you up.
Obviously- it's much easier to start a company when you have a safety net to catch you. That does not mean that mean only rich people can start companies, but it does mean it's a lot easier for them.
If you’re looking for an excuse to not start a business, you can’t get better than this. The game is rigged. Thus you would be a fool to try.
Problem solved.
If, however, you kinda like the idea of running your own business, it’s worth knowing that you do not in fact need rich parents or any of the other prerequisites that non-entrepreneurs think are required.
Ask around here and you’ll find plenty of us. (And, of course, if you’re looking, I’m sure you’ll also be able to disqualify all of us individually based on some form of invented privilege).
Problem solved.
If, however, you kinda like the idea of running your own business, it’s worth knowing that you do not in fact need rich parents or any of the other prerequisites that non-entrepreneurs think are required.
Ask around here and you’ll find plenty of us. (And, of course, if you’re looking, I’m sure you’ll also be able to disqualify all of us individually based on some form of invented privilege).
I think the bigger numbers game is guessing when you'll be both experienced enough and risk tolerant enough to make the leap. At 23 I sure as hell didn't know enough to start a company, led alone code a product end to end. At 27 sure I know a lot more, but the idea of steady income is pretty freaking great - reaching a point where "more money" ever month is sort of a diminishing return. Tbh, I think the people with the most leverage are either just a) really smart, b) started programming when they were 14 or c) have incredible social / networking ability. This is based on my set of friends in college I worked with.
For me, it was having that first $10k in the bank.
That, combined with knowing I could pick up another dev gig quickly if needed, was my safety net, used in lieu of inherited wealth or whatever else.
But you’re right, it takes a few years to get to that point. I was happy ditching work for a year at a time to travel by my late 20s, but I didn’t commit to relying on the product stuff to live on until most of the way through my 30s.
It seems a lot easier to pull off today, in a world with google/Facebook total comp packages for those first few learning years while building up the net.
That, combined with knowing I could pick up another dev gig quickly if needed, was my safety net, used in lieu of inherited wealth or whatever else.
But you’re right, it takes a few years to get to that point. I was happy ditching work for a year at a time to travel by my late 20s, but I didn’t commit to relying on the product stuff to live on until most of the way through my 30s.
It seems a lot easier to pull off today, in a world with google/Facebook total comp packages for those first few learning years while building up the net.
Agreed, I'm a solidly above average engineer. However, even as interview loops have been easier I still worry that for my age / YOE I'd be leaving valuable money on the table to go and try to start a business that at best would break even.
Thinking about a 2-3 month interview loop is pretty dreadful. At some level I'd need quite a bit of confidence in my idea and more than decent seed funding to leave my job. Basically, being very honest about how good I think I am vs what I could actually deliver.
As I get older, playing the "beg rich people for money game" is getting less and less appealing. Of course, many would describe this as just working or "wage c*cking" but IMO the latter is far more degenerate since by feeling you can only drive value by starting something you inevitably become more of a slave and create worse odds to a) enjoying life or b) being reasonably financially stable
Thinking about a 2-3 month interview loop is pretty dreadful. At some level I'd need quite a bit of confidence in my idea and more than decent seed funding to leave my job. Basically, being very honest about how good I think I am vs what I could actually deliver.
As I get older, playing the "beg rich people for money game" is getting less and less appealing. Of course, many would describe this as just working or "wage c*cking" but IMO the latter is far more degenerate since by feeling you can only drive value by starting something you inevitably become more of a slave and create worse odds to a) enjoying life or b) being reasonably financially stable
Yeah, I did it by working short contracts to sock away personal runway, then using that to sprint on product stuff for a while. (Which was an easy transition since I was already doing the same thing, just using the downtime to climb rocks in Thailand). I never fully stepped away from “work” to do a startup. I just built SaaS stuff while still keeping one foot in the corporate world.
There’s no rule that says you can’t come back, by the way. I took a 30hr/week contract for five years when my first kid was born to stash away an extra house and college education while the business ran itself in the background. You can keep that brass ring within reach, and even give it the occasional tug if you want.
All the best!
There’s no rule that says you can’t come back, by the way. I took a 30hr/week contract for five years when my first kid was born to stash away an extra house and college education while the business ran itself in the background. You can keep that brass ring within reach, and even give it the occasional tug if you want.
All the best!
There has to be a name for this fallacy.
The fact that applying it to any one individual is the wrong mentality doesn't mean that at the level of broader society it isn't entirely correct.
Its the difference between sociological statistics and life advice.
The fact that applying it to any one individual is the wrong mentality doesn't mean that at the level of broader society it isn't entirely correct.
Its the difference between sociological statistics and life advice.
> There has to be a name for this fallacy.
It looks like plain old cherry picking to me. "Ask around here" ... well, no, this is just about the worst possible place to get a significant or even interesting sample. "Some do succeed" is just anecdata, no substitute for statistical reality.
Secondarily, we have a strawman. "If you’re looking for an excuse" ... you who? Anyone here? Nobody that I'm aware of has said it's not even worth trying. It's entirely possible to be aware of poor odds and still be willing to try. Some who do will even beat the odds, but that doesn't affect the overall reality. It doesn't mean privilege doesn't exist. Whether it exists for GP is irrelevant, but the level of preemptive defensiveness exhibited at the very idea has the counterproductive effect of putting the idea in people's minds.
It looks like plain old cherry picking to me. "Ask around here" ... well, no, this is just about the worst possible place to get a significant or even interesting sample. "Some do succeed" is just anecdata, no substitute for statistical reality.
Secondarily, we have a strawman. "If you’re looking for an excuse" ... you who? Anyone here? Nobody that I'm aware of has said it's not even worth trying. It's entirely possible to be aware of poor odds and still be willing to try. Some who do will even beat the odds, but that doesn't affect the overall reality. It doesn't mean privilege doesn't exist. Whether it exists for GP is irrelevant, but the level of preemptive defensiveness exhibited at the very idea has the counterproductive effect of putting the idea in people's minds.
I read too much Asimov as a kid, though, and the thing that really sets me off every time I read that argument is that it tickles the "psychohistory cannot be applied to the actions of individuals" neurons in my brain.
Happens all the time when I want to talk about the statistical mechanics of a large gas of people and conservatives/republicans/right-wingers always want to argue that any given particle can do whatever it wants and I'm just disincentivizing it.
Happens all the time when I want to talk about the statistical mechanics of a large gas of people and conservatives/republicans/right-wingers always want to argue that any given particle can do whatever it wants and I'm just disincentivizing it.
Money opens doors, but wealthy living also tends to teach bad habits that limit ambition and grit.
Also, in that thread it was asserted that Steve Jobs did not have rich parents, but they were reasonably well off and lived in a leafy and pleasant neighborhood with excellent schools.
Also, in that thread it was asserted that Steve Jobs did not have rich parents, but they were reasonably well off and lived in a leafy and pleasant neighborhood with excellent schools.
> The location of the Los Altos home meant that Jobs would be able to attend nearby Homestead High School, which had strong ties to Silicon Valley
> When he was 13 in 1968, Jobs was given a summer job by Bill Hewlett (of Hewlett-Packard) after Jobs cold-called him to ask for parts for an electronics project
Well that's a benefit the vast majority don't get.
> When he was 13 in 1968, Jobs was given a summer job by Bill Hewlett (of Hewlett-Packard) after Jobs cold-called him to ask for parts for an electronics project
Well that's a benefit the vast majority don't get.
I would describe Steve Jobs as coming from a middle class background, but this was in boom time America, where middle class meant a relatively privileged upbringing.
The San Jose metro area has had the highest probability of economic mobility from being poor to being rich.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/the-pla...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/the-pla...
I think the focus on the ultra-rich misses the point a bit. My family had enough money that I have a safety net - I know if I royally messed up I'd still have a roof over my head. I think once I borrowed $6k from my dad and paid it back in a year. You don't need to be jealous of the super rich, "small $1m loan from my dad" folks, just knowing someones got your back vastly improves your ability to take on risk.
To be more explicit - a lot of these comments are complaining that they aren't born super rich, but it's not about capital, it's about ability to take on risk.
To be more explicit - a lot of these comments are complaining that they aren't born super rich, but it's not about capital, it's about ability to take on risk.
100%. I remember in the 2000s I went to a small gathering where a successful (at the time) start-up founder was speaking. Since it was so small I was able to ask real questions. What I asked was effectively "I'd like to do a startup also, but if I fail, I'll have a high risk of being homeless, and failure seems to be the most likely scenario. How do you mitigate that risk?"
In so many hums and haws he admitted he got money from his family. Looked it up, his dad was mega rich. That's defined my perspective of the entire "start-up" world ever since.
In so many hums and haws he admitted he got money from his family. Looked it up, his dad was mega rich. That's defined my perspective of the entire "start-up" world ever since.
Yes, and the most insidious part is that the beneficiaries don't even realize it. Often they genuinely do have talent and work hard, and they didn't get a million dollars dropped on them with no strings attached, so they attribute 99% of their success to personal merit. The free housing and transportation, the extra formal and informal instruction, the contacts, the superior nutrition and health care, the freedom from distraction and psychological safety of working with a net - none of those things penetrate their consciousness at all because those weren't blatant easily-counted gifts. They don't realize others don't have those things (all their peers did) or how much that matters. "I still would have succeeded without those" even though it's not true. It's the nature of privilege to hide itself.
The correlation is not absolute, of course. There are poor kids who succeed - like me, though even with beginnings that were modest by most standards I was still far luckier than many. There are rich kids who fail. But the relationship is still far stronger than would be allowed in anything we could legitimately call a meritocracy.
The correlation is not absolute, of course. There are poor kids who succeed - like me, though even with beginnings that were modest by most standards I was still far luckier than many. There are rich kids who fail. But the relationship is still far stronger than would be allowed in anything we could legitimately call a meritocracy.
I don't have rich parents and I'm not a successful startup founder. I guess this confirms it!
Joking aside, I don't think it's just about the money or the safety net -- most parents can afford to support their kids for a few years after college. I think the biggest advantage is an understanding for entrepreneurial spirit.
When I started my business (not a startup), my biggest problem was having no role model and having no-one I could have asked for advise. I quickly made more money than my parents, but I still had no idea how expensive everything else would be. When I talked to anyone I knew about my expenses, they were all freaking out how much money I was paying my employees. I was extremely reluctant to pay an accountant (why throw away 1000€ a year when I can do it myself!), or even to hire someone to clean the office. The frugality I learned from my parents is not something that's useful when running a business.
If your parents are "rich", chances are they are entrepreneurs of some kind themselves, and they can mentor you, which is a huge advantage.
Joking aside, I don't think it's just about the money or the safety net -- most parents can afford to support their kids for a few years after college. I think the biggest advantage is an understanding for entrepreneurial spirit.
When I started my business (not a startup), my biggest problem was having no role model and having no-one I could have asked for advise. I quickly made more money than my parents, but I still had no idea how expensive everything else would be. When I talked to anyone I knew about my expenses, they were all freaking out how much money I was paying my employees. I was extremely reluctant to pay an accountant (why throw away 1000€ a year when I can do it myself!), or even to hire someone to clean the office. The frugality I learned from my parents is not something that's useful when running a business.
If your parents are "rich", chances are they are entrepreneurs of some kind themselves, and they can mentor you, which is a huge advantage.
> most parents can afford to support their kids for a few years after college
Are you sure about that? And even if it's true for most, how many exceptions are you willing to allow before you'll consider that lack of a safety net is a real limitation?
> If your parents are "rich", chances are they are entrepreneurs of some kind themselves
That statement also seems "lightly supported" to put it mildly. What about doctors, lawyers, MBAs, people who inherited, people who had seven-figure years at a MAGMA, etc.? In fact, let's focus on that last one. It's well known that Microsoft has created thousands of millionaires. A mere handful were entrepreneurs. Most were regular employees who drew generous regular paychecks and also had some stock/options. A minority even of those took much risk working for Microsoft before it was already a big company. Ditto Google/Alphabet, ditto Amazon, ditto Facebook/Meta. They're all minting hundreds of new millionaires every month, and none of those are entrepreneurs. I think your sample might be a bit skewed.
Are you sure about that? And even if it's true for most, how many exceptions are you willing to allow before you'll consider that lack of a safety net is a real limitation?
> If your parents are "rich", chances are they are entrepreneurs of some kind themselves
That statement also seems "lightly supported" to put it mildly. What about doctors, lawyers, MBAs, people who inherited, people who had seven-figure years at a MAGMA, etc.? In fact, let's focus on that last one. It's well known that Microsoft has created thousands of millionaires. A mere handful were entrepreneurs. Most were regular employees who drew generous regular paychecks and also had some stock/options. A minority even of those took much risk working for Microsoft before it was already a big company. Ditto Google/Alphabet, ditto Amazon, ditto Facebook/Meta. They're all minting hundreds of new millionaires every month, and none of those are entrepreneurs. I think your sample might be a bit skewed.
[deleted]
I went through a six months entrepreneurship class in France, targeted for low income people.
I learned about marketing, pitching my projects, but my views on business got much worse.
The result is mostly make believe and "just do it" mindset. We were taught by several coaches, who helped us making us feel good.
But in the end, Bourdieu is just right about everything.
I learned about marketing, pitching my projects, but my views on business got much worse.
The result is mostly make believe and "just do it" mindset. We were taught by several coaches, who helped us making us feel good.
But in the end, Bourdieu is just right about everything.
It seems silly trying to compare yourself to Musk or any other top dog. A lot of people are content just mastering their own little corner, providing for a family, contributing to their communities. That's success, a startup just gives you more control on what corner and what communities you want to be involved in.
I'll echo the comment that every startup founder I've worked under has come from extremely wealthy parents.
Yeah, a lot of things in life are easier if you have safety nets.
Creating a startup is a lot more difficult if you have to pay for your own insurance which is why a lot of new creators that aren't super rich run a sidegig while fully employed before eventually jettisoning from their regular jobs.
Creating a startup is a lot more difficult if you have to pay for your own insurance which is why a lot of new creators that aren't super rich run a sidegig while fully employed before eventually jettisoning from their regular jobs.
This is one huge "correlation vs. causation" question.
It also depends what you mean by "success".
15th century Florence had a huge concentration of artistic talents. Was it a rich city? Undoubtedly so, poor places have more pressing concerns than paying people to produce art. But there have been many richer cities since then and their art output is mediocre. Even Florence itself forgot, over time, how to attract or produce great artists.
The world isn't static. 200 years ago, almost everyone in the world except a few nobles was poor or at least poor-ish. This is no longer true; so, at the very least, the total wealth can grow beyond what the parents had.
It also depends what you mean by "success".
15th century Florence had a huge concentration of artistic talents. Was it a rich city? Undoubtedly so, poor places have more pressing concerns than paying people to produce art. But there have been many richer cities since then and their art output is mediocre. Even Florence itself forgot, over time, how to attract or produce great artists.
The world isn't static. 200 years ago, almost everyone in the world except a few nobles was poor or at least poor-ish. This is no longer true; so, at the very least, the total wealth can grow beyond what the parents had.
I beg to differ. Coming from a lower middle class background I got a lot of grit and hunger. I studied computer science, being the first at uni in my family. I always hustled part time while studying. Afterwards, I joined a startup and later co-founded another one. All without any support from my parents or anyone else. My actions ultimately put me on a path of success, not anyone else.
Although I understand that this situation might look wildly different in the USA. That might be a case for a social security net that actually works (and the MSc. compsci also helps).
Although I understand that this situation might look wildly different in the USA. That might be a case for a social security net that actually works (and the MSc. compsci also helps).
If I say on Average Americans are taller than Chinese and you say "What about Yao Ming??" That doesn't disprove what I just said. Anecdotes aren't all that valuable/
Well, I'm in the German startup scence for over 7 years now. I haven't met a lot of founders that fit your image, so I'd say it's anecdotal evidence as well. It might be true for the USA, but it's not in Germany in my experience.
Not being in the USA seems really important. For one thing, insurance is tied to employment in the US, so if you're taking time to work on a company that's a lot of money you're going to have to pay every month if you want healthcare.
Agree, thanks, that was my point!
It's basically a rigged game from the start - Including YC. It's also quite ridiculous to compare yourself to those people. It's symptoms of survivorship bias all over again.
Rags to riches is often a multi-generational project. This is why family is so important - while it's possible to succeed wildly from nothing, the guidance, financial resources, connections, etc. from your family makes things so much easier. I don't see anything wrong with this - the family is a core institution and I nourish, develop, and protect mine accordingly.
On this topic, NNT's ideas deserve a mention.
Success is mostly about antifragility and exposing yourself to asymmetric opportunities (at any scale and in the individual's frame of reference).
Without a doubt, having rich parents magnifies ability to take such exposure and pretty early in life.
So in essence, success IS tied to having rich parents when applied to a typical large population.
Success is mostly about antifragility and exposing yourself to asymmetric opportunities (at any scale and in the individual's frame of reference).
Without a doubt, having rich parents magnifies ability to take such exposure and pretty early in life.
So in essence, success IS tied to having rich parents when applied to a typical large population.
Years and years (and years) ago I was considering starting my own business. An entrepreneurship book I read started (quite rightly) with a chapter on "Are you cut out to be an entrepreneur?" It mentioned that having (implicitly successful) entrepreneur parents was a predictor of successful entrepreneurship.
It's a leap from "successful entrepreneur" to "rich", but not a huge leap. In the cited examples, I don't know how the parents made their money, but it's not hard to see how being raised by entrepreneurs could confer advantages beyond a safety net and possible seed investment from parents.
In particular, a child from an entrepreneur household would very likely simply be more comfortable and at ease in that environment and have base level of domain knowledge that others lack. This doesn't mean that nobody else can be successful, of course, they just have more to learn.
It's a leap from "successful entrepreneur" to "rich", but not a huge leap. In the cited examples, I don't know how the parents made their money, but it's not hard to see how being raised by entrepreneurs could confer advantages beyond a safety net and possible seed investment from parents.
In particular, a child from an entrepreneur household would very likely simply be more comfortable and at ease in that environment and have base level of domain knowledge that others lack. This doesn't mean that nobody else can be successful, of course, they just have more to learn.
Everyone give me some counterpoints to this for inspiration. People that came from abject poverty and made it.
As an aside I do feel strongly that moving up more than one social class is difficult due to not being taught about money and how to handle it. My parents are working class, their parents were poverty level and never taught them anything about money. When I try to teach my parents about money it seems like there is a glass ceiling above their heads, they can’t understand finer details of how to make that final leap to wealthy by agreesively saving and investing and playing taxes correctly. I hope to make that final leap.
I don’t remember most of the millionaires in The Millionaire Next Door coming from wealthy parents, in fact they were mostly working class people that owned a business and were careful with their money. Wealth is actually destroyed after a few generations because subsequent generations never have to learn how to save and not be frivolous.
In my own case you would think my grandparents came from a long line of poverty but this is not the case researching my genealogy. On my Dad’s side they had one of the first two story houses in our part of the state and owned hundreds of acres of land. The progenitor had his grave robbed because people thought he was buried with gold. It had to be covered later by large slabs of rock by the Masons, of which he was a member. But this wealth was lost by gambling and drinking in subsequent generations. The big two story house no longer stands and I don’t know if anyone living even knows where it was.
There is a famous green text someone sent me once and it is about trying to move up two social classes and how hard it is. I try to live like Tyrone.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/q05okt/anons_cow...
As an aside I do feel strongly that moving up more than one social class is difficult due to not being taught about money and how to handle it. My parents are working class, their parents were poverty level and never taught them anything about money. When I try to teach my parents about money it seems like there is a glass ceiling above their heads, they can’t understand finer details of how to make that final leap to wealthy by agreesively saving and investing and playing taxes correctly. I hope to make that final leap.
I don’t remember most of the millionaires in The Millionaire Next Door coming from wealthy parents, in fact they were mostly working class people that owned a business and were careful with their money. Wealth is actually destroyed after a few generations because subsequent generations never have to learn how to save and not be frivolous.
In my own case you would think my grandparents came from a long line of poverty but this is not the case researching my genealogy. On my Dad’s side they had one of the first two story houses in our part of the state and owned hundreds of acres of land. The progenitor had his grave robbed because people thought he was buried with gold. It had to be covered later by large slabs of rock by the Masons, of which he was a member. But this wealth was lost by gambling and drinking in subsequent generations. The big two story house no longer stands and I don’t know if anyone living even knows where it was.
There is a famous green text someone sent me once and it is about trying to move up two social classes and how hard it is. I try to live like Tyrone.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/q05okt/anons_cow...
There's a saying in Mexico: 'rich granddad, millionaire father, miserable son'. Meqning that as families take money for granted, they dont learn what's needed to generate it.
Are we seriously debating whether having access to more money helps you in business? Via proxy by reddit post none the less.
Yes, some people in the world have access to opportunities that others don't. Not all 8 billion people on the planet have the exact same set of circumstances. This isn't controversial or even interesting.
Yes, some people in the world have access to opportunities that others don't. Not all 8 billion people on the planet have the exact same set of circumstances. This isn't controversial or even interesting.
It depends on what your metric of success is. More money, individual happines, altruism?
Sure, rich parents will give someone a safety net, but I bet in most cases it yields the kids pissing in the wind.
Are they creating something they actually enjoy doing while earning a comfortable living? That's an intersection that takes a lot of work beyond just having money to find.
I would argue that the real success of a startup is in its potential to grow 'organically' rather than just throwing money inefficiently at it to try and force its success. There's a lot of competition, ideas and people carelessly throwing around money out there regardless, so I think it's a niche that requires much more than money alone to discover. More money is obviously preferred if you do find it though!
Sure, rich parents will give someone a safety net, but I bet in most cases it yields the kids pissing in the wind.
Are they creating something they actually enjoy doing while earning a comfortable living? That's an intersection that takes a lot of work beyond just having money to find.
I would argue that the real success of a startup is in its potential to grow 'organically' rather than just throwing money inefficiently at it to try and force its success. There's a lot of competition, ideas and people carelessly throwing around money out there regardless, so I think it's a niche that requires much more than money alone to discover. More money is obviously preferred if you do find it though!
I don't think anybody can ignore that having parents with money, not even necessarily rich, is a big factor here.
And that's also the reason why most successful entrepreneurs rise to new wealth in rich countries. It's just easier to get money where money is.
And that's also the reason why most successful entrepreneurs rise to new wealth in rich countries. It's just easier to get money where money is.
I think about this regularly. Being poor is more than not having material wealth. Apple's Steve Jobs had a period of time where he had no money. But he was never poor. He had no money by choice. He knew what to do to live a comfortable life any time he wanted. But there are people that will always be poor no matter how hard they try. They just don't know how to get ahead. I think that is due to what they learned from their family. A successful family is able to teach their members how to be successful in life even if money is never exchanged. Having the right family that can teach how to be successful even if it's just by example is a great advantage.
What I have seen is that kids whose parents own their own business or are entrepreneurial have a very different set of influences when growing up compared to kids whose parents were employees. It's not just the most wealthy that get this.
And kids whose parents and larger social circle are more bohemian or worldly have the same advantage in that they learn that there are more opportunities that one just doesn't see of your parents and relatives were all employees in middle America. The internet has helped somewhat but as an example, the idea that one can just make their own movies and go to film school wasn't even on my radar growing up in the 80s.
And kids whose parents and larger social circle are more bohemian or worldly have the same advantage in that they learn that there are more opportunities that one just doesn't see of your parents and relatives were all employees in middle America. The internet has helped somewhat but as an example, the idea that one can just make their own movies and go to film school wasn't even on my radar growing up in the 80s.
Not directly, but obviously rich parents = safety net.
And safety net means you get to make more rolls of the dice for success.
If there is a 20% chance of success, obviously if you roll the dice enough times, you will be successful.
And safety net means you get to make more rolls of the dice for success.
If there is a 20% chance of success, obviously if you roll the dice enough times, you will be successful.
[deleted]
Yes. Look at "elite" universities like Harvard etc. - you basically pay a fortune to get in there and get access to the social network. And that network is what really makes the difference.
Also, successful founders often try long enough so that luck finally strikes them. Without money, that's hard to do.
Read more here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55277918-super-founders
Also, successful founders often try long enough so that luck finally strikes them. Without money, that's hard to do.
Read more here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55277918-super-founders
All things being equal, obviously, having money makes things easier. That doesn't mean that children born to rich parents can all be successful entrepreneurs. And it doesn't mean you need rich parents to be successful.
But even aside from money, rich parents are likely to know more about business and can teach you. And if you believe intelligence is (at least partly) inherited, it's easy to argue that smart parents are both: more likely to be rich and more likely to have smart kids.
But even aside from money, rich parents are likely to know more about business and can teach you. And if you believe intelligence is (at least partly) inherited, it's easy to argue that smart parents are both: more likely to be rich and more likely to have smart kids.
I often think to be succesful, you need a combination of
a) A good environment to grow up in b) A lot of hard work c) Luck
If you're missing one of them, you need to make it up in the other categories.
a) A good environment to grow up in b) A lot of hard work c) Luck
If you're missing one of them, you need to make it up in the other categories.
I agree with you, but even a lot of smart people prefer one-dimensional, binary worldview.
(a) is actually a subset of (c), no?
(a) is actually a subset of (c), no?
Start with basics. What’s rich? Parents who let you live in the basement rent free? Because that’s a huge leg up yet something most middle class can offer.
Why is this a surprise? It’s easier to be successful when you’re taught by successful people (your parents). Not to mention other aspects, but I think this one is important. It is common knowledge that people that just come into money are likely to blow it. If they are taught well by the parents, and then have money, they’re more likely to be successful.
There's an incredibly large cohort of people that discount or deny their privilege, to the point they laughably claim people can become successful if only they worked hard. They're so out of touch with reality that it helps to post reminders like this from time to time.
"Privilege" has negative connotations and people do not want to be labeled privileged for that reason.
There were times when people tried to hide being gay, having Jewish ancestors or being atheist not because they were out of touch with their own reality, but because they knew that telling the truth would make them socially dirtier. Aside from a few celebrities, "privilege" is looked down on in contemporary discourse.
There were times when people tried to hide being gay, having Jewish ancestors or being atheist not because they were out of touch with their own reality, but because they knew that telling the truth would make them socially dirtier. Aside from a few celebrities, "privilege" is looked down on in contemporary discourse.
This.
Seconded.
Seconded.
One could argue that Microsoft’s success is based on the IBM connection Mary Maxwell Gates provided to her son.
I would say at the very minimum, you need to have middle class parents who don't need your support after you get out of college and hopefully no school debt. It is certainly much much easier to focus all your energy on your product, when you don't need to worry about bills.
It's a huge advantage for sure but not required. Much like two startups in the same industry where one of them has raised 10x the money vs the other.
Having money:
- gives you more chances to pivot
- more time to find product/market fit
- more time to not need to get a "normal" job just to pay your bills
Having money:
- gives you more chances to pivot
- more time to find product/market fit
- more time to not need to get a "normal" job just to pay your bills
It raises your chance of success quite a bit.
However there are other ways of raising your chance of success. I'm working on something to help founders of all backgrounds: https://cxo.industries
However there are other ways of raising your chance of success. I'm working on something to help founders of all backgrounds: https://cxo.industries
I hope this works. Do you have rich parents?
It's a funny scene us discussing if having rich parents take you places... in an internet forum of people that earn 70k+ a year.
I wonder what poor people in countries in India, Mexico or Brazil would think.
I wonder what poor people in countries in India, Mexico or Brazil would think.
It is indeed about perspective.
But many people who live in Western, industrialized countries have never been to a developing country, so they have no basis for comparison except what they see around them.
Even my modest apartment, which is completely mundane by Western standards, would be rather luxurious by developing world standards. It's very easy to lose sight of that sometimes.
But many people who live in Western, industrialized countries have never been to a developing country, so they have no basis for comparison except what they see around them.
Even my modest apartment, which is completely mundane by Western standards, would be rather luxurious by developing world standards. It's very easy to lose sight of that sometimes.
All risk is not equal, all reward is not equal. Some people can't afford the startup process.
I think one thing I want to point out is that acknowledging that being a startup founder is only a path available, practically speaking, to the already privileged is not about just wanting to complain, or about jealousy, or about wanting to freeload on someone else's work, or any of the other things that defenders of modern day capitalism will bring up as strawman defenses of the current system.
What this is about is changing things so that everybody else has the same chance that currently only a tiny minority do. Because as much as our current economic system is much better than anything that came before, it still wastes the vast majority of the talent and potential of its members.
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” -Steven Jay Gould
What this is about is changing things so that everybody else has the same chance that currently only a tiny minority do. Because as much as our current economic system is much better than anything that came before, it still wastes the vast majority of the talent and potential of its members.
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” -Steven Jay Gould
Early investors almost always require a friends and family round.
I think it depends on how you measure success. Success doesn’t mean Elon Musk level for everyone. I grew up poor, not even middle class, my parents didn’t have a good education and making 50K after working for 10 years felt like success.
Growing up poor definitely held me back. I had to catch up financially, had zero safety net, zero money management skills, and all the other problems of being poor in the US like transportation, access to good education and healthcare, access to opportunities, etc.
Growing up poor definitely held me back. I had to catch up financially, had zero safety net, zero money management skills, and all the other problems of being poor in the US like transportation, access to good education and healthcare, access to opportunities, etc.
Yes, because rich people already know that getting rich is not about being rich.
correlation yes, but not causation.
correlation yes, but not causation
Yes
Pointing out things like privilege tends to be seen as a sore loser mentality, regardless of truth. Sore losers have no place in hustle culture.
> Sore losers have no place in hustle culture.
"Hustle culture" is what happens when "pulling your bootstraps" is not edgy enough.
"Hustle culture" is what happens when "pulling your bootstraps" is not edgy enough.
No, it is a set of behaviors and understanding that all successful business owners and self-employed people have, regardless if they are rich or not.
[deleted]
I eventually co-founded a company with two others and it went well, but after exiting I am still not plugged into VC.
Basically I'm in the top %1 of earnings in my poverty stricken cohort, a proven pragmatists and a programmer, and I still find it impossible to find and get in front of investors. They don't want cockroach people in my estimation.
Being poor with 0 safety net, even when you escape it, you still have the drag. So once again I'm bootstrapping and I'll make progress at a 3rd the rate (or lower) than I could be AND have more risk/exposure than I want.