4 ms·

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

by warkid 11y ago

“This whole bulk of the population is being seduced into thinking that they can just go out and pursue their dream anytime, but it’s not true.” Cool. Know your place, leave enterpreneurship to blue bloods - that's the conclusion?

bildung 11y ago
> “This whole bulk of the population is being seduced into thinking that they can just go out and pursue their dream anytime, but it’s not true.” > Cool. Know your place, leave enterpreneurship to blue bloods - that's the conclusion? No. "When basic needs are met, it’s easier to be creative; when you know you have a safety net, you are more willing to take risks. “ The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream.
- warkid 11y ago
  > The solution is providing a social safety net that enables... In other words - "to each according to his needs"?
  - phaemon 11y ago
    No, quite the opposite. A main feature of the Basic Income is that it is not means tested.
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    You've heard a Marxist slogan and thought it was timely huh? Cause it's either evil monolithic collectivism or saintly and righteous fantasy individualistic libertarianism, those are the two options. It's not like we can't recognize that most individual success is predicated on a healthy and functional society, one that is inclusive and takes care of its members, rather than one that caters solely to individuals fortunate enough to be born into families that have existing wealth.
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  (To hopefully avoid some arguments I should probably preface this with saying that I am 100% in favor of something like basic income.) > The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream. I don't think that will make most people into successful businesspeople (let alone "entrepreneurs" in any non-facile sense of the word), and I don't think that was entirely the point the article was trying to make. Even with basic needs supported, you still need capital to get a business off the ground "correctly". Unfortunately, in a basic income environment, I bet the people taking full advantage of it still wouldn't have access to that kind of capital. I've had my own small business for several years now, but I'm looking for work again. The business has several promising irons in the fire, but I lack either the skill or resources to make any of them take off. Having access to basic income wouldn't substantially change my predicament; having access to good credit, capital, or talent would.
  - branchless 11y ago
    The rich and powerful lionize the rare exception who does make it out of poverty because it justifies the (largely) unfair system.
    - vixen99 11y ago
      The dictionary I've used comes up for 'unfair' as 1. Contrary to justice or a sense of fairness 2. Contrary to laws or conventions, especially in commerce; unethical: unfair dealing and 3. Not kind or considerate. Which one do you mean?
      - elros 11y ago
        I'd guess all three of them?
      - branchless 11y ago
        I've looked in the dictionary and "contrary" comes up as "opposite in nature" or "perversely inclined to disagree". Which one?
  - 11y ago
- rglullis 11y ago
  "Easier to be creative"? Of course. However it does not there is a correlation between having this social safety net vs creativity, or increased economic output, or willingness to take risks.
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  > The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream. We have a huge "social safety net" here in France and yet we are way less entrepreneurial than in the US. I moved to Peru for 4 years to save some money and then came back to start a business, the entrepreneurial spirit was way strong stronger there even though the social safety net is inexistent. Fact is, having a social safety net makes people comfortable in their poor economic situation and does not require them to take risks. Even in the US, the number of new companies created each year has decreased as the welfare state has grown.
  - kang 11y ago
    Safety is necessary but not sufficient.
    - current_call 11y ago
      Apparently not. I moved to Peru for 4 years to save some money and then came back to start a business, the entrepreneurial spirit was way strong stronger there even though the social safety net is inexistent.
  - UK-AL 11y ago
    It's hard to start business in france because of the regulatory bs. Even trying to register a company is a right pain.
    - realusername 11y ago
      Indeed, the problem is more with the bureaucratic paperwork more than anything else, it takes 6 months to just have the legal paperwork to start a company there.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    Peru might have a lot more entrepreneurially minded people, and more self-employed people but France certainly has more successful tech startups (even on a per capita basis). Just as lack of a safety net biases towards action and self reliance, it also skews the risk/reward ratio of those actions firmly towards those most likely to keep the roof over ones head.
- mavelikara 11y ago
  Lenient bankruptcy laws are one such social safety net available in the US. Minimum income is another which is discussed in some countries.
makeitsuckless 11y ago
Either that, or eat the rich.
bakhy 11y ago
No, the conclusion is, people should stop just saying that anybody can do it, that all it takes is willingness to take chances, to dare to fail etc. These are important things, as the article also takes care to clarify, but if you fail to mention the importance of a safety net, or you fail to mention the fact that most entrepreneurs come from well-off backgrounds, then you're implying (probably unwillingly) that people who don't go into startups are simply lazy or cowards. While in reality there exists a pretty good reason why many might not dare to take the leap just yet. It's basically giving people complexes. And it might be further exacerbated by the need we all have to ascribe our success exclusively to our own work, never to any external factors (luck, rich parents).

by warkid 11y ago

bildung 11y ago

> “This whole bulk of the population is being seduced into thinking that they can just go out and pursue their dream anytime, but it’s not true.” > Cool. Know your place, leave enterpreneurship to blue bloods - that's the conclusion? No. "When basic needs are met, it’s easier to be creative; when you know you have a safety net, you are more willing to take risks. “ The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream.

warkid 11y ago
> The solution is providing a social safety net that enables... In other words - "to each according to his needs"?
- phaemon 11y ago
  No, quite the opposite. A main feature of the Basic Income is that it is not means tested.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  You've heard a Marxist slogan and thought it was timely huh? Cause it's either evil monolithic collectivism or saintly and righteous fantasy individualistic libertarianism, those are the two options. It's not like we can't recognize that most individual success is predicated on a healthy and functional society, one that is inclusive and takes care of its members, rather than one that caters solely to individuals fortunate enough to be born into families that have existing wealth.
thaumaturgy 11y ago
(To hopefully avoid some arguments I should probably preface this with saying that I am 100% in favor of something like basic income.) > The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream. I don't think that will make most people into successful businesspeople (let alone "entrepreneurs" in any non-facile sense of the word), and I don't think that was entirely the point the article was trying to make. Even with basic needs supported, you still need capital to get a business off the ground "correctly". Unfortunately, in a basic income environment, I bet the people taking full advantage of it still wouldn't have access to that kind of capital. I've had my own small business for several years now, but I'm looking for work again. The business has several promising irons in the fire, but I lack either the skill or resources to make any of them take off. Having access to basic income wouldn't substantially change my predicament; having access to good credit, capital, or talent would.
- branchless 11y ago
  The rich and powerful lionize the rare exception who does make it out of poverty because it justifies the (largely) unfair system.
  - vixen99 11y ago
    The dictionary I've used comes up for 'unfair' as 1. Contrary to justice or a sense of fairness 2. Contrary to laws or conventions, especially in commerce; unethical: unfair dealing and 3. Not kind or considerate. Which one do you mean?
    - elros 11y ago
      I'd guess all three of them?
    - branchless 11y ago
      I've looked in the dictionary and "contrary" comes up as "opposite in nature" or "perversely inclined to disagree". Which one?
- 11y ago
rglullis 11y ago
"Easier to be creative"? Of course. However it does not there is a correlation between having this social safety net vs creativity, or increased economic output, or willingness to take risks.
patrickaljord 11y ago
> The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream. We have a huge "social safety net" here in France and yet we are way less entrepreneurial than in the US. I moved to Peru for 4 years to save some money and then came back to start a business, the entrepreneurial spirit was way strong stronger there even though the social safety net is inexistent. Fact is, having a social safety net makes people comfortable in their poor economic situation and does not require them to take risks. Even in the US, the number of new companies created each year has decreased as the welfare state has grown.
- kang 11y ago
  Safety is necessary but not sufficient.
  - current_call 11y ago
    Apparently not. I moved to Peru for 4 years to save some money and then came back to start a business, the entrepreneurial spirit was way strong stronger there even though the social safety net is inexistent.
- UK-AL 11y ago
  It's hard to start business in france because of the regulatory bs. Even trying to register a company is a right pain.
  - realusername 11y ago
    Indeed, the problem is more with the bureaucratic paperwork more than anything else, it takes 6 months to just have the legal paperwork to start a company there.
- notahacker 11y ago
  Peru might have a lot more entrepreneurially minded people, and more self-employed people but France certainly has more successful tech startups (even on a per capita basis). Just as lack of a safety net biases towards action and self reliance, it also skews the risk/reward ratio of those actions firmly towards those most likely to keep the roof over ones head.
mavelikara 11y ago
Lenient bankruptcy laws are one such social safety net available in the US. Minimum income is another which is discussed in some countries.

makeitsuckless 11y ago

Either that, or eat the rich.

bakhy 11y ago

No, the conclusion is, people should stop just saying that anybody can do it, that all it takes is willingness to take chances, to dare to fail etc. These are important things, as the article also takes care to clarify, but if you fail to mention the importance of a safety net, or you fail to mention the fact that most entrepreneurs come from well-off backgrounds, then you're implying (probably unwillingly) that people who don't go into startups are simply lazy or cowards. While in reality there exists a pretty good reason why many might not dare to take the leap just yet. It's basically giving people complexes. And it might be further exacerbated by the need we all have to ascribe our success exclusively to our own work, never to any external factors (luck, rich parents).