5 ms·

> 1. It’s almost never rags to riches This is the point that has really started to become clear to me in recent years, and not just for startups but for artist

> 1. It’s almost never rags to riches This is the point that has really started to become clear to me in recent years, and not just for startups but for artists, authors, athletes, and all the other dream jobs we idolize: so many of these people are either (1) not really making that much money or (2) already had a trust-fund or come from a wealthy background so they can spend all of their time writing, painting, or engineering. Most authors make below the poverty line [1], and Facebook's success was the outlier, not the norm. I did the start-up thing in my 20s for about 3-4 years (in the 1990s). My income was about the same as my salary would later be when I went to work for another company, but my stress-levels dropped significantly when I started working for someone else. The constant uncertainty was gone, I was watching my savings grow instead of decline, and I do regret not going for that stability sooner. I see a similarity between tech-kids in their 20s chasing start-up dreams and the poor kids from my old neighborhood chasing hoop-dreams. The tech-kids have better options to fall back on, but the chances of becoming that rockstar million/billionaire CEO/professional athlete are about the same. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/15/income-for-us-authors-falls-below-federal-poverty-line-survey http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/15/income-for-us-a...

porter 11y ago
The odds of a smart middle class entrepreneur making a successful business are actually way better than making it to the NBA or NFL. To say these are equal odds is misleading.
- rmk2 11y ago
  A successful middleclass business does not equal billions or necessarily even millions, so I fail to see how the gp's comparison is off? What he is saying is that you are as likely to be the next Bill Gates as you are to be the next Michael Jordan, not that you are just as likely to be the next Bob Smith who runs a 40-people tech consultancy shop.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
AndrewKemendo 11y ago
If it's not in your blood to absolutely have to be an entrepreneur (or painter, writer, comedian, etc...) you probably shouldn't be one.
- epalmer 11y ago
  But how do we know if it is in our blood? That is probably the hardest part.
  - rcarrigan87 11y ago
    I've tried to get away from entrepreneurship many times. I always come back...
  - chubot 11y ago
    Probably when you have to try NOT to do something...? Like at this point, I would have to try not to play guitar. Or try not to program and experiment with designs for systems software. But I am trying TO start a business as well. It doesn't come as naturally. I like the idea of making money independently... and I actually DO like satisfying customers. But so far not enough to give it a real concerted effort. (I have a good job otherwise). EDIT: Although I will admit I had to reach a certain level of competency at guitar and programming before I stopped needing to force myself to continue... you do have to sweat it out first. I think what YC is doing is good because they're providing the equivalent of free online guitar lessons... definitely better than nothing (for the motivated).
    - nickpinkston 11y ago
      "when you have to try NOT to do something" - I think that's a nice litmus test for it
      - rchaud 11y ago
        Even that test has limits though. Competive gamers all start off playing hours of video games a day, but playing competitively means sacrificing fun for grueling practice, formulaic tactics and very little experimentation; basically all the fun is sucked out of it. Theres a moment in the show "Silicon valley" when a programmer looks at an Agile deliverables chart and says "This just became a job". I think that would be the test. Can you endure the drudgery of daily grind and constant challenges and still want to go through with it? You won't know unless you try.
rmc 11y ago
> already had a trust-fund or come from a wealthy background so they can spend all of their time writing, painting, or engineering Being from a wealthy background also benefits the startup because you or your family probably "know people" who can help.
- Retric 11y ago
  Microsoft's early story looks a little different when you realize Bill Gate's mother just happens to know IBM's CEO.
  - zepto 11y ago
    That, plus Bill had a trust fund big enough not to have needed to work, so quitting Harvard was no risk at all for him.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Well, it isn't rags-to-riches but it's still very impressive. IBM's CEO knew a lot of people, not just Gate's mother.
    - rchaud 11y ago
      They served together on the board of United Way; they weren't just random acquaintances. The social proof conditions necessary for Bill and Paul Allen to make their pitch to him had been satisfied both through their parents' credentials, social connections and the fact that they both went to Harvard. Not to take anything away from Gates' technical skills and business savvy. But this goes to the crux of a lot of startup stories. It could all have been very different if even one of those 'background variables' had been different and the meeting with IBM never happened.
    - rmc 11y ago
      IBM's CEO might know a lot of people. But a lot of software founders don't know IBM's CEO.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Likewise to academia and professional science, by the way: 70% of all faculty are adjuncts, and most working scientists don't even become adjunct faculty. Thus, almost everyone working in science on a daily basis is either a grad-student or post-doc (paid low wages because they're theoretically a trainee for a position they'll never really get) or an adjunct faculty member (used to do the teaching labor the administration wants done but which would distract real professors from frantically applying for grants). Oh, and advancement runs on a feudal hierarchy[1]. [1] http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005
thenomad 11y ago
Whilst you have a valid point here, one thing that concerns me with this message is that it could easily make the problem of inequality in entrepreneurship worse, by giving across the strong message that the opinion is universally "if you're poor or a minority, entrepreneurship is not for you. Don't even bother."
lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
I am reminded of the often repeated saying "It takes three generations to make a gentleman". The gradual compounding of wealth opens up a lot of opportunity to safely take risk.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I am always a bit sad when I see money equated with success. Money is an artifact of success, not a result of success. There are many "trust fund" kids who have lots of money and zero success, and there are successful people who do not have a lot of money (generally "yet"). Success is defining a vision of how you want things to be and then working to make that happen. For some it will bring in additional money, for everyone it brings satisfaction.
- pluma 11y ago
  Money is a catalyst.

porter 11y ago

The odds of a smart middle class entrepreneur making a successful business are actually way better than making it to the NBA or NFL. To say these are equal odds is misleading.

rmk2 11y ago
A successful middleclass business does not equal billions or necessarily even millions, so I fail to see how the gp's comparison is off? What he is saying is that you are as likely to be the next Bill Gates as you are to be the next Michael Jordan, not that you are just as likely to be the next Bob Smith who runs a 40-people tech consultancy shop.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

If it's not in your blood to absolutely have to be an entrepreneur (or painter, writer, comedian, etc...) you probably shouldn't be one.

epalmer 11y ago
But how do we know if it is in our blood? That is probably the hardest part.
- rcarrigan87 11y ago
  I've tried to get away from entrepreneurship many times. I always come back...
- chubot 11y ago
  Probably when you have to try NOT to do something...? Like at this point, I would have to try not to play guitar. Or try not to program and experiment with designs for systems software. But I am trying TO start a business as well. It doesn't come as naturally. I like the idea of making money independently... and I actually DO like satisfying customers. But so far not enough to give it a real concerted effort. (I have a good job otherwise). EDIT: Although I will admit I had to reach a certain level of competency at guitar and programming before I stopped needing to force myself to continue... you do have to sweat it out first. I think what YC is doing is good because they're providing the equivalent of free online guitar lessons... definitely better than nothing (for the motivated).
  - nickpinkston 11y ago
    "when you have to try NOT to do something" - I think that's a nice litmus test for it
    - rchaud 11y ago
      Even that test has limits though. Competive gamers all start off playing hours of video games a day, but playing competitively means sacrificing fun for grueling practice, formulaic tactics and very little experimentation; basically all the fun is sucked out of it. Theres a moment in the show "Silicon valley" when a programmer looks at an Agile deliverables chart and says "This just became a job". I think that would be the test. Can you endure the drudgery of daily grind and constant challenges and still want to go through with it? You won't know unless you try.

rmc 11y ago

> already had a trust-fund or come from a wealthy background so they can spend all of their time writing, painting, or engineering Being from a wealthy background also benefits the startup because you or your family probably "know people" who can help.

Retric 11y ago
Microsoft's early story looks a little different when you realize Bill Gate's mother just happens to know IBM's CEO.
- zepto 11y ago
  That, plus Bill had a trust fund big enough not to have needed to work, so quitting Harvard was no risk at all for him.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Well, it isn't rags-to-riches but it's still very impressive. IBM's CEO knew a lot of people, not just Gate's mother.
  - rchaud 11y ago
    They served together on the board of United Way; they weren't just random acquaintances. The social proof conditions necessary for Bill and Paul Allen to make their pitch to him had been satisfied both through their parents' credentials, social connections and the fact that they both went to Harvard. Not to take anything away from Gates' technical skills and business savvy. But this goes to the crux of a lot of startup stories. It could all have been very different if even one of those 'background variables' had been different and the meeting with IBM never happened.
  - rmc 11y ago
    IBM's CEO might know a lot of people. But a lot of software founders don't know IBM's CEO.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Likewise to academia and professional science, by the way: 70% of all faculty are adjuncts, and most working scientists don't even become adjunct faculty. Thus, almost everyone working in science on a daily basis is either a grad-student or post-doc (paid low wages because they're theoretically a trainee for a position they'll never really get) or an adjunct faculty member (used to do the teaching labor the administration wants done but which would distract real professors from frantically applying for grants). Oh, and advancement runs on a feudal hierarchy[1]. [1] http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005

thenomad 11y ago

Whilst you have a valid point here, one thing that concerns me with this message is that it could easily make the problem of inequality in entrepreneurship worse, by giving across the strong message that the opinion is universally "if you're poor or a minority, entrepreneurship is not for you. Don't even bother."

lordCarbonFiber 11y ago

I am reminded of the often repeated saying "It takes three generations to make a gentleman". The gradual compounding of wealth opens up a lot of opportunity to safely take risk.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I am always a bit sad when I see money equated with success. Money is an artifact of success, not a result of success. There are many "trust fund" kids who have lots of money and zero success, and there are successful people who do not have a lot of money (generally "yet"). Success is defining a vision of how you want things to be and then working to make that happen. For some it will bring in additional money, for everyone it brings satisfaction.

pluma 11y ago
Money is a catalyst.