4 ms·

"This stupid meme seems to be materialising in which just cause I'm a white male that success gets thrown at me and it's all easy and nothing wAs hard and I nev

"This stupid meme seems to be materialising in which just cause I'm a white male that success gets thrown at me and it's all easy and nothing wAs hard and I never had to sacrifice - I'm not going to tell you how hard it really is except to say I've lost EVERYTHING multiple times including my wife/relationship and it's taken me 25 years of trying so PLEASE stop telling me how easy I have it cause I'm a white male." It could be argued this is ^opportunity cost^. What the article is making light of is, workers who don't to have the access to the time, resources and opportunities to build a business, yet still have to work to make ends meet. Never to get the chance(s) to start a tech-company.

forgottenacc57 10y ago
.
- bootload 10y ago
  "That doesn't mean I have the slightest obligation to donate any portion of my company" Q. What is the lowest level job you have had and for how long? What industry was it? I see why you have not bio or identifying information.
  - forgottenacc57 10y ago
    .
  - douche 10y ago
    I've worked blue-collar industrial jobs for $10/hour, sweating under a hardhat and breathing ash. I've cut wood for less money than that hourly, sucking diesel and two-stroke fumes, bathing in sweat in the summer and freezing in the winter. I've earned what's mine, and have no obligation to give it away, unless I choose to do so. The idea of white privilege looks like quite a joke when you grew up a poor rural white boy.
    - bootload 10y ago
      "I've worked blue-collar industrial jobs for $10/hour, sweating under a hardhat and breathing ash." Done that, indoors sucking fumes. Finished Uni in a recession. Sucked. Did that FT till I worked in my first startup. [0] "I've cut wood for less money than that hourly, sucking diesel and two-stroke fumes, bathing in sweat in the summer" Done that. Worked local council Parks & Gardens taking care of 100SqrKm. It's not that cold where I come from but gets pretty hot. High 30s (C) to early 40s in summer. Did this for years workin' PT while at school, FT on holidays. "have no obligation to give it away" Even working in the places I have, with my startup there will be no interns (free labour), dodgy contracting (cheap OS labour), worthless stock options in lieu of pay (sweat equity), no mass firing after a hiring binge to grow the company (to appease VCs). Fair wage for fair amount of work. That's not what is being described above. [0] https://slashdot.org/journal/62860/10-years-on-the-internet https://slashdot.org/journal/62860/10-years-on-the-internet
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ygaf 10y ago
I think you mean 'shed/cast light on'. The author believes that having a family to support (apparently that's a characteristic of latecomers) makes them deserving of a more equal stake. What if the founder planned on making a family thanks to his big stake? edit: I tried being more charitable about the article - "give more than one percent to people, sure"- but most of it is still irrational.
- bootload 10y ago
  "I think you mean 'shed/cast light on'." Yes, mixed metaphor. "The author believes that having a family to support (apparently that's a characteristic of latecomers) makes them deserving of a more equal stake." Good point. Btw I respect the OP for making these comments. They have every right and don't really need to defend them. I make comment because of the ^Ronco principle^. "In a sufficiently connected and unpredictable world, you can't seem good without being good." [0] That's what I'm thinking of when I read the essay and comments here. And this. [1] Reference [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html [1] "Steve didn't really care about gaining wealth. Money was really never much of a problem for him after launching Apple and receiving the initial investment from Mike Markkula. I think he just cared about making great stuff and figured the wealth would come along with that belief." "As for Woz, he was content with his initial portion of the ~$190-million he received on Apple's IPO. He did end up giving quite a large number of his shares to other early employees of Apple, who Jobs felt weren't worthy of a share grant." ~ Paul Salzman, https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Steve-Jobs-so-much-richer-than-Steve-Wozniak-even-though-they-founded-Apple-together https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Steve-Jobs-so-much-richer-than...
forgottenacc57 10y ago
.
- shoo 10y ago
  i read the post roughly as follows: people who have power and resources - and a safety net to shrug off failure - are in a better position to start companies - they aren't necessarily taking much risk - in fact, if they are sufficiently well off, there could be more risk (in terms of opportunity cost) in not starting a company. of course, not everyone who starts a successful company is necessarily powerful or has access to more resources than others, etc. people who have power and resources are in a better position than others to acquire more power and resources. not a hugely surprising statement, but worth pointing out, and worth pointing out that the common "we took more risk so we get more reward" could in fact sometimes be closer to "we were in a position of power so we get more reward".
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >No one is entitled to a slice of a tech company just cause they couldn't start one. What makes one "deserve" the lion's share of a tech company? The company I work for is split between two cofounders. One came from a very privileged background. The other didn't. Guess who got more? As far as I can see the notion that one deserves wealth because one has wealth is baked into our society and legal system. Owning a rental property means receiving a stream of income from those who do not. Owning shares means receiving a stream of income from work done by others. Likewise, if you earn a salary you're the one paying that rent and the work you do is generating those dividends. Likewise, being rich (and being well connected to the wealthy) when you start a company gives you the leverage to take a larger share. If that's what you believe is deserved then fine, I guess. I've yet to hear anybody actually state the words "being richer entitles you to a larger unearned income than those who are not" though.

forgottenacc57 10y ago

bootload 10y ago
"That doesn't mean I have the slightest obligation to donate any portion of my company" Q. What is the lowest level job you have had and for how long? What industry was it? I see why you have not bio or identifying information.
- forgottenacc57 10y ago
  .
- douche 10y ago
  I've worked blue-collar industrial jobs for $10/hour, sweating under a hardhat and breathing ash. I've cut wood for less money than that hourly, sucking diesel and two-stroke fumes, bathing in sweat in the summer and freezing in the winter. I've earned what's mine, and have no obligation to give it away, unless I choose to do so. The idea of white privilege looks like quite a joke when you grew up a poor rural white boy.
  - bootload 10y ago
    "I've worked blue-collar industrial jobs for $10/hour, sweating under a hardhat and breathing ash." Done that, indoors sucking fumes. Finished Uni in a recession. Sucked. Did that FT till I worked in my first startup. [0] "I've cut wood for less money than that hourly, sucking diesel and two-stroke fumes, bathing in sweat in the summer" Done that. Worked local council Parks & Gardens taking care of 100SqrKm. It's not that cold where I come from but gets pretty hot. High 30s (C) to early 40s in summer. Did this for years workin' PT while at school, FT on holidays. "have no obligation to give it away" Even working in the places I have, with my startup there will be no interns (free labour), dodgy contracting (cheap OS labour), worthless stock options in lieu of pay (sweat equity), no mass firing after a hiring binge to grow the company (to appease VCs). Fair wage for fair amount of work. That's not what is being described above. [0] https://slashdot.org/journal/62860/10-years-on-the-internet https://slashdot.org/journal/62860/10-years-on-the-internet

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ygaf 10y ago

I think you mean 'shed/cast light on'. The author believes that having a family to support (apparently that's a characteristic of latecomers) makes them deserving of a more equal stake. What if the founder planned on making a family thanks to his big stake? edit: I tried being more charitable about the article - "give more than one percent to people, sure"- but most of it is still irrational.

bootload 10y ago
"I think you mean 'shed/cast light on'." Yes, mixed metaphor. "The author believes that having a family to support (apparently that's a characteristic of latecomers) makes them deserving of a more equal stake." Good point. Btw I respect the OP for making these comments. They have every right and don't really need to defend them. I make comment because of the ^Ronco principle^. "In a sufficiently connected and unpredictable world, you can't seem good without being good." [0] That's what I'm thinking of when I read the essay and comments here. And this. [1] Reference [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html [1] "Steve didn't really care about gaining wealth. Money was really never much of a problem for him after launching Apple and receiving the initial investment from Mike Markkula. I think he just cared about making great stuff and figured the wealth would come along with that belief." "As for Woz, he was content with his initial portion of the ~$190-million he received on Apple's IPO. He did end up giving quite a large number of his shares to other early employees of Apple, who Jobs felt weren't worthy of a share grant." ~ Paul Salzman, https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Steve-Jobs-so-much-richer-than-Steve-Wozniak-even-though-they-founded-Apple-together https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Steve-Jobs-so-much-richer-than...

forgottenacc57 10y ago

shoo 10y ago
i read the post roughly as follows: people who have power and resources - and a safety net to shrug off failure - are in a better position to start companies - they aren't necessarily taking much risk - in fact, if they are sufficiently well off, there could be more risk (in terms of opportunity cost) in not starting a company. of course, not everyone who starts a successful company is necessarily powerful or has access to more resources than others, etc. people who have power and resources are in a better position than others to acquire more power and resources. not a hugely surprising statement, but worth pointing out, and worth pointing out that the common "we took more risk so we get more reward" could in fact sometimes be closer to "we were in a position of power so we get more reward".
crdoconnor 10y ago
>No one is entitled to a slice of a tech company just cause they couldn't start one. What makes one "deserve" the lion's share of a tech company? The company I work for is split between two cofounders. One came from a very privileged background. The other didn't. Guess who got more? As far as I can see the notion that one deserves wealth because one has wealth is baked into our society and legal system. Owning a rental property means receiving a stream of income from those who do not. Owning shares means receiving a stream of income from work done by others. Likewise, if you earn a salary you're the one paying that rent and the work you do is generating those dividends. Likewise, being rich (and being well connected to the wealthy) when you start a company gives you the leverage to take a larger share. If that's what you believe is deserved then fine, I guess. I've yet to hear anybody actually state the words "being richer entitles you to a larger unearned income than those who are not" though.