5 ms·

.

• 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.