4 ms·

I would really say that they're different sides of the same coin. I also wouldn't say that an entrepreneur necessarily has noticeably bigger payoff. It might be

I would really say that they're different sides of the same coin. I also wouldn't say that an entrepreneur necessarily has noticeably bigger payoff. It might be true in tech, but not necessarily for the majority of small businesses. I can't recall off the top of my head which one, but I remember seeing a study that showed that a significant amount of small business owners in the US did so just to get to do what they want for a living. (Again, why the "for a living"?) Entrepreneurialism, in a lot of cases, is a new kind of wage slavery. The precarity is the most easily exploited (by rideshare services, freelance agencies, marketplace platforms, among others) to coax people into positions without security or benefits.

pixl97 8y ago
For a living probably means something else now than the past. Past: For a living - so I don't starve to death. Now: For a living - I want the perceived freedom in choice of work that fits my lifestyle.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Yeah, we're not happy to just have the fire, speak in languages, and live in caves either. We don't compare ourselves with the early humans before they discovered those things and feel lucky. And neither those that starved to death did. What constitutes "a living" is always relative. That said, you can very much still starve and get sick and homeless to death in modern rich societies...