4 ms·

They're talking past each other. Thing is, they're both right. Paul seems to be saying you don't have to be rich to do a startup. Matthew is saying lots of f

They're talking past each other. Thing is, they're both right. Paul seems to be saying you don't have to be rich to do a startup. Matthew is saying lots of founder have some resources (family home, savings, great education, i.e. middle-class) that made doing a startup feasible Both these positions are true and aren't incompatible. Being middle class (Matthew's position) and prudent with savings can afford you probably a year of runway. But I'd never recommend someone who was truly destitute or food insecure to do a startup. If you come from a poor family there will also be family/cultural pressure not to do a startup and instead get a good paying job(assuming you have the ability).

lotsofpulp 7y ago
It’s a tough calculation to forego a presumably high chance of having a comfortable life and providing a good base for your kids by working a regular job, versus shooting for the moon and possibly losing that comfortable lifestyle.
emsy 7y ago
They’re not even talking past each other (that would require a back and forth). Matthew responds to something pg didn't say.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  If that’s the case, then Paul Graham chose a very poor subject as an example.
  - emsy 7y ago
    I agree, and he could and should have anticipated the reactions. But I read his clarifications and it looks like he argued with good intent.
humanrebar 7y ago
It's the difference between "a founder can be anyone" and "a founder can come from anywhere" to paraphrase Ratatouille.
- c0vfefe 7y ago
  Rather, the difference between "a founder can be anyone" and "anyone can be a founder."
shafyy 7y ago
The problem is PG says that you don't have to be a rich kid, and then takes Airbnb as an example where the founders are definitely rich kids compared to the rest of the nation and world (not rich as in "daddy has a private jet", but definitely in the top couple of percent). Of course PG is right that you don't need to be a rich kid, but he chose his anecdote poorly. PS: Also Sam recently said (in the StrictlyVC interview) that most founders at YC are from upper middle class families, so there's your data.
- grenoire 7y ago
  Worldwide, definitely top 0.1% (at approx. 80K annual income).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    Worldwide is an unhelpful metric. They're starting up in a specific place, so their wealth should be measured relative to that location. For example 80K won't get a roof over your head in NYC or Silicon Valley, but could support an entire family in middle-America.
    - shafyy 7y ago
      It should be measured within the geographic bounds of where you can relatively freely and easily move within. If you're making 80k, maybe don't live in San Francisco (or do, but then you need to cut back other expenses). And yes, I know, it's not easy to move for everyone to another city or region because of several reasons, but generally speaking most Americans could move to another region where they would get a similar paying job and more value for their buck. Edit: Typos
idlewords 7y ago
Graham is making a different claim, that you don't have to be from the middle class. Read the entire exchange.
- badatshipping 7y ago
  Wait, his claim is that you don’t have to be from the upper middle class. https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1130121128033300480 https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1130121128033300480
noelsusman 7y ago
"You literally need six figures in your bank account to do a startup" isn't a thing that people actually argue. Paul might be technically correct but he's arguing against a strawman. In this context, rich is a shorthand for financial privilege, which doesn't tend to come in the form of dollars in your bank account when you're young.
- Kalium 7y ago
  It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about social issues when words like "rich" can range in meaning from "peer of Warren Buffet" to "some member of your extended family owns property somewhere in the world". This is not made easier when not all parties in a given conversation are using the same definitions and haven't stopped to compare notes. Fuzzy definitions are great when you're posturing politically. In those cases, you want people to be able to apply their own definitions. But political posturing is antithetical to meaningful discussion, so...
  - noelsusman 7y ago
    I agree completely. It's one of the biggest problems I have with left-leaning activists, especially on Twitter. They abuse terminology constantly (like using rich to refer to the much broader concept of financial privilege) and it causes a ton of problems. So much online discourse is just people talking past each other using different definitions.
randyrand 7y ago
Why not? If you secure investor funding, you could easily pay for your meals.
mritchie712 7y ago
Like so many things in life, it depends. I just like PG said "would ordinarily just let your bullshit go". I spit out some water, easily the best thing I've read on twitter this year.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

It’s a tough calculation to forego a presumably high chance of having a comfortable life and providing a good base for your kids by working a regular job, versus shooting for the moon and possibly losing that comfortable lifestyle.

emsy 7y ago

They’re not even talking past each other (that would require a back and forth). Matthew responds to something pg didn't say.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
If that’s the case, then Paul Graham chose a very poor subject as an example.
- emsy 7y ago
  I agree, and he could and should have anticipated the reactions. But I read his clarifications and it looks like he argued with good intent.

humanrebar 7y ago

It's the difference between "a founder can be anyone" and "a founder can come from anywhere" to paraphrase Ratatouille.

c0vfefe 7y ago
Rather, the difference between "a founder can be anyone" and "anyone can be a founder."

shafyy 7y ago

The problem is PG says that you don't have to be a rich kid, and then takes Airbnb as an example where the founders are definitely rich kids compared to the rest of the nation and world (not rich as in "daddy has a private jet", but definitely in the top couple of percent). Of course PG is right that you don't need to be a rich kid, but he chose his anecdote poorly. PS: Also Sam recently said (in the StrictlyVC interview) that most founders at YC are from upper middle class families, so there's your data.

grenoire 7y ago
Worldwide, definitely top 0.1% (at approx. 80K annual income).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Worldwide is an unhelpful metric. They're starting up in a specific place, so their wealth should be measured relative to that location. For example 80K won't get a roof over your head in NYC or Silicon Valley, but could support an entire family in middle-America.
  - shafyy 7y ago
    It should be measured within the geographic bounds of where you can relatively freely and easily move within. If you're making 80k, maybe don't live in San Francisco (or do, but then you need to cut back other expenses). And yes, I know, it's not easy to move for everyone to another city or region because of several reasons, but generally speaking most Americans could move to another region where they would get a similar paying job and more value for their buck. Edit: Typos

idlewords 7y ago

Graham is making a different claim, that you don't have to be from the middle class. Read the entire exchange.

badatshipping 7y ago
Wait, his claim is that you don’t have to be from the upper middle class. https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1130121128033300480 https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1130121128033300480

noelsusman 7y ago

"You literally need six figures in your bank account to do a startup" isn't a thing that people actually argue. Paul might be technically correct but he's arguing against a strawman. In this context, rich is a shorthand for financial privilege, which doesn't tend to come in the form of dollars in your bank account when you're young.

Kalium 7y ago
It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about social issues when words like "rich" can range in meaning from "peer of Warren Buffet" to "some member of your extended family owns property somewhere in the world". This is not made easier when not all parties in a given conversation are using the same definitions and haven't stopped to compare notes. Fuzzy definitions are great when you're posturing politically. In those cases, you want people to be able to apply their own definitions. But political posturing is antithetical to meaningful discussion, so...
- noelsusman 7y ago
  I agree completely. It's one of the biggest problems I have with left-leaning activists, especially on Twitter. They abuse terminology constantly (like using rich to refer to the much broader concept of financial privilege) and it causes a ton of problems. So much online discourse is just people talking past each other using different definitions.

randyrand 7y ago

Why not? If you secure investor funding, you could easily pay for your meals.

mritchie712 7y ago

Like so many things in life, it depends. I just like PG said "would ordinarily just let your bullshit go". I spit out some water, easily the best thing I've read on twitter this year.