12 ms·

Pretty disappointed in PG's response: "I would ordinarily just let your bullshit go, but this myth that you have to be a rich kid to start a startup is terribl

by cbanek 7y ago

Pretty disappointed in PG's response: "I would ordinarily just let your bullshit go, but this myth that you have to be a rich kid to start a startup is terribly dangerous, because it discourages people who aren't from trying it. Brian Chesky's parents were social workers. That is not a rich kid." As if having two parents with stable jobs isn't considered a safety net. I agree, you don't need to be rich, but I also agree if you are struggling to work enough to eat, you aren't really working on making a startup. There are huge swaths of people with a much less stable safety net than the example he provided.

austhrow743 7y ago
Paul said you don't have to be rich. Matthew responded as if he'd said that it's not beneficial to have a safety net. That's putting a statement in to his mouth that he did not make. Anything more than a "fuck off" from PG was charitable.
- casion 7y ago
  The problem is that it gets read as a false dilemma. Talking about rich people and saying "you don't have to be rich to..." is like walking into a room of black people and saying "You don't have to be white to...". Nobody there is going to think that you're talking about asians. The statement doesn't really say anything except that 'being rich' is something that can come from some other non-rich state. It doesn't specify at what level you can be to reach that state. He could be implying that poverty is sufficient, or "middle-class" or that upper class CT is sufficient (and we don't even know if he thinks that means " rich"). It's just a complete non-statement that attempts to pander to an audience that has little choice but to misinterpret it or assume that he's stating the blindingly obvious.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I don't think it matters what we're defining as rich. We can be honest without being destructive. I feel like our culture is constantly telling people they can't do anything with their life if they don't have every box of privilege checked. It's terribly psychologically destructive. Life is a constant struggle,a real river of shit sometimes, but it's one in which our own actions are still the biggest determining factor in our long term outcomes.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Except not. Life is obviously not an equally constant struggle for everyone. Social mobility has been declining for years. For any individual you can create a counterfactual to suggest that their choices are what created their outcome. However it’s also unarguable that we are not all facing the same risk/reward choices. And of course people who take on more risk are going to fail more often. And those without a safety net will end up worse off than where they started. It wouldn’t be risk otherwise.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Yep, some things are a little bit harder than they might have been in the very recent past for some people, but overall life is better than it has ever been in the history of the world. Telling kids to stay in their lane because it's hard to do otherwise it's terrible leadership in my opinion.
        zepto 7y ago
        Nobody is telling kids to stay in their lane, so that’s a straw man. However some people are proving that they don’t understand the risks other people face, and recommending that they take them anyway. Advising someone to take a risk that you don’t understand is not leadership.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        Is high achievement possible for poor people or not? That's the only thing in question here. Arguing that it's harder for people who start off disadvantaged in some way is a tautology, and in context does nothing but discourage people. People don't need you to tell them about their risks, they live them every day. What they need is for people to shine a light on their opportunities. Because that's the part that's harder to see if they aren't in an environment where other people are succeeding.
        zepto 7y ago
- JangoSteve 7y ago
  I think the response was reading more into the meaning behind what pg said than the actual words he used. This makes sense to a degree, since what pg actually said makes little sense unless you read more into it. When people say startups are for rich kids, they probably don't mean you _have_ to be rich to succeed in startups, since there are plenty of examples to the contrary. What they mean is that your chances of success are significantly higher when you already have means. So pg arguing that startups aren't for rich kids probably isn't just a claim that you don't need to be rich to start a startup, because that would be a response to a claim no one is making. I think this is why it's reasonable (maybe incorrect, but reasonable) for some people to infer that pg is trying to discredit the underlying notion actually meant by such claims as he referenced, which is that building a successful startup is often less of a meritocracy than we'd like to believe. Of course we could argue all day about the nuances of each argument, and what was said versus what was meant. But we all know this is the problem with any claim made on Twitter; it invites inference, since abbreviated excerpts don't allow for proper context or dialogue.
- idlewords 7y ago
  Graham said you don't have to have a certain class background, and then cited the example of three people with that background. Read the entire exchange. He's talking specifically about upper middle class kids—his words.
- noelsusman 7y ago
  Having a safety net is what people mean when they say you have to be rich to found a startup. If you have a place you can always go if things go south, then you are "rich", even if you personally struggle to pay rent on a regular basis. I was poor in college like a lot of people, but I had a stable family I could rely on. I knew people who didn't have that, and they had to make very different decisions than I did. I didn't have much money in my bank account, but I was rich compared to many of my peers. No matter how badly things went for me, there was no scenario that would have left me homeless or hungry. If PG's only point is "you don't literally need a six-figure salary to found a startup" then he's arguing against a strawman.
StavrosK 7y ago
Agreed, "I can't pay rent and I'll have to move to my parents' basement" and "I can't pay rent and I'll have to live on the street" are two very different ways of struggling to pay rent.
- cbanek 7y ago
  Exactly. In that in one of them, your landlord isn't likely to cover you, and is likely to kick you out, but your parents probably would cover the shortfall if they are able (at least for a couple of months). And if they aren't, you'll just go back home. On the other side, many young people end up having to help their parents make rent. They don't have the position to take on any of their own risk.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > On the other side, many young people end up having to help their parents make rent. They don't have the position to take on any of their own risk. Yup. Dreaming about startups was all fun until I realized that I'm essentially providing for 5 people beyond myself, at which point I got super insecure about keeping my well-paying job.
  - paganel 7y ago
    > On the other side, many young people end up having to help their parents make rent. I have been in that position since my early 20s (I'm now approaching my 40s), well, since I was 21 or 22, meaning ever since I got my first salary. I didn't have to pay for my parents' rent but I did have to send my parents money regularly, each month, for almost 20 years now, because it's hard to pay your power bills and to buy basic stuff like bread or edible oil well when you live on subsistence agriculture, like my parents do. Paul Graham's view is very US suburban-centric, like most of the products and cultural views coming out of Silicon Valley.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
lazyjones 7y ago
Why is it disappointing to that he points out that "having a safety net" and "being rich" are different things? The whole thread seems to revolve around people trying to misunderstand him deliberately in order to post their "progressive" complaints.
- ricardobeat 7y ago
  The “rich kids” qualifier came from his own tweet. I think it shows a big disconnect with how average the average potential-startup-entrepreneur is, and how privileged most successful ones are.
  - dantheman 7y ago
    What percentage of potential start up founders don't have a 'safety net'?
    - ricardobeat 7y ago
      I don’t live in the US, but some numbers from a quick search for ages ~18-35: - average pay 35k - 78% of people live paycheck-to-paycheck (zero savings) In other countries the situation can be a lot worse. Even excluding the 12% below the poverty line, the vast majority can not afford to leave their jobs even for a couple months without going homeless. Being able to experiment with business that has a 90% chance of failure, even for a short while, is out of reach for most people unless sacrifices much larger than “moving back in with parents” are made. It should be possible to motivate people to be entrepreneurs without being insensitive to reality. “Rich kids” might be a stretch, but hyperbole is an effective form of communication.
- idlewords 7y ago
  He specifically says later in his replies that he's debunking "the meme that you have to be upper middle class to start a startup." But his chosen example is exactly that, three upper-middle-class kids (Harvard and RISD grads).
dls2016 7y ago
> Pretty disappointed in PG's response Disappointed that a venture capitalist replaces a meaningful conversation about the material impact of class on entrepreneurship with a few cherry-picked anecdotes? charliebrownfootball.gif
casion 7y ago
I've had this argument with various people many times. Until your, and your offspring's, survival as a living human revolves around working 16 hour days to barely hold it together... it's almost impossible to understand. Poor isn't having 2 loving parents with stable jobs, growing up in a middle-class neighborhood and going to college on your parent's dime/credit. Only a billionaire can begin to think of that situation as "poor". If that person fails then they just go home and live with their parents, that supported them through adolescence, without any major repercussions. That situation isn't going to happen, except for extraordinary anomolies, for a person that possibly manages to finish high school with siblings in tow, no parents and already holding down 1+ jobs. This is an extreme example, but it presents the issue further. "Poor" comes in many flavours: monetary, social, responsibilities, safety, time etc... Once you're poor in any two areas it becomes life threatening to take risks. No money? No family/friends? Then taking a risk isn't even possible. No money? Responsibilities (relatives to care for)? Then you have no time. Responsibilities? No safety net? Now you're not risking your own welfare, but the welfare of those that you care for. No time? This is a single limiting factor alone. Yes, there are people with very little to no time, where their ability to spend their time is directly proportional to their survival. There's even rich people that are poor in multiple areas, which disallows them from ethically taking risks. If you're sitting on a cool $100k beyond what _you_ need a year, but you're also supporting an extended immigrant family then it's irresponsible to go throwing money into a high-risk startup. It might not even be the right thing to do for your bloodline, instead opting to provide a stable life so your offspring can take risks. I got to grow up very poor, and middle-class and now live upper-middle-class. I only made it here because of grandparents that sacrificed to allow my parents to eventually succeed (big time). Even with that safety net, they had almost zero time. I know my father had big dreams, but he had to spend 12 hours a day working/travel to make sure his kids had a chance. Mother had health issues, which complicated things even further. As an adult I spent many years working with children in poverse circumstances, and _even as children_ they lacked resources to get an education. No time, no access to resources, often with family responsibilities, sometimes abuse, etc... Carry that on to adulthood and now you have to support yourself. Where's ability to dump a few grand into a shot in the dark? Anyway, tldr; being poor is unfathomable until you're poor.
ldoughty 7y ago
Totally agree. I have great ideas of things to work on, but I'm essentially a single income household (my wife is in grad school, and her part time pay barely covers her education and school). I can't quit my job and work on a dream venture, who will pay for my wife's upcoming childbirth and related expenses? Who will ensure we can still make payments on our home and food? Living with parents is definitely a safety net. If you have dependants, you can't afford to take risks.
- nichos 7y ago
  This may come off rude, but I certainly don't mean it to be, but you have a choice to make. It sounds like you're chosing to have a kid and your wife go to school. If you want to do the startup, skip the kids, have your wife work and support you while you do the startup. Not everyone can have everything.
  - Daishiman 7y ago
    So the rich kids get to have their startup and kids. And that definitely tilts the balance for a lot of people.
  - turk73 7y ago
    Here's a little tip: The wife and the kid are far more enriching than anything else you will do in life. So don't jeopardize them.
    - majkinetor 7y ago
      Be that as it may, having no money for decent life is sure as hell way to lose your wife and your kid and is happening far far more then the opposite.
      - bradenb 7y ago
        Maybe I'm inferring the wrong thing, but are you suggesting that creating a startup is more likely to provide the money you need to support a family?
bko 7y ago
This is a kind of No True Scotsman fallacy. Anyone that is successful was 'advantaged' because her family was rich, or she had two parents, or she had a parent, or she was born in America, or she was born with the right number of chromosomes... The whole conversation strikes me as just snarky and reductive. I don't see the point. Why not try to promote a conversation to lift people up and empower them rather than writing off the hard work and perseverance of others?
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Well, yes, that's the conversation of intersectionality. It's important to recognize that the 'lone genius' narrative is largely false in order to have the discussion that empowerment is necessary in the first place. Otherwise the overarching narrative may be that people who suceed do so purely under their own power and therefore there is no systematic mistreatment to address (which perpetuates systematic mistreatment). It's true that a wide variety of things contribute to someone's success, and many of them are outside of their power. Being able to acknowledge this can be taken to the extreme, but all of your statements are entirely valid assessments to make that have real effects on how realistically difficult a task may have been- or if the task was possible at all.
- wastedhours 7y ago
  > Anyone that is successful was 'advantaged' > Why not try to promote a conversation to lift people up and empower them rather than writing off the hard work and perseverance of others? I think these two can live together - if you succeed, there was something that allowed that. Whether it was privilege, whether it was luck, or timing, or the right application of hard work and a blend of them all. It's important to recognise what advantages are best leveraged for success, and then we can optimise to ensure most people have access to it. In the argument in question, what advantage did Airbnb's founders have that allowed them to take that risk? How did they get the flat they were struggling to pay for in the first place for example? Why did they not skip rent and have to work 3 part time retail shifts to cover it like large swathes of workers in a similar boat. Identifying privilege is an important piece of the puzzle - noone succeeds solely by hard work alone (otherwise all coal miners would be millionaires, and 996ers would be everywhere), so if we can spot the factors that successful people leverage, we can support others to get there (whether that's better education, cheaper housing, familial support etc...).
mikeash 7y ago
Typical tech industry nonsense. People stuck in a job because they need the health insurance? People saddled with massive debt because you’ll have a hard time getting hired to manage a McDonald’s without a college degree? Rent increases eating up disposable income? Meh. But being told by some rando on Twitter that you need a safety net to take a risk on a startup? “Incredibly dangerous”! Because if some people who might start a startup instead choose a conventional career, I guess the world will end.
- 0x445442 7y ago
  Yeah, Silicon Valley is pretty much a "Cult of Money" now. Maybe I'm way off base here but it doesn't seem like the mentality of creating products and services which genuinely help people while at the same time providing a living for, say, 100 families for the next 20 years is a thing there. Slightly iterating on and pumping old ideas in social media with the goal of conjuring billion dollar valuations for the next ad platform seems to be the norm.
- harrumph 7y ago
  >“Incredibly dangerous”! Totally agree about how inane and insufferably out of touch this complaint is. As if today's now-totally-normalized tech company valuations, openly built on nothing more than cash bonfires, aren't dangerous at all.
turk73 7y ago
But it's true--I grew up very blue collar and had a crappy home life and failing meant having to go back to people who abused and belittled me. Thus, I could never afford to fail because the mental fallout of that would have been too big of a price to pay. I'm sure lots of people have this situation, it didn't feel that unique to me.

by cbanek 7y ago

austhrow743 7y ago

Paul said you don't have to be rich. Matthew responded as if he'd said that it's not beneficial to have a safety net. That's putting a statement in to his mouth that he did not make. Anything more than a "fuck off" from PG was charitable.

casion 7y ago
The problem is that it gets read as a false dilemma. Talking about rich people and saying "you don't have to be rich to..." is like walking into a room of black people and saying "You don't have to be white to...". Nobody there is going to think that you're talking about asians. The statement doesn't really say anything except that 'being rich' is something that can come from some other non-rich state. It doesn't specify at what level you can be to reach that state. He could be implying that poverty is sufficient, or "middle-class" or that upper class CT is sufficient (and we don't even know if he thinks that means " rich"). It's just a complete non-statement that attempts to pander to an audience that has little choice but to misinterpret it or assume that he's stating the blindingly obvious.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I don't think it matters what we're defining as rich. We can be honest without being destructive. I feel like our culture is constantly telling people they can't do anything with their life if they don't have every box of privilege checked. It's terribly psychologically destructive. Life is a constant struggle,a real river of shit sometimes, but it's one in which our own actions are still the biggest determining factor in our long term outcomes.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Except not. Life is obviously not an equally constant struggle for everyone. Social mobility has been declining for years. For any individual you can create a counterfactual to suggest that their choices are what created their outcome. However it’s also unarguable that we are not all facing the same risk/reward choices. And of course people who take on more risk are going to fail more often. And those without a safety net will end up worse off than where they started. It wouldn’t be risk otherwise.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Yep, some things are a little bit harder than they might have been in the very recent past for some people, but overall life is better than it has ever been in the history of the world. Telling kids to stay in their lane because it's hard to do otherwise it's terrible leadership in my opinion.
      - zepto 7y ago
        Nobody is telling kids to stay in their lane, so that’s a straw man. However some people are proving that they don’t understand the risks other people face, and recommending that they take them anyway. Advising someone to take a risk that you don’t understand is not leadership.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        Is high achievement possible for poor people or not? That's the only thing in question here. Arguing that it's harder for people who start off disadvantaged in some way is a tautology, and in context does nothing but discourage people. People don't need you to tell them about their risks, they live them every day. What they need is for people to shine a light on their opportunities. Because that's the part that's harder to see if they aren't in an environment where other people are succeeding.
        zepto 7y ago
JangoSteve 7y ago
I think the response was reading more into the meaning behind what pg said than the actual words he used. This makes sense to a degree, since what pg actually said makes little sense unless you read more into it. When people say startups are for rich kids, they probably don't mean you _have_ to be rich to succeed in startups, since there are plenty of examples to the contrary. What they mean is that your chances of success are significantly higher when you already have means. So pg arguing that startups aren't for rich kids probably isn't just a claim that you don't need to be rich to start a startup, because that would be a response to a claim no one is making. I think this is why it's reasonable (maybe incorrect, but reasonable) for some people to infer that pg is trying to discredit the underlying notion actually meant by such claims as he referenced, which is that building a successful startup is often less of a meritocracy than we'd like to believe. Of course we could argue all day about the nuances of each argument, and what was said versus what was meant. But we all know this is the problem with any claim made on Twitter; it invites inference, since abbreviated excerpts don't allow for proper context or dialogue.
idlewords 7y ago
Graham said you don't have to have a certain class background, and then cited the example of three people with that background. Read the entire exchange. He's talking specifically about upper middle class kids—his words.
noelsusman 7y ago
Having a safety net is what people mean when they say you have to be rich to found a startup. If you have a place you can always go if things go south, then you are "rich", even if you personally struggle to pay rent on a regular basis. I was poor in college like a lot of people, but I had a stable family I could rely on. I knew people who didn't have that, and they had to make very different decisions than I did. I didn't have much money in my bank account, but I was rich compared to many of my peers. No matter how badly things went for me, there was no scenario that would have left me homeless or hungry. If PG's only point is "you don't literally need a six-figure salary to found a startup" then he's arguing against a strawman.

StavrosK 7y ago

Agreed, "I can't pay rent and I'll have to move to my parents' basement" and "I can't pay rent and I'll have to live on the street" are two very different ways of struggling to pay rent.

cbanek 7y ago
Exactly. In that in one of them, your landlord isn't likely to cover you, and is likely to kick you out, but your parents probably would cover the shortfall if they are able (at least for a couple of months). And if they aren't, you'll just go back home. On the other side, many young people end up having to help their parents make rent. They don't have the position to take on any of their own risk.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > On the other side, many young people end up having to help their parents make rent. They don't have the position to take on any of their own risk. Yup. Dreaming about startups was all fun until I realized that I'm essentially providing for 5 people beyond myself, at which point I got super insecure about keeping my well-paying job.
- paganel 7y ago
  > On the other side, many young people end up having to help their parents make rent. I have been in that position since my early 20s (I'm now approaching my 40s), well, since I was 21 or 22, meaning ever since I got my first salary. I didn't have to pay for my parents' rent but I did have to send my parents money regularly, each month, for almost 20 years now, because it's hard to pay your power bills and to buy basic stuff like bread or edible oil well when you live on subsistence agriculture, like my parents do. Paul Graham's view is very US suburban-centric, like most of the products and cultural views coming out of Silicon Valley.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lazyjones 7y ago

Why is it disappointing to that he points out that "having a safety net" and "being rich" are different things? The whole thread seems to revolve around people trying to misunderstand him deliberately in order to post their "progressive" complaints.

ricardobeat 7y ago
The “rich kids” qualifier came from his own tweet. I think it shows a big disconnect with how average the average potential-startup-entrepreneur is, and how privileged most successful ones are.
- dantheman 7y ago
  What percentage of potential start up founders don't have a 'safety net'?
  - ricardobeat 7y ago
    I don’t live in the US, but some numbers from a quick search for ages ~18-35: - average pay 35k - 78% of people live paycheck-to-paycheck (zero savings) In other countries the situation can be a lot worse. Even excluding the 12% below the poverty line, the vast majority can not afford to leave their jobs even for a couple months without going homeless. Being able to experiment with business that has a 90% chance of failure, even for a short while, is out of reach for most people unless sacrifices much larger than “moving back in with parents” are made. It should be possible to motivate people to be entrepreneurs without being insensitive to reality. “Rich kids” might be a stretch, but hyperbole is an effective form of communication.
idlewords 7y ago
He specifically says later in his replies that he's debunking "the meme that you have to be upper middle class to start a startup." But his chosen example is exactly that, three upper-middle-class kids (Harvard and RISD grads).

dls2016 7y ago

> Pretty disappointed in PG's response Disappointed that a venture capitalist replaces a meaningful conversation about the material impact of class on entrepreneurship with a few cherry-picked anecdotes? charliebrownfootball.gif

casion 7y ago

I've had this argument with various people many times. Until your, and your offspring's, survival as a living human revolves around working 16 hour days to barely hold it together... it's almost impossible to understand. Poor isn't having 2 loving parents with stable jobs, growing up in a middle-class neighborhood and going to college on your parent's dime/credit. Only a billionaire can begin to think of that situation as "poor". If that person fails then they just go home and live with their parents, that supported them through adolescence, without any major repercussions. That situation isn't going to happen, except for extraordinary anomolies, for a person that possibly manages to finish high school with siblings in tow, no parents and already holding down 1+ jobs. This is an extreme example, but it presents the issue further. "Poor" comes in many flavours: monetary, social, responsibilities, safety, time etc... Once you're poor in any two areas it becomes life threatening to take risks. No money? No family/friends? Then taking a risk isn't even possible. No money? Responsibilities (relatives to care for)? Then you have no time. Responsibilities? No safety net? Now you're not risking your own welfare, but the welfare of those that you care for. No time? This is a single limiting factor alone. Yes, there are people with very little to no time, where their ability to spend their time is directly proportional to their survival. There's even rich people that are poor in multiple areas, which disallows them from ethically taking risks. If you're sitting on a cool $100k beyond what _you_ need a year, but you're also supporting an extended immigrant family then it's irresponsible to go throwing money into a high-risk startup. It might not even be the right thing to do for your bloodline, instead opting to provide a stable life so your offspring can take risks. I got to grow up very poor, and middle-class and now live upper-middle-class. I only made it here because of grandparents that sacrificed to allow my parents to eventually succeed (big time). Even with that safety net, they had almost zero time. I know my father had big dreams, but he had to spend 12 hours a day working/travel to make sure his kids had a chance. Mother had health issues, which complicated things even further. As an adult I spent many years working with children in poverse circumstances, and _even as children_ they lacked resources to get an education. No time, no access to resources, often with family responsibilities, sometimes abuse, etc... Carry that on to adulthood and now you have to support yourself. Where's ability to dump a few grand into a shot in the dark? Anyway, tldr; being poor is unfathomable until you're poor.

ldoughty 7y ago

Totally agree. I have great ideas of things to work on, but I'm essentially a single income household (my wife is in grad school, and her part time pay barely covers her education and school). I can't quit my job and work on a dream venture, who will pay for my wife's upcoming childbirth and related expenses? Who will ensure we can still make payments on our home and food? Living with parents is definitely a safety net. If you have dependants, you can't afford to take risks.

nichos 7y ago
This may come off rude, but I certainly don't mean it to be, but you have a choice to make. It sounds like you're chosing to have a kid and your wife go to school. If you want to do the startup, skip the kids, have your wife work and support you while you do the startup. Not everyone can have everything.
- Daishiman 7y ago
  So the rich kids get to have their startup and kids. And that definitely tilts the balance for a lot of people.
- turk73 7y ago
  Here's a little tip: The wife and the kid are far more enriching than anything else you will do in life. So don't jeopardize them.
  - majkinetor 7y ago
    Be that as it may, having no money for decent life is sure as hell way to lose your wife and your kid and is happening far far more then the opposite.
    - bradenb 7y ago
      Maybe I'm inferring the wrong thing, but are you suggesting that creating a startup is more likely to provide the money you need to support a family?

bko 7y ago

This is a kind of No True Scotsman fallacy. Anyone that is successful was 'advantaged' because her family was rich, or she had two parents, or she had a parent, or she was born in America, or she was born with the right number of chromosomes... The whole conversation strikes me as just snarky and reductive. I don't see the point. Why not try to promote a conversation to lift people up and empower them rather than writing off the hard work and perseverance of others?

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Well, yes, that's the conversation of intersectionality. It's important to recognize that the 'lone genius' narrative is largely false in order to have the discussion that empowerment is necessary in the first place. Otherwise the overarching narrative may be that people who suceed do so purely under their own power and therefore there is no systematic mistreatment to address (which perpetuates systematic mistreatment). It's true that a wide variety of things contribute to someone's success, and many of them are outside of their power. Being able to acknowledge this can be taken to the extreme, but all of your statements are entirely valid assessments to make that have real effects on how realistically difficult a task may have been- or if the task was possible at all.
wastedhours 7y ago
> Anyone that is successful was 'advantaged' > Why not try to promote a conversation to lift people up and empower them rather than writing off the hard work and perseverance of others? I think these two can live together - if you succeed, there was something that allowed that. Whether it was privilege, whether it was luck, or timing, or the right application of hard work and a blend of them all. It's important to recognise what advantages are best leveraged for success, and then we can optimise to ensure most people have access to it. In the argument in question, what advantage did Airbnb's founders have that allowed them to take that risk? How did they get the flat they were struggling to pay for in the first place for example? Why did they not skip rent and have to work 3 part time retail shifts to cover it like large swathes of workers in a similar boat. Identifying privilege is an important piece of the puzzle - noone succeeds solely by hard work alone (otherwise all coal miners would be millionaires, and 996ers would be everywhere), so if we can spot the factors that successful people leverage, we can support others to get there (whether that's better education, cheaper housing, familial support etc...).

mikeash 7y ago

Typical tech industry nonsense. People stuck in a job because they need the health insurance? People saddled with massive debt because you’ll have a hard time getting hired to manage a McDonald’s without a college degree? Rent increases eating up disposable income? Meh. But being told by some rando on Twitter that you need a safety net to take a risk on a startup? “Incredibly dangerous”! Because if some people who might start a startup instead choose a conventional career, I guess the world will end.

0x445442 7y ago
Yeah, Silicon Valley is pretty much a "Cult of Money" now. Maybe I'm way off base here but it doesn't seem like the mentality of creating products and services which genuinely help people while at the same time providing a living for, say, 100 families for the next 20 years is a thing there. Slightly iterating on and pumping old ideas in social media with the goal of conjuring billion dollar valuations for the next ad platform seems to be the norm.
harrumph 7y ago
>“Incredibly dangerous”! Totally agree about how inane and insufferably out of touch this complaint is. As if today's now-totally-normalized tech company valuations, openly built on nothing more than cash bonfires, aren't dangerous at all.

turk73 7y ago

But it's true--I grew up very blue collar and had a crappy home life and failing meant having to go back to people who abused and belittled me. Thus, I could never afford to fail because the mental fallout of that would have been too big of a price to pay. I'm sure lots of people have this situation, it didn't feel that unique to me.