4 ms·

The reality is that money lets you "take risks," and money gives you options (in this world). To be honest, I don't think that starting your company with the "

The reality is that money lets you "take risks," and money gives you options (in this world). To be honest, I don't think that starting your company with the "risk" that you might move back in with your parents if it fails... is at all a meaningful risk.

zpeti 7y ago
Psychologically this is not true at all. It's much easier to take risks when you have nothing to lose. How many 18-30 year olds do you see having a swing at it and trying something, vs 30+ people with families and savings to burn?
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  My trajectory might not be "normal" but for me I have been more inclined to take risks as I've gotten older. There is a sense of urgency (e.g. if I don't do it now I won't get another chance) that counteracts the feeling of "nothing to lose")
- Timpy 7y ago
  I think everybody in this discussion is working with a different model for the word "risk". This is a problem of concision inherent to a platform like Twitter. I don't think the argument is that 18 year olds are risking less than 30+ year olds with established families. I think the argument is that for young middle/upper class people with social capital, the risk is moving back in with your parents. The conversation stems from the question "are startups riskier for rich kids or not-rich kids?", and not "are startups riskier for 18-30 year olds vs some other demographic?"
- noelsusman 7y ago
  Having nothing to lose is an advantage, but you also need to consider what the worst case scenario is. That's where the safety net comes in. A lot of people don't have anywhere to go if things truly go south.
- theplague42 7y ago
  Most successful startup founders are in their 30s and 40s. Providing a link: https://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2009/04/education-and-tech-entrepreneurship https://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2009/04/educati...
  - zpeti 7y ago
    That's not actually relevant to what I'm saying. The more relevant question would be, what % of 20-30 and 30-40 year olds start businesses? I'm not surprised most become successful over 30, it takes time to learn.
- majkinetor 7y ago
  You always lose time.
Frost1x 7y ago
All the risks are skewed to portray a traditionally projected hopeful image when the reality is: the risks are skewed against the average person. Most start-ups (businesses in general) fail. Hard Work® and Dedication® will only get you so far in this country even though that's the garbage fed to many for generations. A great idea is certainly a good start, then ingenuity/creativity/follow-through go a long way, but many times, success comes down to dumb luck, timing and resources. For evidence, look no further than successful companies that push new product/service lines out which fail and are abandoned--it happens quite often. The American Dream® often boils down to simply rolling the dice. It turns out, you can roll the dice more times if you have more money/wealth when you start to play the game. Everything that isn't the cost of the admission fee can be manufacturing new dice. Heck, with enough money, one can even purchase loaded/weighted dice from your local politicians but I digress. For many, it's hard to roll the dice when you have to decide if you want food and housing or to play the game. Yes, rewards require risks, that's what our economic system encourages (and I agree with this approach) so one shouldn't be risk averse, but everyone needs to acknowledge that risk is a very relative/proportional quantity that needs to be considered for each case. Relative risk for Jeff Bezos starting a local business (let's say a simple coffee shop) is not the same as the relative risk for your local barista turned manager wanting to take their years of Hardwork®, Dedication®, and intimate knowledge of the industry to spin up a business. If Bezos cafe fails, he probably didn't even realize it (a drop in the Olympic sized pool) but if your barista fails, they could be on the streets. Bezos can simply hire others with intimate knowledge and operate at a loss for far longer than your local barista can. They need to eat, perhaps their family does. Perpetuating this oversimplified view isn't good for our society and keeps tossing blame on otherwise productive citizens who simply weren't rewarded the same starting hand of cards and opportunities to seize.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  The discussion reminds me of a founder I knew who was very proud that his successful company was bootstrapped and of how much of a risk taker he was. He’d be quick to point out that in order to be truly successful you needed to “lay it all out on the line” and “have skin in the game.” What he wouldn’t tell you, and you had to dig and do a little internet stalking to find out was that this was his fourth attempt, and after each of his past failed businesses, he’d just fall back to his upper middle class family (attorneys), chilling there while he dreamt up his next business idea. Big risk taker, for sure.
pier25 7y ago
Yeah it's very different when you are in your 40s with a mortgage and kids.

zpeti 7y ago

Psychologically this is not true at all. It's much easier to take risks when you have nothing to lose. How many 18-30 year olds do you see having a swing at it and trying something, vs 30+ people with families and savings to burn?

PaulHoule 7y ago
My trajectory might not be "normal" but for me I have been more inclined to take risks as I've gotten older. There is a sense of urgency (e.g. if I don't do it now I won't get another chance) that counteracts the feeling of "nothing to lose")
Timpy 7y ago
I think everybody in this discussion is working with a different model for the word "risk". This is a problem of concision inherent to a platform like Twitter. I don't think the argument is that 18 year olds are risking less than 30+ year olds with established families. I think the argument is that for young middle/upper class people with social capital, the risk is moving back in with your parents. The conversation stems from the question "are startups riskier for rich kids or not-rich kids?", and not "are startups riskier for 18-30 year olds vs some other demographic?"
noelsusman 7y ago
Having nothing to lose is an advantage, but you also need to consider what the worst case scenario is. That's where the safety net comes in. A lot of people don't have anywhere to go if things truly go south.
theplague42 7y ago
Most successful startup founders are in their 30s and 40s. Providing a link: https://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2009/04/education-and-tech-entrepreneurship https://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2009/04/educati...
- zpeti 7y ago
  That's not actually relevant to what I'm saying. The more relevant question would be, what % of 20-30 and 30-40 year olds start businesses? I'm not surprised most become successful over 30, it takes time to learn.
majkinetor 7y ago
You always lose time.

Frost1x 7y ago

All the risks are skewed to portray a traditionally projected hopeful image when the reality is: the risks are skewed against the average person. Most start-ups (businesses in general) fail. Hard Work® and Dedication® will only get you so far in this country even though that's the garbage fed to many for generations. A great idea is certainly a good start, then ingenuity/creativity/follow-through go a long way, but many times, success comes down to dumb luck, timing and resources. For evidence, look no further than successful companies that push new product/service lines out which fail and are abandoned--it happens quite often. The American Dream® often boils down to simply rolling the dice. It turns out, you can roll the dice more times if you have more money/wealth when you start to play the game. Everything that isn't the cost of the admission fee can be manufacturing new dice. Heck, with enough money, one can even purchase loaded/weighted dice from your local politicians but I digress. For many, it's hard to roll the dice when you have to decide if you want food and housing or to play the game. Yes, rewards require risks, that's what our economic system encourages (and I agree with this approach) so one shouldn't be risk averse, but everyone needs to acknowledge that risk is a very relative/proportional quantity that needs to be considered for each case. Relative risk for Jeff Bezos starting a local business (let's say a simple coffee shop) is not the same as the relative risk for your local barista turned manager wanting to take their years of Hardwork®, Dedication®, and intimate knowledge of the industry to spin up a business. If Bezos cafe fails, he probably didn't even realize it (a drop in the Olympic sized pool) but if your barista fails, they could be on the streets. Bezos can simply hire others with intimate knowledge and operate at a loss for far longer than your local barista can. They need to eat, perhaps their family does. Perpetuating this oversimplified view isn't good for our society and keeps tossing blame on otherwise productive citizens who simply weren't rewarded the same starting hand of cards and opportunities to seize.

ryandrake 7y ago
The discussion reminds me of a founder I knew who was very proud that his successful company was bootstrapped and of how much of a risk taker he was. He’d be quick to point out that in order to be truly successful you needed to “lay it all out on the line” and “have skin in the game.” What he wouldn’t tell you, and you had to dig and do a little internet stalking to find out was that this was his fourth attempt, and after each of his past failed businesses, he’d just fall back to his upper middle class family (attorneys), chilling there while he dreamt up his next business idea. Big risk taker, for sure.

pier25 7y ago

Yeah it's very different when you are in your 40s with a mortgage and kids.