3 ms·

As someone also not coming from money and being self employed I strongly disagree with your view here. I think you romanticise a lack of funds and miss the poin

As someone also not coming from money and being self employed I strongly disagree with your view here. I think you romanticise a lack of funds and miss the point of risk entirely. Is it possible to make a living and be comfortably financially independent with a business even without a safety net? Absolutely. Is the stuff one does in such a situation "disruptive"? Hell no. It's freelance consulting (low risk, high margin "time for money") or maybe an agency or niche SaaS in 80% of the cases. That is not "risk taking" business. Look at successful founders - for example Slack - and you'll see many tried several ventures before hitting a model which scaled up big time. And this kind of risk taking - which brings you in the really huge league - is definitely a) more comfortable with a safety net and b) has a higher outcome to lead to success over time. Do bootstrapped ventures go big? Sure, I'd argue significantly less often and doing so in areas where either timing (technology, market cycle) was critically in their favour.

nickjj 7y ago
For every Slack there's dozens or even hundreds / thousands of small businesses happily chugging along with no funding and have enough to keep them happy. My personal goal isn't to be in the "really big leagues". I would much rather stay a small business than get massive amounts of funding with intent to cash out ASAP. I trade time for money but it's much different than a traditional job. I'm not forced into a schedule defined by someone else. I can choose to put in 80 hours a week and get paid for 80 hours or put in 10 hours a week and get paid for 10 hours. Also for the last few years I've been doing things that help generate income without trading direct time, such as creating video courses.