5 ms·

This is fascinating. In passing, they mention how the highly privileged may conspicuously consume 'immaterial' goods for status, and the less privileged do more

by neilk 6y ago

This is fascinating. In passing, they mention how the highly privileged may conspicuously consume 'immaterial' goods for status, and the less privileged do more traditional conspicuous consumption of expensive goods. So if wantrepreneurism is a form of conspicuous consumption for the privileged - or those who desire to become so - what's the equivalent for the less privileged? I think it has to be MLM and Instagram influencing. The wantrepreneur wants to be a mini-Jobs, but the MLM/Insta dreamer wants to be a mini-Kardashian, hawking products with a glamorous image. But their desire is exploited ruthlessly by a system that promises success but will mostly drain their wallet. Nevertheless a lot of them feel the need to keep going, largely because they've publicly bought into the image. Maybe it's about what forms of success one is exposed to and what one sees is popular among one's peers?

creddit 6y ago
Ha, I really like this analysis. Has a Venkatesh Rao feel to it.
DenisM 6y ago
> Maybe it's about what forms of success one is exposed to and what one sees is popular among one's peers? Fashion is fashion. For some it's a rebellion, a coming of age story, for others it's a way to blend in with the peers, be one of the cool guys. On a tangent: many (most?) investors are playing the same game, only by proxy. This is why the VC industry is losing money as a whole - they aren't there for the money.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  IMO the VC industry as a whole is losing money because a large fraction of them suffer from luck/survivorship bias & lack the wisdom to recognize that was the key to their past successes, and they all have a serious case of FOMO. A lot of tech hype is just hype and the reality is, if you don't understand a technology and if/why it really is superior to existing solutions, you almost certainly aren't going to make money off it.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    >if you don't understand a technology and if/why it really is superior to existing solutions, you almost certainly aren't going to make money off it. Something closely related, but if you do understand a technology, and if/why it really is superior to existing solutions, you would almost certainly already be making money with that technology. So you do need to question a lot of investments into technology firms that have no revenue? They have no enormously expensive hardware component. (Like there is with, say, concentrated solar thermal technology.) There is often no onerous federal regulatory framework they need to navigate. (As exists for FDA compliant health care tech for instance.) Why are people laying out these enormous investments if not something of a combination of vanity and entertainment?
  - baybal2 6y ago
    I always thought that VC funds always had a bit of a cargo cult atmosphere around them.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      Before coming to CA, I worked for financial traders. It was a commonplace that investors are herd animals. VCs are no exception. The cargo cult thing makes a lot of sense to me, honestly. Venture funding is a field where the feedback loops are long and noisy. It takes literal years to see results, and a lot more years to see if somebody is truly good, instead of glib and lucky. By that point, the technologies and trends have changed so much that there's not a lot of reason to think they're still good. And I think the way stakes have gotten larger since Bubble 1.0 makes it so much worse. The amount of money really increases the incentive to do, say, think absolutely anything that might get you a slice of the expected returns.
bilbo0s 6y ago
>Maybe it's about what forms of success one is exposed to and what one sees is popular among one's peers? I wonder if this particular cancer is not more widespread than that? What I mean is this - What if there is a very real perception among the populace, that insta-youtube-dreaming is, in actuality, a good way to make money? Maybe the problem is deeper than simple "peer pressure"? Maybe the issue is that at this point, having seen so many seemingly successful people doing this, the populace has come to believe this is how you can make a living? Just as previously the lower socioeconomic side of the populace believed the way to make a living was to go out and get a job at the town's factory. While working at a grocer was something you did only until you got that job down at the plant. Today, working at Starbucks may be getting viewed as something you do only until your Twitch-Youtube-InstaFaceChat channel gets enough followers. It's a bit depressing when you think about it.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  Eh, I think most people are aware that the odds are long - imo a more apt comparison would be kids of the past dreaming about being pro athletes or rock stars.
notahacker 6y ago
> So if wantrepreneurism is a form of conspicuous consumption for the privileged - or those who desire to become so - what's the equivalent for the less privileged? > I think it has to be MLM and Instagram influencing. The wantrepreneur wants to be a mini-Jobs, but the MLM/Insta dreamer wants to be a mini-Kardashian, hawking products with a glamorous image. But their desire is exploited ruthlessly by a system that promises success but will mostly drain their wallet. Nevertheless a lot of them feel the need to keep going, largely because they've publicly bought into the image. Interesting idea, with the sad conclusion that whilst the average wantrapreneur suffers the opportunity cost of missing out on salary, they might well actually be able to pay themself from some sort of funding and come out with an enhanced CV and personal network, whereas the MLM dreamer who's less able to afford it probably spends more on inventory than they earn on sales and burns their personal network with irritating sales pitches.
- neilk 6y ago
  I think the negatives are often underappreciated. I know founders who ruined their credit, destroyed their friendships, ended lifelong relationships, lost their sanity, and in one case, probably committed suicide. Some do move on to other things and have a lingering sense they are failures, because they knew one or two people who exited with millions who seemed no better than they were. And they don't think they can talk to anyone about any of this, because who would have sympathy? I don't have data, but I think the negative or ambiguous outcomes hit the founders from middle-class or working class backgrounds way harder. This was their one shot. Someone who falls back to their parents' millions will get other chances.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    I think this is true and nearly referenced the psychological downsides in my OP, I'm just perhaps uncharitably assuming the 'wantrapreneur' class dreams of riches and enjoys pitch sessions but has less commitment than most founders to actually executing their idea and hitting targets, and fewer staff and customers to feel they've let down.

by neilk 6y ago

creddit 6y ago

Ha, I really like this analysis. Has a Venkatesh Rao feel to it.

DenisM 6y ago

> Maybe it's about what forms of success one is exposed to and what one sees is popular among one's peers? Fashion is fashion. For some it's a rebellion, a coming of age story, for others it's a way to blend in with the peers, be one of the cool guys. On a tangent: many (most?) investors are playing the same game, only by proxy. This is why the VC industry is losing money as a whole - they aren't there for the money.

Enginerrrd 6y ago
IMO the VC industry as a whole is losing money because a large fraction of them suffer from luck/survivorship bias & lack the wisdom to recognize that was the key to their past successes, and they all have a serious case of FOMO. A lot of tech hype is just hype and the reality is, if you don't understand a technology and if/why it really is superior to existing solutions, you almost certainly aren't going to make money off it.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  >if you don't understand a technology and if/why it really is superior to existing solutions, you almost certainly aren't going to make money off it. Something closely related, but if you do understand a technology, and if/why it really is superior to existing solutions, you would almost certainly already be making money with that technology. So you do need to question a lot of investments into technology firms that have no revenue? They have no enormously expensive hardware component. (Like there is with, say, concentrated solar thermal technology.) There is often no onerous federal regulatory framework they need to navigate. (As exists for FDA compliant health care tech for instance.) Why are people laying out these enormous investments if not something of a combination of vanity and entertainment?
- baybal2 6y ago
  I always thought that VC funds always had a bit of a cargo cult atmosphere around them.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Before coming to CA, I worked for financial traders. It was a commonplace that investors are herd animals. VCs are no exception. The cargo cult thing makes a lot of sense to me, honestly. Venture funding is a field where the feedback loops are long and noisy. It takes literal years to see results, and a lot more years to see if somebody is truly good, instead of glib and lucky. By that point, the technologies and trends have changed so much that there's not a lot of reason to think they're still good. And I think the way stakes have gotten larger since Bubble 1.0 makes it so much worse. The amount of money really increases the incentive to do, say, think absolutely anything that might get you a slice of the expected returns.

bilbo0s 6y ago

>Maybe it's about what forms of success one is exposed to and what one sees is popular among one's peers? I wonder if this particular cancer is not more widespread than that? What I mean is this - What if there is a very real perception among the populace, that insta-youtube-dreaming is, in actuality, a good way to make money? Maybe the problem is deeper than simple "peer pressure"? Maybe the issue is that at this point, having seen so many seemingly successful people doing this, the populace has come to believe this is how you can make a living? Just as previously the lower socioeconomic side of the populace believed the way to make a living was to go out and get a job at the town's factory. While working at a grocer was something you did only until you got that job down at the plant. Today, working at Starbucks may be getting viewed as something you do only until your Twitch-Youtube-InstaFaceChat channel gets enough followers. It's a bit depressing when you think about it.

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
Eh, I think most people are aware that the odds are long - imo a more apt comparison would be kids of the past dreaming about being pro athletes or rock stars.

notahacker 6y ago

> So if wantrepreneurism is a form of conspicuous consumption for the privileged - or those who desire to become so - what's the equivalent for the less privileged? > I think it has to be MLM and Instagram influencing. The wantrepreneur wants to be a mini-Jobs, but the MLM/Insta dreamer wants to be a mini-Kardashian, hawking products with a glamorous image. But their desire is exploited ruthlessly by a system that promises success but will mostly drain their wallet. Nevertheless a lot of them feel the need to keep going, largely because they've publicly bought into the image. Interesting idea, with the sad conclusion that whilst the average wantrapreneur suffers the opportunity cost of missing out on salary, they might well actually be able to pay themself from some sort of funding and come out with an enhanced CV and personal network, whereas the MLM dreamer who's less able to afford it probably spends more on inventory than they earn on sales and burns their personal network with irritating sales pitches.

neilk 6y ago
I think the negatives are often underappreciated. I know founders who ruined their credit, destroyed their friendships, ended lifelong relationships, lost their sanity, and in one case, probably committed suicide. Some do move on to other things and have a lingering sense they are failures, because they knew one or two people who exited with millions who seemed no better than they were. And they don't think they can talk to anyone about any of this, because who would have sympathy? I don't have data, but I think the negative or ambiguous outcomes hit the founders from middle-class or working class backgrounds way harder. This was their one shot. Someone who falls back to their parents' millions will get other chances.
- notahacker 6y ago
  I think this is true and nearly referenced the psychological downsides in my OP, I'm just perhaps uncharitably assuming the 'wantrapreneur' class dreams of riches and enjoys pitch sessions but has less commitment than most founders to actually executing their idea and hitting targets, and fewer staff and customers to feel they've let down.