6 ms·

Actually, I think this is almost the perfect response to his article. It's not hard to imagine that a guy who made his fortune off of startups would be biased

Actually, I think this is almost the perfect response to his article. It's not hard to imagine that a guy who made his fortune off of startups would be biased to think that everyone should create a startup and get rich that way. So, after correcting for rich guy tunnel vision, the statement "more people are starting companies" translates to "more people are starting technology companies in Silicon Valley." And of course, as you point out, the reality that the rest of the country is living in is conveniently ignored. So yeah, rich guy writes a blog article saying essentially "people should just do what I did" and water is wet.

jdgoesmarching 6y ago
Agreed. Maybe unpopular opinion, but entrepreneur insights from CEOs are rarely valuable because no individual contribution outweighs sheer luck. Every day millions of people make smart decisions, take good risks, and work hard without significantly improving their conditions. It is pure survivorship bias to think individuals are capable of more than slightly nudging the cosmic needle if it happens to land near the right place. It makes people uncomfortable to think that success is mostly a matter of luck. I am extremely lucky to be where I am in my career, and I greatly respect people who can admit this instead of rambling about “hustle.”
- ritchiea 6y ago
  Not even just luck, there are biases in who gets funding in the first place. PG himself says he's biased toward founders that remind him of Zuckerberg and other past founders. That group is very predominantly white and affluent with a small cut of Asian-american and affluent and a small cut of other. It helps a lot to have an affluent background when you start a tech company because, like a lot of other risky endeavors, even though the potential rewards are enormous it's a lot less initial earnings than just joining a company as an employee. And you worry whether if your company doesn't take off and get its next round of funding in a few months if it'll be harder to get that first job. And you may be poorer than you were pre-startup. Not to mention that poorer kids might not ever see starting a tech startup as an option. Both because of the biases in which founders get funding and because they may culturally never have the option floated to them.
- MomoXenosaga 6y ago
  I recall the 1999 tech bubble. Lots of companies went under in the crash that might have made it today. There is a ton of VC money in Sillicon Valley again.
  - hnick 6y ago
    So where is that VC money getting spent besides salaries? What's the modern equivalent of selling shovels to the miners? AWS?
- TapWaterBandit 6y ago
  > It makes people uncomfortable to think that success is mostly a matter of luck. I constantly hear this sentiment and don't think it makes people uncomfortable at all. If anything it is the opposite, people cling to this idea to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own situation. What makes people far more uncomfortable is the nagging feeling that success isn't mostly a matter of luck. Success is a choice in life that requires restraint, sacrifice, an appetite for risk, and resilience. But if you follow some basic rules (finish high school, don't have kids before marriage, don't do drugs or smoke, minimise alcohol, eat healthy and exercise, don't buy things to impress others), you have a very good chance of being successful in life. Obviously we can't all be billionaires or whatever, but you can definitely live a fairly comfortable and modest life.
  - rcurry 6y ago
    Keith Richards might disagree with you...
  - seattle_spring 6y ago
    Ironically, people I know who did the most drugs in high school (myself included) are the most successful out of the people I know. The straight-laced A students are all way behind.
    - mc32 6y ago
      There’s a bifurcation. Yes, I know kids who did drugs (partied as they say) and have some success in life. I also knew some kids who did drugs and barely graduated or dropped out and did poorly or are just hanging on and a handful who didn’t make it out of young adulthood due to those choices. What we need are statistics to tell us what is more likely, not our particular anecdotes.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - TapWaterBandit 6y ago
      I did plenty of drugs too and am doing just fine as well. Not a million or billionaire, but that is a pretty tough standard to meet. That being said, only drugs I ever did were weed, acid, shrooms, MDMA, and trying the odd pharmaceutical. Never any opoids of any sort, never meth etc. And in terms of broad advice, I think not doing drugs is still a fairly consistent rule for good outcomes.
darkwater 6y ago
> So yeah, rich guy writes a blog article saying essentially "people should just do what I did" and water is wet. I think it's even better. Rich guy that became reach by funding tech startups says: "wanna become a billionaire? The easiest way nowadays is funding a tech company! I can help!"
- ritchiea 6y ago
  I am a bit of a PG critic myself at times but he became rich from selling his own startup. He became richer by starting YC but he didn't need to start YC. Based on his essays he basically had enough money to be set for life from selling Viaweb and when he started YC he was looking for something to do next other than just retire.
  - pm90 6y ago
    He didn’t become famous until YC. I’m also annoyed when people make the argument that goes: “person X became rich from A he didn’t need to do B”. Maslows hierarchy holds true for all of us. Once he got wealth he desired influence (and power).
ashtonbaker 6y ago
This is a huge part of "start up culture" though - like any religion (or lottery, or whatever), superstition plays a large part, and the most important superstition is that those who have been successful before know how to do it again.
- samatman 6y ago
  It's not religious to observe that founders who made a successful exit are well-poised to do it again. They're swimming in money, they have a bunch of investors in their phone contacts, and they know all the ins and outs from the last time they put a startup through its life cycle. How could they not be in better shape than some kid slurping ramen in his first YC cohort? This does leave two big wildcards: the idea (specifically its product-market fit) and pure dumb luck. From what you wrote, I'm guessing that you think this isn't realized by the "cult of YC" as well as it should be, whereas I guess differently, but it doesn't matter that much. We all recognize that it's there, and without those two ingredients you can't succeed. As an aside, I've seen two different kinds of 'luck' come up in these kinds of conversations: the sort I'm referring to above, and the sundry genetic and social inheritances to which a person is heir. They're both valid uses of the word, I think the first is more obviously lucky than the latter. It is luck of a sort that someone is 2 meters tall, but I bet their parents were also taller than average, so saying that it's lucky that they were able to be a pro at basketball is going to confuse some people. There was no "them" before the peculiar genetic combination which conceived them, and after that, we're talking about some favorable circumstances (adequate time, a court, no crippling car accidents or stray bullets) and a great deal of hard work. Similarly, you can call it luck that Jeff Bezos was able to borrow a quarter million from his family, or that Elon Musk apparently can sleep for four hours and work for twenty, constantly, for decades (a genetic quirk no less special and rare than being two meters tall): but you can call it fate as well.
  - ashtonbaker 6y ago
    No real argument with this! I think we're talking about different things. If I could put my difference in opinion in my own words, it would be that I believe many people play the startup game with the right "intrinsic" qualities - hard work, brilliance, etc - many more than the number who exit with a billion dollars. Hence, "lottery". Of course, some of that luck can carry forward in terms of experience, networking... That's not really my point either. If Paul Graham wants to join our startup, I wouldn't have to disavow my beliefs to welcome him with open arms. That would obviously be to our great benefit. The leadership team would tout his resume, and look forward to his insightful contributions. I, on the other hand, believe that his primary contribution would be to generate a bunch of "Paul Graham Joins X Startup" headlines, increasing our value in the eyes of VC. The religion is this: you can hire Developer X or Developer Y. "X" was an early employee at a successful startup, where "Y" seems much more technically proficient. I think many startups choose "X" and don't even consider whether they're doing that for status within the startup world (which is what I believe), or because they genuinely believe that having a successful startup under their belt means - even in the face of evidence to the contrary - that the company is more likely to achieve a billion-dollar valuation with "X" than with "Y". You could argue for either justification, honestly, but it's the failure to see a distinction that strikes me as religious. And also, Paul Graham's ability to found another successful company aside, the clinging to his every word is /definitely/ religious to me.
aerosmile 6y ago
> So yeah, rich guy writes a blog article saying essentially "people should just do what I did" and water is wet. Are you actually seriously complaining about the argument that you'd be better off starting a tech company than a non-tech company? I didn't realize that was even up for debate. Sure, that's how PG made his money, but that doesn't make his argument any less accurate. Just because there's a concept of a success bias, it doesn't automatically apply to every argument.

jdgoesmarching 6y ago

Agreed. Maybe unpopular opinion, but entrepreneur insights from CEOs are rarely valuable because no individual contribution outweighs sheer luck. Every day millions of people make smart decisions, take good risks, and work hard without significantly improving their conditions. It is pure survivorship bias to think individuals are capable of more than slightly nudging the cosmic needle if it happens to land near the right place. It makes people uncomfortable to think that success is mostly a matter of luck. I am extremely lucky to be where I am in my career, and I greatly respect people who can admit this instead of rambling about “hustle.”

ritchiea 6y ago
Not even just luck, there are biases in who gets funding in the first place. PG himself says he's biased toward founders that remind him of Zuckerberg and other past founders. That group is very predominantly white and affluent with a small cut of Asian-american and affluent and a small cut of other. It helps a lot to have an affluent background when you start a tech company because, like a lot of other risky endeavors, even though the potential rewards are enormous it's a lot less initial earnings than just joining a company as an employee. And you worry whether if your company doesn't take off and get its next round of funding in a few months if it'll be harder to get that first job. And you may be poorer than you were pre-startup. Not to mention that poorer kids might not ever see starting a tech startup as an option. Both because of the biases in which founders get funding and because they may culturally never have the option floated to them.
MomoXenosaga 6y ago
I recall the 1999 tech bubble. Lots of companies went under in the crash that might have made it today. There is a ton of VC money in Sillicon Valley again.
- hnick 6y ago
  So where is that VC money getting spent besides salaries? What's the modern equivalent of selling shovels to the miners? AWS?
TapWaterBandit 6y ago
> It makes people uncomfortable to think that success is mostly a matter of luck. I constantly hear this sentiment and don't think it makes people uncomfortable at all. If anything it is the opposite, people cling to this idea to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own situation. What makes people far more uncomfortable is the nagging feeling that success isn't mostly a matter of luck. Success is a choice in life that requires restraint, sacrifice, an appetite for risk, and resilience. But if you follow some basic rules (finish high school, don't have kids before marriage, don't do drugs or smoke, minimise alcohol, eat healthy and exercise, don't buy things to impress others), you have a very good chance of being successful in life. Obviously we can't all be billionaires or whatever, but you can definitely live a fairly comfortable and modest life.
- rcurry 6y ago
  Keith Richards might disagree with you...
- seattle_spring 6y ago
  Ironically, people I know who did the most drugs in high school (myself included) are the most successful out of the people I know. The straight-laced A students are all way behind.
  - mc32 6y ago
    There’s a bifurcation. Yes, I know kids who did drugs (partied as they say) and have some success in life. I also knew some kids who did drugs and barely graduated or dropped out and did poorly or are just hanging on and a handful who didn’t make it out of young adulthood due to those choices. What we need are statistics to tell us what is more likely, not our particular anecdotes.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - TapWaterBandit 6y ago
    I did plenty of drugs too and am doing just fine as well. Not a million or billionaire, but that is a pretty tough standard to meet. That being said, only drugs I ever did were weed, acid, shrooms, MDMA, and trying the odd pharmaceutical. Never any opoids of any sort, never meth etc. And in terms of broad advice, I think not doing drugs is still a fairly consistent rule for good outcomes.

darkwater 6y ago

> So yeah, rich guy writes a blog article saying essentially "people should just do what I did" and water is wet. I think it's even better. Rich guy that became reach by funding tech startups says: "wanna become a billionaire? The easiest way nowadays is funding a tech company! I can help!"

ritchiea 6y ago
I am a bit of a PG critic myself at times but he became rich from selling his own startup. He became richer by starting YC but he didn't need to start YC. Based on his essays he basically had enough money to be set for life from selling Viaweb and when he started YC he was looking for something to do next other than just retire.
- pm90 6y ago
  He didn’t become famous until YC. I’m also annoyed when people make the argument that goes: “person X became rich from A he didn’t need to do B”. Maslows hierarchy holds true for all of us. Once he got wealth he desired influence (and power).

ashtonbaker 6y ago

This is a huge part of "start up culture" though - like any religion (or lottery, or whatever), superstition plays a large part, and the most important superstition is that those who have been successful before know how to do it again.

samatman 6y ago
It's not religious to observe that founders who made a successful exit are well-poised to do it again. They're swimming in money, they have a bunch of investors in their phone contacts, and they know all the ins and outs from the last time they put a startup through its life cycle. How could they not be in better shape than some kid slurping ramen in his first YC cohort? This does leave two big wildcards: the idea (specifically its product-market fit) and pure dumb luck. From what you wrote, I'm guessing that you think this isn't realized by the "cult of YC" as well as it should be, whereas I guess differently, but it doesn't matter that much. We all recognize that it's there, and without those two ingredients you can't succeed. As an aside, I've seen two different kinds of 'luck' come up in these kinds of conversations: the sort I'm referring to above, and the sundry genetic and social inheritances to which a person is heir. They're both valid uses of the word, I think the first is more obviously lucky than the latter. It is luck of a sort that someone is 2 meters tall, but I bet their parents were also taller than average, so saying that it's lucky that they were able to be a pro at basketball is going to confuse some people. There was no "them" before the peculiar genetic combination which conceived them, and after that, we're talking about some favorable circumstances (adequate time, a court, no crippling car accidents or stray bullets) and a great deal of hard work. Similarly, you can call it luck that Jeff Bezos was able to borrow a quarter million from his family, or that Elon Musk apparently can sleep for four hours and work for twenty, constantly, for decades (a genetic quirk no less special and rare than being two meters tall): but you can call it fate as well.
- ashtonbaker 6y ago
  No real argument with this! I think we're talking about different things. If I could put my difference in opinion in my own words, it would be that I believe many people play the startup game with the right "intrinsic" qualities - hard work, brilliance, etc - many more than the number who exit with a billion dollars. Hence, "lottery". Of course, some of that luck can carry forward in terms of experience, networking... That's not really my point either. If Paul Graham wants to join our startup, I wouldn't have to disavow my beliefs to welcome him with open arms. That would obviously be to our great benefit. The leadership team would tout his resume, and look forward to his insightful contributions. I, on the other hand, believe that his primary contribution would be to generate a bunch of "Paul Graham Joins X Startup" headlines, increasing our value in the eyes of VC. The religion is this: you can hire Developer X or Developer Y. "X" was an early employee at a successful startup, where "Y" seems much more technically proficient. I think many startups choose "X" and don't even consider whether they're doing that for status within the startup world (which is what I believe), or because they genuinely believe that having a successful startup under their belt means - even in the face of evidence to the contrary - that the company is more likely to achieve a billion-dollar valuation with "X" than with "Y". You could argue for either justification, honestly, but it's the failure to see a distinction that strikes me as religious. And also, Paul Graham's ability to found another successful company aside, the clinging to his every word is /definitely/ religious to me.

aerosmile 6y ago

> So yeah, rich guy writes a blog article saying essentially "people should just do what I did" and water is wet. Are you actually seriously complaining about the argument that you'd be better off starting a tech company than a non-tech company? I didn't realize that was even up for debate. Sure, that's how PG made his money, but that doesn't make his argument any less accurate. Just because there's a concept of a success bias, it doesn't automatically apply to every argument.