8 ms·

A lot of people here need to talk to some entrepreneurs. It doesn't matter how good, or how well funded, the school system is: if the family is poor, you're no

A lot of people here need to talk to some entrepreneurs. It doesn't matter how good, or how well funded, the school system is: if the family is poor, you're not going to be able to float rent on the storefront you need, or purchase initial inventory of whatever you're making, much less soak up a few false starts, much less take out a bank loan to do any of these things. Period. This does not in ANY WAY mean there shouldn't be good school funding across the board. It means that anybody who thinks 'the schools are now funded, so the kids from poor families are now equally able to start a business' is high… or disingenuous. Let's assume these kids are hungrier, more motivated, and just generally better than most people. If you expect them to simply get busy competing with lazier and less capable kids from wealth and privilege, because they ARE better than the lazy rich, you are overlooking the role of generational capital and access to capital. It would not matter if you were in fact significantly better, smarter and more motivated: banks want collateral, and entrepreneurial exploits don't always bootstrap up from zero. I think it's far more common to prime the pump, sometimes to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each time. By all means educate, but don't con yourself that it will matter, in the absence of any other changes.

borodi 5y ago
As always, the easiest way to be successful is to be born in a successful family
- water8 5y ago
  Its better to be born in the 95th percentile in intelligence vs the 95th percentile in wealth in terms of where you will actually end up.
  - syops 5y ago
    Do you have evidence for this? My impression is the opposite but I have no evidence that I'm right or wrong. It's just an impression that I have.
  - dwater 5y ago
    I’m going to need a reference to support that claim. I did some searching and the closest I could find was a 2019 Georgetown study that said it was better to be affluent and in the bottom 25% of test scores than poor and in the top 25%.
    - water8 5y ago
      How about world renown psychiatrist Jordan Peterson: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk
  - moate 5y ago
    Citations[1] Needed[2] Please[3]. 1-https://users.nber.org/~denardim/research/Wealthsurvey.pdf https://users.nber.org/~denardim/research/Wealthsurvey.pdf - 2https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68507/13/Karagiannaki_Effect%20of%20parental%20wealth.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68507/13/Karagiannaki_Effect%20of%... 3-https://ifs.org.uk/publications/14954 https://ifs.org.uk/publications/14954
  - bernulli 5y ago
    Not that I’m a fan, but Malcolm Gladwell wrote a whole book (Outliers) about how this is not true.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Not that I’m a fan, but Malcolm Gladwell wrote a whole book (Outliers) about how this is not true. IIRC, that book cited a study by someone who strongly believed that IQ was a strong predictor of great success...and his own study found that wasn't true. IIRC, he followed a bunch of very high IQ kids from childhood to adulthood, and the most successful of them only achieved middling success.
      - wheelinsupial 5y ago
        Are you referring to the comparison between Robert Oppenheimer and Christopher Langan in Outliers? From Christopher Langan’s Wikipedia entry [1], “In comparing the lack of academic and life success of Langan to the successes of Robert Oppenheimer, journalist Malcolm Gladwell, in his 2008 book Outliers, points to the background and social skills of the two men.” It seems to argue that intelligence alone isn’t enough to succeed. I’m not sure how middling success is defined, but results from Vanderbilt’s study of mathematically precocious youth over a 49 year period seems to say, “by mid-life they were extraordinarily accomplished and enjoyed a high level of life satisfaction.”[2] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan [2] https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/degrees-programs/smpy_wat.php https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/degrees-programs/smpy_wat.php
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - suifbwish 5y ago
    People are doubting you but they fail to realize that the more intelligent the person, the more consequential functional applications they can see in everything around them. The difference between a baboon and a human genius is their ability to see tools and techniques by looking at what is around them. We might also consider that money, gold and other non useful items have valuable largely because very smart and influential people convinced everyone they do. The ability to persuade people of what is real and valuable is an aspect of intelligence that is in a class all its own. side question, why do people who are poor remain in cities and heavily populated areas? Rural areas are much cheaper and the quality of life is much higher generally for the same dollar. Also in the city you and your loved ones are more likely to become the victim of a crime or wrongfully convicted for a crime not committed, addicted to drugs, incarcerated ect ect. It’s also worth noting that most of the US pop lives in city or highly crowded suburban areas, so although not proven its suspectable that most of the leading health related causes of death arise from conditions in those areas. Moving to a new area is much preferable to an impoverished family trying to fight poverty in a system where the sample size is adequate to predict that they are in essence trying to win against a rigged casino game
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - AndresNavarro 5y ago
      People stay in cities because there are more opportunities there and they have a support network. I have a property in a very small town around (1000 inhabitants, about 130 kms from the city) and I think it's great: kids can play in the street, I can hear and see horses when I go for a run on dirt roads, nice people, slower living with a close contact with nature. But then again I can work from anywhere and name my price, I have an appartmt in the city and a car and can switch between them as I please. If you are poor and want to move there it would probably be hell: no much opportunities for a formal job and no one to rely on if you are an outsider... Poor people are not stupid
    - michaelbrave 5y ago
      I've lived in the country and I've lived in the city. If you do anything that requires networks of people living in the country will hurt your chances, this even applies to learning about stuff you're curious about, without a community it's way harder to do, and that community just doesn't exist when there aren't enough people. The internet has alleviated this somewhat but for some things nothing beats in person. There is also something to be said about regional attitudes. If you grow up as the only kid in town interested in Robotics when everyone else your age is into Football, you're going to have a hard time. This isn't even touching the fact that jobs are scarce in these small towns, unless you are a remote tech worker, but even then good luck getting a decent internet connection, even more so now that some politicians are trying to outlaw municipal ISPs. Also the stats for country living aren't nearly as spotless as people want to believe, Meth is a big problem, teen pregnancies too, even suicide is high and rising in Rural America. Calling it safer or even more wholesome is questionable at best. Suicide in Rural America on the rise (2019) https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/suicide-rates-are-rising-especially-rural-america-n1050806 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/suicide-rates-a... Drug overdose death rate 10% higher in Rural America (2019) https://www.gatewayfoundation.org/addiction-blog/rural-substance-abuse/ https://www.gatewayfoundation.org/addiction-blog/rural-subst... Why is Teen Pregnancy Higher in Rural Areas? (2016) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/teen-birth-rate-higher-rural-areas https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/teen-birth-rate-higher-r...
  - KSteffensen 5y ago
    The Dunedin study found that intelligence is a weak predictor for life success[0]. From my brief search (they have a LOT of publications) I couldn't find any publications from them on family wealth as a predictor. [0]: https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1571970023782.pdf https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1571970023782.pdf
- tclancy 5y ago
  The best way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one. And then buy a boat.
- duud 5y ago
  And in a (economically) successful country. You make more as a ditch digger in a developed country than a doctor, engineer, etc in a developing country.
  - codq 5y ago
    Perhaps, but relatively speaking it’s not necessarily a better life. You’d likely rather be a doctor in Belize then a ditch digger in Manhattan, quality of life-wise.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Not sure, the people I know they get to do construction outside and have a very defined work/non-work schedule don’t necessarily hate their job. Quality of life wise, what really matters is how secure you feel in regards to family life. For example, one might likely rather be a ditch digger in Manhattan then a doctor in Brazil that has to live with the daily threat of kidnappings.
      - unknown_error 5y ago
        TLDR to be happy, one simply must be a kidnapper in Brazil with a good family and set schedule.
- Trinotom 5y ago
  The definition of success is very intricate, from having much money, friends, stable and rewarding jobs to winning novel prizes or just getting married, living for themselves. But at least, I don't think it's successful to be content without having hardships or discipline for their families.
grumblenum 5y ago
Here I thought I was underachieving because I was reading HN comments instead of doing anything productive. Now I see that the world, or at least subsets of the population I’m allowed to blame for my problems, has wronged me, which appeals to my petty sense of envy and bitterness and assuages the guilt I had about not actually trying. Perhaps this inequality is actually a grand conspiracy. I wish the press, academia, and the boards of basically every major company were woke to this crisis.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Don't get it twisted. By all means DO stuff. It's not going to wind up making you rich unless your family was rich, and if you're not rich, you're not going to be able to buy your way into mainstream attention, either. Go ahead and DO stuff. If you're the kind of person where it doesn't matter unless you can 'scale' and get real competitive with all the other heavy hitters, I guess don't bother? I would humbly suggest that the best recipe for making it big is having the resources to support your attempt, AND doing something that you would still care about if you were just small time. Just saying.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- afarrell 5y ago
  Different goals for different conversations. Your therapist or coach should be talking to you about the importance of taking care of yourself and getting after your own individual goals. Your school board and legislature should be talking about solving systemic problems. Don’t spitefully wait for your legislature to act before you start exercising self-discipline. Don’t get in the way of people trying to solve systemic problems because they make your self-discipline less needed in some way.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  You are correct. The homeless camps across the United States are no doubt full of people not actually trying.
bsder 5y ago
Agreed. Bill Gates was smart, but: 1) He had access to a computer via his prep school in 1968. This is way ahead of the vast majority of people in the world. Money bought him 5-10 years of advance knowledge. 2) Gates' mother had direct access to the IBM CEO 3) Gates' father could cut a sudden check to the tune of $50,000 to back his son's business venture Kildall was just as smart as Gates, but didn't have the advantages.
- hodgesrm 5y ago
  It's not clear what Gary Kildall has to do with this argument. He had a Ph.D. in computer science and developed one of the first successful operating system for microcomputers. It's really hard to see him as disadvantaged. The legend of course is that he whiffed one of the biggest business opportunities in the history of computing, but lots of people have blown it in business. [1] The IBM story was interesting because Kildall was already successful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall
  - bsder 5y ago
    Kildall couldn't "bet the farm" like Gates could because he didn't have the fallback of rich parents. The business was the fallback and he wasn't going to bet it. Kildall couldn't break the IBM logjam with CP/M because he couldn't call the IBM CEO directly.
    - CheezeIt 5y ago
      Most people have parents with a couch you can crash on.
- deepnotderp 5y ago
  How is Kildall relevant here? The event that's credited to CP/M's downfall has nothing to do with $$s
- fumar 5y ago
  I didn’t find a citation for #3, but if it is accurate that would be over $300,000 USD today. We can agree that families who can provide a similar level of investment for their children’s business or educational projects are better positioned than those who have less or near-zero financial support. Whether the beneficiary takes advantage or maximizes their position is a key variable in success.
notJim 5y ago
Is it right to focus so much on entrepreneurship? Of course at the top, it matters a lot, but isn't a lot of mobility also driven by more average careers?
- monkeydreams 5y ago
  > Of course at the top, it matters a lot, but isn't a lot of mobility also driven by more average careers? Given wage stagnation across much of the Western world, largely driven by "liberal" economic and monetary policy, there is a lot of downward pressure on the benefits of "average" (Non FAANG) careers.
  - alpha_squared 5y ago
    > largely driven by "liberal" economic and monetary policy Mind expanding a little more on that?
    - monkeydreams 5y ago
      IANAE - but this is my understanding. Until the early 70's the primary method of managing national economies was via the level of spending a country enacted with less regard given to the level of debt a country held. Economies were more tightly regulated, protections were much stronger in many western countries, and union participation was more common than today. After a round of economic crisis, with each of them seemingly resistant to influence by the economic tools of the day, countries began to move toward managing their economies through a) promoting the freedom of the market (liberalism) and b) managing spending and economic control through the availability of money (monetary policy), with centralisation of national interest rate levels enacted through central banks. This worked to a greater or lesser degree (economists seemingly cannot agree) and governments became more open to reform of economic institutions to give more power to the market. This has led to a lessening of strength in those areas of the economy which can impact the free-market (i.e. union membership) and has now become a force for removing non-economic impediments to corporations to seek the lowest wages possible (such as immigration reform to reduce labour costs, etc). Meanwhile monetary policy has led to ever-decreasing interest rates, which has led to previously "non-economic" goods to become commodities. Housing is a great example, with houses now considered by many to be an asset class which should return continual return in capital value, rather than as a right. Bank accounts are returning functionally zero and less than zero percent returns, which impacts the poor most of all. NFT, crypto, etc, are another - these did not exist prior to monetary policy but they are reacting like an asset class whose existence is used as a stop-gap by those borrowers to avoid holding cash. The world is sloshing with free and near-free money, and it is sending asset classes crazy. So, costs go up for the poor as they are competing for essentials with rich people who see the same good as an asset class to park investment. The poor get higher interest rates on their loans, so their cost of living goes up. Their wages are negatively impacted through increased competition with people not only in their local area, but globally. Their bank accounts - which previously have returned at a rate higher than inflation, are now being eaten away by fees, negative rates AND inflation.
claudiawerner 5y ago
>if the family is poor, you're not going to be able to float rent on the storefront you need, or purchase initial inventory of whatever you're making, much less soak up a few false starts, much less take out a bank loan to do any of these things. Max Stirner made this point in 1844: "Free competition is not “free,” because I lack the things for competition. Against my person no objection can be made, but because I have not the things my person too must step to the rear. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps that manufacturer? Why, from him I could take them away! No, the State has them as property, the manufacturer only as fief, as possession."
economusty 5y ago
That's all true. The problem is two fold: poor AND stupid people can't start businesses. Funding the schools solves half the problem. Smart and poor people can start businesses they just need to rely on partners for funding.
- forbiddenvoid 5y ago
  It's more sinister than that. It's not only poor people who can't start businesses. Or we need to change our definition of poor. Who among the middle class could safely start a new business without putting their livelihood at risk? It's not a large number. Rich people can not only start businesses, they can start many businesses. They can beat the statistics of business start up failure because there is little risk for them when a business fails.
prestigious 5y ago
Generational wealth is way overstated. Steve jobs didn’t have generational wealth. Airbnb was funded by selling obama branded cereal.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Yes, we can point to exceptions.
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    Inherited wealth is rather an exception: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-richest-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-riche... Of course, rich kid will not end up like poor kid, but they will be much less rich than their parents.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    What exceptions? Don't you have any restaurants or dry cleaners or any other small businesses around where you live which were started by poor immigrants?
    - KSteffensen 5y ago
      That seems like a strange comparison. Apple and my local kebab shop are not businesses in the same league and never will be.
      - nec4b 5y ago
        I hope you don't think only a multi billion dollar companies count as success. The point is: a lot of poor people start businesses all the time and a lot of them end up successful.
        oblio 5y ago
        > The point is: a lot of poor people start businesses all the time and a lot of them end up successful What's "a lot". My bet is on the majority failing, and by that, I mean, going bankrupt before even breaking even.
dennis_jeeves 5y ago
> By all means educate, but don't con yourself that it will matter, in the absence of any other changes. Most people who are not rich do con themself with that belief. Life becomes bearable only if you have a degree of delusion.
onetimeusename 5y ago
Do you have any evidence or reasoning that the kids from poor families are 'hungrier, more motivated' and 'ARE better than the lazy rich'? These things should probably be discussed and proven before we make changes based on those assumptions.

borodi 5y ago

As always, the easiest way to be successful is to be born in a successful family

water8 5y ago
Its better to be born in the 95th percentile in intelligence vs the 95th percentile in wealth in terms of where you will actually end up.
- syops 5y ago
  Do you have evidence for this? My impression is the opposite but I have no evidence that I'm right or wrong. It's just an impression that I have.
- dwater 5y ago
  I’m going to need a reference to support that claim. I did some searching and the closest I could find was a 2019 Georgetown study that said it was better to be affluent and in the bottom 25% of test scores than poor and in the top 25%.
  - water8 5y ago
    How about world renown psychiatrist Jordan Peterson: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk
- moate 5y ago
  Citations[1] Needed[2] Please[3]. 1-https://users.nber.org/~denardim/research/Wealthsurvey.pdf https://users.nber.org/~denardim/research/Wealthsurvey.pdf - 2https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68507/13/Karagiannaki_Effect%20of%20parental%20wealth.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68507/13/Karagiannaki_Effect%20of%... 3-https://ifs.org.uk/publications/14954 https://ifs.org.uk/publications/14954
- bernulli 5y ago
  Not that I’m a fan, but Malcolm Gladwell wrote a whole book (Outliers) about how this is not true.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Not that I’m a fan, but Malcolm Gladwell wrote a whole book (Outliers) about how this is not true. IIRC, that book cited a study by someone who strongly believed that IQ was a strong predictor of great success...and his own study found that wasn't true. IIRC, he followed a bunch of very high IQ kids from childhood to adulthood, and the most successful of them only achieved middling success.
    - wheelinsupial 5y ago
      Are you referring to the comparison between Robert Oppenheimer and Christopher Langan in Outliers? From Christopher Langan’s Wikipedia entry [1], “In comparing the lack of academic and life success of Langan to the successes of Robert Oppenheimer, journalist Malcolm Gladwell, in his 2008 book Outliers, points to the background and social skills of the two men.” It seems to argue that intelligence alone isn’t enough to succeed. I’m not sure how middling success is defined, but results from Vanderbilt’s study of mathematically precocious youth over a 49 year period seems to say, “by mid-life they were extraordinarily accomplished and enjoyed a high level of life satisfaction.”[2] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan [2] https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/degrees-programs/smpy_wat.php https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/degrees-programs/smpy_wat.php
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- suifbwish 5y ago
  People are doubting you but they fail to realize that the more intelligent the person, the more consequential functional applications they can see in everything around them. The difference between a baboon and a human genius is their ability to see tools and techniques by looking at what is around them. We might also consider that money, gold and other non useful items have valuable largely because very smart and influential people convinced everyone they do. The ability to persuade people of what is real and valuable is an aspect of intelligence that is in a class all its own. side question, why do people who are poor remain in cities and heavily populated areas? Rural areas are much cheaper and the quality of life is much higher generally for the same dollar. Also in the city you and your loved ones are more likely to become the victim of a crime or wrongfully convicted for a crime not committed, addicted to drugs, incarcerated ect ect. It’s also worth noting that most of the US pop lives in city or highly crowded suburban areas, so although not proven its suspectable that most of the leading health related causes of death arise from conditions in those areas. Moving to a new area is much preferable to an impoverished family trying to fight poverty in a system where the sample size is adequate to predict that they are in essence trying to win against a rigged casino game
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - AndresNavarro 5y ago
    People stay in cities because there are more opportunities there and they have a support network. I have a property in a very small town around (1000 inhabitants, about 130 kms from the city) and I think it's great: kids can play in the street, I can hear and see horses when I go for a run on dirt roads, nice people, slower living with a close contact with nature. But then again I can work from anywhere and name my price, I have an appartmt in the city and a car and can switch between them as I please. If you are poor and want to move there it would probably be hell: no much opportunities for a formal job and no one to rely on if you are an outsider... Poor people are not stupid
  - michaelbrave 5y ago
    I've lived in the country and I've lived in the city. If you do anything that requires networks of people living in the country will hurt your chances, this even applies to learning about stuff you're curious about, without a community it's way harder to do, and that community just doesn't exist when there aren't enough people. The internet has alleviated this somewhat but for some things nothing beats in person. There is also something to be said about regional attitudes. If you grow up as the only kid in town interested in Robotics when everyone else your age is into Football, you're going to have a hard time. This isn't even touching the fact that jobs are scarce in these small towns, unless you are a remote tech worker, but even then good luck getting a decent internet connection, even more so now that some politicians are trying to outlaw municipal ISPs. Also the stats for country living aren't nearly as spotless as people want to believe, Meth is a big problem, teen pregnancies too, even suicide is high and rising in Rural America. Calling it safer or even more wholesome is questionable at best. Suicide in Rural America on the rise (2019) https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/suicide-rates-are-rising-especially-rural-america-n1050806 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/suicide-rates-a... Drug overdose death rate 10% higher in Rural America (2019) https://www.gatewayfoundation.org/addiction-blog/rural-substance-abuse/ https://www.gatewayfoundation.org/addiction-blog/rural-subst... Why is Teen Pregnancy Higher in Rural Areas? (2016) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/teen-birth-rate-higher-rural-areas https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/teen-birth-rate-higher-r...
- KSteffensen 5y ago
  The Dunedin study found that intelligence is a weak predictor for life success[0]. From my brief search (they have a LOT of publications) I couldn't find any publications from them on family wealth as a predictor. [0]: https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1571970023782.pdf https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1571970023782.pdf
tclancy 5y ago
The best way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one. And then buy a boat.
duud 5y ago
And in a (economically) successful country. You make more as a ditch digger in a developed country than a doctor, engineer, etc in a developing country.
- codq 5y ago
  Perhaps, but relatively speaking it’s not necessarily a better life. You’d likely rather be a doctor in Belize then a ditch digger in Manhattan, quality of life-wise.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Not sure, the people I know they get to do construction outside and have a very defined work/non-work schedule don’t necessarily hate their job. Quality of life wise, what really matters is how secure you feel in regards to family life. For example, one might likely rather be a ditch digger in Manhattan then a doctor in Brazil that has to live with the daily threat of kidnappings.
    - unknown_error 5y ago
      TLDR to be happy, one simply must be a kidnapper in Brazil with a good family and set schedule.
Trinotom 5y ago
The definition of success is very intricate, from having much money, friends, stable and rewarding jobs to winning novel prizes or just getting married, living for themselves. But at least, I don't think it's successful to be content without having hardships or discipline for their families.

grumblenum 5y ago

Here I thought I was underachieving because I was reading HN comments instead of doing anything productive. Now I see that the world, or at least subsets of the population I’m allowed to blame for my problems, has wronged me, which appeals to my petty sense of envy and bitterness and assuages the guilt I had about not actually trying. Perhaps this inequality is actually a grand conspiracy. I wish the press, academia, and the boards of basically every major company were woke to this crisis.

Applejinx 5y ago
Don't get it twisted. By all means DO stuff. It's not going to wind up making you rich unless your family was rich, and if you're not rich, you're not going to be able to buy your way into mainstream attention, either. Go ahead and DO stuff. If you're the kind of person where it doesn't matter unless you can 'scale' and get real competitive with all the other heavy hitters, I guess don't bother? I would humbly suggest that the best recipe for making it big is having the resources to support your attempt, AND doing something that you would still care about if you were just small time. Just saying.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
afarrell 5y ago
Different goals for different conversations. Your therapist or coach should be talking to you about the importance of taking care of yourself and getting after your own individual goals. Your school board and legislature should be talking about solving systemic problems. Don’t spitefully wait for your legislature to act before you start exercising self-discipline. Don’t get in the way of people trying to solve systemic problems because they make your self-discipline less needed in some way.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JKCalhoun 5y ago
You are correct. The homeless camps across the United States are no doubt full of people not actually trying.

bsder 5y ago

Agreed. Bill Gates was smart, but: 1) He had access to a computer via his prep school in 1968. This is way ahead of the vast majority of people in the world. Money bought him 5-10 years of advance knowledge. 2) Gates' mother had direct access to the IBM CEO 3) Gates' father could cut a sudden check to the tune of $50,000 to back his son's business venture Kildall was just as smart as Gates, but didn't have the advantages.

hodgesrm 5y ago
It's not clear what Gary Kildall has to do with this argument. He had a Ph.D. in computer science and developed one of the first successful operating system for microcomputers. It's really hard to see him as disadvantaged. The legend of course is that he whiffed one of the biggest business opportunities in the history of computing, but lots of people have blown it in business. [1] The IBM story was interesting because Kildall was already successful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall
- bsder 5y ago
  Kildall couldn't "bet the farm" like Gates could because he didn't have the fallback of rich parents. The business was the fallback and he wasn't going to bet it. Kildall couldn't break the IBM logjam with CP/M because he couldn't call the IBM CEO directly.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    Most people have parents with a couch you can crash on.
deepnotderp 5y ago
How is Kildall relevant here? The event that's credited to CP/M's downfall has nothing to do with $$s
fumar 5y ago
I didn’t find a citation for #3, but if it is accurate that would be over $300,000 USD today. We can agree that families who can provide a similar level of investment for their children’s business or educational projects are better positioned than those who have less or near-zero financial support. Whether the beneficiary takes advantage or maximizes their position is a key variable in success.

notJim 5y ago

Is it right to focus so much on entrepreneurship? Of course at the top, it matters a lot, but isn't a lot of mobility also driven by more average careers?

monkeydreams 5y ago
> Of course at the top, it matters a lot, but isn't a lot of mobility also driven by more average careers? Given wage stagnation across much of the Western world, largely driven by "liberal" economic and monetary policy, there is a lot of downward pressure on the benefits of "average" (Non FAANG) careers.
- alpha_squared 5y ago
  > largely driven by "liberal" economic and monetary policy Mind expanding a little more on that?
  - monkeydreams 5y ago
    IANAE - but this is my understanding. Until the early 70's the primary method of managing national economies was via the level of spending a country enacted with less regard given to the level of debt a country held. Economies were more tightly regulated, protections were much stronger in many western countries, and union participation was more common than today. After a round of economic crisis, with each of them seemingly resistant to influence by the economic tools of the day, countries began to move toward managing their economies through a) promoting the freedom of the market (liberalism) and b) managing spending and economic control through the availability of money (monetary policy), with centralisation of national interest rate levels enacted through central banks. This worked to a greater or lesser degree (economists seemingly cannot agree) and governments became more open to reform of economic institutions to give more power to the market. This has led to a lessening of strength in those areas of the economy which can impact the free-market (i.e. union membership) and has now become a force for removing non-economic impediments to corporations to seek the lowest wages possible (such as immigration reform to reduce labour costs, etc). Meanwhile monetary policy has led to ever-decreasing interest rates, which has led to previously "non-economic" goods to become commodities. Housing is a great example, with houses now considered by many to be an asset class which should return continual return in capital value, rather than as a right. Bank accounts are returning functionally zero and less than zero percent returns, which impacts the poor most of all. NFT, crypto, etc, are another - these did not exist prior to monetary policy but they are reacting like an asset class whose existence is used as a stop-gap by those borrowers to avoid holding cash. The world is sloshing with free and near-free money, and it is sending asset classes crazy. So, costs go up for the poor as they are competing for essentials with rich people who see the same good as an asset class to park investment. The poor get higher interest rates on their loans, so their cost of living goes up. Their wages are negatively impacted through increased competition with people not only in their local area, but globally. Their bank accounts - which previously have returned at a rate higher than inflation, are now being eaten away by fees, negative rates AND inflation.

claudiawerner 5y ago

>if the family is poor, you're not going to be able to float rent on the storefront you need, or purchase initial inventory of whatever you're making, much less soak up a few false starts, much less take out a bank loan to do any of these things. Max Stirner made this point in 1844: "Free competition is not “free,” because I lack the things for competition. Against my person no objection can be made, but because I have not the things my person too must step to the rear. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps that manufacturer? Why, from him I could take them away! No, the State has them as property, the manufacturer only as fief, as possession."

economusty 5y ago

That's all true. The problem is two fold: poor AND stupid people can't start businesses. Funding the schools solves half the problem. Smart and poor people can start businesses they just need to rely on partners for funding.

forbiddenvoid 5y ago
It's more sinister than that. It's not only poor people who can't start businesses. Or we need to change our definition of poor. Who among the middle class could safely start a new business without putting their livelihood at risk? It's not a large number. Rich people can not only start businesses, they can start many businesses. They can beat the statistics of business start up failure because there is little risk for them when a business fails.

prestigious 5y ago

Generational wealth is way overstated. Steve jobs didn’t have generational wealth. Airbnb was funded by selling obama branded cereal.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
Yes, we can point to exceptions.
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  Inherited wealth is rather an exception: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-richest-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-riche... Of course, rich kid will not end up like poor kid, but they will be much less rich than their parents.
- nec4b 5y ago
  What exceptions? Don't you have any restaurants or dry cleaners or any other small businesses around where you live which were started by poor immigrants?
  - KSteffensen 5y ago
    That seems like a strange comparison. Apple and my local kebab shop are not businesses in the same league and never will be.
    - nec4b 5y ago
      I hope you don't think only a multi billion dollar companies count as success. The point is: a lot of poor people start businesses all the time and a lot of them end up successful.
      - oblio 5y ago
        > The point is: a lot of poor people start businesses all the time and a lot of them end up successful What's "a lot". My bet is on the majority failing, and by that, I mean, going bankrupt before even breaking even.

dennis_jeeves 5y ago

> By all means educate, but don't con yourself that it will matter, in the absence of any other changes. Most people who are not rich do con themself with that belief. Life becomes bearable only if you have a degree of delusion.

onetimeusename 5y ago

Do you have any evidence or reasoning that the kids from poor families are 'hungrier, more motivated' and 'ARE better than the lazy rich'? These things should probably be discussed and proven before we make changes based on those assumptions.