2 ms·

Well, this is why I brought up "where do we draw the line?" I am quite aware that the whole debate is about where we decide to draw the line. However, you're o

by dangus 3y ago

Well, this is why I brought up "where do we draw the line?" I am quite aware that the whole debate is about where we decide to draw the line. However, you're obviously extending the logic far beyond the way I intended to extend it. I'm really talking about something closer to "a median upbringing." Someone who saved up an attainable sum just by working a typical job or by obtaining a modest "middle class attainable" sized loan to seed the business. Kylie started with a much larger seed: complimentary marketing worth actual millions. Not a $25,000 loan that was paid back via single store sales to start a sandwich shop like Jimmy Johns. (Which, I realize, is a decent chunk of change in 1982, but it's basically nothing compared to what Kylie started with)

chii 3y ago
What you don't know is how many celebrities also inherited a brand but did not or could not make a successful business out of it. What you imply is that by having a large seed, succeeds was guaranteed. My take is that if somebody else getting the same inheritance wasn't able to achieve success, then it counts as self made for the one that did succeed (with said inheritance).
- noahtallen 3y ago
  I just don’t find this a useful comparison for nearly anyone interested in becoming a self-made person, hoping to draw inspiration. I’m sorry, but growing up in a very wealthy family, inheriting a large number of followers, and starting with a huge amount of influence… that’s not something most people will have. Beyond that, you have a massive, massive cushion to take risks, to try and fail, and to try different business models. And on top of that, you are taught directly from your successful parents how to start these lifestyle businesses. These are all crucial parts of success that most people don’t have access to. It’s a lot more useful and interesting to draw the line earlier.
- antifa 3y ago
  > My take is that if somebody else getting the same inheritance wasn't able to achieve success, then it counts as self made for the one that did succeed (with said inheritance). That just redefines "self-made" to mean anyone that succeeded, which isn't very useful.

by dangus 3y ago

chii 3y ago

What you don't know is how many celebrities also inherited a brand but did not or could not make a successful business out of it. What you imply is that by having a large seed, succeeds was guaranteed. My take is that if somebody else getting the same inheritance wasn't able to achieve success, then it counts as self made for the one that did succeed (with said inheritance).

noahtallen 3y ago
I just don’t find this a useful comparison for nearly anyone interested in becoming a self-made person, hoping to draw inspiration. I’m sorry, but growing up in a very wealthy family, inheriting a large number of followers, and starting with a huge amount of influence… that’s not something most people will have. Beyond that, you have a massive, massive cushion to take risks, to try and fail, and to try different business models. And on top of that, you are taught directly from your successful parents how to start these lifestyle businesses. These are all crucial parts of success that most people don’t have access to. It’s a lot more useful and interesting to draw the line earlier.
antifa 3y ago
> My take is that if somebody else getting the same inheritance wasn't able to achieve success, then it counts as self made for the one that did succeed (with said inheritance). That just redefines "self-made" to mean anyone that succeeded, which isn't very useful.