> It's not talking about entrepreneurs who start with nothing. No job, no nothing. There's a lot more of those than people think. How many is "a lot more", and

> It's not talking about entrepreneurs who start with nothing. No job, no nothing. There's a lot more of those than people think. How many is "a lot more", and how "successful" are they? > it appears to be making the case the you basically have to be at least somewhat privileged in order to be a successful entrepreneur. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but after reading it again, I can't see another way of interpreting it. I'm baffled why you can't see another way of interpreting it, because I already explained another way of interpreting it: "Note that my quote above says the chances of becoming an entrepreneur drop quite a bit, but it doesn't say the chances drop to zero. So of course the number of non-privileged entrepreneurs will be greater than zero. It's all about the odds." > this read to me like essentially a propaganda piece intended to discourage people who aren't part of a particular class from even trying to start their own business Wow. I think that's more projection coming from your own mind than from the article. Perhaps the biggest problem with this conspiratorial interpretation is the motive: why would the article author want to discourage entrepreneurship? That just makes no sense to me. And it's certainly not an advice column. Again, I think the motive for the article is fairly clear, even stated explicitly: to poke holes in the hero worship of rich dudes. [EDIT:] Here's another article by the same author, about Andrew Yang’s basic income plan: https://qz.com/1687957/the-case-for-andrew-yangs-ubi-plan https://qz.com/1687957/the-case-for-andrew-yangs-ubi-plan "Yang’s freedom dividend would give Americans greater agency to leave codependent relationships, professional or otherwise, and operate as the CEO or entrepreneur of their own lives." Does that sound like someone who wants to discourage entrepreneurship?