Hacker News Reader

There are lot of people who fall for the encouragement from PG and such and take risks without being aware of the expected financial impact. Read through comments here and there are some first hand anecdotes.

It is hugely more efficient for someone to take into account this research result, rather than learn that after years of toiling, the hard way.

Perhaps, it was not as insightful to you personally. But not every piece has to be valuable to everyone for it to avoid being classified as devoid of value.

I don't see how you can say it offers any value. There are no actionable insights here. You can't change your family, so in the end, every individual still faces exactly the same choice: pursue the entrepreneurial path, or not. What other people did and what their circumstances were is irrelevant.

If the article purported to prove that it is impossible to succeed as an entrepreneur without coming from a rich family, and if there were no counter-examples disproving that assertion, then I could see saying it had value. But we know that's not the case. People do succeed as entrepreneurs despite coming from poor families.

There are lot of people who fall for the encouragement from PG and such and take risks without being aware of the expected financial impact.

A "lot" of people do that? I'd need to see some evidence to accept that assertion. And even if that is so, this article doesn't help them. They still can't change their backgrounds / families, and they still face the same choice.

who fall for the encouragement from PG and such

That's some interesting language. You make it sound like encouraging someone to chase their dreams is some kind of scam. Oh, pity the poor gullible fool, who "fell for" the idea of trying to make a better life for him/her-self...

A more useful article, to my way of thinking, would have been one that presented the data from this article and then continued by saying "OK, so if you're not from a wealthy family, here are the things you can do to improve your odds of succeeding anyway..." That what I mean by "actionable information. Give people something they can actually use. That would be a valuable article, and a valuable discussion. All I see here is negativity and anti-individualistic rabble-rousing.

The article summarizes imporant data. Action items I take from the article:

    * Plan that most of my competitors are better funded than I am because of family and social strata.

    * Compensate for those deficits before engaging in a startup, either as founder or employee.  E.g., look for an angel investor (difficult, because there are none associated with my family or friends).

    * Stick to my day job.

    * Be open to government policy proposals that would even the playing field - not to take it away from the wealthy, but to provide an on-ramp for the non-wealthy.  E.g., regulated monopoly universal internet service.  Public housing in my town does not provide internet: those kids can't even do their homework, since the teachers *assume* internet access.

Plan that most of my competitors are better funded than I am

That should be your assumption anyway. "Hope for the best, plan for the worst". Besides, most startups aren't killed by competition, they're killed by building a product nobody wants.

Compensate for those deficits before engaging in a startup

Again, anybody founding a startup already knows they are facing an uphill battle. This article doesn't present any data that would change that.

look for an angel investor (difficult, because there are none associated with my family or friends).

You think everybody who ever got angel investment got it because their friends and family knew angels? How about going to entrepreneurial themed events in your area and networking and meeting angels, VCs, and other founders there? Don't live in an area with that kind of thing? Move. (That's what I did, FWIW). Check AngelList and/or scour LinkedIn to find local angels, and find a way to work your way into an introduction to them. Hint: founders of existing startups are often very open to helping new founders network and meet investors and what-not. Cold email celebrity investors (low percentage, but Mark Cuban has done deals that came in as cold emails). Apply to go on Shark Tank.

Be open to government policy proposals that would even the playing field - not to take it away from the wealthy, but to provide an on-ramp for the non-wealthy.

Meh. These kinds of policies may be well-intentioned, but most have unintended consequences that outweigh any good they do.

All of your action items are defeatist items.

How about: work at your day job and bootstrap a startup until it's cash flow positive or work as an apprentice for an entrepreneur until you can start your own.

Every successful entrepreneur I know outside of the valley has started in one of those two ways.

The idea of a "startup" having to have funding is looking at entrepreneurship in a complete backwards way.

It's part of the movement toward a more realistic view of "entrepreneurs". Wishing to be a wealthy aristocrat with a sea of sharecroppers isn't a commendable goal, regardless of your background. This article just points out that aristocrats tend to beget aristocrats.

It's part of the movement toward a more realistic view of "entrepreneurs".

I guess that's one way of looking at it. To me, it feels more like an attack on the very notion of entrepreneurship, and a way of discouraging people from pursuing that path. I feel like this kind of article originates with the same people (and the same thinking) that are always proclaiming "it's all luck, nothing you do really matters".

I'd figure the message is 'if you are poor your entrepreneurial journey will be more difficult.'

Working a job and starting a business is most likely more difficult than only starting a business.