Comment by ideonexus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ideonexus | Hacker News Reader

> 1. It’s almost never rags to riches

This is the point that has really started to become clear to me in recent years, and not just for startups but for artists, authors, athletes, and all the other dream jobs we idolize: so many of these people are either (1) not really making that much money or (2) already had a trust-fund or come from a wealthy background so they can spend all of their time writing, painting, or engineering. Most authors make below the poverty line [1], and Facebook's success was the outlier, not the norm.

I did the start-up thing in my 20s for about 3-4 years (in the 1990s). My income was about the same as my salary would later be when I went to work for another company, but my stress-levels dropped significantly when I started working for someone else. The constant uncertainty was gone, I was watching my savings grow instead of decline, and I do regret not going for that stability sooner.

I see a similarity between tech-kids in their 20s chasing start-up dreams and the poor kids from my old neighborhood chasing hoop-dreams. The tech-kids have better options to fall back on, but the chances of becoming that rockstar million/billionaire CEO/professional athlete are about the same.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/15/income-for-us-a...

> already had a trust-fund or come from a wealthy background so they can spend all of their time writing, painting, or engineering

Being from a wealthy background also benefits the startup because you or your family probably "know people" who can help.

Microsoft's early story looks a little different when you realize Bill Gate's mother just happens to know IBM's CEO.

That, plus Bill had a trust fund big enough not to have needed to work, so quitting Harvard was no risk at all for him.

Well, it isn't rags-to-riches but it's still very impressive. IBM's CEO knew a lot of people, not just Gate's mother.

They served together on the board of United Way; they weren't just random acquaintances. The social proof conditions necessary for Bill and Paul Allen to make their pitch to him had been satisfied both through their parents' credentials, social connections and the fact that they both went to Harvard. Not to take anything away from Gates' technical skills and business savvy. But this goes to the crux of a lot of startup stories. It could all have been very different if even one of those 'background variables' had been different and the meeting with IBM never happened.

IBM's CEO might know a lot of people. But a lot of software founders don't know IBM's CEO.

I am always a bit sad when I see money equated with success. Money is an artifact of success, not a result of success.

There are many "trust fund" kids who have lots of money and zero success, and there are successful people who do not have a lot of money (generally "yet"). Success is defining a vision of how you want things to be and then working to make that happen. For some it will bring in additional money, for everyone it brings satisfaction.

Money is a catalyst.

The odds of a smart middle class entrepreneur making a successful business are actually way better than making it to the NBA or NFL. To say these are equal odds is misleading.

A successful middleclass business does not equal billions or necessarily even millions, so I fail to see how the gp's comparison is off? What he is saying is that you are as likely to be the next Bill Gates as you are to be the next Michael Jordan, not that you are just as likely to be the next Bob Smith who runs a 40-people tech consultancy shop.

Likewise to academia and professional science, by the way: 70% of all faculty are adjuncts, and most working scientists don't even become adjunct faculty. Thus, almost everyone working in science on a daily basis is either a grad-student or post-doc (paid low wages because they're theoretically a trainee for a position they'll never really get) or an adjunct faculty member (used to do the teaching labor the administration wants done but which would distract real professors from frantically applying for grants).

Oh, and advancement runs on a feudal hierarchy[1].

[1] http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005

Whilst you have a valid point here, one thing that concerns me with this message is that it could easily make the problem of inequality in entrepreneurship worse, by giving across the strong message that the opinion is universally "if you're poor or a minority, entrepreneurship is not for you. Don't even bother."

I am reminded of the often repeated saying "It takes three generations to make a gentleman". The gradual compounding of wealth opens up a lot of opportunity to safely take risk.

If it's not in your blood to absolutely have to be an entrepreneur (or painter, writer, comedian, etc...) you probably shouldn't be one.

But how do we know if it is in our blood? That is probably the hardest part.

Probably when you have to try NOT to do something...? Like at this point, I would have to try not to play guitar. Or try not to program and experiment with designs for systems software. But I am trying TO start a business as well. It doesn't come as naturally.

I like the idea of making money independently... and I actually DO like satisfying customers. But so far not enough to give it a real concerted effort. (I have a good job otherwise).

EDIT: Although I will admit I had to reach a certain level of competency at guitar and programming before I stopped needing to force myself to continue... you do have to sweat it out first. I think what YC is doing is good because they're providing the equivalent of free online guitar lessons... definitely better than nothing (for the motivated).

"when you have to try NOT to do something" - I think that's a nice litmus test for it

Even that test has limits though. Competive gamers all start off playing hours of video games a day, but playing competitively means sacrificing fun for grueling practice, formulaic tactics and very little experimentation; basically all the fun is sucked out of it.

Theres a moment in the show "Silicon valley" when a programmer looks at an Agile deliverables chart and says "This just became a job".

I think that would be the test. Can you endure the drudgery of daily grind and constant challenges and still want to go through with it? You won't know unless you try.

I think that works some but for me it has been messier than that. I think self reflection and friendly peer feedback helps. Also some personality assessments help. I have found that "Strengths Finder" has helped me in my career find a place that is satisfying and where I can be extremely competent. As a ADHD with Dyslexia I had to slog through the boredom of the growing my skills till I was competent in programming.

I also try to see if I am in the flow with hobbies or work, But being competent enough to be in the flow takes a lot of skills before you get there.

I have two girls that seem to understand well what their are meant to do both for hobbies and work. We practiced a lot of self-reflection with them when they were growing up and both have strong feedback loops with people they trust.

But it is messy. Maybe that is what we are meant to do. That is find out what we are meant to do. Kind-of meta.

> "But how do we know if it is in our blood? That is probably the hardest part"

I would say if you have to ask that question of yourself, then the answer is self evident.

That's just setting someone up to fool themselves or others.

Really you need competent peers to tell you.

I have known a few entrepreneurs and invariably they showed they were such by their behaviour, attitude and approach. They did not need someone to tell them or need to stop and ask "Am I an entrepreneur?", they just got on with being one. The same applies to a cartoonist, or comedian etc. Often in fact these people do it despite advice from competent people and even their loved ones. Advice like: "What, why give up your place at an ivy league university to go open a car wash, that is just crazy!".

I've tried to get away from entrepreneurship many times. I always come back...

> You are looking outside, and that is what you should most avoid right now. No one can advise or help you - no one. There is only one thing you should do. Go into yourself. Find out the reason that commands you to write; see whether it has spread its roots into the very depths of your heart; confess to yourself whether you would have to die if you were forbidden to write. This most of all: ask yourself in the most silent hour of your night: must I write? Dig into yourself for a deep answer. And if this answer rings out in assent, if you meet this solemn question with a strong, simple "I must", then build your life in accordance with this necessity; your whole life, even into its humblest and most indifferent hour, must become a sign and witness to this impulse.

Rainer Maria Rilke http://www.carrothers.com/rilke1.htm

I don’t think this is helpful. There is no medical test for it being in your blood. This ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you quit, it wasn’t in your blood, if you succeed it was in your blood. Most entrepreneurs I’ve come across so far in SV have taken very little risk and come from rich, prestigious backgrounds. The ‘entrepreneurship porn’ of the amazing struggle tends to primarily be used to justify the huge disparity between employee and founder/vc equity. The “they deserve it” crowd, when in reality it’s just the structure of the power dynamic and has little to do with deserving.

I don't see how it's self fulfilling.

Also quitting doesn't necessarily mean it's not in your blood, it just means that particular project didn't work out and you cut your losses so you could do another one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com