.
And yet there's a big difference if your BATNA in case company no work is a mostly smooth transition into a high paying career, or life on the streets followed by a walmart greeter job, maybe.
Until I came to the US I never even realized how much you really get from even a moderately privileged upbringing. It's crazy.
Simple things like the difference between working summer jobs in high school or being sent to education camps and such.
Or getting your own car at <driving age> vs. borrowing your mum's.
Or the ability to go to college that isn't close enough to hometown so you can stay living with your parents because it's cheaper.
Or the difference in perspective between The Boss being someone you aspire to become, or someone you hate and despise because they make your life miserable.
The cultural differences are the hardest to overcome.
(I also am a white male)
It could be argued this is ^opportunity cost^.
What the article is making light of is, workers who don't to have the access to the time, resources and opportunities to build a business, yet still have to work to make ends meet. Never to get the chance(s) to start a tech-company.
Q. What is the lowest level job you have had and for how long? What industry was it? I see why you have not bio or identifying information.
Done that, indoors sucking fumes. Finished Uni in a recession. Sucked. Did that FT till I worked in my first startup. [0]
"I've cut wood for less money than that hourly, sucking diesel and two-stroke fumes, bathing in sweat in the summer"
Done that. Worked local council Parks & Gardens taking care of 100SqrKm. It's not that cold where I come from but gets pretty hot. High 30s (C) to early 40s in summer. Did this for years workin' PT while at school, FT on holidays.
"have no obligation to give it away"
Even working in the places I have, with my startup there will be no interns (free labour), dodgy contracting (cheap OS labour), worthless stock options in lieu of pay (sweat equity), no mass firing after a hiring binge to grow the company (to appease VCs). Fair wage for fair amount of work. That's not what is being described above.
[0] https://slashdot.org/journal/62860/10-years-on-the-internet
edit: I tried being more charitable about the article - "give more than one percent to people, sure"- but most of it is still irrational.
Yes, mixed metaphor.
"The author believes that having a family to support (apparently that's a characteristic of latecomers) makes them deserving of a more equal stake."
Good point. Btw I respect the OP for making these comments. They have every right and don't really need to defend them. I make comment because of the ^Ronco principle^.
"In a sufficiently connected and unpredictable
world, you can't seem good without being good." [0]
Reference
[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html
[1] "Steve didn't really care about gaining wealth. Money was really never much of a problem for him after launching Apple and receiving the initial investment from Mike Markkula. I think he just cared about making great stuff and figured the wealth would come along with that belief."
"As for Woz, he was content with his initial portion of the ~$190-million he received on Apple's IPO. He did end up giving quite a large number of his shares to other early employees of Apple, who Jobs felt weren't worthy of a share grant." ~ Paul Salzman, https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Steve-Jobs-so-much-richer-than...
people who have power and resources - and a safety net to shrug off failure - are in a better position to start companies - they aren't necessarily taking much risk - in fact, if they are sufficiently well off, there could be more risk (in terms of opportunity cost) in not starting a company.
of course, not everyone who starts a successful company is necessarily powerful or has access to more resources than others, etc.
people who have power and resources are in a better position than others to acquire more power and resources. not a hugely surprising statement, but worth pointing out, and worth pointing out that the common "we took more risk so we get more reward" could in fact sometimes be closer to "we were in a position of power so we get more reward".
What makes one "deserve" the lion's share of a tech company?
The company I work for is split between two cofounders. One came from a very privileged background. The other didn't. Guess who got more?
As far as I can see the notion that one deserves wealth because one has wealth is baked into our society and legal system. Owning a rental property means receiving a stream of income from those who do not. Owning shares means receiving a stream of income from work done by others.
Likewise, if you earn a salary you're the one paying that rent and the work you do is generating those dividends.
Likewise, being rich (and being well connected to the wealthy) when you start a company gives you the leverage to take a larger share.
If that's what you believe is deserved then fine, I guess.
I've yet to hear anybody actually state the words "being richer entitles you to a larger unearned income than those who are not" though.
One such example is race, hence white privilege. There are other reasons for privilege as well.
I would argue the term even applies to things they explicitly choose.
I'm married, and we have two children. My wife doesn't work outside the home. As a result my tolerance for risk is much lower than it would have been had I made other decisions.
I'd rather invest money in her company, everything else being equal.
That you're going to have to get a full-time job at the end from one of your contacts or investors or investors companies?
there's no "massive" risk.
Where are the stories on HN about the hordes of ex-startup founders presently homeless? Or the stories about founders who lost their homes, marriages and kids?
There aren't any. Because when it gets really bad, they can step straight into a high paying job from someone else.
To the extent that's true (and I believe it is true), it says more about how skilled/productive they are than how "privileged" they are.
One consistent theme in successful people is that they over-exaggerate their skill level and how much they "deserve" their success. It's a known psychological problem, and it's one we should keep in mind when discussing this.
You think that if she hadn't buggered up Theranos through poor, public, moral decisions Elizabeth Holmes would have had a hard time finding a job? Even without a degree? She'll probably still be able to get a job any way.