Hacker News Reader

Comment by aminok | Hacker News Reader

It does not automatically mean one is more privileged than those who choose to work for startups, which is what the article implies.

View on HN

"does not automatically mean one is more privileged than those who choose to work for startups,"

It does in a way. Founders eating ramen, working long, odd hours, for an idea that may not pay off at all; Who can walk away from a startup and brush it off as experience. An employee doesn't get that opportunity. An employee also doesn't take the risk. They may never have the opportunity to take these kinds of risks.

Would you agree it does often mean that?

More specifically, for what percentage of startups would you consider it fair to say?

I have no idea, but a statistical correlation does not justify the blanket characterization made by the article, where "risk-taker" is essentially held as a synonym for "privileged".

What's the harm?

It diminishes the accomplishments of entrepreneurs, and the sacrifices they've made. If they only have large equity stakes in the companies they founded because they're "privileged" it casts them as undeserving of the wealth they acquired.

Ok. And what's the harm in that?

Isn't it self-evident? It harms their standing and reputation, in being cast as in possession of wealth they are not morally entitled to. It's defamation.

Privileged =/= undeserving

Can you show an example of damage done by this sort of "defamation"?

Privileged clearly implies undeserving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com