Entrepreneurs don’t have a special gene for risk, they come from rich families
qz.com
qz.com
1. Some people take risk because they CAN and probably what they have seen from their family/parents (a.k.a rich/privilege). It is the cool thing to do.
2. Some people take risk because they WANT to regardless of their family situation (I am in this category). I just cannot see myself working in a job.
3. Some people take risk because they HAVE to. They have nothing else going on for them and doing their own thing is the only thing they can try. I am sure there are quite a few entrepreneurs in this category. They were desperate and just tried something of their own as the only last option.
So yea, entrepreneurship can never be generalized. We can argue on the percent breakdown b/w the 3 categories above. CAN, WANT, HAVE TO
Is trying to become a singer/actor becoming an entrepreneur? Its fairly similar in terms of entering a winner-take-all field where you'll face a lot of adversity at the beginning.
Is switching careers to something your eduction is not in the same type of decision that an entrepreneur makes? Even if you are just switching to another 9-5?
Is someone who leaves a salary job to one that is paid mostly in sales commission an entrepreneur? Even if you are working for a company?
I don't think any of these situations are identical - but if you are trying to figure out "is this cultural or genetic" it seems worthy to think of your definition. After all, being a tech CEO is not something everyone wants to do.
There are also some simple facts about growing up poor. Even giving a poor person a lot of money does not put them in the same boat as someone who grew up around the mentality of "money as a tool" instead of "money as a scarce resource." There are biological differences [1] to growing up poor vs wealthy. Those differences are often compounded by poor nutrition which leads to poor health and other real impairments [2] including learning impairment and unwise decision making.
Within your three categories, 1 and 2 look awfully similar to my eyes. There is a luxury of time, knowledge and choice implied. 3 is a wildcard for great success or great failure often decided by luck. Great failure might mean homelessness or even death. Smartly, many people in category 3 opt for life and an underpaying 9-5 (or several of them) rather than rolling those dice.
[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/being-poor-not-only-affects-you... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10946800/
I just don't buy that you cannot be an entrepreneur because you were born poor. However, I agree that it makes a lot harder.
Each daily opportunity, for engaging with others, trying challenges and implementing entrepreneurial activities is a chance to move every so slightly in the direction of success. If you accumulate enough of these, and in the positive direction, you will achieve you success target.
However, each of these activities, offers the chance for a negative outcome, ever so slight in the negative direction. A random walk, just by the simple nature of life, can easily line up in front of you a series of negative outcomes that will push you too much into the opposite direction, or simply just to far from your intended target.
So you will run out of time, opportunities, capital, stamina, luck, space or creativity. In other words, and as somebody said: The multiple ways in which some are successful, are just one of many infinite ways in which other can be unsuccessful. You just have to encounter an enough number of negative events.
For a better society successful parties should promote true understanding of many reasons why one can be "successful".
"Life’s winners think success was earned even if it was down to luck"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2210263-lifes-winners-t...
"Bucca’s team explored the subject by creating a version of President that involved almost no skill, and in which the influence of the starting conditions could be dialled up or down. They recruited about 1000 people through a website, Amazon Mechanical Turk, giving people $2.50 for taking part and a $5.00 bonus if they won.
Whoever was randomly picked to play the first card in round one of the game always had an advantage that meant they were most likely to win that round. In some versions, this starting advantage was further boosted: after the cards had been dealt for round two, the winner of round one was able to swap one or two of their weakest cards with the strongest ones of their opponent. In other versions, the opposite happened: the starting advantage was weakened by the previous loser getting good cards from the winner."
"At the end of their game, people were asked if it had been fair. Regardless of the conditions, winners were more likely to say yes than losers. Even when the winners benefited from receiving either one or two strong cards from their opponent, they were twice as likely to judge it a fair game as the losers. What’s more, in most versions of the game winners were more likely than losers to attribute success in the game to talent – even though the game required very little."
"It’s not just how the game is played, it’s whether you win or lose"
4. For some people there simply isn't a risk.
The truth is, about 25% of new businesses in the US are started by first-generation immigrants. 30% of new business owners only have a high-school education. Here are a few more stats: https://www.smallbizgenius.net/by-the-numbers/entrepreneur-s...
So for me it seems like going to US makes you small outlier, the programming people that I know and went to US were really strong devs
I also had relatively wealthy parents which enabled me to save up to move/emmigrate.
Emmigrating to a wealthy country is crazy expensive. Plane flights, rent/down payment etc
Which all boils down how massive of an advantage being wealthy is/middle class is even if that wealth is peanuts by US standards
I'm not sure your source is exemplary in citing cast-iron statistics - the article you cite includes a lot of referenced and very varied sources (some of them seem to be just news articles), but few concrete references to back-up their purported numbers.
> The truth is, about 25% of new businesses in the US are started by first-generation immigrants
And this assertion doesn't contradict the article unless we're supposed to assume that being a "first-generation immigrant" automatically means you are poor and without any family resources.
I'd rather celebrate stories like the one featured on HN just the other day[1], about the Vietnamese immigrant who started Huy Fong Foods and _very successfuly_ popularized sriracha sauce.
[1] https://twitter.com/TrungTPhan/status/1409185044501987340
If your definition of "entrepreneur" is "people doing what it takes to stay alive" then literally everyone is an entrepreneur and the term has lost any particular meaning.
I would take entrepreneur to mean "an individual who undertakes an unusually risky venture in order to have access to exceptional personal gains" and from that perspective it seems almost axiomatic that people who start with more capital have less downside risk, which in turn makes it easier to be an entrepreneur, so more of them will do it and with more success than the relatively less-resourced. What part of that do you disagree with, if any?
> Stop letting idiots build imaginary barriers to your life outcome. Just go find a way and do it.
Just buy enough tickets and you're guaranteed to win the lottery! How hard could it be?
You have fewer resources, less influential contacts, less social standing, and are viewed as more of a credit risk. You may be viewed as easy meat by competitors. You cannot afford the same premises or advisors or equipment and when you are short of cash there is no bailout buffer. You have more obligations and less time to rest. You are likely to be more stressed and if you get ill, you will struggle.
This sucks - big time. It is going to mean that quite often less competent or industrious people are going to enjoy greater success and prosperity.
But you cannot let that consume you. You can still do a great deal by using your initiative and using the opportunities that are available to you. Because, it is possible to succeed even from very humble beginnings - I have known quite a few people do so.
And work with good people. Find intelligent, hard working types who appreciate where you are at and what you are trying to do and who will have your back. Work with these people - make sure you have their back too.
With the right allies it may cost each of you half the time and half the pain to improve your financial situations by 100% compared to going solo.
With the wrong 'allies' you are committing suicide, so drop them. Whilst people can be your greatest assets, they will generally also be your biggest liabilities.
Statistically, even with changes affecting government and society, more people are likely to be of below average wealth.
So, if you want to pursue a system-wide level of change, I suspect that a measured approach to doing so would be wisest, using opportunities as they arise, focusing on your immediate circumstances first and being aware that the tangible outcome for yourself can be very hard to control.
I know two successful entrepreneurs who come from a situation of struggle in third world countries. Also my girlfriend, who grew up in poverty in Pennsylvania, and now is on her third stable business.
We are creating a culture of excuses for anybody who fails at chasing their dreams or doesn’t even have the motivation to do so; the equivalent of getting a “trophy for trying”, but tailored to adults. This culture is harming the perception of individuals who otherwise just need an extra push of positivity in their journey.
I miss the days (not so long ago) when the advice was “work harder and things will happen”. That’s the advice I got and it worked for me. If you don’t have that hope then you’ll defeat yourself.
Strawman. No one is making excuses, we are explaining the massive and very uncomfortable inequalities that no one seems to bring up around here. The fact that this article is so highly upvoted but has such disdain in the comments tells me there are a lot of silent folks out there who understand what is going on.
You seem to be implying that it's a moral failing of some kind to NOT be an entrepreneur - am I reading you right? As though failing at a risky undertaking - or not bothering in the first place - is something that needs to be excused?
Jeff Bezos was again a son of a dirt poor single mom who later married a dirt poor Mexican immigrant - his life start was as bad as it gets. Yes his adopted father later became a mid-level manager for an oil company and managed to send him to a good college, but there is nothing exceptional there.
There are lots and lots of rich kids who smoke weed all day and contribute an absolute zero to the society, and so few good entrepreneurs.
Regardless, these are anecdotes.
I put my success down to luck and the social safety net up north.
I was cleaning floors at a fast food place just 15 years ago. If you were to see my parents driving the new car I bought for them this year (I need them to be safe), I bet you’d say the same. Do you understand what is wrong with your perspective?
The majority of people who start new businesses do not have generational wealth. In fact, those who achieve generational wealth often turn into investors who collaborate with entrepreneurs.
> If the company that hired you had gone for another candidate, would you be where are now?
There were half a dozen other offers waiting. Looking at the performance over the years of the companies that made these offers, I would be wealthier.
> Hard work is good for success, but it’s not sufficient. And that’s especially the case for gaining outsized wealth.
Hard work is a key component of success. Even those who inherit generational wealth have the option of living off their trust fund or pursuing their ambitions.
It is key to understand that hard work is your best tool for success; it is the only thing you have control over.
Also, I am using here “hard work” in a broad sense. Hard work isn’t only putting hours in front of the computer, but also coming out of your shell to socialize in order to find mentors, learning new things, keeping yourself healthy, etc.
I dont know anyone who got rich cleaning floors in fast food. I did low level work too and it has zero with where my money come from now.
Many people work hard and never ever become well off.
*Other People's Money
The article does have a point though, definitely more common for people with a good buffer to start startups.
y = Where you are
m = Your ability to grow
x = Time
b = Where you start
Although where you start is important, your ability to grow (or decay) ultimately determines where you end up.
:points at username:
How much of this is simply because most successful entrepreneurs are in the top 10%?
What percentage of the population is entrepreneurs?
Why should anyone be surprised that kids are following in their parents footsteps?
The article doesn't really define rich but cites multiple papers and quotes a few economists. Seems like the core thesis is "having access to money makes you more likely to start a business" which seems like something that should be true. The title is a little incendiary though.