Hacker News Reader

Comment by FlyingSnake | Hacker News Reader

Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you throw darts or something.

Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives on.

Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about "meritocracy" and the salutary effects of hard work.

Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it.

Original comment from notacoward here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659076

View on HN

> Middle class kids can afford one throw.

Gotta disagree with this. As someone who grew up middle class, I was fortunate, in a lot of ways, to also learn to be prudent with money. I started bootstrapping microbusinesses with almost no monetary investment. This eventually allowed me to support myself (on a very low budget), and then, later, on a slightly larger budget. Eventually, one of these businesses became successful enough to support a family comfortably with an "upper" middle class income.

The mistake a lot of people make is that they need to spend significant time and/or money to start a business. You don't. You can work on low-risk businesses, building your skillset so that your odds of success improve over time. No need to aim for the "center" bullseye, either. This is a case where low ambition can be helpful. Instead of trying to grow a huge startup, I was ecstatic when I was able to afford rent in my cheap apartment (with a roommate.)

Of course, the situation may be different now for middle class kids. Maybe they don't have some of the same luxuries my family was able to give me: a couple of years of college paid for, attending a few business/marketing conferences as a teenager, examples to follow from my dad and brother. I suspect some of this is true; I sense a lot of pressure on young adults that I didn't feel when I was young. I also recognize that "middle class" in the states is definitely a case of "wealth" in comparison to other parts of the world.

Also, when I was young, and learning the ropes, I was young. I didn't have responsibilities; just being able to afford a crappy apartment and food was more than enough.

>> Middle class kids can afford one throw.

> Gotta disagree with this. As someone who grew up middle class, I was fortunate, in a lot of ways, to also learn to be prudent with money.

You said you are fortunate, that actually proves rather than disproves the parent comment, no?

I don't understand your logic. I was middle class, and could afford more than one throw. The assumption in the OP was that a middle class kid can only afford one throw, which wasn't true, in my case.

I was fortunate, because I knew better than to "throw" all of my money at an opportunity, not because I wasn't middle class.

Could you have afforded more than one throw, if your first throw had missed? If it had missed so badly you figuratively hit a bystander with the dart, and now owed more than you had originally put in (microbusinesses aren't typically protected under limited liability)?

I had some pretty clear failures when I was starting out, but they didn't cost much money beyond web hosting, a domain name, and some wasted time. Sure, you can always worry about some existential risk, such as causing real harm you're liable for. But that's starting to sound like an excuse not to take action.

My main point is that it is actually possible start a business with almost no risk and almost no capital. Not that you'll succeed. And if you don't that's OK.

Failure is an option, and if you're smart, it's an option you can easily recover from.

Honestly, I think I learned half of this attitude from playing competitive video games in the late 90s. You just keep trying stuff. If it doesn't work, you can do another round. (Gah -- I'm in awe of how much free time I used to have.)

Programming may be an exceptional exception to this then. Perhaps other industries such as marketing are too.

The parent comment is a cute little story that makes people feel better, without any actual facts, so there's not really anything to prove or disprove.

But no, they meant that not having unlimited funds meant having to be creative or having to focus on business ideas where huge budgets were unnecessary.

The point the GP was refuting- that middle class kids only get one throw - is also not an actual fact.

I'll take their assessment of their life ("lived experience" in modern parlance) over a bad analogy any day.

The point the original comment was making is that richer kids get more throws. The particular number 1 was used to highlight the magnitude of this difference. If you read it literally, then sure, it isn't true of all edge cases.

And the refutation was that the "number of throws" matters less than the scale of risk they took on each "throw", hence why I said it was a bad analogy. If the point of the original comment is that rich people have more money, then I'm not really sure what was worth pointing out.

I think status (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35400562 ) is a bigger deal than personal risk. Status lessens personal risk, by getting buy-in from others.

This can work even with poor people who have connections and status within their community.

Status not only gets buy-in from others for business operations, but gets buy in from customers, which is required for any business to survive and thrive.

I've had Adam Neumann, in particular, in mind while reading this thread. He famously had multiple shots. Some of these may have been while just a child of the upper middle class, but his most recent big ones were because of his connection to status within the upper class.

It's kind of like the failing upward of executives of broken companies. Once you get past a certain level of status it's really, really hard to lose it all so much that you can't get buy in from others.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/wework-...

> What distinguished Neumann, along with his ambition, was “his connection to capital,” Wiedeman writes. Neumann had married Rebekah Paltrow, a wealthy cousin of Gwyneth Paltrow and a kabbalah devotee. She invested part of a $1 million nest egg in WeWork and introduced her husband to Manhattan’s Kabbalah Centre, where he met other well-off backers.

>Gotta disagree with this. As someone who grew up middle class, I was fortunate, in a lot of ways, to also learn to be prudent with money. I started bootstrapping microbusinesses with almost no monetary investment. This eventually allowed me to support myself (on a very low budget), and then, later, on a slightly larger budget. Eventually, one of these businesses became successful enough to support a family comfortably with an "upper" middle class income.

That's still a random individual outcome. What matters is aggregate outcomes, what happens to most middle class kids who want to be enterpreneurs for example, and how many chances they get.

There's also the matter of the quality of those chances (what kind of changes you get with $300K in the bank and dad's rich people connections vs $0 in the bank and middle class connections).

That's even before considering the chances afforded to middle class kids now versus then.

The whole point of the post you're responding to is that it's not a random outcome; it's an outcome driven by a strategy that is specifically useful for people with $0 in the bank and middle class connections. You're talking about $300k in the bank, but the quote you included literally says "almost no monetary investment."

It's still a random personal anecdote. And the "strategy" is an empty trivial advice.

Do you think other poor people trying to start businesses don't try to do it with "almost no monetary investment"? Not only they try that, that's the only way they can afford to try anyway.

Still no match for a big monetary investment, and still much much harder for them to get the same outcomes as an enterpreneur coming from privilege. Notice also how the claim isn't that it's impossible (or inversely, that the rich always succeed to build a succesful business), but that it is much much harder, and the upper middle class/rich/connections people have it much easier.

Chiming in with my random personal anecdote: I worked a very low-paying job, started with zero dollars, saved my money, and took a shot on a business with less than 5-figures.

This system is very repeatable. I'm 13 years in.

I did something similar, so there you go... now you have three "random" anecdotes.

1000 similar random anecdotes would still be random anecdotes.

No ones anecdotes in this thread are random. The majority of failures are not reading this.

This is cynicism disguising itself as wisdom.

Of course people with privilege have it easier. The whole world runs on the Matthew Effect because it's too lazy to do anything else. It isn't just or fair. Until you can fully accept that truth and do things despite that, you're stuck.

Me? As someone who rarely is fully confident about things, I'm fully confident I'll achieve some moderate success in bootstrapping if only because I have internalized the meta-belief that I can learn, adapt, persevere, and work toward the future I want, regardless of how long it takes, how successful I am, or any other external indicators. Agency is a powerful meta-belief. In that sense, I've already won, I'm just enjoying the journey and what I'm learning. And, one day I'll start cutting the strings of trading time for money.

Cynicism, and its brother pessimism, are absolutely necessary to survive and thrive in business. Unbridled optimism is generally for future failures.

Cynicism that keeps you out of the game is maladaptive...if you want to be playing that game.

Nobody is arguing for unbridled optimism.

>This is cynicism disguising itself as wisdom

Nope, just reality described as is.

>Of course people with privilege have it easier. (...) Until you can fully accept that truth and do things despite that, you're stuck.

That, on the other hand, is fatalism described as realism.

Nothing ever changed without outrage about how things are.

And even less by people accepting them and trying to get by "despite that".

"Every pessimist thinks themself a realist."

Realists also think of themselves as realists, so there's that.

Plus, every starry-eyed, la-la land, Polyanna thinks themselves not naive!

Agreed. Very nearly 100% of people think their point of view is correct and reasonable and everyone who doesn't share their point of view is wrong. The point of the quote, to me, is to remind us of that.

It goes along with another of my favorite quotes: everyone seems crazy when you don't understand their point of view.

There's an interesting tension in between aggregate problems and what's possible for you as an individual.

As an example, in the aggregate people with non-CS or math backgrounds are very unlikely to make $400k+ a year as a software developer. On an individual level, I have repeatedly been able to get others to that level inside 5 years if those people are willing to do straightforward but difficult work. However, this is only possible because so many people won't do the work, if everyone was aware of the opportunity and had the gumption to pursue it diligently the opportunity would quickly be exhausted.

This same pattern of "plenty of opportunity for individuals, but not enough for the group" seems common in many other ventures. Talking to very successful people it seems to be one of the reasons so many people who make it view lack of success as a failing, they've acquired the skillset to see these opportunities and wonder why no one is taking them (but often fail to notice there aren't enough for everyone).

And what strategy was that, exactly?

> What matters is aggregate outcomes

In the aggregate, nobody starts a business. It's hard work with lots of risks. Most everyone prefers to exchange their time and labor for a stable income.

The aggregate is the number of attempts at "Entrepreneurship" across class boundaries. The thesis is that Middle class kids get far fewer attempts vs richer kids.

In that context, counting where the number of attempts is 0 doesn't add anything to the thesis.

... aggregate outcomes will be the sum of random individual outcomes?

The larger red flag is the language typical of marketers combined with zero specificity. "Bootstrap microbusinesses, no monetary investment" followed by "success". All very unlikely, especially in plural. If true, he wouldn't have to reveal an exact business model. But detailing the type of business (ie: service or product) and / or sector would have lent credibility.

I can't think of a truly successful business, for an adult, that didn't require money to start. Money being a bare minimum.

Note, I said "almost no monetary investment."

I did things like buy a domain name, pay for cheap web hosting, etc. I was already knew the basics of coding, and some understanding of marketing. My biggest investment was a $97 eBook about marketing. I found one idea in that book that I used to do some successful SEO. This was circa 2003, when SEO was pretty much as easy as picking fruit from a tree, if you knew the right things. Anyways, that's how I got things launched. I also bought and read quite a few business books, which certainly weren't free.

This type of investment was very do-able for most middle class kids. Many of whom, at the time, could afford their own home built computers.

Also -- what I started with is very much not where I ended up, though there is certainly some relationship to it. For example, SEO is still an important part of the business, but the SEO strategy is much more about human relationships and service, than it was about "gaming the system," which was my perspective as a 21 year old.

This goes back to Jim Collins book Great by Choice and the idea of Bullets then Cannonballs.

[1]"First, you fire bullets (low-cost, low-risk, low-distraction experiments) to figure out what will work—calibrating your line of sight by taking small shots. Then, once you have empirical validation, you fire a cannonball (concentrating resources into a big bet) on the calibrated line of sight. Calibrated cannonballs correlate with outsized results; uncalibrated cannonballs correlate with disaster. The ability to turn small proven ideas (bullets) into huge hits (cannonballs) counts more than the sheer amount of pure innovation."

[1] https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/fire-bullets-then-cannon...

Interesting...I definitely read some Jim Collins books early on; though I'm not sure of the timing. This was like 20 years ago.

I think you missed the point.

As middle class you can't fail with your dart, you are either lucky or good with it. Maybe you are part of the latter, but if you miss your shot you are fucked in either case.

Wealthy people can be damn bad with it but keep trying until it works, and if you are rich enough you don't even need to hit the center once and keep going.

Of course you can miss your shot. Many, many times. But it just means each time you have to give up a little more of your personal time and freedom for the next shot.

No nights or weekends after the j.o.b. - each has to decide if that is worth it to them.

This is still more than other more privaleged people have to sacrifice per attempt

The only thing that matters is your OWN personal situation. Sure, some make it in 1 shot. Most don't.

It seems like y'all are arguing completely different points, which is often the case in conversations about hustle/motivation. You are both right

The value of what you are saying is that an individual can't change their circumstance, only make the best of it. This is true.

The value of what the OP is saying is that we should be aware of how our circumstances affect our chances. Be kind to ourselves if we fail, when it's so likely for us. And also that we should, if possible, change the circumstances for those who come after us.

What you have to give up is relative to each situation and the only thing that makes a difference in my opinion is:

- You have to give up something

- You don't have to give up anything

To torture this analogy a bit, the post you're responding to is basically saying:

If you're middle class, maybe you can't take shot after shot at the full distance, but you can start close to the target and incrementally step further away. To mix analogies, there's nothing in business that says you have to swing for the fences on your first attempt.

How did you make rent while you were bootstrapping?

In the US, you can part-time consult, as programmers are paid way above the national median income. This can either be in a lucrative field, giving you more time, or in your vertical, giving you more pmf exposure. The result is living like a normal US person, though not necessarily your peer group.

As most commenters note, the youth aspect is a big differentiator for the middle class. All this is hard as soon as a family is in the picture, health concerns go up, etc. (And for some, those happen even sooner, but not most.) Frustratingly, most successful entrepreneurs are much older, so a case of "youth is wasted on the young."

Source: Had a 5 figure income in the bay area for years and it was fine until it wasn't.

This common advice is arguably the best way to guarantee the failure of your new venture.

Source? Every path is hard, so saying that's the worst is one of the most extreme claims one can possibly make.

Ex: I can argue that VC funding is much worse than having paying customers in your space and the luxury to pivot & explore until things work. Having to double down your growth bet every 18mo or die trying is a real killer. People get confused by thinking the VC path is awesome because VCs only fund good companies, but that doesn't mean it helps them, just that the company was good. Back to my main point, I wouldn't say VC funding is the kiss of death, but it a bad fit for many and arguably most companies ;-)

Gauging from this reply I’m not entirely sure we disagree — it may just come down to wording. You said part time consulting. If it happens to serve as networking and you can bootstrap then in most conversations I’m in that would be called bootstrapping.

My point was that part-time pure paid consulting while trying to start an (under-)funded product business is one of the worst things you can do. Would-be founders end up never needing to commit to the riskier venture and having a hard time disentangling form consulting. Source: decades of startup founding and employment experience.

> In the US, you can part-time consult, as programmers are paid way above the national median income.

At some point the middle class becomes unlanded gentry.

Can’t speak to parent comment. But I started a business 20 years ago and I lived in my business partners moms basement. He lived in his old room - this no rent. This lasted 2 years in my early 20s. I’d guess anyone paying rent bootstrapping is doing something similar or the business is paying rent in some way.

>Also, when I was young, and learning the ropes, I was young. I didn't have responsibilities; just being able to afford a crappy apartment and food was more than enough.

Back in the mid 90s, I had the opportunity to join a small startup. I took a 50% pay cut and took a big risk; but I got a healthy chunk of founder's stock so if it worked out, I would be rewarded. Turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made; but I also made it when I was young and single with no one to take care of but myself. I seriously doubt I would have done that just a few years later when I was married and had a couple young kids.

Rich people can afford to take more risk and do it more times than can people with more modest means. It is certainly possible for the middle class to make it work; but they have to be more strategic and careful and thanks for pointing out a few ways to do that.

I'm curious: what was your first 3 bootstrapped business?

I suspect many people simply want to be seen as a "startup founder," much more than actually being one. They want to play "startup business" the same way young children want to "play house." It is akin to Gen Z's obsession with becoming an influencer, just with more hoodies, misplaced Steve Jobs quotes, and awful Medium thinkpieces.

The label is aspirational by design, and they buy into the whole culture, which explains why everyone thinks a startup has to be an all-or-nothing unicorn taking VC funding for a glorified CRUD app where they're just making up the requirements as they go while praying for product/market fit.

In short, it's about status and pop culture, not solving the problems of real users. Which is a shame, cause actually solving problems for users is really, really interesting even if TechCrunch doesn't get excited about it.

> Maybe they don't have some of the same luxuries my family was able to give me: a couple of years of college paid for

They don't. And that counts as pretty well off today.

> Maybe they don't have some of the same luxuries my family was able to give me: a couple of years of college paid for, attending a few business/marketing conferences as a teenager, examples to follow from my dad and brother.

Success is the intersection of luck (having college paid for, a supportive family) and preparation (learning business skills early on).

Can confirm this as middle class kid.

Co-foudned a startup a few years ago, was good fun, didn't end up going anywhere. Got a decent bit of parental help with childcare. Now childcare has gone up a ton and I'm in a market-rate dev job with no intention to change.

Co-founder came from money, and is definitely under no such constraints in starting another business.

> Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves.

I see this story repeated over and and over again on the internet, but I don't really see it playing out the same way in the real world.

I've seen a lot of "rich kids" try to start businesses, but then quickly realize that it's a huge amount of work and not guaranteed success. Then they look around and see all of their opportunities for safe, high-paying jobs that leverage their expensive education and their parents' network, and decide that taking one of those jobs is a much easier way forward.

I lived near a highly ranked MBA school for a while. I would constantly get LinkedIn requests from stereotypical "rich kid" MBA grads who banded together and wanted to "do a startup", but they just needed a few engineers to actually do all the work. It was funny to hear the pitches about how they'd give me 1-5% for doing all of the tech work of their company while all of them (up to 7, in one case) would handle the business side of things for me. No thanks.

There are definitely some "rich kid" startup founders out there, but a lot of the founders I've worked with over the years came more from the end of the spectrum where they grew up learning how to work hard, that money doesn't come easy, that they can't rely on parents to bail them out, and so on.

Rich kids does not mean rich idiots and does imply they do no work.

It simply implies that in a case where both have considerable skills and effort, the 'rich kid' will get much farther

> It simply implies that in a case where both have considerable skills and effort, the 'rich kid' will get much farther

Well if you assume everything is equal but you give one person more money then, sure, that person has a higher chance of success.

But that's missing the point: Many important things are not equal between the two groups, and it doesn't always benefit the wealthier one when it comes to starting companies.

> I lived near a highly ranked MBA school for a while

This is how elite colleges work. They connect elite kids with talented kids they can take advantage of.

> but then quickly realize that it's a huge amount of work and not guaranteed success

The other path I've seen rich kids take is get a good enough job in sales and marketing where they're doing fine, but not as good as their parents.

Revision to the mean is real.

It's also like the three-generation rule for family businesses. The first builds it, the second maintains it, the third loses it.

Alternatively,

> My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel

To apply it to the dart game analogy I would argue it's just not as compelling to the rich kids. They can shoot shots if they want, but winning the stuffed animal isn't that exciting because they can have as many of those as they want without winning a dart game. The prize is much more exciting to someone who has to hit the shot to get the prize.

> I would constantly get LinkedIn requests from stereotypical "rich kid" MBA grads who banded together and wanted to "do a startup", but they just needed a few engineers to actually do all the work. It was funny to hear the pitches about how they'd give me 1-5% for doing all of the tech work of their company while all of them (up to 7, in one case) would handle the business side of things for me. No thanks.

If they kept trying, someone else probably said yes.

I agree, a lot of things you do in life are based on how many times can you absorb the failure and recover from it. This ability is just not financial, it also has physical, mental health, relationships aspect to it.

You could get be the "lucky" person either tomorrow or 10 years from now, question is how long can you afford to continue.

You can always afford to continue - just with your after hours work job nights and weekends.

In my experience, the stress and mental aspects are the hardest because each has to decide what to give up for potentially nothing in return.

> You can always afford to continue - just with your after hours work job nights and weekends.

I don't like pointing out 'privilege', but this is it.

Many of us have to spend weekends and evenings looking after kids, or ill parents. Family responsibilities in other words.

Some of us have jobs that demand more than standard 9/5.

And some have to work a second job to make ends meet.

What you pointed out is adults have responsibilities. We all have responsibilities to work around to follow your goals and dreams.

Not having responsibilities is not a sign of privilege - but just a sign of a different phase of life. So that means one has to be tactical to pick the opportunity that matches what effort & energy one can put towards that opportunity.

You can’t work around all responsibilities. For example, if you have to take care of your sick mom, you simply cannot do it.

I’m going to be honest. You don’t sound super privileged but you are more privileged than a lot of people and you don’t seem to realize it.

There is nothing wrong with privilege and there are definitely lazy people but it gets ridiculous when you keep posting “if I could do it, why can’t everyone else?”

Totally agree, but people get really hung up and defensive when you imply that their success came from anything except sheer grit and Horatio Algers rags to riches work ethic.

Funny how this doesn’t apply to immigrants. Being lower, middle, upper class is mostly a mindset that dictates your tolerance for risk. Immigrants of the same income level as US born have a far higher tolerance.

Isn't this self selection bias?

The most risk tolerant people are also the most likely to immigrate to a new country? The more conservative people buckle in for a life at the fruit stand or whatever they have in their home country. Maybe not a great life, but it's steady and they know it keeps them fed.

> Rich kids can afford many throws.

True. But the advantage is broader than that. They also have more able networks. Their parents more likely to know someone who can help who might know someone else who can help. The (support) network matters.

But that's not the difference marker. It's WHAT they throw those darts at that matters. True story...

A few years ago I attended (as a spectator) a hackathon at Princeton Univ. It was mostly PU teams but there were a handful of outsiders.

On day one each team presented their ideas. The team from Rutgers' idea had to do with drinking. An app that figured out the amount of alcohol in your glass or something like that. I honestly don't recall the PU ideas but I know they didn't center around partying.

It was then I realized the difference between those two schools. It's not the quality of the education per se. It's WHAT you think about and HOW you think about it.

Rich kids are exposed to a way of thinking (and role models) that is 100x more rare in the middle class or below. Sure you can claw up from the middle/bottom but it's 100x easier from the top.

As a Rutgers alumnus who was involved in the scene when college hackathons started really taking off (2009-2013, attended 40+ hackathons), I can say that this anecdote doesn't reflect my experience at all. Had you attended HackRU instead of HackPrinceton, I can guarantee you that the app ideas would be pretty much indistinguishable from those at other universities.

As for thinking differently, I can't speak much to that, but I've met quite a number of rich people with average and below-average thinking capabilities.

It's my comment above yours.

I went to RU as well so I know what that edu and campus experience is like. I grew up in central NJ so I am familiar with Princeton. I went to public school. I had friends who went to private schools (e.g., Hun).

There IS a differnce, and it ain't just income.

You're absolutely right. It's a small sample size. Nonetheless the contrast was stark and obvious. Network, environment and role models all matter. They are things a lack of money can't buy.

If you’re open to fielding some questions about the area (and its academics), can you drop me a line at gmail using my username?

To clarify, I'm not talking about IQ. There's no connection between IQ and (financial) success. It's how and what they use what they have.

There's a difference been thinking about and having lunch with Aunt X and Uncke Y the successful biz owners and the new Marvel movie and associated video game.

There's a difference between being smart about your body (read: food and exercise) and indulgening in anything advertised on TV. Spend a day in Princeton, there is a noticeable lack of excess weight and obesity.

Why? Because they think (and act) different.

Rich people usually control their weight better because they have more money to have better food and perhaps personal cooks/access to better restaurants with better food. They act differently because they are rich. Not because of any sort of bullshit mEnTaLiTy concept.

It's chicken egg thing.

Or at they rich because they act differently?

Come on, if you had the money it's 10x easier to "let yourself go", right? Yet how often does that happen?

Your thoughts drive your decisions and actions. That's not bullshit. That's life. Suck it up cupcake :)

> Middle class kids can afford one throw.

> Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival.

This doesn't agree with my experience. I grew up poor, and by the time I hit middle class income levels, had already thrown the dart more than once. At middle class, I also threw the dart a few times.

One of the things people misunderstand about starting businesses is that they think you need a lot of money to do it. You don't. Adequate funding makes the experience more comfortable (fewer nights going without eating, the ability to hire people to help, etc.), and perhaps makes the venture more likely to succeed (although that's a matter of legitimate debate), but isn't necessary.

What's necessary -- regardless of monetary resources -- is an almost pathological drive to do whatever it takes to make the business work. I've found, personally, that the single factor that makes the difference between success and failure is being in a position where failure would mean complete and total personal disaster. Then my survival instincts kick in and help.

> Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it.

Aren't many first-generation immigrants (Koreans etc.) in the US entrepreneurs? They're certainly not middle class, and yet they make in it the business world.

Poor isn’t just a temporary personal financial situation. In this case often the parents continue to sacrifice everything so that their children can have a chance at a better life.

Being the recipient of the sacrifice of two capable people is not a state of poverty.

As a son of Korean entrepreneur immigrants, I can say that many of them work less than minimum wage per hour at their business. These bets can work out but it can also be worse than their employees.

Realize the game you and your family are playing.

Middle class have 3 paths out:

- Single shot entrepreneurship

- Repeated entrepreneurship with a job (no free nights or weekends)

- Long term, multi generational wealth building over the course of 40-100 years with a mixture of stable career or above

A wealthy family did the above but a generation or two before you or yours & someone else is reaping the benefit. Don't get mad at someone else because of your own families path.

That's not how most generational wealth was created. From mobsters that went "legit" (Bronfmans, Kennedys...) to people who build their fortunes off war profiteering, slavery, genocide, child labor... They weren't grinding away for 40-100 years at some labor job. They exploited people, captured the gains, then used the power law to stay on the top.

Sure - those are some very specific examples. But whatever town you're in, drive around the nice areas. Those $1M-$5M houses with BMW's or etc. Are they gangsters and warlords? No, they're just normal people who tried and took a different path. Some by luck, some by skill, some by experience.

Just as one can't judge a person who's on the streets - one can't judge a wealthy person with such lenses.

The vast majority of those people are middle/upper-middle class people in massive debt. The kind of upper-class Harvard grad that VCs like are most definitely of the old money variety.

>The kind of upper-class Harvard grad that VCs like are most definitely of the old money variety.

Do you have any evidence for this?

[edit] Of course, you'll likely be able to find a single case and that's any evidence. So how about is there sufficient evidence to support your conclusion that "old money" is getting all the VC funding?

I don't think there's been research done on generational wealth of funded founders, but there's plenty that shows highly skewed investment patterns:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/29/diversifying-startups-and-...

Similar to the other post, Every American who passes a house to their decendents has built some level of generational wealth. There are a lot more people in this bucket than the Kennedy wealth bucket

We're talking about wealthy entrepreneurs that raise millions of dollars from VCs, not average homeowners. One house passed down to 4 kids, isn't going to get those kids invited to Marc Andreessen's bbqs.

To the contrary, the parent post you respnded was talking about what options middle class families have to make it to the upper class. This is a seperate question than what option middle class familes have to get to an Andreesen BBQ.

Maybe it is just a confusion over the definition of "multi generational wealth".

Many if not most people consider getting a house, inheretence, or small business "multi generational wealth", especially in economic literature.

You dont need an 8+ figure inheretence to be upper class in the US.

I think multi generational wealth would mean that people are a member of the capital class and not the labor class (i.e. they don't have to work for a living). Those are the people who go on to be serial entrepreneurs, because, why not? Nothing to lose other than effort.

Anyone else is taking on risk of becoming destitute if they repeatedly try to start businesses. Even a small business can drain a million dollars very quickly.

> You dont need an 8+ figure inheretence to be upper class in the US.

I think you do since that's about the level where you don't have to work anymore, especially if you're talking about passing that money down to multiple children and keeping them in the upper class.

Disagree. You're not mentioning something just as important, and even more powerful than work. Compounding

I don't think you are using a conventional definition of upper class, or that it is interchangeable with capital class. I also don't think these are the definitions for the Post you were responding to.

That said, I agree eight figures is about the right number for when a family would not have to work assuming that the capital assets are managed appropriately.

I think high value labor is the main path between lower class and middle class. High value labor plus smart investment of surplus capital gets families from middle class to high class. The path from high class to Capital class, as you call it is, primarily return on Capital management.

To get from Capital class to Kennedy class requires a significant windfall or luck, as you would expect for tail end of a Pareto distribution.

How do you define generational wealth? 7 figures? 8? 9? There are many small to medium sized family businesses that were not built on criminal or immoral activities.

I'd say 8,9 or 10. Generally people who would be considered LPs for VCs and have political and/or media influence. It is the children of these people that are highly over represented in the executive and funded entrepreneur ranks.

That doesn't describe most generational wealth.

A family house is generational wealth. Most people who at age 65-75 are worth over $1 million dollars didn't get there by using the power of law to stay on top or profiteering from slavery or genocide. That's insane.

> didn't get there by using the power of law

NIMBYism is the power of law. Mortgage interest deduction is the power of law. Without either, that million dollars of wealth, much of it in the home, would be a lot less.

Even if I take that as true, it's still not "using the power of law" to follow the law. "Using the power of law" implies some degree of control over the law.

People vote, and on some issues they vote as blocks.

I said "power law" not "power of law", meaning winner take all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

That's not what the power law means, though. It's not a thing you 'use' to stay on top. It describes things, it doesn't influence things. Just because 20% earn 80% doesn't mean that you can use the Pareto distribution to keep in that 20%.

In capitalism it does mean that you use it to stay on top. You attract more capital, build more moats, consolidate more competitors, exploit more labor... It's why we have a winner takes all economy with record high wealth inequality.

No. You use moats, consolidation and capital to stay on top. You don't use the power law.

I think there's a basic misunderstanding here. If I say that you are in the 80th percentile, that doesn't mean anything other than you are, right at this moment, in the 80th percentile. It doesn't say anything about your position in the future, and even if it says that the 80th percentile will still be there in the future you may not be in it. You can't use the fact that I have described your position to maintain your position.

Incorrect. If you're in the 80th percentile, you're permanently locked out of opportunities available to those in the 99th percentile because they can build effective barriers with their capital. I'm hardly the first to say this, it's well trod territory. Here's some basics if you want to read up on it: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.185

That's not because of the power law, though. That's because of the circumstances that give rise to the power law. I'm saying that the power law does not cause any of this.

Did you not read what you linked? It deals with the causes of power laws in economics, it does not by any means say that power laws cause stagnancy among the relevant population. It does not say this because that would make no sense.

Power laws when applied to economics are an indicator that there are underlying processes (effective barriers with capital may be one) that cause the distribution to look this way. They are an illustration, not a cause.

I think it's a mixed bag. Without progressive taxation regimes and property tax, I would expect those people to have much more wealth, not less.

The very top, sure. But there are effects all down the ladder, and at some point the effects of the laws stop helping build wealth and start hurting it. Some of these taxation regimes are functionally regressive, at least at the top.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2023/03/26/financia...

> The reason most people don’t get the mortgage interest benefit is because claiming it requires itemizing tax deductions rather than using the standard deduction. But to itemize, you need enough deductions. In 2019, the Tax Foundation estimated how many people itemized after those big tax changes in 2017 that made it harder for most taxpayers to do so. It was 13.7%, or more than 17 percentage points lower than before the 2017 law.

> Desmond pointed to a National Bureau of Economic Research study from 2015. Even at that point, about $195 billion of the $270 billion the federal government spent on housing was in the form of these tax code-based deductions. The remaining $75 billion is spent on the poor, or less than a third as much.

> That $195 billion now is for the people who can claim it on their taxes, or less than 14% of the tax paying population.

>But there are effects all down the ladder, and at some point the effects of the laws stop helping build wealth and start hurting it.

This was actually the point I was trying to make. It depends on how you look at it, but by one measure, taxes on net are slowing the wealth accumulation of everyone who pays more than the national average tax. Those who pay less than the average are typically living hand to mouth and not accumulating wealth. When you look at where tax revenue comes from, it is mostly the high earners that are paying for everything, offsetting the their wealth accumulation. Even despite factors like itemized tax deductions, your high earner will still be paying far more than your low earner. For example, the federal rate of 37% on income over 500k will still be far more than 12% on less than 41k, even with tax deductions.

There are of course some factors that offset this, like maintaining the rule of law, education, and property rights which help lift all boats, rich and poor.

For the generationally wealthy laws such as stepped up basis and lower taxes on capital gains are also counter factors.

The mortgage interest deduction in particular now helps the top 20% or so afford their homes. And afford to continue paying more for homes in their range. Thus boosting property values and prices. While the lack of mortgage interest deduction for additional homes increases the cost of homes which are let out as rentals, which directly impacts the cost of renters, and indirectly boosts the costs of renters through the rise in property values.

I haven't studied this, and lack the ability to do an economic analysis of the yoyoing of increasing home prices versus new construction. But there's probably a regressive effect on wealth even for some of those who aren't living hand-to-mouth.

It looks like the mortgage interest tax deduction did decrease from interest on up to $1 million in loans to interest on up to $750 thousand with the 2017 tax change. This should help reduce the effect on house prices a little bit on the margin.

> it is mostly the high earners that are paying for everything, offsetting the their wealth accumulation.

To an extent this is true. But this argument is also used to say that renters don't pay property taxes. Maybe not, but property taxes have a direct, proportionate effect on the rent that they pay.

I agree with most of what you said, but I would quibble with how costs are passed on to consumers. passing costs on is a lot more complext when goods are not being sold at their margional production costs (e.g. someone has a profit margin).

>To an extent this is true. But this argument is also used to say that renters don't pay property taxes. Maybe not, but property taxes have a direct, proportionate effect on the rent that they pay.

When you have makets with a gap between production cost and the market price, there is the possiblity that the seller simply eats the cost.

Imagine wallmart selling widgets with a profit. If the price of the widget is already set where the marginal profit for increasing the sticker price is zero, This holds true even if production costs go up. i.e., raising the price still results in fewer sales and less profit, independent of production cost.

In terms of housing, if nobody can afford higher rent, landlords cant raise it without more vacancies. In that case, tax might come out of their profit and not be passed on.

> In that case, tax might come out of their profit and not be passed on.

Yes, this is true. Some landlords merely use rent to offset the cost of the house, not to cover it entirely. But over enough years, the majority of rental property has to be paying its way, or it gets sold off.

That's not true. A large majority of middle class kid can rely on their parents support until their 30s. I personally know several shitheads doing that and they're doing so because they're lazy. Not because they're working hard on some start up.

Sure, but that safety net runs out. And once it runs out with nothing established beyond it, the "shithead" is SOL.

Sure, but it runs out after a dozen start up attempts. And at that point you haven't got a business you can live on it's because you're not cut out to be a founder.

> Sure, but it runs out after a dozen start up attempts.

For middle class adults living with their parents?

If you do one a year from 18 to 30 that's an even dozen.

> Don't get mad at someone else because of your own families path

Should I get mad at my family? This part is not clear to me.

You are also saying this like it's possible for everyone to become wealthy, if only they were picking one of these three options. Not every family can be wealthy - the wealthy make sure of it. It's a zero-sum game (well, more of a negative-sum game? as wealth becomes more concentrated at the top).

Actually, the more I think about it, the less I see how these are three different options. For me as an individual, #3 comes down to inheriting wealth that someone else generated with #1, which is just #2 + luck.

If the economy was a zero or negative sum game we'd still have the same food insecurity we did 500 years ago. But we don't, the world has gotten much better in the last 500 years from people working hard on making it better, many getting rich in the process.

Your benchmark was Rich. Rich is a relative term, it means more money that everyone else.

If everyone owns 5 houses, to be rich you have to own 500

The status is zero sum, wealth is not. We all live in bigger houses with more amenities and greater food security than our ancestors.

If you compare to peasants who lived 100 years ago, sure. But go back two generations, and as inequality has risen swaths of people have fallen into property.

I’ve seen this analogy repeatedly many times and it’s becoming a meme.

I think this is wrong and that it trivializes people’s accomplishments and hard work as nothing but random chance.

There are tons of examples of entrepreneurs who came from nothing that spent long periods of time living with their parents and eating ramen, grinding until they finally made it.

And for every one of those, there are 10 who did not.

Random chance is a dominant factor in life, in some walks of like it's The Dominant Factor. Look at Olympic champions, they all work hard but for every athlete that succeeds, there are 100 that worked just as hard and did not. If you were not randomly allocated the right genes, your chance of winning the Olympics is 0% no matter how hard you work.

Or look at traders, they work 100 hours a week, consume cocaine, some die of overwork, some die of overdose. And we have research to prove that random chance is the dominant factor in their work. Working hard for them is a necessity to stay in the game, but it does not assure success.

> If you were not randomly allocated the right genes, your chance of winning the Olympics is 0% no matter how hard you work

Tonya Harding would like a word with you.

More seriously, luck beyond can help beyond genetics. Such as having local access to a world-class trainer. Or changes to the rules of a competition (I have heard that Simone Biles' 10s are partly possible because of changes in scoring which value her skillset more than they did previously).

> Rich kids can afford many throws.

True, but those throws are still expensive, and the prize is worth less than the cost to play. This is what downward mobility looks like. It's a kid who grew up wealthy, but ended up upper middle class because they weren't as lucky/ambitious/talented as their parents. It happens a lot, but it isn't dramatic, and the outcome isn't "bad," so it doesn't get much attention, but downward mobility absolutely happens.

Isn't the trope that the first generation makes the wealth, the second generation maintains it, and the third spends it?

If you can't afford to sink the money into a startup, you probably should not attempt to do so, right?

The fallacy here lies in assuming that every startup requires capital. Capital greases the wheels, sure. But far too many people think entrepreneurship is just dumping money into an "idea" until it works, and that's actually the worst possible way to go about building a business.

I've been building businesses since I was 10. Very low income family. They certainly weren't funding anything (nor was I in middle-school). But the spirit of entrepreneurship has always been there.

If you have a family and live in the US, you will be saddled with mandatory health insurance payments that are basically untenable without a full-time job.

The world will never be fair, I'm not even sure that is an ideal goal. The best things in my life have come from when I faced adversity, not when I was in a position of privilege. While opportunities are not always equal in quality or number, there are opportunities if you seek them. It's ironic that even though lots of things come down to luck, it's very possible to put oneself in a position that makes it feel like they are very lucky! "Luck" tends to follow those with initiative.

If fairness is not an "ideal goal" what is?

>The best things in my life have come from when I faced adversity, not when I was in a position of privilege

Does that hold for kids hungry and unable to finish school because their parents don't make enough then? (Or much worse situations)?

To remove barriers and give people a chance to achieve what they desire (if they desire). That doesn't mean everyone will have the same opportunities and/or the same circumstances.

And no it doesn't, this is not an argument against assistance programs.

Seems like an arbitrary line. Lifting someone out of poverty is removing a barrier. Helping people make social connections is removing a barrier.

The hard thing to understand about privilege is that it may have just as many constrictions as having nothing. They are different but can be every bit as challenging to a good life.

I guess people want to believe that if only they were born with more privilege they would be happier and have more freedom to fail. I find that attitude makes the person and circumstances. I won't deny having one's mom rub elbows with the chairman of IBM is a very rare privilege.

> The world will never be fair, I'm not even sure that is an ideal goal.

Which is exactly why it is important to have an accurate assessment of who is truly an entrepreneurial genius, contributing to society, and who is starting another Juicero.

If you're a dev living moderately in a reasonable cost of living city you can afford to go all in on a startup every few years without any familial income or wealth.

This describes a member of the unlanded gentry class, not the middle class.

This doesn't explain the success rates that low wealth immigrants have when it comes to entrepreneurship. It does feel like an analogy someone would write a sudo-intelectual book based on because it 'feels accurate' while being nothing but pop-crap people use to put energy into being resentful or to justify limits they put on themselves.

Actually, poor people start lots of businesses, particularly immigrant families. In lots of cases those tend to be mom-and-pop operations, not things intended to become unicorns or anything, just enough to afford independence from "the man", or to give the kids an opportunity to get an education etc. (Kim's Convenience really gets at this dynamic pretty well for immigrant families). Often times too, poor people's businesses are in the gray economy. Pushing around a cart selling ice-cream, going house to house selling tamales, maintaining a clientele fro nails and hair styling. In fact, one of the biggest obstacles to these folks are the local regulations. I'm no libertarian, but it has long been clear to me that the licensing requirements etc. for some of this stuff is a real obstacle to moving out of the gray economy for them.

When I lived in California there were yearly stories about homemade cheese that was getting sold and killing people and a push to remind people of this reality. The 'licensing requirements' are there for a reason, around food the reason is to prevent deaths or permanent disabilities from food poisoning.

Sure, but other requirements are stupid, like you can't open a cafe in US without having a lot of land for parking.

Also in Britain, surprisingly, you can register a takeaway anywhere, even at your home, and if you don't handle animal products, there is no requirements to meet at all. You don't have to show your hygiene rating to customers either.

"When you start a new food business or take over an existing business, you must register with your local authority.

It’s free to register, and your registration cannot be refused.

You should register at least 28 days before opening. If you’re already trading and have not registered, you need to do this as soon as possible."

Being well connected is far more important than being rich. Consider Bill Gates: he came from an affluent family, is intelligent, and hardworking...but so are many people. What ultimately set him apart was that his mother knew the chairman of IBM.

"Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to..."

Yeah, if. The old military adage about capability and intent comes to mind. Rich kids do have more raw resources, but they may, at the same time, lack motivation. What do they have to gain by throwing, and especially by learning to throw accurately and at a desirable target?

Motivation is quite a big factor in success. Motivated people fail, too, but unmotivated people rarely succeed; there is always enough distractions around to spend money and time on (sports, sex, travelling, gambling, drugs etc.).

This ignores generational change. You can bump up your kids to the next level.

You see this most often in many of the immigrant families

First generation are janitors.

Second generation are accountants/engineers.

Third generation are doctors/lawyers

Fourth generation are entrepreneurs

So sucks to be you if you happen to be on the janitor tier, no?

That's not really what a meritocracy is supposed to be.

Starting a business is much easier for married couples who are on the same page about what to do. Succeeding is a heck of a lot harder. Both work, you live off the job income from one while the other focuses on starting the business. In preparation for living on a single income, you budget and save the income of the other spouse to start the business. This strategy also works great for saving for a down payment on a house too.

A dual income couple can accomplish a lot if they communicate, plan and support each other.

> Middle class kids can afford one throw.

More like upper middle class or if you are in the right country.

what universe do you live in where someone making gte 100k working the carnival is poor?

The median income in the USA is 41k.

what's your fallacy called? i don't remember. but obviously the comment was about the circus enabling the rich kids' startups. if the circus was the rest of the us then it would be everyone's circus, not the aforementioned one. duh. now the real question is are you arguing in good faith or are you actually on, eg, the side of those rich kids? either way, fallacy is fallacy and you should be downvoted.

What a depressing take.

Starting young (at 20 years old or earlier) gives you over a decade to explore and discover your entrepreneurial path with low risk. Stop making excuse.

Being under the age of 30 doesn't protect you from bankruptcy.

That is golden.

A nice analogy but it doesn't work.

There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple times before succeeding at a business. If you look at the big businesses that dominate the US tech economy, they're all first time founders (Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc).

There are also very few entrepreneurs bootstrapping their own business. Even rich kids go to VC, they aren't usually risking their own funds.

Finally, if you try multiple times, learn something important from each failure, and then succeed, it seems reasonable to claim that this is now due to the skills you developed and not mere luck. You can't even claim it's privilege - it might be, but as this article argues, being an entrepreneur isn't being handed a nice life on a plate even if you're successful.

For sure there are counter-examples where some rich kid spent their parents money trying and failing over and over, then got lucky without learning anything, somehow had an incredibly easy life from that point on and then started talking about merit. But they're going to be the exceptions that prove the rule. The carnival analogy therefore feels like ideologically motivated reasoning of the most common Marxist kind (claiming hard work and risk taking don't matter, that all success in life is the inherited privilege of capital).

I think you need to leave tech and VC money. VC’s are happy to throw money behind a bunch of smart college kids. Go try to go a different route and see all the doors shut. Also you don’t get to see all the people who don’t try their hand at entrepreneurship because the gamble is too great for them.

Yes, but the reason it's harder to get money for those sorts of businesses is because they're much less likely to generate large returns. The BBC couldn't / didn't want to find any tech entrepreneurs for this article (it's not like the UK doesn't have them), so they focus on people doing contracting or agency work. Of course it'll be tough to get investment in such a low margin and competitive business, VCs don't invest in tech outsourcing body shops either. There just isn't the possibility of large profits without product development.

Most businesses don't generate extraordinarily large returns. Successful tech companies are in the long tail. Where's the investment in the middle?

That exists but it goes by names we don't use much here like corporate paper, bonds, etc. Bigger than a bank loan but smaller than a (modern) VC round.

Except a huge amount of VC plays are basically just gambling on someone succeeding. They don’t care who. So you’ve got 1 success story for every 100 attempts. Sure that 1 generated outsized returns, but that doesn’t help the 100 that failed and lost time and money they could have gotten elsewhere.

Additionally, VC plays are often are parasitic endeavors that try to acquire monopoly positions by flooding the market to corner it (ie kill all competition) before raising prices (eg Uber prices raise to pretty close to taxis once the local taxis have been run out of business). If you prevented flooding the market as a tactic, the entrepreneurship model would change drastically. And that is something we used to try to prevent but for some reason we only did it once for the commodities market but let it continue unabashed everywhere else.

> There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple times before succeeding at a business. If you look at the big businesses that dominate the US tech economy, they're all first time founders (Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc).

For this analysis to be complete you'd have to look at all companies, not an arbitrary selection of tech companies.

Furthermore, tech is unique (and so is the list of your companies) in that one couldn't have started a similar company before the ones you listed since modern tech literally had just begun.

A better example would be to look at the new generation of tech companies, such as OpenAI, if you want to focus on tech.

Finally, let's look at your companies:

Microsoft - was not Bill Gates' first company.

Amazon - It's true the name was the same, but the company pre and post 1998 (Amazon as a bookstore, and then Amazon as an ecommerce site, and then the development of what is known as AWS in the early 2000s) was fundamentally different. The only real similarity is the name.

Google - it's true Brin and Page started this company first, but they had effectively done all the work for "free" as part of their PhD (at Stanford, no less). Keeping up with the parent post analogy, there was not much risk here.

Apple - Similar to Amazon in that Apple as a name and company had continuity from now to its beginning, but Steve Jobs started Next which you could argue is the DNA of modern Apple (it merged back with the almost then defunct Apple), as well as Pixar.

> Amazon - It's true the name was the same, but the company pre and post 1998 (Amazon as a bookstore, and then Amazon as an ecommerce site, and then the development of what is known as AWS in the early 2000s) was fundamentally different. The only real similarity is the name.

> Apple - Similar to Amazon in that Apple as a name and company had continuity from now to its beginning, but Steve Jobs started Next which you could argue is the DNA of modern Apple (it merged back with the almost then defunct Apple), as well as Pixar.

These two do not really support your point. The grandparent said:

> There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple times before succeeding

Starting a successful company and then used that basis to branch out into another successful company does not disprove this point.

The point I was addressing was "Rich kids can afford many throws." in the grandparent. The parent post doesn't really change what the main point of the grandparent is, which is that rich people get more chances.

Gates had one other company that he founded at 17 before starting Microsoft at 20.

> A nice analogy but it doesn't work.

Your analogies don't refute his claims the way you think they do.

When you look at the FAANGs you're implicitly viewing from $$'s of the overall pie (top 99.99999%??) where as the parent comment is looking at it from they're just 5 founders amongst a sea of them (top 0.000001%?). Also, the founders of those companies aren't rags to riches they came from upper middle to upper class families.

His quoted analogy stands well and yours generally helps it.

> There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple times before succeeding at a business.

That seems counter-intuitive. You are looking at incredibly large corporations that came full form in a few decades only, and I'd wager their founder succeeding at the first try might be part of the whole miracle. Companies that mildly succeed could come from less miraculous founders who needed a few more tries.

> Even rich kids go to VC

It's more on whether they can effort to "waste" a few years in a startup instead of trying to build a career in a more stable company.

They also don't need social branding: if you're trying to get a loan for your mortgage, working at IBM will help a lot compared to some random stealth startup.

It's the same reason you'll find more well-off kids trying to make it as actors. It's just a risk most poor kids won't take.

> due to the skills you developed and not mere luck

It doesn't have to be a dichotomy of one or another. Just don't publish a book to tell the world "look at me: just work hard enough and everything is possible"

Your average mortgage broker does not care about the name of the company on the check beyond conversation.

The Fannie Mae underwriting manual and software[1] they use makes no mention of company prestige, age, etc.

Simply, is there consistent pay stub history, do the bank accounts agree with the pay stub history, do the filed 1040s agree with job and bank account.

If you have a non-average mortgage broker that cares about the name, then you’re in an SVB-like situation and we’ve all seen how that played out.

1: https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/applications-technology/d...

This sounds like survivorship bias.

Rich kids have a golden parachute for a smoother fall than all the other kids. In addition, most rich kids belong to wealthy, well-connected parents who have already built a network for them. Middle-class to poor kids do not have these resources. However, that doesn't mean bootstrapping will not work. But it is harder for them than rich kids to build a multi-million business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com