Hacker News Reader

>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.

>> 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.

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.

>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 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.

> 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).

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.

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