would you mind giving a greater explanation of what they mean by this? I couldn't grok the meaning from context, other than the obvious its not really possible to simply startup half baked out of your house or something along those lines
But to start a company in a garage you must have access to a garage; lots of people do not have this level of resources. The origins of these companies are not as humble as they sound, they rely access to resources that are not actually common (unless you look from the POV of a well-offish 'middle class' family)
My grandparents, First generation immigrants without a college degree bought a beautiful single family house in 1960s Northern California on a working class salary. In fact they lived across the street from George Lucas (My grandmother knew his parents). They too, were a completely average, middle class family. Not any different from Steve Jobs or the hundreds of other success stories.
Over the course of the 80s, 90s, and 00s, the same city and cities like it became notorious for crime and gang violence, homes became unaffordable, and the conditions that allowed someone to "start a company out of a garage" was wiped out as society stratified into the super rich and the super poor. Which should serve as a cautionary tale of any place that is thinking of emulating the California success story.
People like to say that success is right time, right place, but that's not all there is to it. You also need sufficient resources to take advantage of opportunity
Sitting on a gold mine does not matter if you don't have a shovel
Having a shovel doesn't matter if you don't know where to dig
And you need to have enough time ('runway' in startup speak) to actually try digging for gold in the first place
1: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilswo...
Few would suggest anyone having time, a place, necessities covered well enough, and few distractions is going to be ensured success.
But with those things, someone who also has ideas, insights, a strong work ethic (or often much better, a strong natural enthusiasm for something useful) has much better chances.
I do believe you need someone to have your back for the basics, but there's much more to it.
Anyone can start a billion dollar business. Anyone who does so is probably extremely smart and extremely hard working. There are some very smart, hard working folks for whom the path to starting a company is harder than for others.
Like why did these guys neighbors not end up billionaire. Or the other people in their class or school.
While they may have had some money it’s not like they took fathers 500 billion and turned it in to a nice 200 billion for them self.
They clearly did something different out of the very large common group they belonged to.
Survivorship bias that results from looking back at the winners. If we asked 1000 people to flip a coin 10 times, probability says one will end up flipping heads 10 times in a row. Looking only backwards after the fact, what did he do different? Is he just a better coin flipper?
There is likely a person in their 20s right now who in 40 years we will look back on because they founded the world's first $100T company. Who is it? If we knew it was deterministic and that some "thing they did" caused success, we would all just do that thing.
Then many who do get that chance choose not to, they choose a less risky path
It is very few people who even can attempt to flip the coin ten times
And "the 1%" can flip it as many times as they want until it lands on heads 10 times in a row
Most people are never even given an at-bat. They're born without money/opportunity (on the bench), and they will have to stay on the bench for life.
Some working / middle class people get one or two at-bats. They swing and maybe hit the home run, but maybe instead have a safe base hit or they strike out. That was their chance. Afterwards they're out of money/opportunity.
The top 0.1% or so get as many at-bats as they want. Their parents own the team and the ballpark so they just keep swinging until they get their home run, and then spend the rest of the game talking about how life is a meritocracy, and you succeed by being the best.
Computers, and knowledge in general, is the the most accessible it’s ever been, in the history of mankind.
So you’re claiming that the trillions of dollars that have been spent trying to uplift the youth of yesteryear were a complete an utter waste?
Or has social media been the somma Huxley was talking about all along?
Nothing stops anyone from reading and learning, having hope for the future, and pursuing it. WhatsApp had a staff of like 15-25 people. Linux wa started by some dork with an idea and a lot of time.
Treating the world like victims that need protecting isn’t the play.
Well, take a look around?
The youth cannot buy homes. They aren't starting families. The wealth gap between the older and younger generations is enormous
Do you really think we have been successful in "uplifting the youth"?
That’s me, asking the same thing.
We hear much from the Jobs and Gates of society, and little from the other garage-folk who just didn't make it: they ran out of time, ran out of steam, ran out of funding, or were doing something that would have worked great and made them billionaires if Apple hadn't hit the market three months sooner than them.
Billionaires in garages are a confirmation-bias story.
Having well connected parents and family is huge, and a big part of why a lot of these people are so wildly successful
Her father was head of a Federal govt agency at one point and a VP at Enron (I know, I know).
Also, a direct descendant of the Fleischmann yeast family.
Her mother also had worked as a Congressional aide.
Nobody (well, few) begrudge that privilege, but you cannot have a reasonable discussion about what led to success by leaving out major factors.