Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6stringmerc | Hacker News Reader

For those who might eyeroll at this example, I believe it and find it a good citation. Have you done the math on what it costs to get a US commercial aviation license?

Just remember, Jack Antonoff (musician turned music producer for acts like St. Vincent) benefitted from his Dad being a millionaire diet supplement multi-level marketing huckster, Taylor Swift’s Dad was (and still is) a Merrill Lynch high earning banker, Redfoo of LmFAO is the son of Barry Gordy…he’ll, even Annie Clark, aka St. Vincent, is the niece of famous guitarist Tuck Andreas. Tell me with a straight face having those connections isn’t a thumb on the roulette wheel and I’ll politely go away for obvious reasons.

View on HN

Having rich parent certainly helps. The problem with this line of thinking is that there are many many rich parents, but only one Tailor Swift. What happen to all other rich kids who also dream of being a singer? Can you say, "with straight face", that they can just became Taylor Swift if their dad was a Merrill Lynch banker?

There is also one and only Adele, whose father left when she was two and who had a very modest upbringing.

I can say with a straight face that having rich, well-connected parents hugely raises your odds of success if you have some native talent, for obvious reasons - in music you can buy equipment, hire teachers, PR people, and stylists, spend money on recording, and get easy access to industry insiders.

You can experiment without worrying that you will starve or be homeless if you fail.

Some corners of the arts are full of people like this - some talent, more money, so they get to have "careers" with nothing tangible on the line except loss of face. The family fortune protects them from everything except wilful self-destruction.

The obvious corollary is that failing to have rich, well-connected parents hugely lowers your odds of success, even if you have equivalent talent. Some people still succeed, for all kinds of reasons. But the odds are forever not in your favour.

It's not a binary, it's a significant tilt of the playing field.

Yeah it's really not the same odds and merit.

But the thing is people always use the extreme outlier as "proof" that something is possible. There is both survival bias and moral rationalisation when it comes from rich people.

Sure enough, such and such poor person who started with nothing and a terrible environment succeeded. But how many like them with comparable merit/talent didn't? And what was the key event that put them on the good trajectory? People always underestimate the importance of luck.

On the other hand, coming from a rich background practically ensures a minimal amount of success. Even if you fail to become good/great you will be able to truck along with very little risk and still access to plenty opportunities.

About 15 years ago, I met some people who had true generational wealth. The brother went into music and the sister into design/art. They currently have a moderate amount of success and the reason is solely the connections/opportunities their parents provided. The work isn't bad per se, but I have met people who are much more talented and never got anywhere near the same type of opportunities. Many (most) have to switch to some sort of boring job to put food on the table. Meanwhile a rich competitor can afford to only work on his stuff until he succeed/make it somehow.

Life is fundamentally unfair and it's not a big deal but I really hate it when people pretend, they "made it" purely on talent/merit/hard work.

If you take her to Nashville and buy her a career like Scott Swift did for Taylor, yes I can say with a straight face a multitude of other young women could be Taylor Swift…or eventually will be.

Alongside Adele you have JK Rowling who didn’t have all her cards aligned.

There was a post on reddit yesterday about how all of Wes Anderson's movies were financed by his billionaire cinephile friend despite them not making much money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com