Is success tied to having rich parents?
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
I eventually co-founded a company with two others and it went well, but after exiting I am still not plugged into VC.
Basically I'm in the top %1 of earnings in my poverty stricken cohort, a proven pragmatists and a programmer, and I still find it impossible to find and get in front of investors. They don't want cockroach people in my estimation.
Being poor with 0 safety net, even when you escape it, you still have the drag. So once again I'm bootstrapping and I'll make progress at a 3rd the rate (or lower) than I could be AND have more risk/exposure than I want.
Any ideas why?
This is true. It matters much more who you are than what you bring to the table (unless you're bringing in something spectacular).
By "who you are" do you mean a persons intrinsic traits?
I think the fact that "who you are" in these cases implicitly includes a persons network, access to capital and other _extrinsic_ traits should be spoken aloud and acknowledged.
There are a lot of poor, smart kids who feel _less than_ as a result.
A trait I have that is hard to present is that for every dollar invested in me the ROI has been a minimum of 25x, those numbers start at 15 when I dropped out of HS to pay my families rent (with an "illegal" w2 smb network admin job I turned into a coding/marketing automation job) because of my mothers cancer diagnosis.
Many of us end up being out leveraged early on and our map to success takes far more personal torque and grit than others born into more connected and wealthier circumstances.
>I think the fact that "who you are" in these cases implicitly includes a persons network [...]
Yes, you're right, in some sense a person with a good pedigree is bringing these implicit connections to the table, and that has value, for sure. But then that leaves outside the other 90% of people who do not pass that litmus test.
And then, some bad patterns emerge, like this one pointed out by our beloved Michael O. Church: https://twitter.com/MichaelOChurch/status/149157622891411456...
My luck of course is that my parents were brilliant observers and educators (just lacked any financial background.) Just unplugged from material humanity due to their respective upbringing. Which was lovely, and in many ways very wholesome, but killed them and devastated my family in the end, I still miss them dearly.
Can confirm the Michael O'Church quote.
Long before I had financial security I learned to code switch, to present that demurring, almost embarrassed and indifferent attitude towards money, if you met me in person I can come across as a pretty standard tech bro from a wealthy background. It helps immensely with the leverage imbalance, to appear as an almost gadfly, but it's all very complicated and there are trade offs and unlearned implicit things that I don't have an intuitive grasp on.
I don't really talk about poverty and climbing out of it except on HN, it's usually not personally fruitful and not part of my daily headspace. Everything is smoother when you focus on the similarities of your conversation partners and commonalities. We are all one humanity after all, even if not everyone grasps the depth of that truth.
It sucks, and I'm sorry that you had this experience. That's basically how it works. The people who get the good jobs are the people who don't need jobs at all. The people who need jobs get the lousy ones that lead nowhere but more lousy jobs, and it is this way because the owning class can threaten us with starvation and homelessness into taking whatever terms they offer.
What is truly weird is that, if you advocate (I don't, and I'm not) for tearing down the capital-owning class using indiscriminate and total violence--and, just to be clear, I consider "indiscriminate, total violence" a terrible outcome, almost as bad as letting the bourgeoisie continue to win--you'll probably end up in jail, even in the US where they claim to love "freedom of speech"... but, at the same time, rich people can use survival pressures (threat of starvation, homelessness, and criminal medical negligence) and that's just taken as how the world works. To advocate for a final revolution against the bourgeoisie that might take 100,000 lives is a crime; to advocate (or even lobby!) against "socialized medicine" and kill far more people is legal.
It's weird how certain types of violence fade into the background while others are considered severe and deviant, to the point of receiving international scorn and attention. Worker-initiated worksite violence is a bad thing, no doubt--I am staunchy against it, since other workers, often innocents, are invariably the victims--but compared to the millions that have been killed by the US health insurance system, it's not newsworthy at all. It's just the Right is very skilled at using criminal anecdata to convince people the world that the poor are far more dangerous (and the rich, less so) than they actually are.
I like that HN is a place to discuss ideas with other nerds, be inquisitive, share experiences and perspectives in a mind expanding way, tech and peaceful community have both helped me immensely in tangible ways. I want to widen the road behind me as much as I can.
I hope you can appreciate my personal perspective, I've not found many places online where outrage and strong speech isn't the dominant mode of interaction. Thanks.
Success!!!
> but after exiting I am still not plugged into VC.
Isn’t this moving the goal posts ?
Vitalik Buterin is extremely successful. It appears he has never had to worry about finances, even as an extreme outlier for my cohort I still have to mind my p's and q's and worry about financial decisions.
I am successful for my impoverished cohort. At one point it looked like I would hit financial escape velocity where I could essentially retire, which of course would just have gotten me to Vitalik's childhood starting point.
The ability to sit and work on a moonshot for an indefinite period of time, or follow new trends at my leisure, follow a hunch, passion, what have you, without worrying about a safety net?
No, never had that. What he had in his childhood I still to this day do not have as an adult that represents the top %1 of my cohort. Even with my %1 outlier level of "success attributes", escaping the well of gravity costs a lot. In terms of real cumulative stress, health outcomes, missed opportunities, etc. just calculating using a simple base rate I would have been far better off being born into the upper middle class.
I know many individuals who are far less driven, far less creative, people who have generated far less wealth, who had childhoods and young adulthoods well into their late 20's who are still financially ahead of me.
Children/People love to have mastery and create and be recognized, children are mostly born curious, a hungry belly helps no one achieve greatness, we celebrate and immortalize the improbable stories whose success effectively represent _achievement statistical noise_ and we should be honest about that I think.
Extremely successful
> At one point it looked like I would hit financial escape velocity where I could essentially retire, which of course would just have gotten me to Vitalik's childhood starting point.
You have more control over the assets than a child - it was not their money
Maybe you are supposed to be Vitalik’s parent instead of Vitalik
Your need for success diminishes with wealth though. A lot of founders struggle to motivate themselves to push through the hard stuff, get over the pits of depression, and to drive themselves following mistakes and rejections if they have resources to fall back on. It's a lot easier to take a month off and book a nice vacation after you've been told "no" by an investor or a major customer than it is to keep going and fire up your IDE or pick up the phone to chase another sale.
Many of the founders I've met work crazy hard because they won't be able to pay the rent if they don't. They literally don't have a choice except to succeed. That's a hell of a motivator that wealthy people will never have.
Most founders I know can easily find a normal 9-5 job if they wanted to.
Other motivators are required.
Yes it is. Injuries & medical care/accessibility/costs can fuck you harder than you could ever imagine. Even when you may have been previously making mid-deep into 6 figures.
Depends on your definition of success. One's need of work to pay the bills might decrease with wealth. Yet one's mindset may change to not consider themselves successful until they attain some higher thing (like a big house, fancy cars, expensive vacations, etc).
These founders you're talking about, are they also choosing to live in expensive areas? If they change their definition of success, it's possible they could do different jobs or live in cheaper areas.
It's all about the definition.
The son of a wealthy family may think going to Google is the same as failure. He has the money to try over and over again and does so because working for someone else is like being a sheep.
There are people out there whose problem is not that they aren’t smart, but that they don’t have the resume that is aligned with HR filters. Their two biggest and relatively substantial hurdles are: 1) not getting a chance for even a first interview because they are immediately being rejected purely based on their resume, and 2) having a weak position going into salary negotiations.
So, imho “a smart person can always get a well paying job” is a gross oversimplification often made by people who are not in such circumstances.
- going to a bad public school because you live in a poor area has ripple effects that may put you in a worse position than some private prep school kid
- if you grew up in poverty, your brain will literally grow differently due to chronic stress, environmental toxins, lack of stimulation, etc. [1].
We pretend like filtering for “smart” is fair, but the opportunity to be smart is heavily weighted by privilege.
Money can't buy you love.
I’m not saying growing up rich is always easy, but the point is it’s _more likely_ to be easy than if you’re poor.
Certainly, all other things being equal, it's generally better to have more resources. But life isn't quite that simple and sometimes the price involved in successfully pursuing money involves a human cost.
If you can have lots of money and also have time for the children and also are a decent person, etc, cool. Some people pull that off.
And some people don't.
The skill development part requires free time (to learn and practice) and access (to computers, tools, people, etc.)
If we're talking about creating just any kind of business, then sure hard work and determination are enough. If we're talking about outlier success stories in tech, then privilege is almost always a component of the story.
I'd consider that a feature, not a bug for the question of global stage level founding: the subset of rich parents offspring who goes after building something aims for building something actually big, not just for the first best thing that promises access to the world of fancy cars and being someone's boss.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with starting a business aimed at bootstrapping itself and funding a car, later a house and in the end maybe even a boat. I have much greater sympathy for those than for people aiming to be the next unicorn (that term hasn't really made the jump into this decade, or has it?). But when it does come to this scope, I'd take it for granted that the born rich run a considerably higher chance of not getting blinded by high numbers and not deluding themselves.
The notion of having roommates or not a few years of savings just isn't as cool or interesting as it once sounded. Granted, it feels weird to think about giving up on something I thought I wanted to do for a really long time, but that's just life sometimes.
Now I'm 40, I've got more financial independence but dont really have the drive anymore.
Sigh.
No, it's not an appetite for risk. It's that those risks get less risky.
People become more "risk tolerant" when those risks are less of a threat to them, their survival, their future, etc.
That's a little like saying "Rich people eat at more expensive restaurants than poor people because they have the appetite for it." No, they don't. They have the same appetite as a poor person. They just have more ability to pay for the better restaurant.
Duh.
E.g. Poor and rich alike are at risk of losing the capital they put into the business. For the rich that might be daddy's money, while for the poor that might be their life savings. Both are at risk of being unemployed and without healthcare. For the rich that might be fine, but for the poor that could be life-threatening.
You could say the opposite, and it would be just as true. Risk is an individual choice, not an environmental one.
When I see assertions like the above made, it makes me think that it is an assumption made by people that haven't actually spent much time living among the lower economic classes.
I’m always from the poorest background, least educated, etc. I’ve yet to meet anyone who gets close to where I was. I don’t even feel like I truly was that bad off but then again - I’ve seen how low it goes and most people in SV cannot even comprehend what the bottom looks like in the US.
Poorer countries - maybe. Immigrants who are poor but end up being wealthy? No.
Most people who immigrate to SV are wealthy or at least upper middle class in their home country. (US or otherwise - actually. This is prevalent across all countries - again - I don't meet people who are from poor backgrounds in SV, regardless of country)
A significant percentage of the ones I knew were not even in tech, which in Silicon Valley means you fly completely under the radar. For example, I know a formerly poor immigrant that made their money in old school book publishing, of all things. The common thread is smart people willing to work hard. There are a lot of them.
I've really not met anyone under 30 in the last 7 years who fits anything near what you're speaking of. Almost everyone is from an affluent background. About half of my colleagues went to Ivy Leagues or adjacent. It's not very common to see people here who are from poverty and are young. Maybe it's more common among the 50+ crowd where it was more plausible to make your way here with little money (when your average 1000sqft home wasn't $2m+) - but it's basically unseen among the young here.
Again - I'm one of these people you're speaking of. So, it's not really like I don't exist but I've yet to meet someone like myself here. (And, I'll admit - I mostly speak to people in tech who are under 40 and are currently living here)
Your "under 30" criterion may be your problem, that selects for a very narrow set of circumstances while excluding most actually wealthy people. Virtually no one becomes wealthy before 30. Especially if you are starting from less than zero, like people that come from true poverty. Anecdotally, they usually enter fatFIRE territory in their 40s. Until very recently, tech did not pay a typical wage where someone could fatFIRE easily. Most of the people I know did it before that was a thing, without any big exits to pad their net worth. They did it the old fashioned way.
Again, I find it pretty bizarre that people in the US think it is exceptionally rare that people born into poverty become quite wealthy. In that community, there are often many examples of people that "got out" by various means, many going on to become quite wealthy. In the tech locales, that is multiplied dramatically because it is so easy for a moderately ambitious person to make silly money. Easiest ticket to wealth for a poor person ever, if they are willing to put in the effort.
Rich parents means you don’t have to work two jobs or work while studying. Means you have free “consulting” on life decisions from the perspective of the upper class. Means you access to new things like computers, phones, cars, etc.
It’s a huge advantage to come from a successful family. It means you don’t have to spend the majority of your time in survival mode but can instead invest in growth opportunities.
I would say there’s an enormous advantage coming from a rich family but it’s not the only requirement.
I've anecdotally seen this where kids from rich parents take a lot of their wealth for granted and don't understand fully what it takes to build-up and retain wealth for the long-term. They usually get high-end jobs in society - CFO of company a dad started, doctor, lawyer, etc however it feels some depth to that wealth may have been lost...
Wasn't that debunked?
Outside of external cataclysm or far bell curve "bad luck" I don't think most born into wealth (defined lets say as the investor class that commands "decent" capital holdings) pass poverty on to their kids.
I can say through my personal experience since I've worked in Switzerland and India: Just because India is having a harder time, doesn't mean we are stronger people, quite the contrary. I don't think good times are anywhere near for India and I don't think hard times are anywhere near for Switzerland.
(Switch Switzerland with any developed country.)
I've anecdotally seen people from impoverished backgrounds struggle to work in a healthy manner for long term success because of trauma dealing with short term needs on a consistent basis.
There’s obviously a balance between wealth and stress that is useful for happiness/success. But I believe it’s very easy to accidentally traumatize with unbridled stress on a developing person. For example I’m still healing a year from a shoulder overuse injury. Would have been wiser to focus on backing away from the stressors at that point. From what I have seen, rich environments have plenty of bridled stressors, and these rich kids are developing plenty thick skin, just with adequate supervision.
Maybe this generation is different from past ones due to our access to the internet and it’s human refining nature.
I don't think I remember any students here in Germany working 2 jobs. Sure, there's some inherent privilege in getting there to be able to study in the first place, but it has not a lot to do with 'wealth', being middle class and living at home (which kinda used to be the default until you were finished anyway) because we don't have so many campus universities and the majority would study at the closest uni anyway.
But I think I misread your comment as too generic, in the narrow sense of starting a company, yes, but my point is that your 'safety net' doesn't have to be your parents millions in the bank - just keep living at home would be fine.
I consider myself to have been fairly successful in my career and while I've worked hard for it, I know at the same time I was born with massive advantages. One of the most depressing things is when I see people who I know have relied on their parents a ton who are completely against any type of social programs. It's frustrating that they can't see that they had "free healthcare" (on parent's plan) till they were 26, that they have UBI in the form of weekly/monthly allowance deep into their adult years, or that they have guaranteed housing when they had to move back in for a few years.
I'm dirt poor. I have been for at least a decade and was homeless for nearly six years of that.
I also have nearly six years of college and my mother's mother came from a low level noble family. They sold the title when they fell on hard times so I'm not nobility, though I finally realized in recent years the conservative "dress code" I was raised with sounds like what I've read about the rules the British royals are expected to follow.
Currently, my failure to make ends meet gets blamed on me and any complaints I make about my gender being a barrier to effective networking, etc, get routinely handwaved off dismissively like I must just be doing something wrong.
I imagine if I ever get successful, people will rewrite their perception of me and focus on the privileges I've been fortunate to have.
No one is a monolith. We all have both good things and bad things in our lives.
It's useful to get some idea of how it was really done as a means to help you figure out how to find a path forward. Money per se is never the whole story.
Plenty of people from monied backgrounds do not become the next Bill Gates.
I would like to think the human race has finally achieved enough that it's possible for us to provide some basics to everyone so most people have maneuvering room and choice in how they live their life. But trying to talk about that seems to get me branded an SJW or something when similar interests from millionaires gets viewed as philanthropy or something.
There's a huge bias in the minds of most people that filters things in what seems a strongly classist fashion. I have yet to find a way around that.
I'm very happy with my current level of success. I've made 6 figures for a good amount of time and have more than enough saved to take a long vacation.
I can't stress enough how important it is to cut out toxic people. Hell a big part of why I left LA is just how lame folks are.
The typical personal I went out with in LA was around 30 , and simply didn't want to work. Bad things happen when your around people like this.
The moment I moved to Chicago, I was dating a beautiful, amazing career- driven girl. More than worth moving for.
If you date someone who doesn't want to work your life will be very very hard.
I've met a good amount of people from privileged backgrounds ( for me this means you've never been evicted) who squandered their privilege. For ever rich kid that started a million dollar company, another 2 sat around all day doing nothing. These tend to be the most entitled people on earth. If you work at the local pet store cleaning up animal droppings I have way more respect for you then if you live off a trust fund.
Keep in mind alot of lifestyle gurus fit the trust fund kid stereotype. Mark Manson comes to mind, because of family wealth he's never had to work. Then he made millions writing a book about not needing to worry about anything.
Hear, hear. I'm pretty sure I've seen studies that show the initial situation most likely to yield later success is the upper-middle class. Rich enough to have some resources and the stability you mention, but not so rich that "the pressure's off" and one is tempted to just rest on parents' laurels.
I think stability is also part of the argument for UBI (or similar). The burdens and instability associated with poverty are drags on the whole economy. Free people from those, and they're better able to contribute back to the economy as both producers and consumers. Unfortunately, too many people would rather limit their own prosperity as long as they can limit someone else's even more, either because they don't understand how the system works or due to a nasty quirk of human nature.
A good friend of mine has to estrange herself from her family since they were extremely abusive. If someone is mistreating you,the only real option is to leave.
But in America you basically can't get college aid if you don't talk to your parents until your 24.
We should give everyone aid for college regardless of income. Hell, this would even help intact middle class families.
Just because your household income is 200k doesn't mean you have a spare 30k per child to attend college. These middle class households are taxed to pay for everyone's else's education anyway.
I don't really think a lot of these systems are intentionally malicious, But they assume a very specific type of family structure.
If you don't have stable parents, even just tracking them down to ask him to fill out a FAFSA can be impossible.
We have the money as a society, if you do something stupid, they'll find $70,000 a year to lock you up.
Problem solved.
If, however, you kinda like the idea of running your own business, it’s worth knowing that you do not in fact need rich parents or any of the other prerequisites that non-entrepreneurs think are required.
Ask around here and you’ll find plenty of us. (And, of course, if you’re looking, I’m sure you’ll also be able to disqualify all of us individually based on some form of invented privilege).
That, combined with knowing I could pick up another dev gig quickly if needed, was my safety net, used in lieu of inherited wealth or whatever else.
But you’re right, it takes a few years to get to that point. I was happy ditching work for a year at a time to travel by my late 20s, but I didn’t commit to relying on the product stuff to live on until most of the way through my 30s.
It seems a lot easier to pull off today, in a world with google/Facebook total comp packages for those first few learning years while building up the net.
Thinking about a 2-3 month interview loop is pretty dreadful. At some level I'd need quite a bit of confidence in my idea and more than decent seed funding to leave my job. Basically, being very honest about how good I think I am vs what I could actually deliver.
As I get older, playing the "beg rich people for money game" is getting less and less appealing. Of course, many would describe this as just working or "wage c*cking" but IMO the latter is far more degenerate since by feeling you can only drive value by starting something you inevitably become more of a slave and create worse odds to a) enjoying life or b) being reasonably financially stable
There’s no rule that says you can’t come back, by the way. I took a 30hr/week contract for five years when my first kid was born to stash away an extra house and college education while the business ran itself in the background. You can keep that brass ring within reach, and even give it the occasional tug if you want.
All the best!
The fact that applying it to any one individual is the wrong mentality doesn't mean that at the level of broader society it isn't entirely correct.
Its the difference between sociological statistics and life advice.
It looks like plain old cherry picking to me. "Ask around here" ... well, no, this is just about the worst possible place to get a significant or even interesting sample. "Some do succeed" is just anecdata, no substitute for statistical reality.
Secondarily, we have a strawman. "If you’re looking for an excuse" ... you who? Anyone here? Nobody that I'm aware of has said it's not even worth trying. It's entirely possible to be aware of poor odds and still be willing to try. Some who do will even beat the odds, but that doesn't affect the overall reality. It doesn't mean privilege doesn't exist. Whether it exists for GP is irrelevant, but the level of preemptive defensiveness exhibited at the very idea has the counterproductive effect of putting the idea in people's minds.
Happens all the time when I want to talk about the statistical mechanics of a large gas of people and conservatives/republicans/right-wingers always want to argue that any given particle can do whatever it wants and I'm just disincentivizing it.
Also, in that thread it was asserted that Steve Jobs did not have rich parents, but they were reasonably well off and lived in a leafy and pleasant neighborhood with excellent schools.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/the-pla...
> When he was 13 in 1968, Jobs was given a summer job by Bill Hewlett (of Hewlett-Packard) after Jobs cold-called him to ask for parts for an electronics project
Well that's a benefit the vast majority don't get.
To be more explicit - a lot of these comments are complaining that they aren't born super rich, but it's not about capital, it's about ability to take on risk.
In so many hums and haws he admitted he got money from his family. Looked it up, his dad was mega rich. That's defined my perspective of the entire "start-up" world ever since.
The correlation is not absolute, of course. There are poor kids who succeed - like me, though even with beginnings that were modest by most standards I was still far luckier than many. There are rich kids who fail. But the relationship is still far stronger than would be allowed in anything we could legitimately call a meritocracy.
Joking aside, I don't think it's just about the money or the safety net -- most parents can afford to support their kids for a few years after college. I think the biggest advantage is an understanding for entrepreneurial spirit.
When I started my business (not a startup), my biggest problem was having no role model and having no-one I could have asked for advise. I quickly made more money than my parents, but I still had no idea how expensive everything else would be. When I talked to anyone I knew about my expenses, they were all freaking out how much money I was paying my employees. I was extremely reluctant to pay an accountant (why throw away 1000€ a year when I can do it myself!), or even to hire someone to clean the office. The frugality I learned from my parents is not something that's useful when running a business.
If your parents are "rich", chances are they are entrepreneurs of some kind themselves, and they can mentor you, which is a huge advantage.
Are you sure about that? And even if it's true for most, how many exceptions are you willing to allow before you'll consider that lack of a safety net is a real limitation?
> If your parents are "rich", chances are they are entrepreneurs of some kind themselves
That statement also seems "lightly supported" to put it mildly. What about doctors, lawyers, MBAs, people who inherited, people who had seven-figure years at a MAGMA, etc.? In fact, let's focus on that last one. It's well known that Microsoft has created thousands of millionaires. A mere handful were entrepreneurs. Most were regular employees who drew generous regular paychecks and also had some stock/options. A minority even of those took much risk working for Microsoft before it was already a big company. Ditto Google/Alphabet, ditto Amazon, ditto Facebook/Meta. They're all minting hundreds of new millionaires every month, and none of those are entrepreneurs. I think your sample might be a bit skewed.
I learned about marketing, pitching my projects, but my views on business got much worse.
The result is mostly make believe and "just do it" mindset. We were taught by several coaches, who helped us making us feel good.
But in the end, Bourdieu is just right about everything.
Creating a startup is a lot more difficult if you have to pay for your own insurance which is why a lot of new creators that aren't super rich run a sidegig while fully employed before eventually jettisoning from their regular jobs.
It also depends what you mean by "success".
15th century Florence had a huge concentration of artistic talents. Was it a rich city? Undoubtedly so, poor places have more pressing concerns than paying people to produce art. But there have been many richer cities since then and their art output is mediocre. Even Florence itself forgot, over time, how to attract or produce great artists.
The world isn't static. 200 years ago, almost everyone in the world except a few nobles was poor or at least poor-ish. This is no longer true; so, at the very least, the total wealth can grow beyond what the parents had.
Although I understand that this situation might look wildly different in the USA. That might be a case for a social security net that actually works (and the MSc. compsci also helps).
Success is mostly about antifragility and exposing yourself to asymmetric opportunities (at any scale and in the individual's frame of reference).
Without a doubt, having rich parents magnifies ability to take such exposure and pretty early in life.
So in essence, success IS tied to having rich parents when applied to a typical large population.
It's a leap from "successful entrepreneur" to "rich", but not a huge leap. In the cited examples, I don't know how the parents made their money, but it's not hard to see how being raised by entrepreneurs could confer advantages beyond a safety net and possible seed investment from parents.
In particular, a child from an entrepreneur household would very likely simply be more comfortable and at ease in that environment and have base level of domain knowledge that others lack. This doesn't mean that nobody else can be successful, of course, they just have more to learn.
As an aside I do feel strongly that moving up more than one social class is difficult due to not being taught about money and how to handle it. My parents are working class, their parents were poverty level and never taught them anything about money. When I try to teach my parents about money it seems like there is a glass ceiling above their heads, they can’t understand finer details of how to make that final leap to wealthy by agreesively saving and investing and playing taxes correctly. I hope to make that final leap.
I don’t remember most of the millionaires in The Millionaire Next Door coming from wealthy parents, in fact they were mostly working class people that owned a business and were careful with their money. Wealth is actually destroyed after a few generations because subsequent generations never have to learn how to save and not be frivolous.
In my own case you would think my grandparents came from a long line of poverty but this is not the case researching my genealogy. On my Dad’s side they had one of the first two story houses in our part of the state and owned hundreds of acres of land. The progenitor had his grave robbed because people thought he was buried with gold. It had to be covered later by large slabs of rock by the Masons, of which he was a member. But this wealth was lost by gambling and drinking in subsequent generations. The big two story house no longer stands and I don’t know if anyone living even knows where it was.
There is a famous green text someone sent me once and it is about trying to move up two social classes and how hard it is. I try to live like Tyrone.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/q05okt/anons_cow...
Yes, some people in the world have access to opportunities that others don't. Not all 8 billion people on the planet have the exact same set of circumstances. This isn't controversial or even interesting.
Sure, rich parents will give someone a safety net, but I bet in most cases it yields the kids pissing in the wind.
Are they creating something they actually enjoy doing while earning a comfortable living? That's an intersection that takes a lot of work beyond just having money to find.
I would argue that the real success of a startup is in its potential to grow 'organically' rather than just throwing money inefficiently at it to try and force its success. There's a lot of competition, ideas and people carelessly throwing around money out there regardless, so I think it's a niche that requires much more than money alone to discover. More money is obviously preferred if you do find it though!
And that's also the reason why most successful entrepreneurs rise to new wealth in rich countries. It's just easier to get money where money is.
And kids whose parents and larger social circle are more bohemian or worldly have the same advantage in that they learn that there are more opportunities that one just doesn't see of your parents and relatives were all employees in middle America. The internet has helped somewhat but as an example, the idea that one can just make their own movies and go to film school wasn't even on my radar growing up in the 80s.
And safety net means you get to make more rolls of the dice for success.
If there is a 20% chance of success, obviously if you roll the dice enough times, you will be successful.
Also, successful founders often try long enough so that luck finally strikes them. Without money, that's hard to do.
Read more here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55277918-super-founders
But even aside from money, rich parents are likely to know more about business and can teach you. And if you believe intelligence is (at least partly) inherited, it's easy to argue that smart parents are both: more likely to be rich and more likely to have smart kids.
a) A good environment to grow up in b) A lot of hard work c) Luck
If you're missing one of them, you need to make it up in the other categories.
(a) is actually a subset of (c), no?
Seconded.
There were times when people tried to hide being gay, having Jewish ancestors or being atheist not because they were out of touch with their own reality, but because they knew that telling the truth would make them socially dirtier. Aside from a few celebrities, "privilege" is looked down on in contemporary discourse.
Having money:
- gives you more chances to pivot
- more time to find product/market fit
- more time to not need to get a "normal" job just to pay your bills
However there are other ways of raising your chance of success. I'm working on something to help founders of all backgrounds: https://cxo.industries
I wonder what poor people in countries in India, Mexico or Brazil would think.
But many people who live in Western, industrialized countries have never been to a developing country, so they have no basis for comparison except what they see around them.
Even my modest apartment, which is completely mundane by Western standards, would be rather luxurious by developing world standards. It's very easy to lose sight of that sometimes.
What this is about is changing things so that everybody else has the same chance that currently only a tiny minority do. Because as much as our current economic system is much better than anything that came before, it still wastes the vast majority of the talent and potential of its members.
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” -Steven Jay Gould
Growing up poor definitely held me back. I had to catch up financially, had zero safety net, zero money management skills, and all the other problems of being poor in the US like transportation, access to good education and healthcare, access to opportunities, etc.
"Hustle culture" is what happens when "pulling your bootstraps" is not edgy enough.