sielskr

How about it, PG? Will you give that "antifeature" a test?

First, I think a person has to be a little crazy to spend all his time on a venture with a 99% chance of failure. No woman for example is going to stay in a committed relationship with a man who has a 99% chance of financial failure and poverty, so what do these one-percenters plan to do to get into or stay in a relationship: lie to their partners about a fundamental part of their financial reality? (And I think that most heterosexual men who do not even want to be in a committed relationship with a woman are a little crazy.)

But probably these one-percenters are adults, and have the right to embark on this kind of career, even if I would not want it.

Would the reader however want to be a business partner, employee or even a coworker of one of these one-percenters? I for one would prefer for my business partners, employees and coworkers to look for ways so that as many people as possible enjoy a prosperous life. I would prefer for my business partners, etc, to help to shape their industry and their profession in that direction.

The most valuable things I own are my life, my freedom, my health and my education. Health includes things like enriching recreational activities and a full social life, and in expensive places like the Bay Area, that requires a certain level of income. Good educational environments do not come cheap either. But to maintain my life, my freedom, my health, etc, requires only a middle-class level of income: it does not require wild Netscape-scale personal success. Not that Netscape-scale personal success is evil or wrong, but again the most valuable things a human being owns do not require it.

When I say this, I understand that risk and unequal financial outcomes are a natural and unavoidable part of the efficient organization of the economy. Also, I do not endorse socialistic means for equalizing financial outcomes, in which the government takes income from successful workers against their will and gives it to less successful workers.

But when it can be done without decreasing the efficiency of the economy and by voluntary transactions, I think we should structure our industries and professions and markets and institutions so that an ordinary person willing to work hard can earn a good living with as little risk of lasting poverty as possible. In contrast, it seems to me that a significant fraction of the commentators here prefer winner-take-all contests even when there are alternatives that produce just as much total wealth. I for one will choose not to partner with that fraction of the community.

Let me give an example of a way to help more people earn enough money to maintain and protect the most valuable things a person owns (his life, his health, etc). Founders can increase their odds of success if they have more information on what founders before them did and how successful those choices ended up being. So anything anyone does to share true information about that or encourage others to share true information about that will tend to increase the number of founders who can earn a decent living at this startup game.