“It’s hard to take risks if you don’t have a safety net”

One of the common reasons for subdividing firms (in general, not particularly the UK) is to take advantage of liability limitations, which work as well for corporation as shareholder as for natural persons as shareholders. If it is less onerous to set up firms in the UK, you'd expect UK firms to do more of this, because the cost/benefit analysis would favor more of the cost is lower.

Until your, and your offspring's, survival as a living human revolves around working 16 hour days to barely hold it together... it's almost impossible to understand.

Poor isn't having 2 loving parents with stable jobs, growing up in a middle-class neighborhood and going to college on your parent's dime/credit.

Only a billionaire can begin to think of that situation as "poor". If that person fails then they just go home and live with their parents, that supported them through adolescence, without any major repercussions.

That situation isn't going to happen, except for extraordinary anomolies, for a person that possibly manages to finish high school with siblings in tow, no parents and already holding down 1+ jobs. This is an extreme example, but it presents the issue further.

"Poor" comes in many flavours: monetary, social, responsibilities, safety, time etc...

Once you're poor in any two areas it becomes life threatening to take risks.

No money? No family/friends? Then taking a risk isn't even possible.

No money? Responsibilities (relatives to care for)? Then you have no time.

Responsibilities? No safety net? Now you're not risking your own welfare, but the welfare of those that you care for.

No time? This is a single limiting factor alone. Yes, there are people with very little to no time, where their ability to spend their time is directly proportional to their survival.

There's even rich people that are poor in multiple areas, which disallows them from ethically taking risks. If you're sitting on a cool $100k beyond what _you_ need a year, but you're also supporting an extended immigrant family then it's irresponsible to go throwing money into a high-risk startup. It might not even be the right thing to do for your bloodline, instead opting to provide a stable life so your offspring can take risks.

I got to grow up very poor, and middle-class and now live upper-middle-class. I only made it here because of grandparents that sacrificed to allow my parents to eventually succeed (big time). Even with that safety net, they had almost zero time. I know my father had big dreams, but he had to spend 12 hours a day working/travel to make sure his kids had a chance. Mother had health issues, which complicated things even further.

As an adult I spent many years working with children in poverse circumstances, and _even as children_ they lacked resources to get an education. No time, no access to resources, often with family responsibilities, sometimes abuse, etc... Carry that on to adulthood and now you have to support yourself. Where's ability to dump a few grand into a shot in the dark?

Anyway, tldr; being poor is unfathomable until you're poor.

I don't know of a quantitative study and obviously the source is biased, but the guest came himself from a "no safety net" situation and now works with others in a similar situation, so his take is interesting even if one disagrees.

Talking about rich people and saying "you don't have to be rich to..." is like walking into a room of black people and saying "You don't have to be white to...". Nobody there is going to think that you're talking about asians.

The statement doesn't really say anything except that 'being rich' is something that can come from some other non-rich state. It doesn't specify at what level you can be to reach that state. He could be implying that poverty is sufficient, or "middle-class" or that upper class CT is sufficient (and we don't even know if he thinks that means " rich").

It's just a complete non-statement that attempts to pander to an audience that has little choice but to misinterpret it or assume that he's stating the blindingly obvious.