Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 384 posts

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

#181

Post by PaulHoule »

zpeti wrote: post #175
mattxxx wrote: post #171

The reality is that money lets you "take risks," and money gives you options (in this world). To be honest, I don't think that starting your company with the "risk" that you might move back in with your parents if it fails... is at all a meaningful risk.

Psychologically this is not true at all. It's much easier to take risks when you have nothing to lose. How many 18-30 year olds do you see having a swing at it and trying something, vs 30+ people with families and savings to burn?

My trajectory might not be "normal" but for me I have been more inclined to take risks as I've gotten older.

There is a sense of urgency (e.g. if I don't do it now I won't get another chance) that counteracts the feeling of "nothing to lose")

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

#182

Post by ad_hominem »

buro9 wrote: post #85
PandaRider wrote: post #8

I'm shaking my head right now because I can't believe people at the top is still susceptible to sampling/survivorship bias. I've tried searching but cannot find a good empirical study of privilege and entrepreneurship correlation. However, I've found an essay paper [0] that exactly predicted this twitter drama; that entrepreneurs simultaneously present and erase this conversation about class and entrepreneurship. The…

> class may be a more powerful organizing discourse Yes! Yes! Yes! Other things contribute to class, but it remains a class issue. I'm reminded of this: "If your feminism isn’t intersectional, it isn't feminism.". We need something similar for those who think the issue is one-dimensional - "the poor". Because why someone is poor, and what conditions and circumstances result from being poor... poverty (which includes…

It's okay to call yourself a feminist if you're not okay with biological males demolishing female sports records. It's okay to not go down the infinite intersectional/deconstructionist rabbithole to the point where it's normative for 8-year-olds to dress in drag and do sexually suggestive stripteases while men throw money. It's okay to retain your common sense.

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

#183

Post by bubblewrap »

throwaway55554 wrote: post #154
bubblewrap wrote: post #57

Most people, even poor people, have parents who would help them out in case of need. They seem to be discussing a pretty low bar here. And of course it is a "privilege" to have supporting parents. So what? If you don't have that privilege, what are you supposed to do? Kill yourself? I think such privilege discussions are rather silly. What's the point? That people should be showered with tax payer money to even out t…

> Most people, even poor people, have parents who would help them out in case of need. No, they don't. You're thinking of lower middle class.

I was thinking of the case of "moving back to the parents".

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

#184

Post by bluGill »

hatmatrix wrote: post #74
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A poor person betting everything... a poor person usually doesn't have much, besides the time and dedication.

There is opportunity cost (of a stable industry job) that the educated but poor person is foregoing.

Note that by not foregoing that opportunity cost the poor person can save up enough of a safety net for his children to take a risk.

Generations are important. A poor person with a family is best not taking risks. However they can bring up enough of a safety net for their children.

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

#185

Post by vorpalhex »

njepa wrote: post #80
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #28

Twitter wins again. We keep reducing these complex multivariate social issues to simple cause-effect situations then beating one another up over what the simple cause is. When we're doing definitions, the key phrase is "necessary and sufficient" In this case, being rich or poor is neither necessary nor sufficient since we have plenty of examples of things working out with either of these two things being missing. So…

It isn't like 3 or 4 percent though. Starting a startup ranges from a largely risk free career move to impossible. Most people today start at negative. Want to live in a decent sized city? That's at least $2k a month. An education? Might very well be $50k in debt. Job security? Need to put in the hours young. Otherwise there is a very real chances of getting evicted, not being able to find a decent job, not being abl…

> An education? Might very well be $50k in debt.

You can get a perfectly decent degree from your community college for very affordable prices. Likewise you may not be able to live in downtown manhattan, but you can probably live anywhere in a whole bunch of the square states on $1k a month.

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

#186

Post by squish78 »

skrebbel wrote: post #3

It's a nice mini soap opera but the core is that actually they agree but have a different definition of "rich kids".

I also wonder what the consensus definition of "start-up" is. Does it only mean a tech product with high scalability and potential to raise b/millions? What about the landscaper, mechanic, or plumber who is able to scale up a trade, get repeat customers and hire employees? Or do they even factor in a discussion like this

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

#187

Post by 0x445442 »

mikeash wrote: post #172
cbanek wrote: post #108

Pretty disappointed in PG's response: "I would ordinarily just let your bullshit go, but this myth that you have to be a rich kid to start a startup is terribly dangerous, because it discourages people who aren't from trying it. Brian Chesky's parents were social workers. That is not a rich kid." As if having two parents with stable jobs isn't considered a safety net. I agree, you don't need to be rich, but I also ag…

Typical tech industry nonsense. People stuck in a job because they need the health insurance? People saddled with massive debt because you’ll have a hard time getting hired to manage a McDonald’s without a college degree? Rent increases eating up disposable income? Meh. But being told by some rando on Twitter that you need a safety net to take a risk on a startup? “Incredibly dangerous”! Because if some people who mi…

Yeah, Silicon Valley is pretty much a "Cult of Money" now. Maybe I'm way off base here but it doesn't seem like the mentality of creating products and services which genuinely help people while at the same time providing a living for, say, 100 families for the next 20 years is a thing there.

Slightly iterating on and pumping old ideas in social media with the goal of conjuring billion dollar valuations for the next ad platform seems to be the norm.

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

#189

Post by adamlett »

tomp wrote: post #146
adamlett wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get blinded by the analogy. There's an important difference between it and the problem we're discussing: We can't actually change the fact that woman generally are not as strong as men. We can however as a society change the fact that many people don't have a safety net. I appreciate that Paul G's intended meaning was different, but it's kind of hard not to interpret what he wrote, as no, we don't actually have…

You’re just painting your own bias over his words. How about interpreting what he said literally i.e. “even poor people can start businesses” instead of misinterpreting him as “against social nets”?

You’re just painting your own bias over his words

Yes, I agree. But I also think I acknowledged that, when I wrote I appreciate that Paul G's intended meaning was different.

How about _interpreting_ what he said _literally_...

Hmm...

instead of misinterpreting him as “against social nets”

Again, I think I was quite clear about the distinction between Paul G. (probably) meant, and how I (subjectively) interpret it. My point is not that Paul G is a bad person. I just think he is being somewhat obtuse and insensitive. He is making an argument against a position that nobody is defending, namely that one can't or shouldn't take risk if one is poor. The discussion that sensible people were having before, was about whether one's level of privilege might have something to do with one's willingness to take risk.

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

#190

Post by bluGill »

ekianjo wrote: post #31
praptak wrote: post #14

A poor person betting everything on their startup is definitely good for pg - it increases the pool of people whose work he can profit from. It's not that obvious if it's good for the poor person. I guess that everybody has their own risk aversion threshold.

A poor person not betting on anything is bound to stay poor. Your point is?

Some bets are safer than others. A poor person betting everything had better have a sure bet that will pay off quickly. Not many of these exist.

A poor person is safest betting on a stable (if low paying) job and ensuring he keeps it. Taking on a few side projects on the weekend can earn some extra cash, but there comes a time you either need to bet on growing that side business, or not: if you bet on it you better have enough contacts to grow it to a real job quickly, if not you have to start refusing work for the side job - the worst thing you could do is to fall asleep and get fired from the day job while the side job isn't paying enough to live on.

Post reply on HN