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

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

#281

Post by devy » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

You are totally missing the point Matthew Prince is trying to make, that is, you need to have a "safety net" before you can take risks. If one can't even get them fed and not worrying about what the next meal is and where to stay, all bets are off.

If you don't agree with me, name one entrepreneur who has found a startup that exited successfully(IPO or Acquisition) by now and that the founder(s) were living below poverty line or on social welfare. Borrowing money from parents doesn't count as living below poverty does it? Having parents or friends or family to lean onto economically means there is a safety net there.

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

#282

Post by vonmoltke » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #200

vonmoltke wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Over here studies are basically free, about 100 EUR incl. public transport per semester. And even then working full-time to be able to finance all of that is hard. Who needs to work full time to afford €200/year?

Housing, food, clothing, etc... Unfortunately that's not included :-)

So studies are tuition free. I suspect university costs are not being compared fairly then, because the loans people take out in the US generally cover most of that as well.

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

#283

Post by alanfalcon » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

devy wrote: post #281

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…

> 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. You are totally missing the point Matthew Prince is trying to make, that is, you need to have a "safety net" before you can take risks. If one can't even get them fed and not worrying about what the next meal is and where to stay, all bets are off…

The lore goes that Airbnb was started because the founders couldn’t pay rent.

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

#284

Post by ryandrake » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

Frost1x wrote: post #208

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.

All the risks are skewed to portray a traditionally projected hopeful image when the reality is: the risks are skewed against the average person. Most start-ups (businesses in general) fail. Hard Work® and Dedication® will only get you so far in this country even though that's the garbage fed to many for generations. A great idea is certainly a good start, then ingenuity/creativity/follow-through go a long way, but m…

The discussion reminds me of a founder I knew who was very proud that his successful company was bootstrapped and of how much of a risk taker he was. He’d be quick to point out that in order to be truly successful you needed to “lay it all out on the line” and “have skin in the game.” What he wouldn’t tell you, and you had to dig and do a little internet stalking to find out was that this was his fourth attempt, and after each of his past failed businesses, he’d just fall back to his upper middle class family (attorneys), chilling there while he dreamt up his next business idea.

Big risk taker, for sure.

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

#285

Post by skookumchuck » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

By definition, it's not a risk if there's a safety net.

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

#286

Post by gist » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

devy wrote: post #281

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…

> 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. You are totally missing the point Matthew Prince is trying to make, that is, you need to have a "safety net" before you can take risks. If one can't even get them fed and not worrying about what the next meal is and where to stay, all bets are off…

> that is, you need to have a "safety net" before you can take risks. If one can't even get them fed and not worrying about what the next meal is and where to stay, all bets are off.

To take the other side of this (not to entirely disagree with you) people have a different attitude toward risk and betting the ranch given the exact same safety net or lack of it. Someone with rich parents may not take the risk (for fear of 'I told you so' or being derided) and someone poor might be quite the gambler and think 'I really don't care if I fail and if I can't feed my family this is just right and the time is NOW!'

> If you don't agree with me, name one entrepreneur who has found a startup that exited successfully(IPO or Acquisition) by now and that the founder(s) were living below poverty line or on social welfare.

Very possible also that the people giving the funding are not aware of a safety net and therefore think the entrepreneur is less bankable because they actually fear for them failing since they know the chance of failure is quite high. So they pass thinking they are doing them a favor. This (per my above statement) would vary with the amount of a gambler the investor is and/or how much of a conscience they have.

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

#287

Post by simplecomplex » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

The world isn’t fair. Pontificating about how the world isn’t fair is useless. It’s a waste of your time.

Both Paul and Matthew would be more helpful by providing advice to effectively deal with one’s situation in order to found a company. That would be valuable, instead of engaging in adversity olympics which is what most of Twitter seems to be nowadays.

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

#288

Post by skookumchuck » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

devy wrote: post #281

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…

> 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. You are totally missing the point Matthew Prince is trying to make, that is, you need to have a "safety net" before you can take risks. If one can't even get them fed and not worrying about what the next meal is and where to stay, all bets are off…

"Rowling has lived a "rags to riches" life story, in which she progressed from living on state benefits to being the world's first billionaire author."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling

Oprah's another:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey

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

#289

Post by vonmoltke » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #210

bko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need "a decent wedge of cash" to have a degree? There are plenty of universities that are affordable. For instance, City University of New York (CUNY) offers four year undergrad degrees for $6,730 a year [0]. You can get a room share in an outer borough for maybe 500 - 1.5k a month or Jersey for even less [1]. And this is one of the most expensive cities in the world. If you're smart, avoid unnecessary exp…

> Why do you need "a decent wedge of cash" to have a degree? I can’t shake the feeling, though, that after a certain point, in certain (important) circles, “affordable” degrees (like the one I have) are effectively the same as having no degree at all.

Why is that? Perhaps I don't operate in these supposedly important circles, but I have never found my affordable state degree to be a handicap in anything that mattered. Granted, that's because it's an engineering degree and, as my neighbor and fellow engineer once put it, after your first job people care more about what you've done than where you went to school.

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

#290

Post by jimmydddd » Mon, May 20, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

devy wrote: post #281

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…

> 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. You are totally missing the point Matthew Prince is trying to make, that is, you need to have a "safety net" before you can take risks. If one can't even get them fed and not worrying about what the next meal is and where to stay, all bets are off…

I agree with your point. But I think people are looking at the categories differently. You're comparing poverty to middle class, while others are comparing middle class to upper middle class/wealthy. I think Paul G. is saying you don't have to be upper middle class to be a founder. I don't think he's saying you could be living on a park bench with no food and your six kids on Monday, and be a founder on Tuesday.