“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”

#311

Post by everdrive » Mon, May 20, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

bsenftner wrote: post #263

vorpalhex wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A practical problem with community colleges are the plain fact that high ambition people tend not to be there. People with ambition tend not to be there, or are operating from a disadvantage and community college is the best they can get, at that time in their lives. This defines the initial network of a community college attendee, as well as their operating environment. There is quite a bit of invisible help that ar…

I agree that this is a valid concern, but how do you feel about the statistical part of this sort of problem? Isn't the elite always the top n% (1%, 5%, 10%, etc) You can fatten up the statistics in the middle somewhat, and shrink the poles of the bell curve, but I don't see how you hope to equalize "access to the elite."

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

#312

Post by crankylinuxuser » Mon, May 20, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

SeanAppleby wrote: post #299

blacktonystark wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, to put simply, VCs are only interested in those who already are full of multi-generational advantages and privileges built off the poor. No wonder startups are bascially for white guys only.

They're interested in making money, not providing a social service. There's certainly a problem there, but it's not the VCs' responsibility. You are more likely to succeed in your business if you have the experience of building scalable systems, like at google, and if you have a similar friend group to recruit talent from, which is extremely hard at an early startup unless you already know the kinds of people you dis…

Venture capitalists are only a thing because they siphon off the working class via the exfiltration of surplus. And then they have the gall to demand percentage ownership for that money they "invest". Because they worked hard (stealing from workers) for 'their' money.

My opinion is their money is tainted from the get-go. It amounts to theft from the very people whom made the things.

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

#313

Post by csomar » Mon, May 20, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #159

PG seems worried that tweets saying you have to be rich to do a startup will discourage non-rich folks from trying a startup. This doesn’t give those folks much credit. It implies that a few tweets will have a bigger impact on their decision-making than their own detailed understanding of the constraints and anxieties of their own lives. I don’t think PG is in a good position to understand those constraints and anxie…

I'm not an expert on the subject but according to "science", the reason that woman do not go to engineering fields in the US is a byproduct of their environment not a difference in their genetics.

If I got it right, Robert Sapolsky claims that the way to make more woman into tech is to make young girls believe that they can do tech. They already have the cognitive capacity.

In this same sense, PG might be hitting the nail in the head: The reason poor people don't do startups is because they believe they can't; and that it is a white privilege.

If they believe they can't, they will not try. If they don't try, the probability that they succeed is exactly %0. Re-enforcing the myth and further convincing poor people not to try.

The only way out is to convince them otherwise and see what the real odds are.

Robert Sapolsky also claims that we need to change our speech and views (ie: remove "negativity") in order to level the playing field. PG is doing the same. He thinks that other ideas need to be censored as it is important to maximalize the propaganda.

That's a dangerous thinking as it touches on freedom of speech. One might wonder if you can level the social "cognitive" field while also preserving freedom of speech. Educating people is the only way I guess.

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

#314

Post by crankylinuxuser » Mon, May 20, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #205

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its easy to say platitudes from rich people. When there's little/no social net when you fail, failure is disastrous. I'm diabetic. I'm nearly chained to a company with a decent medical plan, since our "wonderful" country has little to impetus to fix medicine. So failing means 'not able to go to the doctor and not afford my drugs'. Failure also means 'not affording rent'. Failure also means being unemployed, and no wa…

Mr LaBeouf comes from a broken home. His father has struggled with drugs and alcohol to self medicate his Vietnam War PTSD. He started performing at age 10, pretended to be his own manager to get signed with an agency. He's exactly the "live without a net" kind of guy we're talking about.

So if we don't struggle like him, and make multiple breaks (read: luck), and get into that career, we don't deserve to have basic needs met?

Rags to riches (read:Horatio Alger) stories should absolutely not be the basis of social assistance. If you want to see what happens to those that don't win, look no further than the "Smoke N Lotto" store at all whom lose the lottery every day.

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

#315

Post by csomar » Mon, May 20, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

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

Okay, here is a twist: How much do poor people spend on lottery/gambling activity? How much is that proportionally to their income?

From looking at small casinos, betting shops, lottery and online sites (sports) it seems that poor people are risk takers. One reason, in my opinion, is that they have little to lose. They also have really shitty lives and are looking for an escape.

If you were starting a startup alone in Bangladesh vs. starting solo with YC in SF. Building a remote-based startup that sell SaaS online for clients all over the world. Location of clients is everywhere.

Technically, the playing-field is equal. You start a C-Corp from Bangladesh and trade your business. But which one do you think will make it? Which one do you think will raise funding? Or succeed if both do not raise funds?

You live your life trying the optimize a problem. There is a number of steps that if you take, carefully, you'll become rich in some duration of time. You don't know these steps, so you keep searching. You know gradient descent. Life is like that, if you are moving successfully down, you are probably on the right track and so you keep moving on that direction.

However, you start stochastically on a random location and keep trying to find a path that leads somewhere. That's where YC comes in. They help you reduce the surface area of your search. You are less likely to land somewhere futile.

What poor people are missing is discovery of this surface area. It is a very complicated problem for them and they lack resources and education to optimize the problem.

They are hoping that this lottery ticket will help land them directly on the optimized spot. Their lack of understanding of why this doesn't work explain why they can't navigate the surface area.

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

#316

Post by randyrand » Mon, May 20, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

DevX101 wrote: post #37

They're talking past each other. Thing is, they're both right. Paul seems to be saying you don't have to be rich to do a startup. Matthew is saying lots of founder have some resources (family home, savings, great education, i.e. middle-class) that made doing a startup feasible Both these positions are true and aren't incompatible. Being middle class (Matthew's position) and prudent with savings can afford you probabl…

Why not? If you secure investor funding, you could easily pay for your meals.

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

#317

Post by njepa » Mon, May 20, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

alanfalcon wrote: post #283

devy wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

According to his talk at startup school this was because he quit his job and moved in with his college friend in San Francisco to start a company. His share of the rent was apparently $1150, so seems fairly likely that he could have made that if he wanted to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLnfUPBXwA&t=115

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

#318

Post by skookumchuck » Mon, May 20, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

michaelbrave wrote: post #303

skookumchuck wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

those are examples of government safety net though no?

Both answer the parent's "name one" challenge question. I named two :-)

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

#319

Post by majkinetor » Mon, May 20, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

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?

You always lose time.

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

#320

Post by majkinetor » Mon, May 20, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

turk73 wrote: post #296

nichos wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may come off rude, but I certainly don't mean it to be, but you have a choice to make. It sounds like you're chosing to have a kid and your wife go to school. If you want to do the startup, skip the kids, have your wife work and support you while you do the startup. Not everyone can have everything.

Here's a little tip: The wife and the kid are far more enriching than anything else you will do in life. So don't jeopardize them.

Be that as it may, having no money for decent life is sure as hell way to lose your wife and your kid and is happening far far more then the opposite.