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

321–330 of 384 posts

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

#321

Post by vec »

csomar wrote: post #315

> “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 lo…

Of course people have different risk appetites, including poor people.

The point isn't so much about "risk" per se, it's about whether or not there's a viable Plan B.

If I'm working two jobs to barely keep a roof over my head and play the lotto and lose, I'm still keeping a roof over my head (by working two jobs). The odds are long, but the cost of failure is low.

If, on the other hand, I have the Best Startup Idea Ever (and all the necessary skills to make it a reality) then I will still be unable to pursue it. Sure, I'm like 80% certain it's going to be a huge success, but in the 20% case I'm fuuuuuuuuucked so taking a swing at it is a nonstarter.

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

#322

Post by majkinetor »

bluGill wrote: post #214
hef19898 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No health insurance? Sport accidents, serious illness, traffic accident, children,... Honestly, I still can't wrap my head around the fact someone would choose to live without coverage. That some are forced to in developed countries is shitty enough!

I didn't say it was the best idea, but the idea isn't unreasonable. Sports accidents are easy to prevent (don't play risky sports). I said no children as a prerequisite for good reason. While serious illness is possible, it is extremely rare in this age group. You can't afford to drive in my scenario, so traffic accidents are not a big worry. I'd still want health insurance, but the odds are in your favor if you choo…

Not sure this is reasonable.

Young people are actually pretty sick which is understandable because time is needed to adapt immune system to external ambient. The lowest period of sickness must be between 30-50 yo (no data, just informed guess).

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

#323

Post by zepto »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #279
zepto wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except not. Life is obviously not an equally constant struggle for everyone. Social mobility has been declining for years. For any individual you can create a counterfactual to suggest that their choices are what created their outcome. However it’s also unarguable that we are not all facing the same risk/reward choices. And of course people who take on more risk are going to fail more often. And those without a safet…

Yep, some things are a little bit harder than they might have been in the very recent past for some people, but overall life is better than it has ever been in the history of the world. Telling kids to stay in their lane because it's hard to do otherwise it's terrible leadership in my opinion.

Nobody is telling kids to stay in their lane, so that’s a straw man.

However some people are proving that they don’t understand the risks other people face, and recommending that they take them anyway.

Advising someone to take a risk that you don’t understand is not leadership.

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

#324

Post by acct1771 »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #312
SeanAppleby wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The people creating the things should be organizing projects for themselves more often.

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

#325

Post by blacktonystark »

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…

Those financial encumbrances exist due to VCs taking a larger share of the pie than their efforts are worth, and we can't look at their bank balances now and ignore all context as to how that money got there in the first place.

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

#326

Post by acct1771 »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #191
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.

How many YC founders went to community college?

How many manufacturing founders went to community college?

It's a unique business that rewards socialites and nepotism - right, wrong, indifferent.

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

#327

Post by shafyy »

Someone1234 wrote: post #259
grenoire wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worldwide, definitely top 0.1% (at approx. 80K annual income).

Worldwide is an unhelpful metric. They're starting up in a specific place, so their wealth should be measured relative to that location. For example 80K won't get a roof over your head in NYC or Silicon Valley, but could support an entire family in middle-America.

It should be measured within the geographic bounds of where you can relatively freely and easily move within. If you're making 80k, maybe don't live in San Francisco (or do, but then you need to cut back other expenses).

And yes, I know, it's not easy to move for everyone to another city or region because of several reasons, but generally speaking most Americans could move to another region where they would get a similar paying job and more value for their buck.

Edit: Typos

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

#328

Post by marssaxman »

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 wish that more people had discouraged non-rich me from launching a startup! I was young and had not yet had time to develop a detailed understanding of the constraints of my life. I had been bathed in pro-entrepreneurship messages throughout my upbringing, and genuinely believed that technical chops and the kind of classical-conservative, small-business-focused money management advice I'd been given were going to be enough to build a successful company. I was wildly wrong about that, and I had no idea how far out of my depth I was. I had no safety net and I got badly hurt. It took years to recover.

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

#329

Post by bumby »

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…

> it's not the VCs' responsibility

You make some valid points, but I really dislike the above comment. When used it seems like a convenient way to diffuse responsibility, often to selfish ends.

There's lots of examples where this type of single-minded attitude isn't acceptable.

- A civil engineer cannot just have making money be the sole pursuit when designing or building a bridge

- A doctor cannot just have making money be the only goal when treating a patient

- A government worker cannot be only concerned on how to maximize their individual gains when awarding contracts

- A financial adviser is expected to act in their client's best interest, rather than their own

We're used to expecting certain levels of ethical behavior from some professions acting within a larger societal framework. I don't know why investing is so often left off the hook in this regard. Maybe it's naive, but I think we'd be better of if people told themselves it WAS their responsibility when making these decisions.

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

#330

Post by lotsofpulp »

bumby wrote: post #329
SeanAppleby wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's not the VCs' responsibility You make some valid points, but I really dislike the above comment. When used it seems like a convenient way to diffuse responsibility, often to selfish ends. There's lots of examples where this type of single-minded attitude isn't acceptable. - A civil engineer cannot just have making money be the sole pursuit when designing or building a bridge - A doctor cannot just have making m…

Leveling society's playing field is a far different scale of responsibility than a civil engineering designing a safe bridge or a doctor looking out for their patient. Societal level problems need societal level organizations to solve, such as governments.

We should be voting for policies that strengthen the nation as a whole. A VC giving up a few % point in return in exchange for betting on poorer people is not going to change anything, other than that VC losing investors. We want to fix families? Well let's guarantee parents have time home with their children, let's guarantee they have sick leave and parental leave and vacation leave to spend with their families. Let's provide more transit and infrastructure and education to communities that need it.

It will require a transfer of wealth.

Post reply on HN