“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”

#381

Post by bubblewrap » Wed, May 22, 2019, 9:07 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #376

bubblewrap wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by category error? All he says is that poor people can succeed at startups, too. How is that making a category error?

It’s not all he said. He also included his anecdote about the AirBnB founders. It’s a category error in that his statement is a binary one i.e. true/false, which he is using to defeat arguments which are about continua. That is a category error. It’s also a common method of deceptive persuasion - i.e. a dark pattern, but I don’t think PG was doing that on purpose, hence my assumption that it was an error.

You mean the issue is that the AirBnB founders were not really poor, and the category error is using them as an example for "poor"?

And isn't he just providing one example, it seems too much nitpicking to me to then go on claim he made a categorcial assumption based on an example of one?

Maybe the AirBnB founders were comparatively poor. You can always find somebody poorer, and even too poor to do a startup. Like if you have no money, no arms, can't talk, you may be so poor that doing a startup might become difficult. Yeah - OK. Poverty that makes it impossible to do a startup does exist. Doesn't mean that most people couldn't do a startup.

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

#382

Post by bubblewrap » Wed, May 22, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

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…

Even the privileged YC founders seem to have made some sacrifices early on, like living on Ramen, sleeping in their office and sharing a rented space with many people. Must admit that "want to live in a decent city" is not really something that triggers my empathy.

These days you can also do Kickstarters, apply for money from YCombinator, and other ways.

And you don't have to sacrifice everything. You can try the startup for 3 years and still get an education if it fails.

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

#383

Post by zepto » Wed, May 22, 2019, 12:54 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #377

zepto wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re making a false distinction between risks and opportunities. A startup is both a risk, and an opportunity. If you incorrectly judge that risk, you have the potential to end up with fewer opportunities than before. The poorer you are the worse the impact of this will be. Therefore it is important for anyone, rich or poor, to have a good assessment of the risk of trying to launch a startup. How are people who are…

Is there a rash of poor people destroying their lives by trying and failing to build a startup? I don't see any. Worst case scenario seems to be they fail and get a regular job with the new skills they built while creating the startup. I'm curious to know what risks involved in creating an startup the average person in the projects would be incapable of seeing on their own.

If your worst case scenario is that you fail and get a regular job with a bunch of new skills, then you don’t understand much about being poor.

For what it’s worth I strongly believe that entrepreneurship should be encouraged.

I just don’t believe the way to do it is silence discussion about the factors that make it harder for people who have fewer resources.

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

#384

Post by zepto » Fri, May 24, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

bubblewrap wrote: post #381

zepto wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not all he said. He also included his anecdote about the AirBnB founders. It’s a category error in that his statement is a binary one i.e. true/false, which he is using to defeat arguments which are about continua. That is a category error. It’s also a common method of deceptive persuasion - i.e. a dark pattern, but I don’t think PG was doing that on purpose, hence my assumption that it was an error.

You mean the issue is that the AirBnB founders were not really poor, and the category error is using them as an example for "poor"? And isn't he just providing one example, it seems too much nitpicking to me to then go on claim he made a categorcial assumption based on an example of one? Maybe the AirBnB founders were comparatively poor. You can always find somebody poorer, and even too poor to do a startup. Like if…

Ok - so you have just made the claim that most people could do a startup.

That’s much better than PG, and doesn’t fall into the category error because instead of a yes/no, you are talking about a continuum and you have made a claim about one of the bounds.

Your claim is that at least 50% of people are above the level of poverty required to succeed at a startup.

If true this would be very informative guidance.

So - can you justify your claim with any data at all?