I haven't been turned away from the tech startup world, but I'll be much more calculated if I'm ever to join another one. I also don't plan on staking my career purely in startups and am attracted to bootstrapped business now more than ever.

PG has little incentive to explicitly qualify ideas that are his foundation (regarding the prerequisites for the above), and frankly it'd kind of break up the nice flow his pieces have anyway if he did. His target audience doesn't want to be told that they started life on second base, and honestly it's quite annoying to have someone tell you so with the intention of taking you down a peg.

This is why a lot of HNers flag articles about privilege, sexism, etc.

People without food allergies have privilege in that they don't have to constantly worry whether what they eat will kill them. The people with privilege often just don't have to think about or deal with stuff that those without do.

It could, in principle, be just a claim about the state of the world; in practice, its quite often an ad hominem to dismiss a position they've taken, and often its that with a side of implicit moral judgement that the position is not only invalid because of the claimed privilege, but also that it is maliciously offered as a defense of that privilege at the expense of the unprivileged.

That's not to say that privilege doesn't exist (it does), or that it doesn't at times blind people to others' experiences (it does), or that it doesn't at times lead to people, consciously or not, defending it at the expense of the unprivileged (it does that, too!)

But to pretend that claims of privilege are non-judgemental is ignoring how they are actually used in practice.

That is exactly the same argument that bigots use when they talk about {minorities, poor people, immigrants, LGBT people}. "That person fits into category X, and everyone in category X shares some characteristic Y because they're in that category. I'm just saying that because it's true!" It doesn't matter who that generalization is made about, whether they're the dominant group in society or not. It's still a terrible generalization and an intellectually lazy argument and in and of itself carries a judgement. If you grant that something like "white privilege" or "male privilege" exists (and most people that buy into the concept do) then by that logic a homeless, illiterate white man has more privilege than a black woman millionaire CEO.

>People without food allergies have privilege in that they don't have to constantly worry whether what they eat will kill them.

That's absolute nonsense as well. There exist people without food allergies that have other conditions where they constantly have to worry about what they eat, diabetes being an example. So check your cis-gylcemic privilege you fascist!/s Do you see how ridiculous and divisive that sounds?

To be sure (in the spirt of NY Times "to be sure" statements) [1] PG (who went to Harvard of course as everyone knows) and others always point out the obligatory risks but tend to do so in a way that I think most people perhaps ignore. More or less a "sure it's risky but" as opposed to "you'd be foolish however there's always a small small chance that..."

[1] That is where they (and others in the media) counter something they are saying with the other point of view typically buried 3 quarters down the page as a qualifier.

Like, back to first base, say?

But this supports the whole idea of a basic income - if everyone is able to live without working, they can take risks such as going to University, starting a business, etc...

A lack of social net prevents risk taking and severly limits mobility, creating a 'have-not' class and keeping them there for the most part.

Because if you say that "if you restrict that to only those who are already well-off", their parents probably weren't or their parents' parents etc.

There are many occupations that really only require hard work and little risk that has big payout.

The end result here is that no, life isn't "fair". But by and large, a person that has the ability to take risk, does and succeeds will create that ability for others to do the same in the future.

Such as?

I think we could do better, but I'm not sure what you are saying is correct, either.

There's rather clearer data that the gap between rich & poor continues to widen in the US, which makes it a bit more bleak that going from poor to rich is still a rough uphill battle.

It's also fairly disheartening when you think of all the things that have changed in the past 50 years, many efforts that should help social mobility. Attempting to stop pervasive lead poisoning, lots of grants and policies to help get poor kids through basic and into higher education, legal and other sorts of efforts against sexism and racism... all kinds of things intended to hopefully make the playing ground more fair for everyone haven't actually moved this particular needle at all.

For a bit more context, also look outside of the US. If you want to live the American dream, you'll have a much better chance in Denmark. Reference here (though I read about it elsewhere a few years ago... can't remember orig src): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...

Of the 9 developed countries in that study, only the UK ranked worse than the US.

In an ideal world would be everyone would be free to take business risks, and customers would reward the ideas that offer a real benefit.

What we have now is a world where hardly anyone is free to take business risks, and the people who are tend to share the same political and social values.

Politically, that makes for caste perpetuation and monoculture - which is the exact opposite of the entrepreneurial mythology.

Assigning resources to the most able is, of course, an immensely difficult problem that nobody really knows how to solve. But it should be the goal, and I don't see affluence as a good substitute.

How many people are out there right now with the personal ability to change the world in some large beneficial way, but without the necessary finances? What are the rest of us missing out on because they're stuck working a 9-5 job to pay their rent, while some idiot with money is building Twitter for Cats and talking about how much of a risk taker he is because he's living off $50,000 in savings until the VC money comes in?

I think the negative of this is that most of the wealth created in the technology is going to remain in the pockets of those who are already rich and well connected.

I'm increasingly feeling like as our society becomes more technically advanced, it's almost inevitable that the vast majority of wealth is going to flow up to the top 10%.

Problem is in popular culture there are also stories about the 1 out of 1000 guys (just like you) that essentially gambled and came out ahead. Let me say that again. Gambled and won. You hear those all of the time. What you don't hear is about the ones who lost or hit the skids as a result of those chances that they took. Or maybe you do (there are always counter stories floating about) but the shine of the winners typically totally blocks those out.

For example I am sure in response to this thread someone has already mentioned the type of family that Steve Jobs came from.

What you call "popular culture", is just propaganda to make people believe that if they don't became rich is their own fault.

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-se...

"I did make a bunch of money by winning the Netscape Startup Lottery, it's true. So did most of the early engineers. But the people who made 100x as much as the engineers did? I can tell you for a fact that none of them slept under their desk. If you look at a list of financially successful people from the software industry, I'll bet you get a very different view of what kind of sleep habits and office hours are successful than the one presented here."

The whole text is worth reading.

*this advice only applies to upper middle class white males based in Silicon Valley(or at least the US), who own trendy startups that have raised some VC funding

I mean, are you trying to claim there are no upper middle class tech scensters who are Black, Asian, or Female? Or do they get a pass for acting exactly like the white male counterpart because they aren't white males?

It's really amazing just how many people cannot even fathom that others do not have the familial safety net and have been working to support themselves from an age where said people were just starting to think about what school to go to. For many, until they've lived on the razor's edge, they simply do not have the mental framework for understanding what living that way does to people.

Edit: I'd also add that for those of us who have seen the other side (I was upper middle class from 0-9 years old, fell into poverty after and lived that way until my early 20s - riches to rags sucks. Badly. Read all about it here if you're curious: https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why-software-developers-should...) we know what the other side is like. We've seen it. We know what it's like to never worry about transportation, decent food, school supplies, books, tutors, spending money - and the ever-present implicit safety net. We saw our parents' friends go on vacations, buy multiple cars, live in huge houses, etc. So anyone, anyone who says it isn't a huge advantage is delusional or lying.

The other antipattern is spoiling kids and helicopter parenting, which leads to sheltered/learned-helplessness kids. Letting kids struggle more to learn for themselves and earn things is important because the role of the parent to prepare people to become independent, survive and thrive. Also, expecting them to do more with much less improves their ingenuity out of necessity. People/startups that are broke can often attain what others cannot because they are able to make something awesome out of what other people call "junk" and waste less money.

Speaking as somebody who's been there, I'm really concerned with this "poor changes your mind" thing I'm seeing. Buddhists manage to live and be happy not having much at all. For the vast majority of history, great men lived in conditions much worse than the average poor person in the western world does.

I agree that many rich people do not understand poor people. Likewise, many poor people do not understand rich people. But when people say things like "So your startup doesn't work out, why don't you just go live with family", they are not simply showing that they don't understand your situation. They're trying to point out: what's the worse that could happen? I've been homeless, I've lost everything I've owned. You go through a lot of crap an either you sit in the corner feeling sorry for yourself or you start thinking "So I could lose the house? It's not the end of the world." Doesn't mean I'd do it lightly, but I am in control and I have the power to make that decision.

I really don't care who has a private jet or has never worried about food or shelter. Moreso, I find worrying about those things is a good sign my head is in the wrong place for actually making me a better person.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/escaping-the...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-fro...

I'm also referring to the incredible narrowing of choices that you're left with (this one I've experienced first-hand, and by a read of these comments many here have experienced it as well), which you are surely well aware of. Don't let "what you don't like" or "what should/should not be" dictate your interpretation of the reality. I don't like that stuff either, but I'm not going to deny its real effects. It's not only callous, it's not correct.

I didn't realize this was some secret. Someone who has parents who are doing well and can pay for their college and living expenses indefinitely will be at an advantage. They can take risks others can't.

BTW, this is true from the time someone is born. Parents who are well off will send their child to pre-pre schools, pay for the best elementary, middle and high schools. Then their child gets to go to college, likely loan free, and can focus on college and not working to pay the bills. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, and I certainly didn't grow up this way. I'm surprised it wasn't common sense.

So who honestly wants a meritocracy either?

Another option would be that whoever works hard is taken care of. That sounds like the 1950s corporate job with a pension. It may be less exciting and sounds like it would produce less motive for innovation, but it is also less scary and a bit more fair than rewards to the affluent risk takers.

I have no idea how to get the best of all systems. So I make do in this one. I'm just pointing out that no system (known to man) is perfect.

While it has always been true that the strongest factor in a successful life is rich parents, I understand that it is more true today in the US than it has been for the last fifty years. That would suggest that we are further from a meritocracy than we were, and moving away from it.

I grew up without much of anything. Neither parent finished college and both worked all the time. Yet somehow they drilled into me hard work, education, and don't get a girl pregnant while in high school. I am by no means rich, but have done much better than my parents.

There's a caveat here. It depends on your responsibilities. If you have children, fixed expenses, then absolutely.

If you have nothing to your name and no responsibilities, it's very easy to take risks without anything to fall back on. After all, you have very little to lose.

On the other hand, if you come from a rather poor background and have no one to fall back on, finding yourself with a failed company, in debt, maybe kicked out of your place because you can't pay rent, I'd say that rather terrifying.

I'm all for entrepreneurship, but if failing means living in the street, then let's just not start a company for now.

There are two types of businesses out there. Those that make money from day 1 and simply need to be scaled up. Those that require substantial investment and time before you even make a penny.

For anyone who isn't financially secure, doing the latter is idiotic. There are plenty of business models that you can pursue that don't involve you ending up on the street. A business model where the worst-case scenario is that you wasted some time.

Gee here we are again talking about the parents. Why not just ask your parents for a million dollar business loan while you're at it Mitt Romney?

I have spoken to a friend who has rich parents, and the psychological effect is that they always know if something goes wrong they can just be supported by their rich parents when they get back on their feet.

Furthermore they know they can bum around until their parents die and get their retirement money in the form of inheritance. You might be surprised how ever-present that thought is to people like that.

But for people without that option, because their parents can't, they make the right decision and don't take a risk because there is nothing to fall back on.

I wish people wouldn't speak this confidently with such little life experience.

Or provide details about those experiences you think are needed.

Well, that's mostly an US issue, I guess. When you live in a country with even modest public healthcare, such as Germany, things are not that terrible.

Here, if you get ill, no matter how bad, you get the base treatment that you need. Of course you can (and should) pay on top of that for better treatment. But event without money, you don't have to fear to be denied important treatments. (With some unfortunate, but luckily very rare exceptions.)

Thinking of that, I wonder why we Germans are so conservative, despite living relatively secure. A large portion of our people could take a lot of risk without falling too deep. Probably this is because "falling deep" here means to have to rely on social welfare provision, of which people are afraid of. But this is not really falling deep, compared to living on the street in utter poverty.

(hat tip to Algolia's HN search ;) )

The further you deviate from that (not fluent in the right language, from the wrong minority/gender, self-taught, etc.) the more reasonable it is to question how a failure will impact your ability to get jobs at your level or even stay in the field.

Same goes for education. "Rich" people can pursue and education in terms of opportunity costs. Some kids I went to HS with had to work part time to support their own families, having less time to invest in their education ... really sad story.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155774/

Here's where the correlative kicks in: I always wanted to be a full-time musician, and I still do...but I view success in music a lot like being involved with a start-up. There's the product/service angle (quality and innovation matter, unless they don't), the investor relationship (labels), the marketing budget, and absolutely no guarantees of success. Actually, it's an offhand joke, but being a full-time musician writing originals (e.g. not in a wedding/corporate party cover band) is a lot like choosing poverty up front for a potential windfall later.

Being an employee has been a choice, and one that I'm glad to have made because with patience and investing in myself, I've been able to acquire lots of equipment and spent hundreds - if not thousands - of hours playing, writing and recording music. Because I didn't seek out the 'traditional' channel of label investment and signing away certain rights, I've been able to build a library of my own content which I consider like a savings of sorts. Maybe it's a worthless legacy in dollar terms, or maybe when an opportunity finally arises to do some business with my material, I won't be caught empty handed. The trade-off in security and health isn't glamorous, but it's certainly something I'm proud of choosing and accomplishing thus far.

TL,DR; If your goal is to get a Nolan Ryan rookie card and the guy won't trade it unless you offer the entire roster of the 1989 Oakland As Championship team in trade, then get to work building up what you need to get what you want.

The difference is that today you can build a side project on the side while working in a company and hopefully build something up that way. This wasn't possible 20 years ago in the same way.

The founders were quite rich and they were of course passionate about their own company because of which they worked even more than me, but I could never feel the same enthusiasm. Interestingly, both of them had worked for larger companies, studied in and traveled to various countries for work which gave me the idea that perhaps it is better to be in a start-up once I have experienced what they have.

The good news is that succeeding at three of the four start-ups left me with enough stock options to fund (my share) of my next start-up with cash. While it's looking like I may not see a return on that investment, the product was certainly something the industry needs/needed. As a small boot-strapped company, it's almost impossible to move an industry.

I'm currently working at a university and we've tailored the culture within our group to be much like you'd find in a start-up (the political machinations of a university can however be brutal). In any case, I think I have a couple more ideas that could be turned into start-ups and enough working years left to build a couple more start-ups. I can't think of anything that's more fun.

In contrast to you, I came from an upper-middle class family with a stay-at-home mom and a go-to-work dad. Things were comfortable when I was at home but I'd have never asked any of my relatives for money to create a start-up and my parents were far more risk averse than I (originally they mildly disapproved of the risks I was taking but seem to have realized I always "left myself an out" so that in the worst possible outcome, I could take care of my wife and kids).

So it might be true that most kids these days have the money to be entrepreneurs, I say it was definitely in my genes. (As an aside, in the '80s I think most of the start-ups I saw were people who were risking almost everything to get started because they had a vision - it's much easier to fail if there are no consequences).

My parents wanted me to follow the "safe path", to be the '50s style company man who would work his 40 years and retire with a good pension. They wouldn't endorse the life I ended up living. I was however encouraged to be curious and the "hack". That was an amazing gift and I am in fact grateful for my privileged upbringing - I'm just not tanned from laying on the beach at the Hamptons.

After 10 years of being a software engineer you should have enough to retire forever (albeit in some third world country).

But your sentiment is correct: If you're debt-free, you should be able to "soft retire" after 10 years as a software engineer in today's markets.

Pay is very relative. I look at my old high school buddies, they range from 25k-40k. The first time I asked for 100k, I thought it was craziness. Like no human being deserves that amount of money. So it took me several years to build up to that number.

The approximate rule of thumb (not accounting for investment variability, so be careful!) is that you can extract 4% of your investments annually without affecting the basis (while adjusting it for inflation). So if you can live off that 4% (ie. $40k off a $1M investment portfolio), then you can "soft retire."

There are entire communities dedicated to this notion (eg. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim...)

If you're single and socially unattached, your proposition is viable. But you can't readily expect someone's SO and/or children to be as willing to cut ties with their home. And if you have a solid group of friends, that's a big thing to give up and to try and rebuild in a foreign land without the benefit of common language and culture.

And I'm sorry, I should explain - I live and work in the EU, in Germany right now. So I can't compare. In any case, one can certainly save, and I'm not gonna lie, I could certainly spend less without losing too much :) But a claim like "10 years is enough to retire" seems a bit extreme.

It should come as no surprise that the expenses in those areas are much higher. If you settle for a lower salary in an area with lower living expenses, your effective savings rate could be higher.

Also, you don't want those DC jobs. Just say no. The military industrial complex is a soul-eating machine, and it does not respect software professionals.

The problem is that other places have fewer available jobs in the field, and a greater proportion of them are extremely unglamorous. $90k maintaining a stupid, business-line CRUD app may be less attractive than $80k making custom software for medical researchers.

P.S. I don't think we'll get far with this... i just noticed, e.g., "median household income in the US" - that seems a tricky thing to compare with, given that many ppl in the US don't have health insurance, or live in trailer parks eating off food stamps...

I don't follow the Shangai listings (because to me they are kinda pointless) but if pressed to list canadian universities, University of Waterloo would definitely be there....

Erm, that's well-known as an excellent school. Top-tier, really. My only qualms about inviting in a Waterloo man for an interview would be that our work might not be interesting enough.

Read Cryptonmicon and you can work out who Randy's' family is based on

edit: Your original comment (paraphrased) was, 'I go to this school no one's heard of, but my classmate get offers to <top-tier tech companies>', but the reality of this is that all of these top-tier tech companies are without a doubt quite aware of Waterloo and it's quality. The same can't be said for, what, I don't know, Cleveland State University.