I love this comment. I don't think this notion gets highlighted enough.
This is definitively anecdotal, though I've been at / through approximately 5 startups across 12 years, and looking back, I believe each end everyone one (except for one) was definitely helped / started by a founder or set of founders who didn't have to worry about whether they went belly up or not due to family wealth. Hell, I still know some that I've consulted for that have lived in the bay area for the past 8 years without a product that makes any money, no vc funding, and were just out of their masters 8 years ago.
Clearly looking back, nearly every founder I've worked for came from a family with $$$. Even currently, at least one of my co-ceos just up and left their 2 million dollar menlo park house and went to live in their parents vacation home in monterey right when covid began.
Taking risks becomes extremely easy when you have a large family wealth backed safety net propping you up along the way. This happens way more often than people realize, and often the founder(s) will definitely not talk about this at all / downplay it if it is brought up.
If you don't come from wealth, please don't be deterred by this and similar narratives. The OP is not referring to any facts or data, just a personal experience, aka n=1. If you're looking for a more reliable guidance in life, look at YC which is n~3,000. If there's anyone who knows where to look for startup success, it's YC - and their search has increasingly shifted towards India, Nigeria and similar countries [1].
Definitely not meant as a deterrent for anyone. Just stating information I've viewed. That's all.
If anything those coming from backgrounds I didn't list should try to be as involved as possible with startups. Thanks for the alternative take, but nothing stated was meant to deter as much as inform.
We also shouldn't erase potential truths for lack of crowdsourced data. We as a tech community have a large desire to ask for the source, which is great, but double edged.
Relaying information of this sort that I and others brought up is important on the basis of more eyes on the potential problem and looking into the data than not.
It's no surprise that the largest predictor of wealth is... wealth. Lots of founders might not be directly funded by family wealth, but the various safety nets and conveniences (even op said they sold 2 of their cars) are a major factor, if not the largest factor, of success.
It's an ugly truth of life that I've come to accept: the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
People who bought Bitcoin for $1 in 2009 won the lottery. There was no rational basis for expecting any significant payout from that.
Marrying into money is an option for some, but you have to make a big emotional sacrifice (at least in Western culture) if you opt for going by wallet instead of going by heart. It's doable, but GP's point here is that a rich person doesn't have to make that choice.
Why would it be a big emotional sacrifice to marry into money? Especially if (as some studies suggest) money is a big part of what makes men attractive, odds should be high for actual love being involved in the decision.
You have repeatedly brought up marrying someone rich in this thread saying it is "mostly an option for women".
So, are you some how saying rich women only marry rich men, but rich men will consider poor women? So much so it's actually a thing? Sources, please? It sounds extremely out dated and kind of gross...especially because you keep saying it like it is some valid thing.
It's definitely a thing in places like China where you have a much larger population of men, and it is harder and harder to find a woman (so much that some people buy their wives online from other poorer countries).
It's a well known data point. In general, women don't like to marry down, and men have less of an issue marrying down. Think of the classic "doctor marries nurse".
If you Google, you should find a lot of articles about it, as it is an important sociological issue. Now that more women are having a career, in fact, more women than men are having an academic career, it is becoming difficult for women to find adequate men.
Also women marrying up was historically the MOST important mechanism of social mobility (people moving up in status/wealth). Too bad that feminism does not allow it anymore, as any man who marries a less wealthy women is considered to be "abusing his power".
The other claim, women being attracted to men with more money, I am less sure about. I am sure you can find studies analyzing data from dating platforms yielding that result, but I don't know how well they generalize to dating in general.
Agreed, pro sports is more genetics than anything, you can train till you bleed for years, but if you aren't at least 6 feet plus, no way are you gonna reach the NBA.
To an extent it doesn't get highlighted enough because the community buries these comments. The comment you are replying to is sitting at -3 karma at the moment, and I wouldn't be surprised if similar comments were flagged and downvoted.
Yes, having money is good. That's why many people strive to have money.
I personally also don't think it is unfair if kids of rich parents inherit their money (or their support). After all, being able to take care of one's children is a major motivation of many people for trying to make money.
It's also well known that money is an important factor in mate choice for women.
Even without money, biology would be at work and people would be striving to find attractive mates to conceive "fit" children.
You could then also say those "fit" children are "privileged" compared to "less fit" children.
--
Anyway, as your own anecdotes highlight, if you are not rich, find another way, for example a rich person who gives you money.
Don't think there was any weighing in on fairness going on as much as it not being acknowledged enough.
I believe, from experience seeing it, many founders who succeed will quote literally everything but their background, upbringing, and privilege as a factor, even though the fact that they had little to worry about while building their empire with respect to you know, the things everyone else has to care about on a daily basis (bills, debt, what happens if I fail) is an extremely large factor.
The barrier to entry of them taking a risk is so much lower that it is (in my opinion) directly correlated to their success at the end of the day.
Anyway, that's all. Less about fairness, and more about wish this was really highlighted more.
My impression is that "privilege" has by now taken on that meaning of "unfairness". It seems to be the most common modern use ("check your privilege" and so on). It sounds as if those people don't deserve it.
It's a shame, because I think it used to mean exactly the opposite, having a privilege was an honor. Is the phrase "it was a privilege to have known you" still being used?
You should recognize your privilege along with your strengths, and not overtly hide your privilege to appear on equal footing.
I have intimate knowledge with writers, specifically offspring of well known writers who do their best to hide this fact, yet will still use their parents agent. And yes, it is unfair for them to believe they are on equal footing with any other writer.
That doesn't mean they don't try hard, but they do have benefits built into their life that others don't.
If you want to trailblaze without being perceived as someone of privilege getting there then you should take paths that align with that, and not ones that don't.
Pretty sure that every good writer can make it, though. Perhaps the mediocre writers have an advantage if they have relations. No doubt a lot of awfully bad books are being published every year, and some even are successful.
I used to think about this, "only people with relations can make it". When I got older I realized that if you care about some subject, you will probably end up making relevant connections on the way.
And I also think this way of thinking about privilege is self-defeating. If you don't have "privilege X", find another way.
Some writers now got rich without ever having an agent, self-publishing.
I'm sure people will find some other alleged privilege they had, which allowed them to do that. That's not the point.
If you are dead poor and have no connections whatsoever, you have the "privilege" to write authentically about being poor.
This is definitively anecdotal, though I've been at / through approximately 5 startups across 12 years, and looking back, I believe each end everyone one (except for one) was definitely helped / started by a founder or set of founders who didn't have to worry about whether they went belly up or not due to family wealth. Hell, I still know some that I've consulted for that have lived in the bay area for the past 8 years without a product that makes any money, no vc funding, and were just out of their masters 8 years ago.
Clearly looking back, nearly every founder I've worked for came from a family with $$$. Even currently, at least one of my co-ceos just up and left their 2 million dollar menlo park house and went to live in their parents vacation home in monterey right when covid began.
Taking risks becomes extremely easy when you have a large family wealth backed safety net propping you up along the way. This happens way more often than people realize, and often the founder(s) will definitely not talk about this at all / downplay it if it is brought up.
The privilege is real.