Then let’s control for that. Among people with a decent safety net, can we correlate eventual success with number of tries?
The answer seems self evident, but idk for sure, and I would like to know the Gini coefficient of successes vs failures among safety netters be that of non-safety netters. Wouldn’t we expect the successes within the safety net to be massively larger on average than those of the non-safety netters, given that a safety net affords you so many more swings to take? Your comment suggests that this is not the case, driven by the selection/survivor effect within non-safety net
In a thread about survivor bias, and you fall for the same trap. How many people coming from wealthy background end up failing?
Take Bill Gates, his father cofounded a law firm, and his mother was a board members of several firms. That is a very wealthy background, but not outrageously so. How many people of the same level of wealth became successful businesspeople? It's said that his mom being on the same board as IBM's CEO at the time was a more instrumental factor to his eventual success than his family's wealth, and his own effort of course.
> It's said that his mom being on the same board as IBM's CEO at the time was a more instrumental factor to his eventual success than his family's wealth, and his own effort of course.
This sounds a lot like "his family's wealth was a more instrumental factor than his family's wealth" since "being on a board" is pretty rarified air. It's not Gates-himself-level wealthy, but what percentile is that? 90th? 95th? 99th?
When IBM came knocking, Bill Gates referred them to Gary Kildall. Kildall (for whatever reason) muffed the deal, and Gates didn't pass on that opportunity again. Gary had the opportunity, and came from a middle class company. He invested in his company with his own resources.
Gates received $5000 from his family for his business.
I've read accounts of Microsoft's early days. It was self-sustaining very quickly.
I also know something about compilers and interpreters. BASIC of that era was simply not difficult to create. Yes, Gates & Allen had access to a PDP-10 at Harvard which helped. But it was not required, as Woz proved by writing Apple BASIC in a notebook and hand assembled it.
I also know that Hal Finney wrote a BASIC in 1978 or so that fit in a 2K EPROM (for Intellivision). As I recall, it didn't take him very long.
So no, Microsoft is simply not a result of massive infusions of money. An awful lot of people had the ability to create Microsoft, what they lacked was vision, drive, and willingness to risk.
And no, Gates and Allen were not going to starve if they failed, even without their parents' money.
Not the OP, but I can name many: Andy Grove (Intel) , Steve Jobs (Apple), Larry Page, Sergei Brin (Google), Reed Hastings (Netflix), Michael Dell (Dell).
They all seem to come from solidly middle or upper middle class, so no poverty but not different than many of us on HN.
The argument was not that you had to be rich, just that you had a safety net so you could take risks and know you had a fallback without being homeless and hungry.
But the Google cofounders specifically both had parents who were early computer scientists or mathematicians
In all fairness, I haven’t been consistent between “coming from enough money that your parents can be your angel investors” and “you can afford to fail and call your parents for help with the rent”.
Your question is naming just one not coming from money. None of the people I listed did.
Wealthy background surely helps immensely, but other factors such as environment are vital as well. Google founders met at Stanford, in the heart of Silicon Valley, at the height of the dotcom era. That’s more important than their background.
Being wealthy is not the most important factor to one’s success. 50% of US population is middle class. Even if those I listed were all upper middle class, that would still be perhaps 5% of US population, or millions of people. Yet only a few rise to the top.
While not a tech company founder, Oprah Winfrey created a media empire. She was born to a teenage mother in rural Mississippi (and poverty).
If someone wants a story about overcoming one's lot in life through grit, hard work and making the most of situations/opportunities her story is one you'll want; maybe not as relatable as the Bezos, Dell, Jobs, Musk etc but a story that poverty->billionaire entrepreneur can happen. There is also a reason she is the only one I can think of that fits description.
Jensen Hung’s father was an engineer and his mother was a teacher. He wasn’t going to be homeless and on the street if he failed.
And he didn’t come straight out college either. He worked at AMD and I’m sure he had established some type of financial foundation and I’m sure he could have easily found a job if Nvidia failed with his background.
>>Jensen Hung’s father was an engineer and his mother was a teacher. He wasn’t going to be homeless and on the street if he failed.
So now the goalposts are "isn't desperate" while a while ago it was "came from money". Having caring parents and being raised in culture that value education help. No one is arguing that.
>>And he didn’t come straight out college either. He worked at AMD and I’m sure he had established some type of financial foundation and I’m sure he could have easily found a job if Nvidia failed with his background.
He needed to get a job first like a average person before starting his own company. Privilege!
Huang's family must have had interesting connections if you consider that the daughter of his cousin is running AMD. And both were born in Taiwan and then went to MIT, which seems unlikely to happen without family money.
Bezos’s mom was his first investor, giving him $300K.
Then he also had connections to millionaires through his family
Bill Gates’ mother, Mary Gates, was instrumental in securing Microsoft's first major deal with IBM through her connections. His family was wealthy and provided connections and support
What about Replit? Two guys in a coffee shop in Jordan, you cannot be much further from Silicon Valley. They got turned down four times from YC and decided never to try again. But pg fell in love with the startup and urged him to try again. Then during the interview one of them got into a heated argument with Michael Siebel and thought for sure he had failed.
Yet he got in without a wealthy family and an American Ivy League degree. There are lots of other examples, I can even think of a one in Michigan.
Sure, but if Bill Gates was a drug addict with no software, there would have been no deal and he certainly wouldn't have been successful.
Whenever I see the topic of success, people LOVE to talk about 'survivorship bias' as a way to somehow discredit the person that is successful and also give an excuse as to why they might not be successful.
It's pretty destructive in a community that's supposed to be about startups and building businesses. This is why I originally came here years ago, but it seems like the mindset has shifted to anti-capitalist group think.
No one is discrediting his success. It’s just the banal idea of if you have “grit” and work really hard, you are somehow guaranteed success or even have more than a slim chance.
Find companies that make a lot of money and convince them to give you some of that money in exchange for your labor if you want the best risk/reward ratio.
I would much rather be in the position of an intern I mentored who at 22 made over $700K in gross income between cash and RSUs (that could easily be converted into cash unlike “equity” in private companies) their first four years out of college than some struggling founded trying to start yet another AI company so grateful they got $200k from YC while still eating beans and rice that they had to split among three founders.
If you can buy a house for $300k, you can invest the money instead. If you choose "house", you're going to have a much harder time accumulating wealth.
I wish I hadn't bought a house instead of investing it all in MSFT. I know people at the time who borrowed every dollar they could and plowed it into MSFT. They became very, very wealthy. I was too chicken. Bwaaack, cluck cluck!
You never hear about the people who made bad investments.
Or everyone who invested their life savings, refinanced their house, withdrew everything from their 401K and still failed.
If you have a paid off house you have some place to live, the alternative is to be paying rent that goes up every year.
My rent in 2016 before I had my house built was $1800. My mortgage was $2300. By 2024, rent had gone up at the same place to $2400. My mortgage besides property taxes and insurance won’t go up nearly as much[1]
It reminds me of people in BigTech that don’t sell their RSUs as soon as they vest and diversify. I make just as much now in cash as I did in BigTech with the difference being 40% was in RSUs. Why would I keep 40% of my income in AMZN any more than I would take 40% of my cash income and put in AMZN?
[1] Anecdotely I sold in 2024 at exactly twice the price I had a built for in northern Atlanta and bought a condo in state tax free central Florida for half the price.
I am criticizing the idea that all it takes is “grit” and if you work really hard you will succeed.
Thought experiment: 10 people out of college take “huge risks and work really hard”. A second set of 10 people just get boring enterprise Dev jobs and the third set all work in BigTech for 10 years. Rank the three groups in the order of expected median total income over the decade?
> I am criticizing the idea that all it takes is “grit” and if you work really hard you will succeed.
Ok, but I did not suggest that.
Working hard is not good enough. It's necessary to work at the right things - and it is hardly obvious which are the right things. Taking risks is also necessary. The bigger the risks, the bigger the potential gains.
But nothing is guaranteed.
Spending one's youth playing video games diminishes your chances of financial success to around zero.
Someone working in BigTech making over a quarter million a year less than 3 years out of college has a much better chance of success and playing video games after working 8 hours a day 5 days a week than a “founding engineer” or even a founder of yet another YC backed AI company doing “996”.
> It reminds me of people in BigTech that don’t sell their RSUs as soon as they vest and diversify. I make just as much now in cash as I did in BigTech with the difference being 40% was in RSUs. Why would I keep 40% of my income in AMZN any more than I would take 40% of my cash income and put in AMZN?
I mean, I didn't sell my RSUs as soon as they vested, because I worked for a BigTech company that I believed was on the upswing, and I was willing to take that risk of not selling.
Sure, it is an equivalent of buying those shares on your own, but again, it still felt way safer (and way more flexible/liquid, as I could sell my shares at any moment) to me than working at a startup with extremely illiquid equity. And I was already pretty much broke with no safety net (my internship over the summer back then made me more than my entire family combined earned in ~6 months; this is not an internship flex, there were plenty that paid more, this is just to illustrate the gap between some bigtech internship salaries and what my family was making), so I was willing to take the risk.
The risk ended up paying off, and that BigTech company went from ~$60/share to $300+/share in barely 5 years, turning my initial stock grant into a lifechanging amount for someone in my position. No, it isn't even close to being enough to buy a house outright or retire, but it is my (and my family's) safety net now. I can afford to help my sister pay rent with zero "can i actually afford it" thought in my mind.
TLDR: yes, not diversifying is risky. However, you cannot make lifechanging money without taking risks, whether it is through joining a promising startup or not diversifying your investments or anything else. I am not advocating anyone to do what I did, as I agree with you that selling RSUs on vest is the most safe option. There are no totally safe options for making lifechanging (whatever that means for you) amounts of money, so you gotta pick your poison, if that's something you want. For me personally, making bigtech salary at a company that I believed was on the upswing (and saving a good amount of it), while keeping all vested RSUs in my account (and selling no more than 5% of it each year), was an acceptable level of risk (that I wouldn't regret doing, even if the price of those shares ended up dying significantly).
I wouldn't assume size of success is correlated with "having success or not." It's notoriously hard to predict what business ideas will succeed at all, let alone be mega-billion-success-stories. Many things could've gone differently leading to Bezos being a ten- or hundred-millionaire vs a multi-billionaire even in worlds where Amazon was successful. AWS, for instance, was not in the original plan.
I think the strongest correlations would be between:
"has safety net" and "has success" - one major factor here is not having a poverty mentality that would lead to panicking and quitting early
as well as between "has safety net" and "takes multiple swings if no initial success", for the direct reason of "can afford to do so."
Succeeding without safety net is hard -> only the best can do it -> the best entrepreneurs you know did not had a safety net