Another piece that tries to promote the idea that "following your dreams is dangerous" and that success has to do with privilege and not really with hard work. Beware of all these political ideologues trying to convince you that you are a born loser and there's nothing you can do about it.
Success can come from working hard at something. Whether you're comfortable working hard at something depends on the risk of doing so.
Lebron James works hard, spends all day getting better at basketball. He also has a cooking staff, training staff, and house keepers.
If I took the same amount of time playing basketball, the same effort, I'd be broke and homeless.
If I come from money, sure I can spend all day working on the nuances of my startup, to the exclusion of all else. My ability to exist is taken care of.
That is a living situation which would reduce the risk of going of and starting a startup. That person would not have to worry about working and splitting effort and could totally immerse themselves in their startup endeavors.
However, the scope of money the article is talking about (and that we often see in the founder class), no that would not qualify as coming from money.
Coming from money is not just about the reduction of risk, but also the connections formed by having money.
I'm not trying to be reductionist, I'm trying to nail down a precise shared meaning of the terms that our conversation depends on.
I have seen many founders who come from ivy league, with millions in family seed capital and extensive networks with introductions and connections squander them because they don't prioritize what is most important: they don't embrace uncertainty, discomfort, and struggle. They don't lean into bad news. They don't position themselves as servants to the customer.
I just don't buy that these advantages of reduction of risk are the most important variable in the equation. Ive seen them first hand hinder success as much as they enable it. And they definitely do not gatekeep it.
So if "coming from money" means seed capital and family connections then I stand by my point.
But if "coming from money" means living with parents or spouse who can cover basic living expenses with a frugal lifestyle while the founder focuses on building a business, then with that definition I would have to admin it has a big positive impact.
I guess the crux of my argument here is that founder actions matter an order of magnitude more than seed capital or family connections.
This is a misinterpretation of the article and perhaps more of an indication of your own political ideology. Here's the same author with a different article: "A UBI would free Americans to shift from scarcity to abundance mode, which would enable more people to take risks and engage in a greater, more expansive vision for their future. Yang’s freedom dividend would give Americans greater agency to leave codependent relationships, professional or otherwise, and operate as the CEO or entrepreneur of their own lives." https://qz.com/1687957/the-case-for-andrew-yangs-ubi-plan
