Oh yeh, because creating a startup is a breeze isn't it ? And most anyone could simply drop every commitment in their lives and like 4 years later they're rich! Why doesn't everyone do that, given they're free to do it ? Well, because they're not free to, not at all.
90% of people are strapped into financial obligations and have families. None of these people can afford to risk starting a business, even if they would be good at it and had the money, support and contacts required. Even among the usually already wealthy people who can afford to risk a startup, 90% of them fail.
What you're really saying is: if you inherited the freedom to risk creating a startup, and you are one of the lucky 10% who make it a success, then you deserve to enjoy the rewards.
Absolute nonsense. People start companies in extremely difficult positions in life and only some of them succeed. No one said it's easy.
But that doesn't change the fact that every single one of Amazon employees is free to leave the company and start their own tomorrow. You don't have to have complete financial security to be "free" to do something.
No, I just don't assume that you need to have a million dollars in your bank account to start a business. There's way too many people on HN who think that to run a startup you need investment money, offices, dozen employees, marketing campaigns etc etc.
You don't. You can start small, out of your own bedroom if you have to, and then grow from there. There's plenty of stupid advice like "if you're not making million dollars within 3 years of starting then there's no point" but it's just not true.
> 90% of people are strapped into financial obligations and have families.
So they have to prioritise what is important, if they feel that starting a business is more important, they will avoid getting financial obligations and starting a family.
This is also part of the overall risks, you might be better off just being an employee with a normal life instead of being a failed entrepreneur.
Hacker News gets about 300K unique visitors per month. That's ~0.0042% of the world population. Hardly a representative sample to make those kinds of ridiculous statements.
wait, didn't you time-travel in your argument ? You said if you feel like starting a business, go back in time and not have a family or take-on debt - may as well say they should have been born into a rich family with a good education, contacts and an inheritance to gamble with
If you are young and your inner voice is telling to work on your idea then it's better not to take debt like a house loan or an expensive car loan. Similarly tell your partner to wait for marriage/kids.
Of Course a rich kid won't have to do these sacrifices but the rich kid will probably not have the same intensity and drive as the middle class person who wants to succeed.
You're begging the question (and yes, that's proper use): why should all the rewards go to those who've taken some risk?
What of the risks taken by others? Are there uncompensated risk-bearing activities?
Are there activities with low risk but high return?
Suppose, say, dropping a drill bit next to the guy who's just blown in a gusher? Or securing control of the pipelines, railroads, and refineries by which that oil must make its way to market?
What risks do employees take, they are getting a salary. If they are not happy they can leave and get another job. The founder has to put everything in it, his money, time, relationships, reputation. This is not "some risk", he cannot just walk away.
What prevents a founder from walking away and getting a job exactly?
I did it, so I know it can be done.
Founders reap rewards of their risk-taking almost immediately, and it accelerates exponentially from there.
This really cuts to a major point of contention in modern politics - exaggerated pity party for the hardships of the most powerful people in society.
It is a privilege to take such risks, and if you are in doubt, go get a soul-crushing treadmill job and watch the fruits of your labour flow elsewhere.
> What prevents a founder from walking away and getting a job exactly?
He/she can do that but the sacrifices are greater compared to just being an employee.
> go get a soul-crushing treadmill job and watch the fruits of your labour flow elsewhere
I am from India, I have seen abject poverty. I know it's a privilege to take such risks, my original point was focussed more on HN demographics not the poor people who I know cannot take such risks. Poor people who cannot take such risks is a totally different conversation
Of late, employee risks include being on the short side of an extremely unbalanced power relationship. This includes unilateral and eternal NDAs, claims on all work, non-competes (including in such "industries" as sandwich shops, hairstyling, and auto repair), drugs tests (which risk drugs convictions), and more.
Jobs mobility may be limited by blacklists or other forms of discrimination: H1-B visas or other immigration status, social, religious, gender/sex, issues (not legally, in most cases, but de-facto), and more.
Employees are committing just as much of their fungible time, and often appreciably all of their available resources, which for roughly half the population net out to roughly zero. Figures I've seen suggest that about that number could not come up with $500 - $2000 (amount varies) on a 1-2 week notice -- that's far less than the amount required for, say, a business-appropriate wardrobe, transit or transport access, apartment deposit, and a month's food.
And that's within the US/EU/AU/JP/UK. It's considerably worse in much the rest of the world.
What risk? That they'd spend money on something that made them no/less money?
Other than their initial investments business owners are protected from almost all the risks their businesses take on. Company debts aren't personal debts and individuals can't be forced to work to repay the debts they cause the business to take on. Worse still these safety nets aren't paid for as these companies don't make a profit.
Whilst I won't discount the work Bezos has done the reason he's come out 1000s of times better off than other Amazon workers is because of his initial gamble.
It's not like the workers don't take on risks either. Almost all paid work is paid after the fact. If your employer goes bust you don't get paid
In what way do employees not also take all of those risks?
The degree of risk might be different but employees are also betting on the success of your business.
You only have to look at the recent US election to see that people are taking all these risks.
Whilst I imagine a lot of people on HN see these risks as negligible they do still exist and it can go wrong.
> If you believe in your idea get a loan from family, friends or banks or get a high paying job save money and then start your business.
I don't understand if this is supposed to be a joke or you are really that sheltered and clueless. Just get a loan from your family and get started? You are aware that for the vast, vast, vast majority of people this is not an option that's available to them, right? Get a high paying job and save money? Jesus Christ, but how?? How do you do that if there are no such jobs for you, either because of your location or because of your lack of education? Surely you would tell a 14 year old working 12h a day making cheap sneakers in Bangladesh to either ask his parents for money or to save his 0.25$ an hour salary and start a company, without an education. After all, this is perfectly feasible and if you don't so it you deserve to stay poor.
You are comparing apples to oranges, my comment was for people who visit HN not for poor people in US or elsewhere. I agree poor people cannot afford to take such risks.
Someone working in a fulfillment center making ~40-50K each year won't be able to put together 100K capital to risk, even with family and friends.
A large portion of HN readers are entrepreneurs, a lot of stories here tell the tale of failure, the burden and how to bear it. Yes it's not easy.
And then there are people for the "not easy" is virtually impossible. Because they can't even start a business with any chance to succeed.
I'm not saying, that because of this Bezos should give more to the employees, but it'd be good if these inherent inequalities were better managed by society.
Those employees are free to start their own companies. If you take the risk of starting a business then you should get the rewards if it succeeds.