If there are "millions of people" smart and talented enough to start a successful startup, or join one early, this sounds like a spectacular business opportunity.
After all, everyone knows doing a startup is easy and riskless if you just have enough smarts and talent. Startups don't require any skill or effort beyond that. We therefore conclude that the reason there aren't millions of people involved in startups is a conspiracy of "wealthy entitled children" who hate anyone who hasn't read Homer. I remember all the in-depth quizzing I got about Homer last time I applied to a wealthy entitled child's startup.
The most successful Silicon Valley founders and investors were born into wealth, attended expensive private schools, and are connected by exclusive networks. We therefore conclude that these kind of people are simply better and more successful human beings than others. Why else would this tiny class of people so dominant an entire industry?
Startups are hard and risky, which is precisely why it's dominated by "wealthy entitled children". If a poor kid's startup fails, poor kid gets kicked out of his house and starves. If a wealthy kid's startup fails, wealthy kid doesn't get to buy his Ferrari for another year.
I have no idea how to break this vicious cycle, apart from strengthening social safety nets for the lower classes to minimize downside risk. But we know once you start providing welfare for the poor, they'll simply stop working, right?
Kickstarter and crowdfunding are a great next step. When it's not just rich old guys picking which projects get funded you get Oculus and an entire new VR industry, created by a unpedigreed outsider that no investor would have given the time of day to.
The real shift will come when crowdfunding for equity is possible. When not just rich investors will be able to benefit from the massive wealth creation of technology companies. It may be that regular people are willing and able to fund as many viable projects as exist.
Exactly: People talk about how Bill Gates dropped out of college to make a startup, but many gloss over his socioeconomic starting-point that let him "afford the risk".
I'm confused. Where was it ever implied by the parent that running a startup is "easy and riskless if you just have enough smarts and talent" and that "Startups don't require any skill or effort"?
The point, that I understood, from the parent is that the job (SV?) culture is highly homogenized and that there isn't enough outreach to skilled people who don't "fit". Did I misunderstand? If I didn't, do you not believe there's any amount of truth to this?
"Yes, the homogenized group of Americans, Europeans, Indians, Chinese, other Asian and Middle Easterners present in the valley clearly won't engage in outreach to skilled people.
Another popular meme: those greedy capitalists are constantly lobbying congress to give them permission to reach out to skilled people from around the world in order to lower wages. Better stop them, it's bad for workers!" -yummyfajitas
It's pretty clear to me that staunch isn't talking about racial homogeneity:
After all, everyone knows doing a startup is easy and riskless if you just have enough smarts and talent. Startups don't require any skill or effort beyond that. We therefore conclude that the reason there aren't millions of people involved in startups is a conspiracy of "wealthy entitled children" who hate anyone who hasn't read Homer. I remember all the in-depth quizzing I got about Homer last time I applied to a wealthy entitled child's startup.