Comment by bear141

Comment by bear141 3 days ago

4 replies

You can choose to think that op meant only the most insanely rich billionaires. I thought they meant their actual experiences with peers. Cut out the outliers and be realistic and I think it’s easier to understand the point without the extremism. The range of what people consider success is quite large.

sillyfluke 3 days ago

Yes, it's a bit forced trying to turn someone's anecdotes that spur some food for thought into some kind of a categoric stance.

They asked the parent who they were thinking of, a more recent example of an "up and coming" billionaire would be Palmer Luckey, whose life experience seems to be at least consistent with his stance against optionality.

Edit: Ref

"A lot of my peers in the tech industry do not share this philosophy … They’re always pursuing everything with optionality. ’Oh, I need to be able to raise money from anybody. I need to be able to sell my business in any way. I need to have liquidity in any way. I need to make sure that I’m not closing myself off to future romantic partners. I need to make sure I’ve got my options open. I need to make sure that I’m not going to buy a house and settle down in one place and lock myself down. Oh, having children. I don’t know. Maybe I’m not ready to commit to that path."

https://archive.is/BlzA9

an0malous 3 days ago

I chose those examples because they’re well known and public. I asked for counter examples and no one seems to be able to share any.

  • kelnos 3 days ago

    I posted some as a reply to one of your other posts.

    Why do we need well-known, public examples? I think it would be absurd to assert that there are very few successful founders that don't come from wealthy families. (Just as it would be absurd to suggest there are few that do come from wealthy families.)