[ThrowawayR2]

> The prevailing narrative is still that, for example, a social safety net stifles innovation.

A social safety net enables one to fail safely but that's only a benefit to those with enough drive to try in the first place. The upper & middle class is more likely to have that because of their upbringing but they are the ones who don't need the social safety net in the first place. What of the rest? What innovative use will they make of the social safety net?

There are other reasons to give everyone a social safety net but fostering innovation doesn't seem to be one of them, in my opinion.

[kesselvon]

There are plenty of people I've personally met that would start a venture, but are too afraid of losing healthcare/benefits/steady paycheck because they don't have any alternative to fall back on if they fail.

It's all cool when you're a single adult in your 20s, but when you have bills, dependents, or debts. A failed startup or business can wipe you out for a long time

[tryitnow]

You answer your own question when you state:

"The upper & middle class is more likely..."

"More likely" is the key term here. How much more likely? If they are very, very, very likely, then you might be correct.

However, if they're only slightly likely, then the social safety would be useful in catching those who would otherwise fall through the cracks.

There's issues around the direction of causality too. Why are the upper and middle classes likely to produce innovators?

Because of their upbringing?

Could part of that beneficial upbringing be the implicit social safety net they enjoy from their parents?

[sdflkd]

Are you saying poor people do not raise their children to hunger for success?