[robertlagrant]

> Reading rich people's blogs reminds me every time that there's a reason wealth is also called "fortune". Because it's more about luck than anything else. And by luck I mean a family golden nugget, or lucky first investment, or both. A superpower that allows one to fail many times and still be able to try again until they hit the next fortune. Most people in the world can't even afford to try. Most of the rest can't afford to fail.

Is this true? Did Paul Graham have outside money to fall back on that was given to him to sustain him through all his failures?

[thesuitonym]

From Wikipedia: Graham received a Bachelor of Arts with a major in philosophy from Cornell University in 1986. He then received a Master of Science in 1988, and a Doctor of Philosophy in 1990, both in computer science from Harvard University. Graham has also studied fine arts and painting at the Rhode Island School of Design and at the Accademia di Belle Arti in Florence.

Note that most people can't even afford to go to one university, let alone four. That definitely seems like someone who had a safety net that allowed him to focus on acquiring wealth, instead of acquiring shelter or food.

[foldr]

PG is from a middle class family AFAIK and probably benefited from some parental support. However, you may be missing the fact that graduate study in the US is typically funded. He would most likely have received a stipend or other funding covering living expenses while doing his PhD.

[robertlagrant]

> Note that most people can't even afford to go to one university, let alone four. That definitely seems like someone who had a safety net that allowed him to focus on acquiring wealth, instead of acquiring shelter or food.

In 1986 a smart person who was willing to live cheaply could definitely do this. Doing a PhD is not evidence of a "family golden nugget", in my view. I don't know when he did his art studies, but still. Giant numbers of middle class people do not do what Paul Graham did, even though they had enough "safety net" to do that studying.

[DanielHB]

Jeez, I suppose we should only allow people in who grew up living under a bridge like you.

[DonnyV]

Yup, nepo kid

"...father worked for Westinghouse, modelling nuclear reactors, then was named the Director of Nuclear Safety for Atomic Energy of Canada"

https://hsm.stackexchange.com/a/16002

[robertlagrant]

I don't understand. Are you saying Paul Graham got a job at Westinghouse due to nepotism?

[DonnyV]

"Nepotism is the act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives in an occupation or field."

[graemep]

I do not know about Paul Graham in particular, but it is true of many rich people.

[robertlagrant]

I know it's an oft-recited thing in the last decade or so, but I don't really understand it. It's true that in markets with lots of value to provide someone will win, and probably make lots of money, but to do so they would have to out-compete all the other people. That is extremely difficult, and calling it luck just seems a bit silly. People who got rich through building businesses aren't like lottery winners or heirs of fortunes. Why pretend they are, and what's behind that mindset?

[graemep]

Because it is demonstrably true for many people that luck or family influence or money played a factor.

They may have had to compete with other people in the same advantages in the same business - which may not be very many.

There is an overlap between people who build businesses and heirs of fortunes. Far more people increase an existing fortune than become rich from scratch.