This is such nonsense. First of all, there are absolutely people who come from dirt poverty and become wildly successful. Second of all, plenty of people receive lots of help from their parents and amount to precisely nothing. IMO it's fair to refer to your success as "self made" if you exceed the median success level of your class peer group by a substantial margin.
If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree and an upper middle class income - that's self made success. If you're born in the US and your entire family is lawyers, maybe that same accomplishment is not "self made success". But if you say, start Microsoft and become a billionaire i'd say that it's fair to call that self-made success.
I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify their own failure to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other people down. Whether or not self-made success is a thing, self-made failure certainly is, and i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it.
> First of all, there are absolutely people who come from dirty poverty and become wildly successful. Second of all, plenty of people receive lots of help from their parents and amount to precisely nothing.
There are way more people who are born wealthy and continue being wealthy. There are way more people who go from poor to poor. Social mobility is piss poor right now in the US.
If "having a nice family and a wonderful house and a great life" is amounting to nothing, I will take it.
> If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree and an upper middle class income - that's self made success. If you're born in the US and your entire family is lawyers, maybe that same accomplishment is not "self made success". But if you say, start Microsoft and become a billionaire i'd say that it's fair to call that self-made success.
First of all, Bill Gates had a TON of opportunity and privilege funneled to him from his parents.
Second of all, we are not talking about Bill Gates or Elon Musk. We are talking about the legions of Bradleys going from Georgetown Prep to ivy league schools to finance to the executive class.
You cannot POSSIBLY believe that there is no wealth disparity in the US? That there is not a disparity in opportunity between the wealthy and the middle class/poor?
> I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify their own failure to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other people down. Whether or not self-made success is a thing, self-made failure certainly is, and i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it.
This is just completely unfounded. You think this entire discussion is propped up by other failed millionaires?
I can't speak to this person's reason for writing the article, but the reason the "self-made success is a myth" is a trope is that people SEE the research, SEE the disparity around them, and smell the bullshit.
> But if you say, start Microsoft and become a billionaire i'd say that it's fair to call that self-made success.
Bill Gate’s family clearly contributed to his and Microsoft’s success. His mother in particular had direct contact with the chairman of IBM which lead to a scrappy software company landing a life changing contract.
I’m not saying that to discount the rest of his achievements or effort either. The greatest among us not only have the drive, the intuition, and put in the work, but they also seize upon opportunities when they come knocking.
If it were not his mother and instead a friend’s mother or father that had similar contacts, I have no doubt that Bill Gates would have been just as successful. He would have found that nut and cracked it one way or another.
>IMO it's fair to refer to your success as "self made" if you exceed the median success level of your class peer group by a substantial margin.
Even if success were 100% down to luck, there'd still be people who exceeded the median success level of their class peer group by a substantial margin. It's begging the question to simply assert that a majority of these people can fairly claim to be "self made".
> If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree and an upper middle class income - that's self made success.
A student from Senegal who attended my alma mater now works in Wall Street. In an alumni issue, he described what it was like to go from his tiny village to the capital city in Senegal for an interview for a scholarship at a prestigious international school (where his grades got him another scholarship for college). He described hitching multiple rides just to get to the city, and needed to borrow heavily to pay for the flights once he was admitted.
He named many families and community leaders from his village that he says were instrumental in helping him on that first major step. Where he is today wouldn't have happened without the trust and support of fellow community members. They made sacrifices so he could achieve a dream and eventually repay them.
"Self-made" means different things to different people.
Do you have an argument against the authors points that does not consist of adhominem and projection?
The self-made illusion is precisely that because we ignore the many things that gave us a headstart in life and allowed us to do the things that would've caused other people to fail. The only reason why I'm here now is because I took on a risk of going bankrupt moving across the country for a job opportunity in an industry that suddenly became very volatile. Had I been laid off or had the winds shifted and resulted in my first job being downsized, I would've been financially destroyed and dropped right back into poverty. We ignore the sheer amount of luck and circumstance in our career and lives in favor of telling a story where we're the hero.
Down-voted for such a strong word - "nonsense". See my other comment [1]. I am as self-made as anyone can be, with a very high standard of living in my country without taking even one cent from my parents beyond a certain age. But all that is because of one stroke of luck - I am proud of the fact that I was able to use that luck to my advantage but under no illusion that all my success is due to me alone.
Exactly. The logic of this argument seems to be: luck is involved in being successful, therefore personal effort plays no role at all. It makes no sense.
I like your measure relative to what you were born into. Didn’t get enough to eat when you were a child and are now a millionaire. Self-made!
Born into a millionaire family and turned that into a billion? Self-made!
I’m personally thankful the tall poppy syndrome isn’t that common in the US. I’d hate an environment where success is looked down up. No, being rich isn’t everything, but if that’s what you want, I’m happy you found it.
Exactly. When you buy into the "everything is luck, blah, blah" mentality then you have a built-in excuse to let yourself off the hook. You can be as lazy as you want, and when you fail, you can explain it away as "well, I wasn't lucky enough, aww shucks."
Whereas if you believe that you can build yourself up through effort and exertion, and believe that those things are the primary factors in your success, you have no excuses if you fail. You might still fail, but at least it won't be for lack of even bothering to give a sincere effort.
And I don't know about you guys, but I'm OK with failing if I fail for reasons that are totally outside of my control. What I'm not OK with, is failing because I didn't make a sincere effort within the scope of the things that I can control.
> I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify their own failure to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other people down.
And there we go. That kind of attitude is why this trope was created initially.
The problem people have with "self-made success" trope is that the self-made success story of someone with severe disadvantages is being equated, on an astoundingly regular basis, with the success of people with substantial advantages. That's how Bill Gates and Arnold Schwarzenegger are both dubbed "self-made" successes, despite their rather different histories.
Even worse, it is being used to justify, defend and perpetuate inequality, by convincing everyone that the American Dream is that "anyone can make it". After all, if such-and-such person coming from dirt poor origins could become wildly successful, anyone can. Therefore, we must strive at all costs to avoid removing "incentives" that motivate people to reach for that elusive success.
Naturally, this will generate resistance, and rightfully so. Despite the endless propaganda that permeates the fabric of our society, the self-made success story of Bill Gates is not the same thing as that of John Paul DeJoria.
So yeah, I agree with you in one aspect: the self-made success is not a myth. It's something much worse -- it's propaganda.
It brings to mind that quote by Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
I mean, nobody is saying that it doesn't exist. What people are saying is that the majority of it is an illusion. It's easy to take risks when you have multiple levels to fallback to. I've worked with both backgrounds of people in the same group and there couldn't be a starker difference in attitudes.
> IMO it's fair to refer to your success as "self made" if you exceed the median success level of your class peer group by a substantial margin.
"self made" isn't a statistical or legal term. It's a term of culture and art, and it is always employed by people through a subjective lens, whether to themselves or others.
Trying to impose a statistical definition on it ignores the history of its use up to the present, whether that use was justified or not.
> i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it
The fact that you are willing to apply a statistical measure for "self-made success", yet despite how little you know about the article's author, you are willing to apply a term like "self-made-failure" to them based on your personal feelings of antipathy toward a particular class of people, indicates that you might not be arguing in good faith.
Relying on "self made person" as a model for success and economic mobility is very much like relying on "win a lottery" as a model for retirement planning. The fact you can find a few people for whom it worked is not a reflection on its viability in general.
Just because there are dirt poor people who are successful and well-off people who aren't doesn't mean they're equally likely. To your broader point, no one person exists in a vacuum- one person's "self-made" is another person's "took advantage of the right tax incentives and business climate and, most importantly, had the luck of timing that they were successful instead of plunging themselves deep into debt". My experience with people who talk warmly of "self-made" people is that they tend to leave out the role of luck.
I feel like your response here is only against the title, not the content of the article, since your complaints are explicitly addressed in the article.
If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree and an upper middle class income - that's self made success.
Ah. The law professors did absolutely nothing, I suppose? Or the law firm that hired an immigrant that may not have had an understanding of US professional norms? Or the US, which let the immigrant into the country to pursue their dreams of success while relying on taxpayer-funded social services?
This trope of the "self made success" conveniently ignores that people are reliant in many ways on the efforts of others for their success. All those peple who rose from dirt poverty to become successful? Read their stories. At some point, they all relied on someone taking a chance on them--and without that chance, they'd be no different from the thousands of others of dirt poor people who never made it.
Your first two paragraphs make a very important point. Outliers from every cohort exist, and often it is due to a kind of inner drive, and we should not ignore that truth. Your final paragraph is cruel. From every cohort the vast majority of people in that cohort will end up with around the mean outcome for that cohort. This is a statistical fact. Only a few can be outliers, and expecting everyone to be one is mathematically guaranteed to cause suffering in the world.
Perhaps the real message ought to be that we all live as part of a broader continuum wherein we are all recipients of the privileges and hardships of the past, and as a consequence of that reality we ought to have better empathy for all of our brothers, sisters, and otherwise.
IMO arguing whether people are 'truly' self-made is a discussion of semantics. Calling people self-made or not doesn't change the actual timeline of actions and events of an individual’s life.
Which billionaires came from "dirty poverty?" List them, please.
Extra credit: I'm a lowly millionaire, how do I get a seat on a Board of Directors? I have a PhD, 20+ years in the technology field. Am more than qualified for any kind of corporate governance role, etc.
>She told me, “I was curious, but I don't know how a single person in America who doesn't have family money could buy anything, I really don’t, if they're not working in finance or they're not a doctor. ”
Easy, there are vast areas of America where housing is more affordable. I certainly got zero cash from family when I bought a home. My family put money into giving me food and shelter growing up though.
This is kind of like that cartoon of a New Yorker's view of the US, where Manhattan looms large, then there's New Jersey, and at the fringes there is the rest of the nation.
Yes! This. People get a really distorted view of reality, hanging around people earning 6 figure salaries, spending 90+% of them. Even in major cities, the median salaries are typically in the ~$50k range, and people do live and raise kids just fine. Instead of wondering how they do that, people tend to just throw up their hands, and declare it's impossible.
I came away from this feeling like it's a very short jump from "Maybe some of the people doing impossibly well got help" to "Everyone who is doing better than me must have gotten help".
I can't help but feel this element of dismissal is present even in this piece. E.g., Pierson turned a $15,000 loan into a business with $300,000/yr in revenue. She says, her biggest fear was hearing “she’s only successful because of her parents.” And this piece seems to suggest, or at least gently lead, the reader in that direction- ignoring the many many people who turned $15,000 loans into failed businesses.
Sure, it's impressive enough to turn $15k into a profitable business but most people could only take that plunge once or maybe twice, realistically. How many successful businesses were started by people who could do that ten times or a hundred times? Or more pertinently: how much of the market has been captured by such people? That's the real differentiator.
Turning a $15,000 loan into a successful business is certainly a big accomplishment that does not warrant dismissal. On the other hand, is it not true that this success depended on her parents? How many people out there are capable of doing what she did, except they would never have access to a $15,000 loan in the first place? We can acknowledge that the deck is stacked without blindly dismissing those who succeeded with the deck stacked mildly in their favor.
I understand the use of 'millennials' as click-bait, but when a serious author tries to tie 'millennials' into some larger explanation of sociology I just have to stop reading.
What the hell is going on in [the author]Jen Doll's head where she thinks that the myth of self-made success is a millennial phenomena? Does she suffer from amnesia? Is this just 4000 words of disinterested bullshit to get paid?
I like that we keep talking about privilege, no matter how much it irks the hacker news elite. I have a previous comment about this[0], so I will not go into too much detail.
Nobody thinks they are rich or privileged. Now, the Hendersons down the street? THOSE PEOPLE are rich! I feel that people underestimate the huge effect of having a safety net under them.
It is the difference between going to the amazing state school and the local community college.
It is the difference between paying attention and learning in class and sleeping through it because you had to get up at 6 am to work an 8-hour shift.
It is the difference between living in a studio apartment, 45 minutes from school in the bad part of town and living in the beautiful two-bedroom top-floor loft in Logan Square.
It is the difference between a data entry job, and an unpaid research internship with your professors.
It is the difference between sleeping on a couch for 3 months while you look for your first job, and having a place to stay and prepare.
It is the difference between taking the first job you can get, and holding out until you find a better one.
It's the difference between a loan for a house and a loan to your parents to pay off medical debt.
Think about every step, every decision you have made in your life and consider if you would have made the same choices if your life was different.
Resonates strongly with me. Many of my school friends went to the best colleges in my country - all the time attributing their success solely to "hard work". However, they always seemed to ignore the fact that their parents paid a lot of money for them to attend the best tuition outside of school. I did not have that option and did not get admitted to any of the famous colleges (I am discounting the constant mental tension associated with poverty here). Luckily, I have done quite well for myself (till now) - but I am under no illusion that it was solely due to me. For example, I got my first data science job via a personal contact - without that I would forever be stuck in less paying jobs.
> I did not have that option and did not get admitted to any of the famous colleges (I am discounting the constant mental tension associated with poverty here). Luckily, I have done quite well for myself
Rather than confirm the articles premise you seem to be discrediting it.
Well, your school friends might know some people who went to the same schools but weren't as successful because they were 'lazy'. Ergo their 'hard work' is what differentiates them from those people (on the last mile). You, however, look at it with a different scope.
I received much better financial aid offers from top schools than the local state university. While the ability to pay tuition definitely is a factor, keep in mind that many students do not pay even close to sticker price.
> A recent study from Merrill Lynch and Age Wave reported that 79 percent of the parents surveyed are providing financial support to their adult children, at an average $7,000 a year
Wow, this can’t be right. I mean I’ve had friends whose parents paid for their university and stuff like that, and mine helped me a little bit with tuition at a cheap state school, too, for which I’m grateful. But ongoing financial support, year after year? And 4 out of 5 parents? Yow! Guess I’m naive, but I had no idea it was that common. Maybe age is part of it. I was lucky enough to go to uni before the days of 6 figure student loan debt.
I know exactly one adult whose parents pay for all their bills, including rent. We’re friends so I give him hell about it. “You’re a grown-ass man with a decent job. Let mommy and daddy retire already!” I think once you start down those tracks and get used to the “extra funding” lifestyle, it’s hard to get off the train.
Yeah I am a bit surprised, though I do see many of these examples around me. I have several peers into their late 20's receiving support, many in the NYC area as well.
My parents put a roof over my head, valued education, helped with most all of my tuition for undergrad (over 100k), I have 7k of student loan debt left to pay off and I am 26. Right now, I am only left on their phone plan, which I just venmo my dad monthly for, 50 bucks for unlimited on Verizon and I bought my phone off of Swappa for 200 bucks (I recommend Swappa as well, save your money)
I've also seen parents feed junkies, so there's that. I don't understand the ones not working, yet going out all the time, no money management, doing drugs....parents sending money... WHY?!?!
It’s not just about the money, there is also the intangible experience when it comes to information and family education. I’d argue that will put an even a stronger influence on a kid’s mindset so if a parent is giving a 15k loan to a child it doesn’t mean the kid isn’t helped significantly to bootstrap her otherwise. On the contrary, it feels even more like a status symbol of demonstration from the parents to illustrate to society how confident they were about the kids paying the loan back.
The one thing that personally really angers me is that many institutions are exponentially harder to break into unless you come from a specific, moneyed background. You basically need to go to an elite preschool, to go to an elite primary school (usually private), to go to an elite secondary school, to get into an elite university, to get into an elite company in an elite sector (consulting, investment banking, arguably SV tech more often than not). To this class of people, spending $60k+ a year*, per child is nothing since they have been spending that much since the child was born. I've met more than a handful of these people that I wonder what, if anything, they learned.
In some parts of the world, it's very often the other way round: kids financially supporting their parents. Or what would you do when your parents' savings and pension had all disappeared in the collapse of the USSR? That's exactly the scenario some friends of mine are in...
I am not quite sure why the author narrows in on millennials in this piece, this is something happening among varying age groups.
It also appears from my experience on this forum that the prevailing opinion here is that this story is not a myth at all, but I understand there is variance here.
The issue with cost of living is an obvious one that is made in comments here, but that still does nothing to address the individuals/families who _still_ struggle in areas that are much cheaper to live. Yes, the insular view of one who has not lived outside SF is troublesome, but it's dishonest to argue as if there is still not real existing poverty in places with a lower cost of living.
While there are many different ways the socioeconomic status of ones family and upbringing can assist in their own success, there are a myriad of ways in which this is also influenced by systemic features to our society, as well as the historical context of that. Think of racially discriminatory housing policies that have helped lead to wealth gaps in the present.
While rags to riches makes a good story, we also don't talk about failures in business as much as we do the successful enterprises. Referring to individual actions in tandem with family assistance, coming to terms with the subject of meritocracy in our society and individual success, I'd propose we're looking at it the wrong way. The part to evaluate is not how much these things have to do with success, but rather how much can they come back from failure? This paints a rather different picture, as those with more financial security are in a much better position to take risks, make poor decisions, while not being pulled into poverty.
Finally, I'd like to point out that there is a growing skepticism of the liberal world order, the mainstream consensus, status quo, whatever you want to call it. More people are realizing now the varying degrees of ways the system is rigged against common working people. With it comes skepticism of the legitimacy of meritocracy in our current social order. This isn't just coming out of a vacuum.
I am perpetually amazed by how often people feel the need to put a label on something, even if that doesn't _really_ matter.
As far as I have noticed, the self-made "myth" is mainly a media trick. For some reason (maybe intrigue, maybe hope, maybe something else), people love rags to riches stories, be it an immigrant to the US with "five dollars in her pocket", a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk. The people who write those stories don't do it to get the word out, they do it to sell you something, so of course they will try to make it as dramatic as possible.
Now there's a counter-movement to balance things out. Bill Gates was actually born in a wealthy family and had a trust fund with millions in it; taking risks with his company was not really a risk. A lot of people like Cara Delevingne (who is constantly advertised everywhere for some reason) are actually part of a family with big ties in their respective industries. They are not truly self-made, but they are not just propelled to the top without significant amounts of work or talent either. The truth is generally somewhere in the middle, with outliers at both ends.
In the end, does it really matter? I feel like social media is full of either stories like this or people pretending to live a perfect life. In short, things that are unattainable for most people even if they were to live a hundred lives. Dreaming big is a wonderful thing, but it definitely won't pan out for the vast majority of people, while making them less happy in the process. That's just my view, maybe wrong in some aspects.
I spent nearly six years homeless. During that time, I basically taught myself to make money online.
I still don't have much, but I'm off the street. I read articles like this and imagine a future where I'm wealthy and powerful and everyone will talk about my privileged background and pooh pooh the idea that I'm self made.
If I ever figure out how to address affordable housing in some meaningful way, no one will laud me as a champion of the poor and downtrodden. No, they will most likely label me a slumlord.
Of course, no one is entirely self made. Of course, it's helpful to know what resources were genuinely involved in actually creating x, y or z. You have no hope of doing something similar if you have what amounts to misinformation about how it got done.
But we value the concept of a self made person because we've all had to fight to be free. We all struggle to take the hand life dealt us and turn it into a thing we desire. We all look to others who somehow accomplished that for clues to find our way into the unmapped future and try to make it a thing we don't loathe overly much.
Rising inequality and the expansion of the welfare state have transformed "self-made" into an aspiration. Even prior to the gilded age being "self-made" was rare.. only a few people were able to pull themselves up to success. If you want to read an American self-made tale pick up "Up From Slavery".
Anyway, I grew up lower-middle class. My parents were immigrants and we came from the poorest country in the western hemisphere (Haiti) with no generational wealth. I don't consider myself 'self-made', I'd say there was a mix of luck, support from the state (rent control, FAFSA, EITC, etc.) and self directed hard work.
It sounds like to me that the author got some "generational help" and feels like they were not able to capitalize, unlike some of the other profiled in this article. And thus is taking a zero-sum view of the concept of "self-made".
Most parent's would do anything for their kids lives to end up better than theirs did. I won't have any qualms about paying my kids tuition or helping with a down payment when the time comes.
There is a fundamental limitation in the human ability to assess success.
Humans inheritably live in different worlds therefore, their perception of key factors such as self-actualization, esteem, belonging, love, safety & physiological needs will be invariable different.
I would argue that if everyone started out with the same mindset and base opportunities, with time, the environment and its scarcities would cause some to deviate towards being 'richer' and others towards being 'poorer', partially by luck, and partially by other factors within and outside each person's control.
Someone that is self-made will mostly see itself's success as their personal actions and will mostly overestimate that side (E.g. I saved money while my peers were burning it on consumer goods) while others looking from outside will mostly push the (E.g. He was lucky or the environment he was in made him succeed) usually underestimating the person's personal actions.
[+] [-] darawk|7 years ago|reply
If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree and an upper middle class income - that's self made success. If you're born in the US and your entire family is lawyers, maybe that same accomplishment is not "self made success". But if you say, start Microsoft and become a billionaire i'd say that it's fair to call that self-made success.
I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify their own failure to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other people down. Whether or not self-made success is a thing, self-made failure certainly is, and i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it.
[+] [-] honkycat|7 years ago|reply
There are way more people who are born wealthy and continue being wealthy. There are way more people who go from poor to poor. Social mobility is piss poor right now in the US.
If "having a nice family and a wonderful house and a great life" is amounting to nothing, I will take it.
> If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree and an upper middle class income - that's self made success. If you're born in the US and your entire family is lawyers, maybe that same accomplishment is not "self made success". But if you say, start Microsoft and become a billionaire i'd say that it's fair to call that self-made success.
First of all, Bill Gates had a TON of opportunity and privilege funneled to him from his parents.
Second of all, we are not talking about Bill Gates or Elon Musk. We are talking about the legions of Bradleys going from Georgetown Prep to ivy league schools to finance to the executive class.
You cannot POSSIBLY believe that there is no wealth disparity in the US? That there is not a disparity in opportunity between the wealthy and the middle class/poor?
> I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify their own failure to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other people down. Whether or not self-made success is a thing, self-made failure certainly is, and i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it.
This is just completely unfounded. You think this entire discussion is propped up by other failed millionaires?
I can't speak to this person's reason for writing the article, but the reason the "self-made success is a myth" is a trope is that people SEE the research, SEE the disparity around them, and smell the bullshit.
[+] [-] koolba|7 years ago|reply
Bill Gate’s family clearly contributed to his and Microsoft’s success. His mother in particular had direct contact with the chairman of IBM which lead to a scrappy software company landing a life changing contract.
I’m not saying that to discount the rest of his achievements or effort either. The greatest among us not only have the drive, the intuition, and put in the work, but they also seize upon opportunities when they come knocking.
If it were not his mother and instead a friend’s mother or father that had similar contacts, I have no doubt that Bill Gates would have been just as successful. He would have found that nut and cracked it one way or another.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates
[+] [-] foldr|7 years ago|reply
Even if success were 100% down to luck, there'd still be people who exceeded the median success level of their class peer group by a substantial margin. It's begging the question to simply assert that a majority of these people can fairly claim to be "self made".
[+] [-] rchaud|7 years ago|reply
A student from Senegal who attended my alma mater now works in Wall Street. In an alumni issue, he described what it was like to go from his tiny village to the capital city in Senegal for an interview for a scholarship at a prestigious international school (where his grades got him another scholarship for college). He described hitching multiple rides just to get to the city, and needed to borrow heavily to pay for the flights once he was admitted.
He named many families and community leaders from his village that he says were instrumental in helping him on that first major step. Where he is today wouldn't have happened without the trust and support of fellow community members. They made sacrifices so he could achieve a dream and eventually repay them.
"Self-made" means different things to different people.
[+] [-] fzeroracer|7 years ago|reply
The self-made illusion is precisely that because we ignore the many things that gave us a headstart in life and allowed us to do the things that would've caused other people to fail. The only reason why I'm here now is because I took on a risk of going bankrupt moving across the country for a job opportunity in an industry that suddenly became very volatile. Had I been laid off or had the winds shifted and resulted in my first job being downsized, I would've been financially destroyed and dropped right back into poverty. We ignore the sheer amount of luck and circumstance in our career and lives in favor of telling a story where we're the hero.
[+] [-] radmuzom|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19200621
[+] [-] refurb|7 years ago|reply
I like your measure relative to what you were born into. Didn’t get enough to eat when you were a child and are now a millionaire. Self-made!
Born into a millionaire family and turned that into a billion? Self-made!
I’m personally thankful the tall poppy syndrome isn’t that common in the US. I’d hate an environment where success is looked down up. No, being rich isn’t everything, but if that’s what you want, I’m happy you found it.
[+] [-] mindcrime|7 years ago|reply
Whereas if you believe that you can build yourself up through effort and exertion, and believe that those things are the primary factors in your success, you have no excuses if you fail. You might still fail, but at least it won't be for lack of even bothering to give a sincere effort.
And I don't know about you guys, but I'm OK with failing if I fail for reasons that are totally outside of my control. What I'm not OK with, is failing because I didn't make a sincere effort within the scope of the things that I can control.
[+] [-] CodeMage|7 years ago|reply
And there we go. That kind of attitude is why this trope was created initially.
The problem people have with "self-made success" trope is that the self-made success story of someone with severe disadvantages is being equated, on an astoundingly regular basis, with the success of people with substantial advantages. That's how Bill Gates and Arnold Schwarzenegger are both dubbed "self-made" successes, despite their rather different histories.
Even worse, it is being used to justify, defend and perpetuate inequality, by convincing everyone that the American Dream is that "anyone can make it". After all, if such-and-such person coming from dirt poor origins could become wildly successful, anyone can. Therefore, we must strive at all costs to avoid removing "incentives" that motivate people to reach for that elusive success.
Naturally, this will generate resistance, and rightfully so. Despite the endless propaganda that permeates the fabric of our society, the self-made success story of Bill Gates is not the same thing as that of John Paul DeJoria.
So yeah, I agree with you in one aspect: the self-made success is not a myth. It's something much worse -- it's propaganda.
It brings to mind that quote by Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
[+] [-] mountainofdeath|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heedlessly3|7 years ago|reply
Black woman born to an unwed single teenage mother, grew up in the projects to a billionaire.
[+] [-] throwaway-1283|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danans|7 years ago|reply
"self made" isn't a statistical or legal term. It's a term of culture and art, and it is always employed by people through a subjective lens, whether to themselves or others.
Trying to impose a statistical definition on it ignores the history of its use up to the present, whether that use was justified or not.
> i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it
The fact that you are willing to apply a statistical measure for "self-made success", yet despite how little you know about the article's author, you are willing to apply a term like "self-made-failure" to them based on your personal feelings of antipathy toward a particular class of people, indicates that you might not be arguing in good faith.
[+] [-] ska|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RankingMember|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fireflash38|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gamblor956|7 years ago|reply
Ah. The law professors did absolutely nothing, I suppose? Or the law firm that hired an immigrant that may not have had an understanding of US professional norms? Or the US, which let the immigrant into the country to pursue their dreams of success while relying on taxpayer-funded social services?
This trope of the "self made success" conveniently ignores that people are reliant in many ways on the efforts of others for their success. All those peple who rose from dirt poverty to become successful? Read their stories. At some point, they all relied on someone taking a chance on them--and without that chance, they'd be no different from the thousands of others of dirt poor people who never made it.
[+] [-] Tomminn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anthony_romeo|7 years ago|reply
IMO arguing whether people are 'truly' self-made is a discussion of semantics. Calling people self-made or not doesn't change the actual timeline of actions and events of an individual’s life.
[+] [-] donaldknuth123|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ataturk|7 years ago|reply
Extra credit: I'm a lowly millionaire, how do I get a seat on a Board of Directors? I have a PhD, 20+ years in the technology field. Am more than qualified for any kind of corporate governance role, etc.
[+] [-] Isamu|7 years ago|reply
Easy, there are vast areas of America where housing is more affordable. I certainly got zero cash from family when I bought a home. My family put money into giving me food and shelter growing up though.
This is kind of like that cartoon of a New Yorker's view of the US, where Manhattan looms large, then there's New Jersey, and at the fringes there is the rest of the nation.
[+] [-] dahfizz|7 years ago|reply
Just because real estate is expensive in the center of a big city doesn't mean it's impossible to buy a house anywhere in the entire country.
Just because you can't support yourself as a writer doesn't mean nobody can support themselves no matter what.
Just because you got free money from your parents doesn't mean everyone gets lots of free money from thier parents.
[+] [-] the_gastropod|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ip26|7 years ago|reply
I can't help but feel this element of dismissal is present even in this piece. E.g., Pierson turned a $15,000 loan into a business with $300,000/yr in revenue. She says, her biggest fear was hearing “she’s only successful because of her parents.” And this piece seems to suggest, or at least gently lead, the reader in that direction- ignoring the many many people who turned $15,000 loans into failed businesses.
[+] [-] captainbland|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zachsnow|7 years ago|reply
As far as I understand it, most (VC-backed, tech) companies that raise millions of dollars manage to turn the money into failure.
[+] [-] awakeasleep|7 years ago|reply
What the hell is going on in [the author]Jen Doll's head where she thinks that the myth of self-made success is a millennial phenomena? Does she suffer from amnesia? Is this just 4000 words of disinterested bullshit to get paid?
[+] [-] samwhiteUK|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] honkycat|7 years ago|reply
Nobody thinks they are rich or privileged. Now, the Hendersons down the street? THOSE PEOPLE are rich! I feel that people underestimate the huge effect of having a safety net under them.
It is the difference between going to the amazing state school and the local community college.
It is the difference between paying attention and learning in class and sleeping through it because you had to get up at 6 am to work an 8-hour shift.
It is the difference between living in a studio apartment, 45 minutes from school in the bad part of town and living in the beautiful two-bedroom top-floor loft in Logan Square.
It is the difference between a data entry job, and an unpaid research internship with your professors.
It is the difference between sleeping on a couch for 3 months while you look for your first job, and having a place to stay and prepare.
It is the difference between taking the first job you can get, and holding out until you find a better one.
It's the difference between a loan for a house and a loan to your parents to pay off medical debt.
Think about every step, every decision you have made in your life and consider if you would have made the same choices if your life was different.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19098317
[+] [-] radmuzom|7 years ago|reply
Edit: typos
[+] [-] dev_dull|7 years ago|reply
Rather than confirm the articles premise you seem to be discrediting it.
[+] [-] arendtio|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yunyu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandrake|7 years ago|reply
Wow, this can’t be right. I mean I’ve had friends whose parents paid for their university and stuff like that, and mine helped me a little bit with tuition at a cheap state school, too, for which I’m grateful. But ongoing financial support, year after year? And 4 out of 5 parents? Yow! Guess I’m naive, but I had no idea it was that common. Maybe age is part of it. I was lucky enough to go to uni before the days of 6 figure student loan debt.
I know exactly one adult whose parents pay for all their bills, including rent. We’re friends so I give him hell about it. “You’re a grown-ass man with a decent job. Let mommy and daddy retire already!” I think once you start down those tracks and get used to the “extra funding” lifestyle, it’s hard to get off the train.
[+] [-] DigiMortal|7 years ago|reply
My parents put a roof over my head, valued education, helped with most all of my tuition for undergrad (over 100k), I have 7k of student loan debt left to pay off and I am 26. Right now, I am only left on their phone plan, which I just venmo my dad monthly for, 50 bucks for unlimited on Verizon and I bought my phone off of Swappa for 200 bucks (I recommend Swappa as well, save your money)
I've also seen parents feed junkies, so there's that. I don't understand the ones not working, yet going out all the time, no money management, doing drugs....parents sending money... WHY?!?!
[+] [-] bwang29|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mountainofdeath|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smallgovt|7 years ago|reply
Is it so that we know how to engineer more success? Or, is it to validate our egos? And, if the latter, aren't we asking the wrong question?
[+] [-] markvdb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mAEStro-paNDa|7 years ago|reply
It also appears from my experience on this forum that the prevailing opinion here is that this story is not a myth at all, but I understand there is variance here.
The issue with cost of living is an obvious one that is made in comments here, but that still does nothing to address the individuals/families who _still_ struggle in areas that are much cheaper to live. Yes, the insular view of one who has not lived outside SF is troublesome, but it's dishonest to argue as if there is still not real existing poverty in places with a lower cost of living.
While there are many different ways the socioeconomic status of ones family and upbringing can assist in their own success, there are a myriad of ways in which this is also influenced by systemic features to our society, as well as the historical context of that. Think of racially discriminatory housing policies that have helped lead to wealth gaps in the present.
While rags to riches makes a good story, we also don't talk about failures in business as much as we do the successful enterprises. Referring to individual actions in tandem with family assistance, coming to terms with the subject of meritocracy in our society and individual success, I'd propose we're looking at it the wrong way. The part to evaluate is not how much these things have to do with success, but rather how much can they come back from failure? This paints a rather different picture, as those with more financial security are in a much better position to take risks, make poor decisions, while not being pulled into poverty.
Finally, I'd like to point out that there is a growing skepticism of the liberal world order, the mainstream consensus, status quo, whatever you want to call it. More people are realizing now the varying degrees of ways the system is rigged against common working people. With it comes skepticism of the legitimacy of meritocracy in our current social order. This isn't just coming out of a vacuum.
[+] [-] djschnei|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rocgf|7 years ago|reply
As far as I have noticed, the self-made "myth" is mainly a media trick. For some reason (maybe intrigue, maybe hope, maybe something else), people love rags to riches stories, be it an immigrant to the US with "five dollars in her pocket", a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk. The people who write those stories don't do it to get the word out, they do it to sell you something, so of course they will try to make it as dramatic as possible.
Now there's a counter-movement to balance things out. Bill Gates was actually born in a wealthy family and had a trust fund with millions in it; taking risks with his company was not really a risk. A lot of people like Cara Delevingne (who is constantly advertised everywhere for some reason) are actually part of a family with big ties in their respective industries. They are not truly self-made, but they are not just propelled to the top without significant amounts of work or talent either. The truth is generally somewhere in the middle, with outliers at both ends.
In the end, does it really matter? I feel like social media is full of either stories like this or people pretending to live a perfect life. In short, things that are unattainable for most people even if they were to live a hundred lives. Dreaming big is a wonderful thing, but it definitely won't pan out for the vast majority of people, while making them less happy in the process. That's just my view, maybe wrong in some aspects.
[+] [-] norswap|7 years ago|reply
Hhm, do they really?
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|7 years ago|reply
I still don't have much, but I'm off the street. I read articles like this and imagine a future where I'm wealthy and powerful and everyone will talk about my privileged background and pooh pooh the idea that I'm self made.
If I ever figure out how to address affordable housing in some meaningful way, no one will laud me as a champion of the poor and downtrodden. No, they will most likely label me a slumlord.
Of course, no one is entirely self made. Of course, it's helpful to know what resources were genuinely involved in actually creating x, y or z. You have no hope of doing something similar if you have what amounts to misinformation about how it got done.
But we value the concept of a self made person because we've all had to fight to be free. We all struggle to take the hand life dealt us and turn it into a thing we desire. We all look to others who somehow accomplished that for clues to find our way into the unmapped future and try to make it a thing we don't loathe overly much.
[+] [-] throwaway-1283|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 40acres|7 years ago|reply
Anyway, I grew up lower-middle class. My parents were immigrants and we came from the poorest country in the western hemisphere (Haiti) with no generational wealth. I don't consider myself 'self-made', I'd say there was a mix of luck, support from the state (rent control, FAFSA, EITC, etc.) and self directed hard work.
It sounds like to me that the author got some "generational help" and feels like they were not able to capitalize, unlike some of the other profiled in this article. And thus is taking a zero-sum view of the concept of "self-made".
Most parent's would do anything for their kids lives to end up better than theirs did. I won't have any qualms about paying my kids tuition or helping with a down payment when the time comes.
[+] [-] Gpetrium|7 years ago|reply
Humans inheritably live in different worlds therefore, their perception of key factors such as self-actualization, esteem, belonging, love, safety & physiological needs will be invariable different.
I would argue that if everyone started out with the same mindset and base opportunities, with time, the environment and its scarcities would cause some to deviate towards being 'richer' and others towards being 'poorer', partially by luck, and partially by other factors within and outside each person's control.
Someone that is self-made will mostly see itself's success as their personal actions and will mostly overestimate that side (E.g. I saved money while my peers were burning it on consumer goods) while others looking from outside will mostly push the (E.g. He was lucky or the environment he was in made him succeed) usually underestimating the person's personal actions.