He only really addresses the fact that the system can be nasty. It can be and regularly is, but he only argues that a company doesn't have to be nasty, so he can conveniently ignore specific examples. But the system is not just nasty (and AOC mentions this). It also disproportionately rewards good fortune. That's not cheating, since anyone can have good fortune, but it is unfair, since fortune is not a consequence of hard work or ethical behaviour.

▲

lkjdsklf 6 hours ago | parent [-]

He also doesn’t engage with the fact that this company required funding from y combinator to get to that point

Which is something that is not an option for most people.

Look at where y combinator founders come from. It’s 99% people from elite institutions

That is a core part of AOC’s point

Getting a startup funded is just not something that is possible for most people. They just aren’t in the right circles. Does not matter how good of an idea you have

However, if you’re in the right circle, you’ll get shitloads of chances even after repeatedly failing. Just look at how many of these founders that “made it” drove multiple companies into the ground before making it. It’s a lot easier to find “good fortune” when you have a lot of chances than when you have 0 chances

▲

callmeal an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>They just aren’t in the right circles. Does not matter how good of an idea you have

And if you do have a good idea but are not in the right circles, someone from the "right circle" has the "right" to use your idea as their own.

▲

csallen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, you have to accomplish extraordinary things to get extraordinary results.

How else should it work?

Should investors give funding to people who haven't built anything, whose startups don't have any users, who had bad test scores and did poorly in school, and who have no references? If you think so, why? And how is that fair?

If you believe that, should professional sports teams draft mediocre players? Players who didn't play in college or even in high school? Players who didn't make the JV team? If so, why? If not, why not, and how exactly is that so different?

We all know there is no such thing as a perfect meritocracy. There never will be. Things will never be perfectly fair. That's life. But we can try to come as close as we can. And that obviously requires offering more opportunities to people who perform the best. Otherwise, what incentive is there to even strive and try to do well? The alternative isn't fairness, it's randomness.

▲

danlitt 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This reply is so far removed from the comment you replied to I'm worried you replied to the wrong one. They did not mention anything about people who haven't built anything, startups with no users, and having no references - you invented that. They literally only mentioned elite schools. "drafting mediocre players" is incredibly bad faith, when one of the only things they claimed was "does not matter how good of an idea you have". Having a good idea is the only qualification for an incubator!

Look, if you think people who go to elite schools have all the good ideas, just say that. You don't have to wrap it up in high-minded pragmatism.

	▲	csallen an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Look at where y combinator founders come from. It’s 99% people from elite institutions Your comment and the one I'm replying to are so far removed from reality that I'm worried you know nothing about Y Combinator, elite institutions, or startups in general. You do not just waltz into elite institutions. Let's take my alma mater, MIT, for example. The average SAT score there is probably around 1500-1550. The average GPA is near perfect. Then college admissions competition is insane. Pretending like getting into these institutions is zero signal is bad faith. Followed by the claim that it "having a good idea is the only qualification for an incubator." What? No it's not! Out of the thousands of admission advice poss that are publicly available online, written by YC's founders, partners, and successful applicants over the past 20 years, I challenge you to find a single one that even kinda sorta comes close to echoing that sentiment. What matters WAY more is demonstrating technical, sales, and marketing prowess by building something and attracting users at a high growth rate.

▲

ryan_n 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Should investors give funding to people who haven't built anything, whose startups don't have any users, who had bad test scores and did poorly in school, and who have no references? If you think so, why? And how is that fair?

This is very obviously not what the person you responded to was saying. It's so far off that it's hard to believe you are even arguing in good faith anymore...