I'm not disputing that it's easier to save $30k if you earn $100k than if you earn $60k - that's just arithmetic. I'm saying that $30k is easily within the reach of a software engineer and also reasonably within the reach of a used care salesman earning far less (e.g., my brother), it just takes more time.
Also, $30k is easily enough to live on for 2 years, provided you are willing to reduce consumption. Among other things, there are lots of folks consumption below $15k/year (e.g., college students if you ignore the cost of college, some illegal immigrants in regions where they don't get welfare).
Most people simply aren't willing to reduce consumption to college student levels, but that's a matter of willingness rather than ability.
That's the key. Willingness to risk that money increases with the time it took to save it, and not just linearly. When the time increases by almost an order of magnitude, you're going to find darn few willing to risk it.
> that's a matter of willingness rather than ability
It doesn't matter why; the fact stands. Entrepreneurs are far more likely to come from the first and second quintiles than the more populous third through fifth. Sure, people in some parts of the country could live on $30K if they're willing to make severe sacrifices in their quality of life, but treating that as just a matter of slight degree compared to a software engineer who can still live as they please while making the same attempt seems a bit callous. At a certain level of sacrifice it's a qualitative difference between "crazy if you do" and "crazy if you don't".
Yes, that's my point. Middle class and slightly upper middle class professionals, with no family support, are completely capable of starting a business. They are simply unwilling to do so.
Also if living like a college student is considered to be "severe sacrifices", does this mean that upper class kids who go to college understand and experience poverty and deprivation? And therefore, when discussing it, they don't need to "check their privilege" and can simply think back to college?
Knowing that college-student living is only for a few years as a stepping stone to something better is a form of privilege. I've lived at that income level myself for more years than most, not knowing at the time that it was only temporary. Also, I was working and teaching myself instead of going to class, let alone enjoying all the other aspects of student life. You'd better believe I didn't consider myself the same as those pampered children.
Now, at 50, I could imagine living like they did for a while and even think I might enjoy it, but only because I know I could leave whenever I wanted and go back to living in a nice house etc. I'm in a privileged position now, but at least I'm aware of it. I know it will be far far easier for my daughter to take those kinds of risks than it was for me. Just because it's possible for someone below median income to start a business doesn't mean they'll do so at the same rate as people who are richer. That's the point that you originally said made no sense, no matter how you've changed your position since.
The article claims "it’s usually that access to money which allows them to take risks." The article also uses the term "barrier to entry". This is what I was disputing.
The article does also discuss a correlation between people being white, male and highly educated. I don't dispute this correlation. This correlation does not imply that family money is even useful in starting a business; most people who are white, male and educated have no family money.
If you simply want to claim that there is a correlation between being unwilling to live like a college student and not being wealthy, go for it. All you are suggesting is that wealthy people are more willing to deal with adversity in the pursuit of goals than others.
Also, $30k is easily enough to live on for 2 years, provided you are willing to reduce consumption. Among other things, there are lots of folks consumption below $15k/year (e.g., college students if you ignore the cost of college, some illegal immigrants in regions where they don't get welfare).
Most people simply aren't willing to reduce consumption to college student levels, but that's a matter of willingness rather than ability.