This seems like common sense -- those that have some sort of solid safety net tend to be able to stick to their search for a business model that works longer than someone that doesn&#x27;t.  Obvious.  There are examples of people that take other paths but they tend to need more raw luck than people at the other end of the scale.<p>But I also notice that these people need not be from <i>great</i> wealth.  They just need to know that they won&#x27;t starve or go homeless and, perhaps, get a bit of help with business expenses.  It just turns out that even that level of wealth is a bit hard to come by and doesn&#x27;t apply to the majority of people in the US.<p>This is why I advocate for some sort of &#x27;solid floor&#x27; socialism in the US.  If people knew that they always had a meal and a place to live we&#x27;d see a lot more &#x27;risk taking&#x27; because we will have removed a risk singularity from the market.  We are really, really close to this already -- it would not take that much more to make our &#x27;soft floor&#x27; welfare into something people can unquestionably count on.<p>We&#x27;d also see a lot more entrepreneurs serving currently underserved populations just because they will be drawn from that population and will know their pain points and how best to serve them.