New study suggests that “becoming an inventor relies upon two things in America: excelling in math and science and having a rich family.” The implication is that intellectual talent born into lower or middle income families is more likely to be “wasted”.
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/inventors_summary.pdf
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/inventors_paper.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/innovation-income-chetty/547202/
I scanned all three links- far too long, tedious to really read all. It makes sense. Those with family money have a chance to tinker. That computer company start in the garage. Need to afford that dry space to work and the stuff to tinker with. Plus have time not being spent surviving. Plus the advantages of a good education. Plus…
Please look at the Theil Fellows site.
If you’re not from a rich family, but you have an interest in math and science, you’re not at a dead end. Find ways to explore and exhibit your talent! Don’t give up. Take advantage of every public program (e.g., public schools), develop your skills. My father was an inventor. For sure, that was long ago. But he came from humble roots (an immigrant family 100 years ago), and he took advantage of public education (K-12 and university) and became an innovative engineer, had dozens of patents and inventions. That’s still possible if you’re talented, focused and very hard-working.
Filing a patent doesn’t make someone an “inventor” or “innovator”. A patent is a business tool that can be used as a sledgehammer against other businesses and/or a negotiating tool. Innovation happens all the time and my guess is that most innovation isn’t patented.
In a big company, someone higher up (on the business side) notices a new thing you did that’s relevant to a competitor, calls in the attorneys for a session, and out pops your patent. All the other new things you did get ignored (from a patent perspective). Been there, done that.
Patents are also a great way for larger companies to sue smaller companies into submission and/or selling out cheaply. Just about everything in software and hardware has been patented and anyone producing software is violating someone’s broad patent somewhere. A small company does something innovative and competitive to the larger patent-holding company and … here comes the ream of paper via FedEx with all sorts of scary threats. Been there, done that (on the receiving end, unfortunately).
Mark Zuckerburgs father supported his decision to drop out of Harvard and wrote him a $100k cheque to get going.
If starting a website counts as being an inventor, then many do so who do not come from wealthy families. For example, I started a website in my free time with my only initial costs being ~$8/month for hosting and a small fee for the domain registry. It wasn’t as big as Facebook, but it became a bigger source of income than my day job in engineering. The website owners in my industry that I knew struck me as regular people… nothing to suggest unique abilities or background (aside from 2 or 3 noteworthy exceptions). However, most of this group was barely making a living through their websites, nothing like running Facebook.
Facebook is more than a website.
Website is just a tool. “Starting a website” means nothing by itself. It’s like telling a Fields medalist that I solved a math problem too. I think founding and initial developing of Facebook involved quite a few innovations.
But that’s not the point. Family wealth can be vital support for modern day inventors. Just like wealthy monarch made a lot of historical inventions possible.
While my husband does excel at math and science, he is definitely not from a wealthy family. They are a working class family and hubby is a first generation college graduate. Hubby holds several engineering/process patents (4 or 5, I don’t recall).
@labegg, can you imagine , if he was from a wealthy family, that he could have possibly invented some major technology that utilizes those process patents? Now, can you remove the imaginary family wealth and imagine him doing the same?
As the Facebook analogy, a creative and smart software engineer can work for Facebook, while Zuckerburg could found Facebook, and he thinks he couldn’t have done that without family wealth.
Being an inventor does not mean you have to create something on the level of a Fields medal or Facebook. There are plenty of inventors who create less impressive things. The initial link that started this discussion was treating patents as inventions. I’m sure a few patents for inventions are the equivalents of Fields medals, while a much larger portion are the equivalent of “I solved a math problem too.” Both types can be inventors.
Zuckerburg didn’t file any patents until long after Facebook had blown up, but I’m sure he did make some innovations along the way. Is that what makes him an inventor? If so, my point is you don’t need to come from a wealthy family to make this type of website innovation (yes I realize Facebook is more than a website). Websites/apps and similar tech innovations have a low financial entry cost compared more traditional brick and mortar entrepreneurship. For example, I’ve developed many unique and original tools for my website, which didn’t me anything but time since I coded them myself. The tools are probably not as useful to the average person or involved as ones Zuckerburg has made, but one does not need to make a Fields medal or Facebook level of innovation to be counted as an inventor.
@Data10, we need to agree on some definitions in the context to have any meaningful discussion. Without defining what substantiality of achievement constitutes “an inventor,” the discussion is meaningless.
You are basically saying that everyone with however small innovation is an inventor, and then this discussion is pointless to continue, since everybody is an inventor. That’s true. but I do not believe that’s what the op, and the articles that op linked meant.
How about we read the topic as, who (is more likely to) become a (substantially influential or otherwise major) inventor in America? At least then we will have something to talk about.
I didn’t read the articles, just scanned the first link. It seems the authors looked at the most cited patents as being the ones that represented the most impactful inventions. These don’t go to “tinkerers.” Here’s a list of the top 50 global patent assignees for 2015–almost all tech companies:
https://www.ificlaims.com/rankings-misc-top-50-2015.htm
Patents are extremely important in other fields, e.g. pharmaceuticals, but the volume of filings is lower (though the impact of selected patents is probably much, much higher).
So being an “inventor” means being a technically trained engineer or scientist working for a company that funds research. Not surprised that those kinds of people are more likely to come from a privileged and/or educated background.
The links seem clear in how they define inventor. For example, the first sentence of the journal publication that triggered the articles is:
“We characterize the factors that determine who becomes an inventor in America by using de-identified data on 1.2 million inventors from patent records linked to tax records.”
They don’t require any “substantiality of achievement” besides having a name on a patent. It sounds like you want to expand the definition to a type of website innovation. Wesbite/app type innovations often have a low financial entry cost compared more traditional innovations and as such do not depend on having a wealthy family and/or related connections/background to the extent other types of innovations might, including both ones with more and less “substantiality of achievement.” That was my point.
@Data10, I agree with your point. At the same time, I think we are moving away from when " Wesbite/app type innovations often have a low financial entry cost" statement was closer to the reality.
Personally, I am afraid that website/app type has become much more “traditional” and established than it used to be, and the entry cost has, on average, increased prohibitively in the area as well.
How big were the checks his father was writing to Harvard?
Of course not. And degree of the “more likely” might be too much for the greater good. I think the articles are presenting the “Not surprising” facts, backup with research data, to call for a change so that we can utilize more of our wasted talent from unprivileged socioeconomic background.
I don’t think he needed a major donation from his father to get accepted by Harvard if that’s what you mean.
The point is that he didn’t have to worry about his living expense while developing Facebook, and could focus on it without worrying if he will have a difficult life as a college dropout if it doesn’t work out.
I took it more the tuition, room and board of Harvard which isn’t cheap. Just replacing one kind of support for another, which is a privilege.