Sure, there exists a path towards success in tech without significant capital. That doesn’t mean it’s easy, or that it will be that way forever. At some point in the past a car mechanic could build a new engine from stock parts and make improvements they could monetize.
This is a new argument I have not heard before I am deeply curious about it but don't know how to interrogate it further. Is this original thinking or something you found in a book?
I don’t know if I’d call it original thought, but rather a synthesis of a few ideas I’ve been exposed to. Every innovation is eventually commodotized, so being a worker in a new space pays well because we haven’t figured out how to do it at scale. In addition, the space is not saturated, so there are more low-hanging fruit for innovation. Eventually though, things get automated and the cost of disruption goes way up, limiting significant returns to those that have sufficient capital to work at gigantic scales.
