Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#21

Post by queensnake » Sun, Apr 04, 2010, 11:48 PM UTC

garply wrote: post #13

kurtosis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this said many times - that in the U.S. there is less of a "stigma" against founding a company that happens to not work out (for any number of reasons). Can anyone here give examples of how this stigma is more severe in non-U.S. countries? Is it that no investor will ever give money to anyone who has so much as touched an unsuccessful business? Or are there more subtle social factors at work? (i.e. people…

'Keeping face' is very important in China, and founding a failed company would cause you to lose face - which could damage your social network (people willing to trade favors with you). Also, in China, many people don't respect people who start companies. I often hear the opinion that business people almost need to be devious and unethical to succeed here. Plus, there is no comparable appreciation for smaller, boutiq…

I have only 2nd, 3rd-hand information but, I thought it was every Chinese person's ultimate dream to own & run their own business.

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#22

Post by queensnake » Mon, Apr 05, 2010, 3:24 AM UTC

thwarted wrote: post #6

nnutter wrote: post #2

He's not the first to make this claim and I question whether it is so clear cut. For instance, it seems very likely that some of those 40 million jobs created by start-ups had an effect on established business. Either through competition for growth or even competition for existing market space.

Obviously the people who work in those jobs need to come from somewhere. Are you implying that competition isn't a desirable outcome?

Slack and inefficiency keeps people employed and spreads the wealth. Until we've got Utopian redistribution, every technical improvement puts someone out of work. Like, say, travel agents. What do people like that do now?

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#23

Post by queensnake » Mon, Apr 05, 2010, 3:26 AM UTC

pontifier wrote: post #17

pontifier wrote: post #7

Immigration and education? It could be years before those things have an effect on the job market. Why not ask people who want to start startups, or are currently starting them what would make it easier to get going quickly? Personally, I would start hiring tomorrow if it wouldn't cost me any money or part of my business. Perhaps a program that helps startups by paying the wages for the first 3 or so employees for up…

I thought a bit about this, and a loan system like federal student loans but that can only be used to pay employee wages would help me.

Isn't that a bank, small business loan? You go make your case to a loan officer, you get it or not on the merits.

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#24

Post by fbailey » Mon, Apr 05, 2010, 7:16 AM UTC

binarray2000 wrote: post #15

kurtosis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this said many times - that in the U.S. there is less of a "stigma" against founding a company that happens to not work out (for any number of reasons). Can anyone here give examples of how this stigma is more severe in non-U.S. countries? Is it that no investor will ever give money to anyone who has so much as touched an unsuccessful business? Or are there more subtle social factors at work? (i.e. people…

From what the German business press has reported and my personal contacts with many entrepreneurs have confirmed, in Germany (which still has a strong "safety-net") you'll be stigmatized. On the level of your personal contacts, when you start up, you'll mostly not be (morally for example) supported in your intent by your family, friends, peers. Most Germans want a secure job, working hours from nine-to-five, their (c…

I actually had this debate once when I was a member of my local town council (in germany. A small business started by a woman in her garage had to shut down and I cited HP and other famous "garage" companies and asked if we would have shut down their business. The answer I got was "Yes of course" the vote afterwards was 12-1 for shutting it down.

On the other hand there is a lively startup scene and especially the online business is quite forgiving so it's not the same everywhere in germany.

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#25

Post by brc » Mon, Apr 05, 2010, 9:59 AM UTC

I'm going to controversial and ask : if successful entrepreneurs are relentleslly resourceful, shouldn't they be able to find a way around the immigration laws? Everyone I ever met who wanted to live in a country found a way to make it happen.

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#26

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 05, 2010, 11:30 PM UTC

queensnake wrote: post #22

thwarted wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the people who work in those jobs need to come from somewhere. Are you implying that competition isn't a desirable outcome?

Slack and inefficiency keeps people employed and spreads the wealth. Until we've got Utopian redistribution, every technical improvement puts someone out of work. Like, say, travel agents. What do people like that do now?

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#27

Post by rictic » Mon, Apr 05, 2010, 11:30 PM UTC

queensnake wrote: post #22

thwarted wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the people who work in those jobs need to come from somewhere. Are you implying that competition isn't a desirable outcome?

Slack and inefficiency keeps people employed and spreads the wealth. Until we've got Utopian redistribution, every technical improvement puts someone out of work. Like, say, travel agents. What do people like that do now?

That's silly, zero sum thinking. Unless the market for a good is saturated (everyone who would buy it will), making the production process more efficient creates both wealth and (often) new jobs as the producing company can now grow.

As an example, imagine someone develops a bit of tech that improves software development by 100%. Would a dev shop with this tech fire half their programmers, or would they expand their speed and scope and grow faster as a result?

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#28

Post by GFischer » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 3:08 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #25

I'm going to controversial and ask : if successful entrepreneurs are relentleslly resourceful, shouldn't they be able to find a way around the immigration laws? Everyone I ever met who wanted to live in a country found a way to make it happen.

Selection bias? I might not be the best example, but I haven't emigrated yet (to Canada, Australia, the US or the UK) because I am looking to work within the existing inmigration laws (and I'm not motivated - or resourceful, proving the point - enough I guess, but I'm definitely not moving illegally anywhere). For me, they're a powerful deterrent.

Re: Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

#29

Post by brc » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:46 PM UTC

GFischer wrote: post #28

brc wrote: post #25

I'm going to controversial and ask : if successful entrepreneurs are relentleslly resourceful, shouldn't they be able to find a way around the immigration laws? Everyone I ever met who wanted to live in a country found a way to make it happen.

Selection bias? I might not be the best example, but I haven't emigrated yet (to Canada, Australia, the US or the UK) because I am looking to work within the existing inmigration laws (and I'm not motivated - or resourceful, proving the point - enough I guess, but I'm definitely not moving illegally anywhere). For me, they're a powerful deterrent.

That's a fair point - selection bias. I thought about that later after I wrote it. I was thinking about people I knew who wanted to move to a country and was successful in doing so, through visa applications, finding jobs with sponsorship or whatever. I realise it's not easy, just trying to play a little devils advocate.