91–100 of 384 posts
How do countries with good social safety nets factor in here? In EU people are definitely not nearly as likely to start their own business as in the US, and many people that would otherwise be labelled 'jobless' (or on the dole) are 'self employed' instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only data I can get is this: https://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2009/04/educati... 93% had a degree, with 30% having a masters, That would suggest to me that you'd need a decent wedge of cash. Now, what is interesting, is that in 2016 at least, the US created gross 960k new companies (there is some smoothing here, so +- 100k) The UK created 460k. Seeing as how the UK is 60 million, versus 300 million pe…
Interestingly, only a quarter of the businesses are employers in UK, so most of the company creation is presumably basically city of London financial engineering :-)
I'm shaking my head right now because I can't believe people at the top is still susceptible to sampling/survivorship bias. I've tried searching but cannot find a good empirical study of privilege and entrepreneurship correlation. However, I've found an essay paper [0] that exactly predicted this twitter drama; that entrepreneurs simultaneously present and erase this conversation about class and entrepreneurship. The…
Does privilege imply that you got it from your "class"? This seems like a classic nature/nurture fallacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Betting is a reasonable choice when you, like a VC can bet on a ton of options and still have cash left for immediate problems. All other times, betting is playing your luck and bound to fail.
First, I don't want to read to much into the OP regarding betting. Because there is something to it. Without risks no rewards. Yet what constitutes a risk and a reward differ significantly based on your resources. That being said, risking some of your resources, money, time, whatever, to get out of poverty is reasonable. Betting on a start-up might not be. Simply because if it goes wrong instead of rewards there migh…
This is a fallacy. The vast majority of people are rewarded for minimizing risk, not taking it. People justify extra risk for disproportionate reward, not reward in general. You have to take risks if you want relatively unbounded returns. Getting out of poverty does not require that at all.
I'm shaking my head right now because I can't believe people at the top is still susceptible to sampling/survivorship bias. I've tried searching but cannot find a good empirical study of privilege and entrepreneurship correlation. However, I've found an essay paper [0] that exactly predicted this twitter drama; that entrepreneurs simultaneously present and erase this conversation about class and entrepreneurship. The…
Why the disbelief? They are the one who are primed to be the most susceptible to that!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it surprising? There’s a combination of blindness, and inflated sense of self worth. America romanticizes the “self-made man”, and so any help is discounted. (Famously, a $1M family loan in 1975 (4.8M in 2019 dollars) was described as “small”.) Not coincidentally, these is a strong correlation with ascribing their success to a meritocracy, even though luck has been repeatedly shown more influential factor in s…
It's romanticized because the majority of Americans had someone in their family throw caution to the wind and get on a boat and cross the Atlantic with zero knowledge of what was going to happen.
PG is defining "rich kids" as the spawn on the 1% and is arguing that these kids don't have any significant advantages over more normal people when it comes to accessing funding from VCs etc and that such a belief is harmful.
Basically that there is a point of diminishing returns to being "rich" and that it's probably lower than you think.
Matthew is arguing that being in crushing poverty is probably a barrier to building a successful startup.
Both views can be basically correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it surprising? There’s a combination of blindness, and inflated sense of self worth. America romanticizes the “self-made man”, and so any help is discounted. (Famously, a $1M family loan in 1975 (4.8M in 2019 dollars) was described as “small”.) Not coincidentally, these is a strong correlation with ascribing their success to a meritocracy, even though luck has been repeatedly shown more influential factor in s…
It's romanticized because the majority of Americans had someone in their family throw caution to the wind and get on a boat and cross the Atlantic with zero knowledge of what was going to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, only a quarter of the businesses are employers in UK, so most of the company creation is presumably basically city of London financial engineering :-)
what's with justifying an existence of a company by having employees? If a company is profitable and you as an owner are doing well financially, does it really matter?
For example a company I worked for had a structure where the employees and customers (~250 employees and £50million turnover) were mostly interacting with the named company, but there were three other companies that "onion skinned" the company with the name.
This was done to manage debt, primarily, which then allowed manipulation of taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, only a quarter of the businesses are employers in UK, so most of the company creation is presumably basically city of London financial engineering :-)
what's with justifying an existence of a company by having employees? If a company is profitable and you as an owner are doing well financially, does it really matter?
This produces the result that publicly traded company Tesco PLC has a great many sub-companies [1]. This is at odds with a lot of expectations about how companies are counted.
[1] https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/uZl4-qVGUWaBK3Jd...