Swedish tech startups and scaleups

Safety nets, be that a psychological one ( the US with the American dream ) or a welfare angle (sweden, Norway etc) but what seems to be truest or at least in my observation is the psychology of the country in terms of its approach to supporting startups of all flavours matters more. This means,broadly, it being considered an acceptable and successful route of learning business and is not a hyper risky endeavour.

In stable global north countries, it was, historically, considered a radical act to not join a big national or even multinational company. Hell, the terminology of the description tells you the sense of import that we held for the the large beasts of industry.

This all radically shifted with the advent of software, games, websites, SaaS, PaaS etc etc.

It was perceived, over the last 40 years, no longer risky to be in computers, but very wise, and a smart move.

With this rise of the geeks, then came adjacent entrepreneurial activity, fancy coffee shops, better food, etc

Now,this has probably played out one way or the other on every country.

What I have seen, is that entrepreneurs are more present and more numerous than ever, but there are numerous obstacles in their way.

Import limits, sending money internationally, basic banking, travel restrictions, gender limitations, sexuality limitations, freedom of the press, dictatorial governance with a lot of religion as the policy.

These are the limiting factors to growth. Investors will always invest, we can derisk it somewhat with tax breaks, but money makes money.

Ultimately what's designs a great startup ecosystem is excellent people making excellent things with or without government assistance and working together, as a cohesive unit to celebrate and champion making cool shit for money. Be it coffee, be it BBQ, be it software, be it yoga.

Independent businesses require a state that trusts its people, and the people trust the state.

Germany is an odd example, but from my experience with German entrepreneurs is the risk tolerance of Germany investors is very very low. So it's get customers then get money. However, that said, Germany has produced a few good businesses so perhaps there's a method!

It can never be one size fits all when it comes to creating the perfect environment, much like gardening, you've got to work with the strengths of the plot, the soil, the weather etc.

However, if we all think we should replicate the valley on our respective locations then we're truly missing the strengths and values of our communities.

The 'Swede' I know best (Doctor) left for that reason.

The argument most often used is 'But I Get Good Services' - which I'm suspicious of because 1) well, you could just keep the money and spend on the services you want, instead of the services the state chooses for you and 2) there's incredible efficiency in private institutions. I don't see any government in the world ever making a good 'Spotify'. Despite it's flaws, it's nice to have 'music when I want it'.

In short, probably thinks like 'Healthcare for Everyone' (though maybe not socialized entirely) and better retirement comp. are really good ideas and should be universally applied (much as we now know that 'central economic planning soviet style' is a bad idea).

But 2/3's to the State is just a gigantic amount.

Even a small adjustment such as '15% must go towards your Healthcare Insurance' and then let people pick plans, or, 10% must go to a 'Retirement Savings Plan' (of which some of it cannot be withdrawn until 65 and some of it pooled) might even be beneficial.

I think that would start to create some social nudging functions (i.e. payment for Healthcare) while being a bit more fair (i.e. service quality sometimes proportional to money put in).

And maybe the 66% kicks in, but at some much, much higher rate, like over 1M in income.

Finally, we don't seem to account for just 'organizational intelligence' which I think is the biggest difference.

When I see the lunches Swedish kids get I don't think 'they are rich' I think 'they are smart'.

Lunches, esp. mostly vegetables do not have to be expensive, I think the whole 'burgers and tater tots' you see in USA is just stupid, lazy thinking.

Just being a bit creative with the menu, a bit conscientious with the process, and esp. having children help quite a bit would help. Any school kid can do 'something' and past age 8 they can wash veggies, help clean up, sweep. They do this in Japan for a lot of things, why can't we? I suggest children can even learn to prepare certain kids of veggies responsibly.

Since a lot of education is kind of just 'daycare' why not give them some responsibilities as well? I mean, it's like a 'win win'.

The remaining meal functions can be done by a staff.

We can't avoid inherent costs in things but I suggest there is enormous upside in being intelligent about things in 'whatever' systems: Drugs, Incarceration etc..

My minimal exposure to Swedish startups is that they have way better communications - they present their concepts using language, visuals, way ahead of others. This despite Swedish formal education system flailing a little bit behind others (that's a complicated thing). p All of that said I 100% agree that 'safety net' will improve the likelihood of participation 'early stage' startups, not sure what it means beyond that stage.

OK, I believe that. Still a bit from a really good US salary though.

Did you meet many SWEs that had a total compensation of >5 MM SEK/year?