Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk • Hacker News Board

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#21

Post by kdsudac » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:12 AM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #9

Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is. But, as far as I can tell, health insurance really is the biggest factor keeping people from starting new companies. For myself and my peers, with new families and houses and student debt, etc., it's the one thing that scares us more than anything else. The prospect of a business going under is…

"Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is."

I was wondering whether this was the case. Is there actual data to back this up, or is it just anecdotal?

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#22

Post by dools » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:14 AM UTC

I agree entirely. I'm only one data point but I've only been able to get as far as I have in business because of the good graces of the Australian tax, welfare and health system.

Perhaps this is why the model for entrepreneurship in the US is so heavily geared towards huge, VC funded worldbeaters with far less "mircopreneurship" - a trait of the Australian economy that is said to be a mainstay of economic resilience.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#23

Post by abbasmehdi » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:15 AM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #9

Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is. But, as far as I can tell, health insurance really is the biggest factor keeping people from starting new companies. For myself and my peers, with new families and houses and student debt, etc., it's the one thing that scares us more than anything else. The prospect of a business going under is…

Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is.

This could also be a culture thing. When I was in Canada until 5.5 years ago the golden ticket was to work for a big co. I was an ECE major and the top employer of choice was, even for me, BC Hydro (power company). I have no idea anymore why I'd have thought like that, but maybe now I am brainwashed this way. :-)

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#24

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:15 AM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #9

Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is. But, as far as I can tell, health insurance really is the biggest factor keeping people from starting new companies. For myself and my peers, with new families and houses and student debt, etc., it's the one thing that scares us more than anything else. The prospect of a business going under is…

[deleted]

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#25

Post by hotpockets » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:16 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

OK, so, I am ardently socially liberal, and I've had a man-crush on Jon Stewart that hasn't waned ever since his appearance on Crossfire. But. I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. I would support a wider social safety net for entrepreneurs -- er, business owners -- on principle alone, because I think what we should be saying is that these people are vitally important to our economy…

Facing a potential health crisis without insurance has got to be one of the biggest disincentives to starting a business.

Even if that disincentive is irrelevant to most entrepreneurs, you still have potential entrepreneurs with health issues. If X% of potential entrepreneurs have managed but costly health problems, the disincentive to starting a business must be much higher.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#26

Post by jkeel » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:17 AM UTC

Nogwater wrote: post #12

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

OK, so, I am ardently socially liberal, and I've had a man-crush on Jon Stewart that hasn't waned ever since his appearance on Crossfire. But. I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. I would support a wider social safety net for entrepreneurs -- er, business owners -- on principle alone, because I think what we should be saying is that these people are vitally important to our economy…

I agree that starting a business isn't for everyone. I'm doubtful that I would enjoy it, but I would like to be an early employee at a company. If that company can't afford health coverage, then I can't take that risk for my family. It just baffles me that health coverage is so tied to where you work. What if you could only send your kids to the schools that your employer selected, or eat at the restaurants the your…

What I think would be a better solution that could fit in everyone's worldview (those that want a more socialized health care system and those who don't want a powerful federal government) is to have cities provide a public health insurance option that a person or business could buy into.

I think that the risk pool would be large and the members would be local (thus giving more rights to local communities rather than the federal government).

I think it could then encourage cities to be more healthy cities (less pollution, more activities for locals, encourage walking/biking rather than driving) in order to drive down health care costs for their citizens. Being a healthier city would then encourage people to move to there thus increasing the risk pool.

Citizens wouldn't be required to purchase through them but the plans could still be managed by private companies like Aetna, Cigna, etc. so that the plans could be used when local citizens travel to other parts of the country.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#27

Post by suresk » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:21 AM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #9

Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is. But, as far as I can tell, health insurance really is the biggest factor keeping people from starting new companies. For myself and my peers, with new families and houses and student debt, etc., it's the one thing that scares us more than anything else. The prospect of a business going under is…

Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is.

Could this be because countries with broader safety nets also have more regulation and make it hard to fire people?

I've always kind of thought a combination of making it easy to hire people and let them go, along with strong safety nets (ie, good unemployment insurance and not having health care tied to employment) would be optimal.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#28

Post by netmau5 » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:22 AM UTC

This addresses a larger issue, but the specifics discussed hit home with me. I started my company several months ago and lost my health insurance. After paying into the system for the last 8 years, I feel like I've just been giving my money away. I had always been under the impression that I could never be denied for insurance if I had an existing policy but obviously that was misguided.

I'm overweight, I'm a smoker, and I have high blood pressure. Starting a company could literally kill me (on top of aforementioned dumb decisions). The rich used to pay 90% taxes and we still had Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Morgan.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#29

Post by Tycho » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:23 AM UTC

kdsudac wrote: post #21

jcromartie wrote: post #9

Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is. But, as far as I can tell, health insurance really is the biggest factor keeping people from starting new companies. For myself and my peers, with new families and houses and student debt, etc., it's the one thing that scares us more than anything else. The prospect of a business going under is…

"Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is." I was wondering whether this was the case. Is there actual data to back this up, or is it just anecdotal?

http://www.economist.com/node/21559618

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#30

Post by waterlesscloud » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 1:23 AM UTC

Anechoic wrote: post #14

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

OK, so, I am ardently socially liberal, and I've had a man-crush on Jon Stewart that hasn't waned ever since his appearance on Crossfire. But. I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. I would support a wider social safety net for entrepreneurs -- er, business owners -- on principle alone, because I think what we should be saying is that these people are vitally important to our economy…

But the thing is, most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. In the aggregate you may be right. Just from my own personally experience, I can think of at least a dozen folks (extremely well-regarded in their field) who have all expressed to me a desire to strike out on their own, but it's the company-provided healthcare that keeps them from doing that. And (for the most part) the…

Isn't it possible that's just a handy self-justification, though?

If healthcare wasn't an issue, would it be something else?