101–110 of 196 posts
Without some kind of medical safety net, quitting your job to start a business becomes the luxury exclusive to the really healthy, the single, the really rich or the really lucky. If you have any kind of condition that requires continuous oversight, you're screwed unless you have a ton of money saved up to afford a very expensive insurance plan. If you're initially healthy, but suddenly get seriously ill, you might b…
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…
> most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. I've spent the last few years encouraging people around me to start or run or improve their businesses, but so many of them ... don't want to deal with all of the other aspects of running a business. True dat. But you point this out as if it is some moral failing on their part. People generally don't want to do uninteresting stuff. "al…
Depends on your interests. My business is my family -- I started my company with my brother. I was a Physics major when I went to college and I find entrepreneurship much, much more fascinating.
Starting companies isn't for everyone, and it would be misleading to say it is. But I don't think anyone can category say that "X is the most interesting thing to pursue."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#2 is a big issue because insurance companies love to deny pre-existing conditions. I believe there is some time-limit to them doing so, like after being on the plan for 6 or 9 months they start covering, but don't quote me on that. The idea that having a pre-existing condition can screw you pretty severely if you have to switch insurance ilproviders is crazy to me, especially since insurance is so tied to employer i…
#2 is irrelevant in MA. MA already has Obama/Romneycare. I.e., they already have the ability to force an insurance company (more precisely, other people who purchase insurance) to subsidize their care with or without an employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that were true, eliminating all risk would lead to an explosion of risk taking. But it doesn't. Plenty of trust fund babies face no risks and accomplish nothing. Of course, another way to look at things is to realize that taking no risks is the biggest risk of all. If one wishes to sit and wait for life to do whatever to you, you can always do that. Don't go to school, don't strive. Don't ever invest in anything t…
If anything, the government "help" we've gotten so far makes it harder to take risks. Just ask the people with student loans or those in an upside down mortgage if that helps them take risks. This is more due to the poor design of these programs in the US than anything else (speaking as a someone with a fairly significant amount of student debt in the UK).
Things are seldom re-evaluated logically. These programs go on for decades without obvious problems being fixed.
If you have a business and you figure out that something that was supposed to make you money was NOT actually making you money, you change it ASAP.
With government, change only happens when something becomes a political issue. Nobody even knows the true cost of things so nothing can actually be weighed without great effort. People are incented to do things that validate the program, that give a politician a big number he can point to.
The housing bubble is the worst example of this. There's no way people would spend so much to buy so big a house without all of the subsidies and tax breaks and assistance.
Notice how things devolve over time. Assistance for first time buyers, for example. Now they've changed the definition of what a first time buyer to include people who've owned homes before. But they won't every change the name of the program, as they still want to misrepresent as something it no longer is.
http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/thedailyshow?videoPacka...
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…
> most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. I've spent the last few years encouraging people around me to start or run or improve their businesses, but so many of them ... don't want to deal with all of the other aspects of running a business. True dat. But you point this out as if it is some moral failing on their part. People generally don't want to do uninteresting stuff. "al…
So sad that in the US people like him host comedy shows.
I don't know what you are talking about. The Daily Show is not comedy. Its where everybody under the age of 30 gets the news from. Fox News - now that's comedy. Seriously, they crack me up. And if you want tragedy, there's always MSNBC. CNN - I don't know what that is - maybe comedians trying their hand at tragedy. You see their chief mascot Anderson Cooper standing knee deep in flood water, or being blown around by…
I hope you're wrong because that's terrifying.
The Daily Show is a comedy show. Jon Stewart frames and simplifies the issues according to his personal views and what the audience wants to hear.
What's wrong with NPR and PBS News Hour?
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 brainwa…
[edit] - the other big issue in Australia is there's less social tolerance for businesses failing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I guess, but what about all the he entrepreneurs from the era before health insurance? I wasn't long ago.