Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk • Hacker News Board

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#151

Post by Vivtek » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 7:53 AM UTC

vm wrote: post #133

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. TOTALLY disagree, as well as with folks who are saying that "risk is an important part!" For one thing, there are a series of studies that show that people who are more risk tolerant actually create worse start-ups (for example, [1]). There is at least one meta-analysis that indicates that there's more risk tolerance in entrepreneurs (though th…

We need to define risk here. Startups are risky and most fail. That doesn't change, even if we gave people free health insurance and other benefits. Jon Stewart is arguing to increase the safety net so that downside of failure is less harsh. It won't make the downside scenario less likely, just not as brutal for those who experience it. But I bet his proposal would INCREASE the risk of failure for precisely that reas…

I disagree with this. It's one thing to hustle to make your ramen budget. It's another to hustle to succeed before your son needs that kidney transplant.

There's hustle, and then there's killing stress. I can only surmise you're young and single.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#152

Post by josephlord » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 8:39 AM UTC

martythemaniak wrote: post #66

The funny thing is, you can lower entrepreneurial risk without lowering the rewards, at least in this case. The US is by far the most wasteful healthcare spender in the world, with vast amounts of money producing very mediocre outcomes. But as we saw, the political will is barely there, perhaps in another decade or two.

> The US is by far the most wasteful healthcare spender in the world, with vast amounts of money producing very mediocre outcomes.

I'm a proponent of free/social healthcare but do those results stack up if you look at where the spending goes? What I mean is do 40% spend 80% of that money and get the best healthcare in the world and the 20% spent on the other 60% of the people buy poor enough healthcare to bring the stats down?

I also get the impression that doctor's salaries are high and that might need to be factored in to the cost comparison (e.g. do the healthcare spend comparison in units of doctor's salary.

US doctor's salaries may be necessary incentive to get them to take on US scale student debts for the duration of the medical degree, I'm not saying that they are necessarily greedy but that unless doctors can be cheaper it may not be possible to spend the same and get equal medical outcomes as other countries.

It might take more than political will, outcomes may decline for the best off and doctor's pay may have to fall for the same spend to get world class results for the same money. I would still be a proponent of such a system if all people could be treated humanely, not bankrupted for injury/illness even for some reduction in quality of care for the currently well covered.

*All numbers are examples. Lawsuit costs are also often cited as a reason for the high overall costs so that may be fixable to some extent although other forms of regulation and safety net's for victims may be required.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#153

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 8:44 AM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #140

vm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to define risk here. Startups are risky and most fail. That doesn't change, even if we gave people free health insurance and other benefits. Jon Stewart is arguing to increase the safety net so that downside of failure is less harsh. It won't make the downside scenario less likely, just not as brutal for those who experience it. But I bet his proposal would INCREASE the risk of failure for precisely that reas…

By this 'principle,' measures like eliminating the corporation as a risk management tool, or even imposing artificially severe punishments for business failure, should increase hustle and therefore mean more successful businesses.

Well yes, of course. vm, like many people, misreads "no pain, no gain" to say, "pain == gain."

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#154

Post by koko775 » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 8:45 AM UTC

Vivtek wrote: post #151

vm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to define risk here. Startups are risky and most fail. That doesn't change, even if we gave people free health insurance and other benefits. Jon Stewart is arguing to increase the safety net so that downside of failure is less harsh. It won't make the downside scenario less likely, just not as brutal for those who experience it. But I bet his proposal would INCREASE the risk of failure for precisely that reas…

I disagree with this. It's one thing to hustle to make your ramen budget. It's another to hustle to succeed before your son needs that kidney transplant. There's hustle, and then there's killing stress. I can only surmise you're young and single.

Agreed. I'm 24 and the overriding reason why I haven't started a startup is that for the past three+ years I've had my hands full supporting my family, who fell on hard times due to the economic downturn. I can't risk my parents being on the streets dying from lack of healthcare. I'm willing to take the risk for myself, but right now my parents have nobody to turn to.

It's exceedingly clear to me that "they would start a startup anyways" takes a very privileged view, as if risks are there to be taken willy-nilly, and the fallout of a failure nothing much in the grand scheme of things. That may be true for the self, but if others depend on you, it's a whole different perspective and some responsibility must be taken.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#155

Post by davidw » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 9:00 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…

> If he (or she!) wants to open or run a business, he (or she!) will do that regardless.

There's a concept of 'margin' in economics that is applicable here: some people will never open their open their own business, others will, no matter what. In the middle are people who might, or might not. Doing things to make it easier for them will tempt more of them.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#156

Post by margaux » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 9:01 AM UTC

FYI if you live in San Francisco and make less than 54k a year you can get Healthy San Francisco (http://www.healthysanfrancisco.org/). It can be free depending on how much you're making. When I had a startup I broke my arm and had to get surgery, it was only $100 bucks.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#157

Post by greggman » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 9:02 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…

I'm only one data point but seeing my dad unable to retire, he's 70, and myself being 47, I'm definitely afraid to give up the cushy job I have.

If somehow I knew food, shelter, medical and retirement were covered I'd be far more likely to try a few things now that I wouldn't have hesitated to try 15-20 years ago.

I guess the take away is something like this might be better or worse depending on your current situation.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#158

Post by demallien » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 10:40 AM UTC

tjmc wrote: post #109

abbasmehdi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the same attitude exists in Australia. Lots of people start small businesses, but the actual startup scene is very small. People who do go out on their own tend to stick to established business models. Nothing wrong with that I suppose but it inevitably leads to less innovation. The other factor here is the almost total absence of VC funding. Startup culture needs a critical mass of entrepreneurs and money. […

Well, there's also the minor detail that the Australian market is small, and transport to other markets is expensive...

But you're dead right about the social tolerance aspect. My younger brother started a car detailing company - OK, it's not innovative or anything, but he was really looked down upon by the wives of some of his friends...

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#159

Post by intended » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 11:17 AM UTC

stretchwithme wrote: post #141

intended wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are cherry picking parts of the narrative to fit your beliefs. Your assessment on the causes of the fin crisis overlook other more significant factors. Primarily the effects of deregulation and under funding the SEC. Those choices playing out against the development and evolution of CDOs as risk transferring instruments. The utter rapacious greed with which the financial services industry reacted to its incentive…

And how was that total dislocation from risk created? It started with government insuring banking deposits. And Glass Segal kept that part of the financial industry separate. But eventually, the lobbyists broke that down and they used it to export risks to the banks using credit default swaps/ And they also got Fannie and Freddie to take on all the lame mortgage risks. That made it easy to shift even more risk to the…

Can't disagree. Consistent efforts to water down those safe guards paid off.

And why discuss just the mortgage bubble? There are so many other damning independent events in the past 4 years.

1) The mess with LIBOR. If you want to improve spin and double speak, you can do worse than remember this line "LIBOR has become dislocated from itself."

2) The failure of mortgage managers to maintain chain of ownership, and the robo signing scandal. Which is a nice way of wrapping up flat out fraud with a different set of words.

3) The flash crash - fine lets call it teeting issues with new technology. But what about deals where GS knowingly sells crud instruments to its clients? Or the oversight that creates such lovely euphemisms like the "London Whale". I'm currently betting that the Citi CEOs ouster will add itself to this list.

4) Too big to fail - If we say "market forces will handle it", and at the same time create institutions which are too big to fail, then haven't we essentially given up on free markets as we know it?

What I find amusing, is how the narrative is divorced from the historical timeline.

Fannie and Freddie were great ideas for their time. They were terrible ideas for a time where they were used by people who considered scruples to be ballast to be discarded, and that risk would be "managed by the market".

------------

On a separate note - I think any discussion that ends up overlapping the finance industry with entrepreneurship is broken. The finance industry / wall street are so removed from the spirit and intent of the law compared to the tech industry and SV startup-land that the we need separate dictionaries.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#160

Post by ams6110 » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 11:36 AM UTC

goggles99 wrote: post #142

Nogwater wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 company had a deal with? It's just weird. I don't know if government provided insurance is the solution, but employer provided just doesn't make sense as the only solution. Does it baffle you that the school location for your kids i…

My first job with a large consulting firm offered exactly your last option. You had benefit "flex dollars" on top of your salary and you could shop among the plans they offered or you could take the cash and go buy your own (or not). Of course due to group rates their plans were cheaper than what you could buy as an individual, but not by a lot, and if you were a single young male (i.e. didn't need maternity coverage) you might even do better.

I do think we'd be much better off if health insurance was not seen as an employment benefit but as aomething you are responsible for yourself, like car insurance, rent, utilities, groceries, clothes, and all the other necessities of life. (I'm not saying that the government should provide it or administer it though).