Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

boss.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–196 of 196 posts

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#191

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

chubbard wrote: post #171
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 was going to retort to your statement about changing failure rates saying that's not side of the equation we're talking about. If we take this as the number of startups we create as: numberOfSuccessfulStartups = startupAttempts * successRate Then Jon Stewarts observation is by lowering risk failure we raise the startupAttempts. Not only do we raise the attempts, but we can recycle the failures to drive startupAttem…

I think some people simply WANT to start businesses. Period. I know I did. It wasn't about trying to become rich; I'd be perfectly happy with a decent "lifestyle business." I just like the control of making my own destiny, and reaping the rewards of my own labor.

If I didn't think I could afford health insurance on my own, I wouldn't do it. I'd suck it up and take a paycheck, hating my work, but I wouldn't feel that I could afford a risk to my own life/health or my family's.

Is there extra motivation for the extra risk? I say no. If you decide to take the plunge and start a business, you're in it to SUCCEED. Extra stress CAN, under some circumstances, improve your odds -- but it can also make you TOO cautious, because the stakes are too high. And I submit that running your own business is enough to get you into the "ideal productivity" stress zone all on its own, without having to worry about whether you're risking your LIFE as well as your savings.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#192

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

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…

>We need to define risk here.

Agreed.

1. Risk to your savings and time. This is what you are always risking when you start a start-up. A safety net would mean that you'd not starve if the company failed and you couldn't get another job right away, but doesn't mean you'd be living your cushy ideal life even if the business failed.

2. Risk to your LIFE. I submit that, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should starting a business actually put you at risk of DYING. And yet that's exactly what happens if you decide to forego the expense of health insurance (until if & when "no preexisting conditions" takes effect in 2014) and you find out that you have a life-threatening condition.

I think there's plenty of stress and risk in starting a business without worrying about starving or your health. "Failure" is harsh PERIOD. And if you have a family you're trying to support, the above two points will likely prevent you from starting a company if there's no safety net.

So the many people who would be willing to start companies WITH a safety net means more people who would roll the dice. Many would fail, and that's FINE, because the rest would create jobs.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#193

Post by Nogwater »

goggles99 wrote: post #190
Nogwater wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it baffle you that the school location for your kids is so tied to where you live? No. Kids need to get to school, often by walking/biking. Schools can't afford to bus random kids in from 100 miles away. At least where I live (Ventura County, CA) parents are able to drive their kids to more distant schools if they prefer. As long as schools are a physical location where you have to show up to benefit from, it…

> Schools can't afford to bus random kids in from 100 miles away This is my point... Affordability is the reason in both cases so I don't understand how this is so easy for you to understand with schools and so baffling with Employer paid health insurance. Do you thing that your HR dept could manage 100 different health care providers? do you think all the providers that you may wish to use are affordable to your com…

> Do you thing that your HR dept could manage 100 different health care providers? do you think all the providers that you may wish to use are affordable to your company?

Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from. I'm not arguing the the employer should allow you to choose whatever health care provider that you want. I'm saying that I don't understand why they're involved in the process at all.

I don't know if health coverage should be like eating at a restaurant (entirely optional and up to the consumer), like car insurance (required, but you buy it yourself), like the military (you have to pay for it through taxes and have no control over it), like lower education (required and you can go with the government option or pay for a private option out of pocket), like higher education (optional and you can go public or private), etc..., or some sort of combination. At this point, I'd probably lean towards health coverage being required, provided for free for poor people, available through the government(s) for everyone else, and a voucher system for anyone who wants to get it privately (with a regulated level of coverage). All of this would have to be funded through taxes (probably a combination of corporate and personal taxes), but employers wouldn't have to manage it at all.

Based on other comments, I understand why the situation is what it is today (because of tax benefits to both the employer and employee), but I don't understand why it should be this way.

> with ObamaCare, you will still not be able to choose whatever health care provider you want so I don't see how you think that this will help you.

I didn't mention ACA/ObamaCare (maybe you're thinking of someone else?), and don't have much of an opinions on it other than it's so full of compromises that it's unlikely to make anyone happy.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#194

Post by stretchwithme »

ZachPruckowski wrote: post #177
stretchwithme wrote: post #54

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…

>Plenty of trust fund babies face no risks and accomplish nothing. Because they face low monetary returns. You or I taking a risk and succeeding means the monetary difference between affording a comfortable lifestyle and a lavish lifestyle. A "trust fund baby" succeeding at a risk means the difference between a lavish lifestyle and a slightly more lavish lifestyle.

And that's the other side of the equation again. Risk is not the only factor. Potential gain is the other.

In fact, many of the most innovative people are those without resources. Many are too afraid to risk the small amount they have, but many more of the poor are willing to do a lot to get out of poverty.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#195

Post by eli »

ams6110 wrote: post #162
eli wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: But what about the risk of, you’re afraid to leave your job and be an entrepreneur because that’s where your health insurance is? I don't know how many people fit that description, but it is certainly more than zero.

There are SOO many things to be afraid of if you're starting a business, I really don't think that health insurance (or especially other things the article mentioned, e.g. retirement savings, medicare, social security) is a showstopper for most people . In starting your own business, you are risking the ability to put food on the table and pay the rent. Health insurance has got to be less scary than that.

No one single thing is showstopper for most people. But healthcare is a really big deal.

If you can't pay rent, then at most you owe your back rent. If you're in a car accident without insurance there is almost unlimited liability. You may owe more than you could ever possibly hope to repay. You may be forced to select treatment that is cheaper, rather than treatment that is better and this could have serious impact on your health.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#196

Post by jkeel »

Anechoic wrote: post #50
jkeel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

have cities provide a public health insurance option that a person or business could buy into. That only works if all cities have plans, otherwise you can find yourself trapped staying in a city that same way that one might find himself trapper working for an employer.

Good point! I guess I was looking at it as an advantage and other cities would start their own program to compete just like employers do today. I just figured people tend to not move geographically as much as they change jobs.
Post reply on HN