Live data from Hacker News

Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

nytimes.com

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#21
post #9

This is pretty clearly a knee jerk reaction by the New York Times to Hollande's wealth tax: >He had taken that job after his attempt to start a business in Marseille foundered under a pile of government regulations and a seemingly endless parade of taxes. The episode left him wary of starting any new projects in France. Yet he still hungered to be his own boss. > >“A lot of people are like, ‘Why would you ever leave…

The 75% wealth tax point was only a minor point in an article that expressed many many other points and anecdotes, and whose greater argument was that the entrepreneurial climate in France was poor. The fact that your argument focuses on this minor point in order to dismiss the whole point is rather telling about what consent is being manufactured here...

There is quite some bullshit in this article, because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company (so we are exactly in the same state as before). Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems. And there is a little detail here: banking salaries are higher in London than in Paris and bankers are driven by money, so they emigrate massively in the pursuit of money. This has strictly no link to entrepreneurship, starting companies, or creating value from nothing, but hey, there is a complaint train, let's take it.

And you can see the intermix quite a few times (got his wealth in finance, he worked in finance, the google references), Place de la Madeleine, is exactly who Fleur Pellerin is not trying to help, this are different people doing different things. And if for anything, bankers are part of the problems entrepreneurs have.

So here is a nice little piece of context that was not in the article: here in France it's an election day today, and yesterday and today, political propaganda are forbidden in the country. The journalist is based in Paris, and has been for years, so she probably knew that nobody could answer to the article.

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#22
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" They see succesfull men and woman and assume the money must have been stolen instead of made. " Well, that's textbook Marxism, strong here in the US, I assume much stronger in France (after all the French Communist Party is still competitive to a fair degree, per Wikipedia was part of the "Plural Left" coalition that held the legislature from 1997–2002). ADDED: and our path is particularly odd there: as has been jo…

Marxism is strong in the US? As a Marxist I can assure you that is not the case at all :P

You should come to Brussels. Barroso used to run the communist party. (no joke).

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#23
post #20

I just left London for Paris based on: - cost/quality of life favorable to Paris by a large margin - France is 2nd biggest consumer market in Europe, giant opportunities still open there (like Germany) - a gifted talent scene, among which many are short on capital/language to work elsewhere in Europe - google campus is 2.5h away door to door - buzzing US community here - world hub for fashion and 3d Yes, there are mo…

Here is my advice: go somewhere else than Paris, one of the 15 biggest cities in France (look at the TGV, and tram, bike life, weather). Your quality of life will just skyrocket.

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#25
> "Sometimes I do ask myself if I'm making the right choice," he acknowledged. "But if you don't take risks, there will be no reward."

This is true, but one of the most important things I learned in my 20s was knowing when to take risks. It takes money to make money, and if you're a starving founder waiting for an investor to cut you a check or trying to bootstrap your business with insufficient savings, you increase your risk of failure substantially.

Patience is a virtue, as is focused and consistent saving, but in a lot of professions, like finance and technology, you won't have to work until you're 60 to build up meaningful savings that you can invest in yourself. If you've trapped yourself in the startup bubble, it's easy to convince yourself that your best opportunities are behind you by the time you hit 30, but the reality is that most businesses are not founded by 20-somethings. The Kauffman Foundation did a study called The Anatomy of an Entrepreneur a few years back and found the average entrepreneur was about 40 years old when he started his first company.

Beyond being in a position to capitalize your own venture, one of the great advantages of starting a business in your 30s, 40s or later is that you're far more likely to have the domain expertise so many young founders lack. There are literally countless untapped, unsexy million-dollar opportunities that 20-somethings running around Silicon Valley will never pursue because they don't even know that certain industries and problems exist.

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#26

Classic NYT with a stereotypical and ideological article. Concerning expatriation, I think many people want to live abroad just to experience a different lifestyle. It's not always about taxes.

That's it. That is way cooler for a French to go in London than Paris. Especially, if it does not work out for him he will just come back with a solid resume that will get him a comfortable position easily.

Like he decided to live in Kengsinton. Sure he share, like most singles in London, but he tries to live the life and was not too successful (yet, hopefully for him).

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#27
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 75% wealth tax point was only a minor point in an article that expressed many many other points and anecdotes, and whose greater argument was that the entrepreneurial climate in France was poor. The fact that your argument focuses on this minor point in order to dismiss the whole point is rather telling about what consent is being manufactured here...

There is quite some bullshit in this article, because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company (so we are exactly in the same state as before). Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems. And there is a little detail here: banking salaries are higher in London than in Paris and bankers are driven by money, so they emigrate massively in the pursuit of…

because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company

You don't necessarily have to change any law for the weight of decades of laws and regulations to finally catch up with the previous decent momentum of the private sector -- especially in a global market where the actions of other countries negatively impacts your lack of adjustments. Add to that a generally poor global economy, and new businesses will flee an anti-business climate.

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#28
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 75% wealth tax point was only a minor point in an article that expressed many many other points and anecdotes, and whose greater argument was that the entrepreneurial climate in France was poor. The fact that your argument focuses on this minor point in order to dismiss the whole point is rather telling about what consent is being manufactured here...

There is quite some bullshit in this article, because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company (so we are exactly in the same state as before). Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems. And there is a little detail here: banking salaries are higher in London than in Paris and bankers are driven by money, so they emigrate massively in the pursuit of…

Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems.

This is a big problem with current envy-driven politics surrounding wealth.

A lot of people don't like seeing bankers with big bonuses after they trashed the economy for everyone else. They're suspicious of old money children who have inherited a fortune but seem to have contributed little of value themselves. They're envious of highly paid sporting or artistic celebrities who get more salary in a week than most of us make in a year.

And so they support punitive rates of tax for those who earn noticeably more than they do, not necessarily based on any rational economic argument, but more because they feel it's "fair" for the "rich to contribute more" or some such argument.

Unfortunately, what that usually does in practice is hit highly qualified professionals or modestly successful entrepreneurs. It hits the doctors who spent years training, then more years working long hours for little money as juniors, and who finally made it to more senior positions where they are literally in a position to save lives with their greater experience but earn a fair bit of money. It hits the top public servants: the veteran judges, the experienced military commanders, the senior civil servants, basically the kind of people who keep government actually working despite the whims of successive political administrations. It hits the lucky entrepreneurs, the ones who made it after maybe putting their lives on hold for years and investing their savings to build a real business that creates value and maybe jobs for other people. All of these people are the kind of people we really need in society to keep everything working, and usually they are people who have reached those positions not through good fortune or family connections but through a lot of hard work over a long period of time.

However, the people these punitive taxes don't hit are the ones that the popular moneylust craves, because the super-rich are the people who have the flexibility to move their assets and/or themselves around to avoid high-tax environments. Absent serious international co-operation to overcome the naturally competitive tax environment that today's globalised society creates, these people will continue to be super-rich no matter what.

I like to think that if the people supporting these high rates of tax for those with some above average level of wealth realised who they were really targeting, we'd have a different attitude to taxation today. As it is, I fear the politics of envy will continue to trump rational economic policy for the foreseeable future, and unfortunately the people who actually did earn their wealth will be the ones who suffer most for it.

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#29

Classic NYT with a stereotypical and ideological article. Concerning expatriation, I think many people want to live abroad just to experience a different lifestyle. It's not always about taxes.

And the grass is always greener...

Re: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

#30

> “Generally, if you are self-made man and earn money, you are looked at with suspicion,” > there’s a deep-rooted feeling that you don’t show that you make money > It’s more like, if someone has something I can’t have, I’d rather deprive this person from having it than trying to work hard to get it myself This. A lot of people still don't understand money can me made . They see succesfull men and woman and assume the…

I don't mean to play devils advocate here, but let me apply two other possible interpretations: My statistical prior that someone with money did questionable things to obtain it has only been rising with time as I see increasing evidence of illicit business practices among the highest earners. (everything from insider trading to the more recent wage fixing). Secondly, is it reasonable to assume that one might find di…

increasing evidence of illicit business practices among the highest earners

Corruption is the core problem. I think that worry about corrupt businesses is misplaced when a corrupt government is 10x worse.

everything from insider trading

There's a good example right there. Congress can inside trade. It's absolutely extraordinarily corrupt. They wrote a law a while back to prevent it when there was some press on it, but then quietly scaled back the restriction.

Consider this: Political office holders can lie to us outrageously and never face repercussions besides (perhaps) not being re-elected in a future cycle. You could list case after case of politicians who knowingly made definitive, verifiably false claims that have caused real damages to people. If they were officers of a public company, they would be sued into oblivion. They would be hounded by the Justice Department. But since they're in the political club, they've written the rules so that they can't be held accountable.

Post reply on HN