Live data from Hacker News

Taking Risk

tomblomfield.com

271–280 of 304 posts

Re: Taking Risk

#271
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s often the same person. I had a dozen failures before I struck on the sass product that retired me in my forties. You try, you learn, you improve, and eventually something might work. Or you don’t try, keep your safe job and work until you’re 70 like everyone else.

Interesting but also scary to go this route. I think part of the problem in Europe is also that companies/governments are less open to just try out new (startup) solutions. I would love to be learn from US startups how they manage to sell without much done already.

Europe also is not a single language territory.

China and the US have so much more of an advantage when the TAM for the single spoken language is so massive by default.

In Europe you have to navigate a bunch of different languages, cultures and legislations.

Re: Taking Risk

#272
post #54
post #22

I considered a startup after university in the UK. The talent arbitrage is absurd, physics grads with 1sts from top Russell Group unis fighting to be paid £30k/yr. For me it came down to security, life is expensive, rent is expensive. I didn't have a spare parental garage to setup five computers - I barely had room in my flat for one desk . I barely had money for that flat let alone internet, and food. I had zero cap…

The low salaries are a double edged sword - the talent is cheap, but the kind of people who might start a company are unable to build up enough savings to take the leap. It's partly due to low salaries, and partly high housing costs. It's crazy that politicians on all sides talk about growth, but then consistently do almost nothing to address the single largest thing that's sucking the life out of 20-30 year olds. Sa…

> then consistently do almost nothing to address the single largest thing that's sucking the life out of 20-30 year olds.

They & their friends are literally profiting off it. Why would they kill their cash cow?

High housing costs is great for them - not only do their real-estate (& adjacent) investments go up, but a middle class perpetually in debt or barely able to make ends meet means there’s an infinite supply of cheap labor that won’t complain about terrible working conditions.

Re: Taking Risk

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is a giant version of the Cayman Islands. It's a big bank providing financial services to rich people while keeping them anonymous. Everything else is secondary. And Brexit only made it worse.

On the other hand, the UK is one of the safest countries in the world, is full of kind people, has a general abundance of food, gives workers a relatively large number of days off in a year, has a functioning police force and takes care of sick people and those who can't work for whatever reason. Of course it is not perfect. The people of Britain may not have huge bank accounts, but this is partly because they collec…

Please define safe? The stabbings and acid attacks suggest otherwise

Please define functioning police force? The fact the police had to remember that turning up to burglaries is a good thing suggests otherwise

Please define takes care of sick people? The fact that ambulance response times were so slow they couldn't save cardiac arrests suggests otherwise

No offence but all those assertions sound like the UK 20+ years ago, not the one of today...

Re: Taking Risk

#274
post #183
post #73

This is, at it's heart, about markets. In the USA a startup's market is, essentially, global - China. In the UK the market is, essentially the UK. In the recent past it might have been argued that the market was the EU - but the reality is that the EU's market for services is fractured. The USA has the capital and power to enforce their companies access to markets everywhere (apart from China), the rest of the world…

> In the UK the market is, essentially the UK. This doesn't make any sense at all. There are tons of global UK companies. Why can't UK companies sell products or services outside of the UK and the US can? What on earth...

The reality is that when you are trying to sell at scale somewhere outside your domestic market (where your laws and rules run) muscle counts. The USA plays relatively nice, but be under no illusion you will find that the game is stacked against you. Your IP in particular is at risk from domestic actors.

An anecdote: I was once part of an exercise to evaluate the potential for an IP case in the USA to be won. One fun part was that there was a jury simulation. The jury were presented with the case and asked to vote. In the first round the jury voted unanimously for us. In the second round the jury were told that the defendant was a US company and we were a foreign company - and they unanimously voted for the defendant.

In other places you will find that you can't play the game - you can't get licenses to operate, your staff can't work there, your payments don't go through, you get a tax case against you, your staff suddenly fail to show up and it goes on and on.

If you are a USA company that happens less everywhere because the USA has power. People in important places owe the USA their lives, and if not then they have had lovely experiences in the USA. If you are UK company then you operate, now, under the reality that the UK hasn't got that power. World markets are open for the UK - but more or less to the extent that the USA decides that they wish to maintain that openness. Often that suits US interests in places where the UK has no interests and does not suit the USA in places that the UK has extensive interests in.

If you wonder why we are doing Aukus and have two big expensive and hard to defend aircraft carriers then the above is why. We are trying to pay the tariff that the USA wants to tolerate us as part of their system.

But it is the USA's system, cut and dried, over and out.

Re: Taking Risk

#275
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting but also scary to go this route. I think part of the problem in Europe is also that companies/governments are less open to just try out new (startup) solutions. I would love to be learn from US startups how they manage to sell without much done already.

I'm not saying this is incorrect, but how and where did you assess this?

Just from a qualitative perspective, i.e., personal experience/discussions.

Re: Taking Risk

#276
post #256
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a question. What if there was a place that you and a few colleagues could go where you could have your living space and office space provided, basic food served, and basic amenities. Such a place would probably be somewhat isolated and probably not in your own county. If such a place existed that catered to founders in exchange for minimal equity, is that something that would interest you, theoretically?

Huh, I’m guessing from the downvote that the answer is no. That’s kind of what I thought. Risk is often a stand -in for comfort. In general, I find that teams that are willing to be uncomfortable will come through. Ones that aren’t will fall apart. I think this is because at some point, the level of commitment that is typically required to thrust a project above the noise floor implies a significant level of discomfo…

I wasn't the one to downvote you for reference, but to be clear, moving out and abandoning my partner and country so I can put together a half-baked MVP and give away equity for that hard work isn't what I, nor anyone else on this forum I suspect, would consider a good trade. I assume others are downvoting you because your comment sounds like you're running a scam operation.

If you want to conflate running away from responsibilities and joining a frat house as something that helps entrepreneurs, then you do. I would suggest looking at actual start-up incubators' work (Entrepreneur First and the like). Paying salaries and covering start-up costs, not just providing basic living expenses. What you're describing might as well be indentured servitude.

Re: Taking Risk

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People weren't choosing short weeks because they wanted leisure time. It was because there wasn't enough electricity to work five days a week due to Marxist miners unions shutting down the power stations. Also on checking it turns out I misremembered. The UK went to three day weeks during this time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week TV stations were also required to shut down at 22:30 to conserve power.…

Thanks, this is interesting. I can appreciate there being a balance of these two economic extremes. I think for the US, it needs more socialist policies so people's lives aren't ruined for things outside their control. E.g., going bankrupt at 24 over medical bills (happened to me).

Sorry to hear that! Did the insurers use some trick to get out of paying, or how does that work?

Re: Taking Risk

#279
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also don't forget the student fees for international students have absolutely exploded. 10 years ago the fees for international students were £6k/year, now it's £30k/year. Like honestly, who can afford this, when you can study at most other EU universities completely free(or even get a stipend in fact). >>as they UK government is constricting the supply of student visas (because immigration) Can't stop myself thi…

It's extraordinary how determined the current UK government is to destroy its university sector. The economic and geopolitical advantages of having one of the world's best university systems are not only incalculable but also blindingly obvious . And yet apparently not too obvious to be missed by the caliber of person that currently makes up the cabinet.

We’re at 170 or so universities up from 90 or so pre-2000. I’m struggling to see the value in those universities and why the tax payer should be funding almost twice as many. Any other failing business would be allowed to go bankrupt and be wound up. Does any other country have such a massive increase in universities?

Re: Taking Risk

#280
I instantly thought of this comment when reading Tom's eloquent post. Tom is rightly advocating for more of the rich kids to not settle and keep throwing the darts. Rightly because this is the demographic that VCs want to invest in.

"" Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you throw darts or something. Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives on.

Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about "meritocracy" and the salutary effects of hard work.

Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it. ""

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659076

Post reply on HN