Start-Ups Aren't Cool Anymore (theatlantic.com) 164
A lack of personal savings, competition from abroad, and the threat of another economic downturn make it harder for Millennials to thrive as entrepreneurs. From a story: Research suggests entrepreneurial activity has declined among Millennials. The share of people under 30 who own a business has fallen to almost a quarter-century low, according to a 2015 Wall Street Journal analysis of Federal Reserve data. A survey of 1,200 Millennials conducted in 2016 by the Economic Innovation Group found that more Millennials believed they could have a successful career by staying at one company and attempting to climb the ladder than by founding a new one. Two years ago, EIG's president and co-founder, John Lettieri, testified before the U.S. Senate, "Millennials are on track to be the least entrepreneurial generation in recent history."
Some of the reasons have been well-documented. The romantic view of entrepreneurship involves angel investors and venture capital funds, but in fact, the ordinary entrepreneur is more likely to fund a start-up using personal savings -- something underemployed Millennials simply could not build as they entered the workforce during or in the immediate wake of the Great Recession. Funding from friends and family is the next most common source, but this personal network could not help much during the most recent economic downturn, when so much home equity was underwater. Student debt worsened the underlying economic problems. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, between 2004 and 2014, the number of student borrowers rose by 89 percent.
Lately, though, it seems that even those who might typically have access to other forms of funding, like venture capital, are having a hard time getting investors' attention. As Matt Krisiloff, a former director at the Y Combinator start-up accelerator in Silicon Valley, tweeted, "Start-ups are a lot less cool than they used to be." Michael Sadler, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin, is concerned about the rising concentration of start-up investment in just a few super-performing regions such as Austin, New York, and Silicon Valley. As with American politics, it appears the geography of U.S. venture capital and economic growth has become increasingly polarized.
Some of the reasons have been well-documented. The romantic view of entrepreneurship involves angel investors and venture capital funds, but in fact, the ordinary entrepreneur is more likely to fund a start-up using personal savings -- something underemployed Millennials simply could not build as they entered the workforce during or in the immediate wake of the Great Recession. Funding from friends and family is the next most common source, but this personal network could not help much during the most recent economic downturn, when so much home equity was underwater. Student debt worsened the underlying economic problems. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, between 2004 and 2014, the number of student borrowers rose by 89 percent.
Lately, though, it seems that even those who might typically have access to other forms of funding, like venture capital, are having a hard time getting investors' attention. As Matt Krisiloff, a former director at the Y Combinator start-up accelerator in Silicon Valley, tweeted, "Start-ups are a lot less cool than they used to be." Michael Sadler, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin, is concerned about the rising concentration of start-up investment in just a few super-performing regions such as Austin, New York, and Silicon Valley. As with American politics, it appears the geography of U.S. venture capital and economic growth has become increasingly polarized.
Maybe not profitable (Score:5, Insightful)
VC folks like to get a return on their investment and lately, tech hasn't done so well. It's business.
Re: (Score:1)
VCs don't want a return. VCs want flop after flop so they can get their fees. They aren't the ones investing. They're the copper wire scrappers of Silicon Valley. They do billions of dollars of damage and get a few percent of the damage cost in return.
Capitalism at its finest. Making America great once more.
Re: (Score:2)
I get that people who like to go on rants about capitalism probably don't understand economics terribly well, but that is something that should be intuitively obvious if you stop to think about it for a few seconds.
That's not what TFA is about (Score:4, Insightful)
The article is saying that Millennials don't want to work for start ups anymore. I don't think they ever did, it's just that the economy's finally recovered enough they've got options. Most start ups pay like crap, give you stock options to make up the difference and then either collapse leaving you with worthless options or do like that "OnLive" company did an fold the company on paper forming a new LLC and invalidating all the existing options.
It's very, very rare that working for a start up pays off. There was a lot of that during the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What other industry has anywhere nearly as good ROI as tech?
The attitude has changed. (And don't forget custom (Score:2)
> I personally could make an E-Bay competitor in a month, it would cost a lot, but I also doubt I would steal many of eBay's current customers. 20 years ago, I could get VC money if I showed I could set up infrastructure to do so
Creating similar functionality is easy. I did that 20 years ago.
No VC would be interested in my dinky little eBay clone. Infrastructure isn't special either. You can very easily find people who know how to set up servers and such. You just have to ask a few load balancing ques
Re: (Score:2)
Your third paragraph is confusing businesses and startups. Immigrants start businesses, but usually something safe that doesn't scale. And many of them fail.
Your fourth paragraph is contradicted by reality, most successful startup founders are from rich backgrounds. Their wealth and connections allows them to gamble on speculative startups.
Are you changing my words AND redefining English? (Score:2)
> Your third paragraph is confusing businesses and startups. Immigrants start businesses, but usually something safe
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're doing three things here to completely change the question, then asserting an answer that's still false, even after you changes the question. First, you change my words from "start a business" to "launch a start-up". Okay, I'm fine with that. Oxford Dictionary defines start-up as:
--
Start-up
1.1count noun
A newly established business.
âproble
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
For most people who Buy Things and Resell them will often add some value add to the product. Such as offering it at a convent location for you to pick it up, giving services and knowledge to help pick the right product, or just have more product available so there is less shopping around.
The biggest advertising slogans is cutting out the middle man, however the Middle Man will often protect you from going in the wrong path, or just filling out a lot more paperwork, and leads you to more liability.
Even the U
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think age is a major factor here. Many young people are disciplined enough to keep the books, know the product, and deal with people. But they are just as likely to screw up as an older person starting their own business. And sometimes the older person will bring along their baggage which will counteract experience. Such as yelling at employees, or just bringing a cloud of depression to a company, or just low energy. It really is 6 on one hand and half a dozen on the other.
However the Young CEO use
Re:Young CEOs aren't cool anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I suspect age is a factor. The last decade or two has seen a lot of expansion of investment into younger entrepreneurs.. And there's been a lot of getting burned by investment into that sector.
I'll definitely agree that a lot of young people have the discipline to keep the books, but they're very unlikely to know the finer points of how this is really going to affect them outside what textbooks say. And have far less experience in planning for the tougher times, as they've not had to account for a whole load of continuity factors (which come with experience, and seeing other people's screwups as well as your own, on someone else's dime).
And for every person that brings along a personality trait that offsets experience, you have the younger person with the same traits without the experience, which makes a rough situation untenable.
Back when I was setting up my first company in the '90s, I brought in a PR company to get the word around, and the quote I had then was that it was a shame I didn't have more grey in my hair, as it was a trait that was reassuring to investors, as it brought the impression of experience to the table.
Then it became cool to have young CEOs and entrepreneurs, so the money went with the cool, and the ROI didn't quite pan out as hoped. Yes, there are young people with all the right traits for success, but experience AND traits beats traits. And given that the old cycle of 'older people getting the investment, doing a few decades and retiring' is now broken, you have the young successful people that were invested in originally starting newer ventures and being successful in the 4th, 5th, 6th try by now, and they know how to get the funding. And the ones that were successful in the first place now have the track record, and they're starting new things too, competing with the slightly younger and completely inexperienced people. From an investment point of view, you get two people asking for cash, one with a good track record for return, one completely without record, and unless there's a sure fire win in the untried, by and large, it's returning to the older behaviour of the most probable best return.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when Peter Thiel started paying people not to go to college and start their own leading edge tech enterprise fresh out of high school? So how well did that turn out? Then there is Theranos, another company funded by someone who never bothered to get their bachelor degree. Now Google, under its new management, wants to contract people without degrees as long as they pass a paper or whatever test. But with their shrinking main business why do they even need that many people to begin with? Burnout? No
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see this as an age issue. But an issue with education and perception of education.
Back in the olden days most middle class jobs didn't need any education. Drop out of school in the 8th grade and get a full time job and you are good for life. High School degree was good enough to often get you a cozy white collar job. an Associates degree Low level management, Bachelors degree mid management, Masters top level management, PHD mean you were some specialist or a professor.
What happened? Well 2 World W
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of professions which do not require such a high level of education. Sure. It does not mean those occupations are not important. We still need carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. Those people still need a high level of education to perform well, but they can learn on the job.
It's when you claim to design a leading edge chip design with people fresh out of high school, like Peter Thiel claimed, that I start to scratch my head and consider that he's bonkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Boomers have had more economic opportunities than any other generation of Americans before or after them.
There isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Every generation likes to talk about how lazy the next one is. It's a narrative pushed by our ruling class to keep us at each other's throats while they rob us blind. Along with racism and classism it's a key strategy the ruling class uses to maintain power and wealth inequality while being about 1% of the population. I really wish that here, now, in 2018 with the power of the internet, we could get a majority of people to spot this pattern and start pushing back against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I really wish that here, now, in 2018 with the power of the internet, we could get a majority of people to spot this pattern and start pushing back against it.
Largely what's happened is that the internet has allowed people to so highly differentiate themselves into different camps and tribes that nobody really wants to see anything but their own little niche.
That, combined with an American reluctance to ever talk about Class (Everyone thinks they're middle class) and you just get shut out when you
Re: There isn't (Score:2)
"Everyone thinks they're middle class"
In the past, yes. But not so much anymore.
I know a lot of people who 10 years ago would have described themselves as "middle class", but today describe themselves as "working class" or "lower middle class". Not because they dropped a level, but rather because they have new awareness & understanding of where they have always been.
I'd say this change in class awareness is a trailing indicator of the ongoing economic collapse. But on a more optimistic note, it may also
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
multiple studies have already shown that Millenials are no different than any other generation in how hard they work or what they want. The only major difference is they came of age in the 2008 market crash and that they're saddled with over $1 trillion in student loan debt.
One generation dealing with a market crash is another generation dealing with a market crash. Or a world war. Or a military draft. And I sure as hell don't sit around worrying about how I'm "saddled" with $20 trillion of national debt, nor does my credit score have anything to do with that, so stop with the bullshit "trillion" dollar student loan problem. The only real difference is previous generations of graduates weren't stupid enough to believe degrees in gender studies and lesbian dance theory woul
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Every generation likes to talk about how lazy the next one is. It's a narrative pushed by our ruling class to keep us at each other's throats while they rob us blind. (...) I really wish that here, now, in 2018 with the power of the internet, we could get a majority of people to spot this pattern and start pushing back against it.
The current generation got bigger problems - no, really - and it's social media. The constant flow of perfect Instagram pictures is making everyone feel inadequate and lead to depression and burn-outs even though they drink less, smoke less, work harder, take better care of their health and is in many ways much less rebellious than in the past. Because that shit goes on social media too and there's never a cell phone camera far away. There's a huge uptick in anxiety issues that they're not good enough or co
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy (Score:2)
[...] lead to depression and burn-outs because they drink less, smoke less, work harder, take better care of their health and is in many ways much less rebellious than in the past.
fixed that for you.
Todays Millennial lifestyle would have made dystopian sci-fi material not too long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
multiple studies have already shown that Millenials are no different than any other generation in how hard they work or what they want. The only major difference is they came of age in the 2008 market crash and that they're saddled with over $1 trillion in student loan debt.
There's a big difference in what that student loan debt was USED for though. Previous generations were smart enough to realize that if you wanted a good job than you had to get a degree is something with REAL LIFE VALUE.
Student loan debt isn't that big of a deal when you have a Computer Science degree, etc. and actually learned something that gave you value in the job candidate market. However, student loan debt becomes a BIG problem when you have a degree in SJW gender studies and have no value whatsoever
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a pointer to the data you're using on what percentage of millennial degrees are in which fields?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a pointer to the data you're using on what percentage of millennial degrees are in which fields?
No, and I don't need one either. All you have to do is look at the amount of liberal arts colleges today vs. 25 years ago, or the types of majors offered at colleges today vs. 25 years ago and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he doesn't. Since when are boomer rants based on facts?
As an educator, I can say there are differences (Score:2)
Re: As an educator, I can say there are difference (Score:2)
"No one forced that generation to rack up this debt in trivial non-ecconomcailly viable majors."
Hmm... I wonder why your generation didn't rack up so much debt? *cough* public support for higher education *cough* Hmmmmmmmmm...
Re: (Score:2)
There was one recently on slashdot: https://www.federalreserve.gov... [federalreserve.gov]
More to the point, I think the affirmative claim that needs evidence is that "Millennials are different than any previous generation in how hard they work or what they want". Do you have backing for that?
Re:More like startups take a lot of work (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the amount of time a start-up takes, it's the risk. A start up is a long shot. You might get rich, or you might spend years going nowhere. Risks are taken by people who can afford them. Fewer people can now.
Re: More like startups take a lot of work (Score:1)
It's not vision that's lacking it's money.
I still need to eat, sleep, pay for rent, etc.
Now on top of this you think I can afford to start a big business?
No. The money isn't there.
I'd gladly work for $30-40K if it meant I could start a decent business (v.s. my expected $80K+), but starting a business these days means making negative pay. Which is dumb no matter how you look at it.
Everyone wants to keep their nest egg secure. Owning a home is a first priority, starting a business comes after. Nobody wants t
Re: (Score:1)
Start-ups were not meant ot be cool. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a high risk and long term investment.
For every Google there are thousand failures all from energetic people who believe that they have the next big thing to change the world. If you are going to invest in a startup vs an established company, you need to get past the flash and focus on the business plan, income, and market share. Opening a Deli next to the new Amazon warehouse may bring in much more money then trying to use the latest AI and other buzzards to add synergy to the creative personal to streamline business processes, and make teens flock to it.
Small business is not the same thing as a startup (Score:5, Insightful)
The article talks about millenials as business owners, but then goes on to talk about "startups" which are not really thie same thing. When people talk about "startups", they are talking about the kinds of business that are funded by Angel investors, VC, and the like, which are formed with the hope of one day becoming a public company or being bought by one. These days, such business are usually in the tech industry or some offshoot thereof.
But the vast majority of small-businesses are just that and always will be. We are talking about things like restaurants, dry cleaners, auto repair shops, and the like. The fact that young people aren't forming small business enterprise has little to do with anything happening in silicon valley or other tech centers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, more that they see most small businesses are overwhelmed by big chains.
VC may also be taking a dive, but by number of people by far more are involved in those other sorts of businesses.
Millenians have more than previous generations (Score:1)
A common trope is that Millenials are poorer that previous generations. However, they have many things that earlier generations did not:
High-efficiency homes and appliances
Cars with many safety enhancements, lower pollution and better mileage
Better insulated, less polluting, better constructed and safer homes
"Green" energy supplies of fuel and electricity
Much more recycling
New drugs and healthcare technology
Higher spending on schools
Higher safety from crime and terrorism
New government departments and agenc
Re: (Score:2)
Horsehit? That they exist? Or that they have no value?
I shall assume that you mean that they have no value. (I did not say home ownership, I meant the homes themselves. Millenials have to stay somewhere, and ADA compliance, mandatory solar panels and high-efficiency refrigerators do not come for free)
Anyway, if the things I listed (and many I did not) are so worthless, why do we have them? Would you rather have airbags in your car, or take the cash, like a Baby Boomer?
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately paying for all those things, socially beneficial though they may be, means that they don't have spare cash to invest in start-ups.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The democratic system has made this choice, for better of worse.
Re: Millenians have more than previous generations (Score:2)
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! He he he whoa-ho haha whee-he hahahahahaha!
"democratic system" !!!
Good one, broham, good one!
Re: (Score:2)
"We fought for freedom, and all we got was democracy." -- Pieter-Dirk Uys
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you USA-ian?
A common trope is that Millenials are poorer that previous generations. However, they have many things that earlier generations did not:
High-efficiency homes and appliances
Cars with many safety enhancements, lower pollution and better mileage
Better insulated, less polluting, better constructed and safer homes
"Green" energy supplies of fuel and electricity
Much more recycling
New drugs and healthcare technology
Higher spending on schools
Higher safety from crime and terrorism
New government departments and agencies to look out for the public's interests.
It should be pointed out that these benefits don't come for free, which may explain why millenials are poorer in cash terms, but richer overall. This is the choice made by society.
None of those are explicitly for millienials. I'm far away from millienial yet I drive a fairly recent car, partake in recycling, live in a safe area, have access to the new drugs and medical techniques. Plenty of new housing around here, only I chose my 1973 home carefully, in a quieter-than-usual corner of my neighborhood.
New government agencies? What.. Space Command or whatever Trump's Space Force is called? What new waste of money has the Feds come up with that you're speaking of?
Hig
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that Millenials are not the only ones to "benefit". However, I believe they bear the brunt of the cost consequences and corresponding drag on growth.
New government agencies? Take a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . If you start in 1973, the same age as your house, you will note the massive success called the Drug Enforcement Administration. There are many others, and we all look forward to Millenials funding the Space Force.
Higher spending in schools? A contentious subject,
Re: (Score:2)
If you start in 1973, the same age as your house, you will note the massive success called the Drug Enforcement Administration.
And now we now for sure you're a full of shit boomer. The DEA is overall a massive failure. The war on drugs is a massive failure.
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wikipedia I linked:
"In 2014, the DEA spent $73,000 to eradicate marijuana plants in Utah, though they did not find a single marijuana plant. Federal documents obtained by journalist Drew Atkins detail the DEA's continuing efforts to spend upwards of $14 million per year to completely eradicate marijuana within the United States despite the government funding allocation reports showing that the Marijuana Eradication Program often leads to the discovery of no marijuana plants."
Remember that when you
Re: (Score:2)
If you start in 1973, the same age as your house, you will note the massive success called the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Oh wow, DEA 1973. Hardly a "new" agency. It's almost as old as I am. The others I can think of are nothing to be proud of. DHS? TSA? Please, fetch me my sick sack, I'm about to return my breakfast.
The DEA and the whole war on drugs is a fail.
And where's all this spending for schools? I certainly don't see it. Teachers are paid a pittance, schools are in disrepair.
Re: Millenians have more than previous generations (Score:2)
"USA-ian"
Is that similar to a Euroturd?
Don't forget Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it was Zuckerberg that made this point, but the next generation of billionaires will likely live into their 150s and be productive for most of that time. Most of the tech that keeps them living that long will be too expensive for the working class too.
If you think it's hard to keep wealth inequality and the power gap that includes in check now wait until the aristocracy lives 30-50% longer than you and I do.
Re: Don't forget Monopolies (Score:1)
Maybe if the government weren't propping these bad actors up with copyright, patents, and by enforcing anticompetitive contracts, we wouldn't have this problem?
Solution is right here people! Copyright, Patents, and Antitrust. Fix these three things!
Re: (Score:2)
I would mod this up if I had not already commented elsewhere.
Copyrights and patents' scope and duration are absurd, and contradict the intent of the Constitution in granting them. So I lose little sleep over my civil disobedience in pirating.
99% of monopolies are granted, enabled and sustained by the government. If legislators did not have so much power to pick and choose winners and losers, Citizens United would be a non-issue.
"When buying and selling is controlled by legislation, the first to be bought
Re: (Score:2)
Can't watch the Trailblazers if you are dead. Can't look cool with an iPhoneX if you are likewise dead. Like most technololgy any bi
Steve Jobs didn't seek medical treatment (Score:3)
Zuckerberg is young, rich, and got rich when he was young. He's going to have the advantage of several decades more advancement.
Re: (Score:3)
Between roughly 1996 and 2006, I tried 4 different dot-com start-ups. Two were big flops, and two were minor flops that hinted of promise if I had spent more time on them. But we had young kids and I thus had less time to spend on uncertain startups. One also starts thinking more practical when family comes: you need money here and now.
I also worked for a startup. Their "pay" was partly in stock-options, which were worth
Re: (Score:1)
Too early in the morning for a Trump impression, Bub.
Re: (Score:2)
No one, recorded (unless you accept the Bible as a valid record), has lived into his 150s. So he's basically talking out of his arse.
The inequality in terms of lifetime actually used to be WORSE at one point. Unfortunately it has been getting worse in places like the USA again.
Startups haven't been cool since 1998 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, do you take Flooz?
Startups are great (Score:4, Interesting)
Startups are great, but they should have a real product, not just the latest fad app. Advice: learn a trade first, whether it's engineering, medicine, law, plumbing, electricity, or science. Then use your experience to start your own company.
Of course, you might be a unicorn with a brilliant idea just out of high school, but don't count on it.
Those Unicorns with brilliant ideas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Startups are great, but they should have a real product, not just the latest fad app. Advice: learn a trade first, whether it's engineering, medicine, law, plumbing, electricity, or science. Then use your experience to start your own company.
Are you basing your advice on the way you think the world should work, or the way it actually seems to have been working? My impression is that the startups which produce useless terrible apps are the ones that do well in their funding rounds. I don't like it. It's just my impression.
It isn't about you (Score:3)
" threat of another economic downturn make it harder for Millennials to thrive as entrepreneurs. "
Not to point out the obvious but economic downturns have a tendency to wreak havoc on everyone, not just Millennials.
( Welcome to the real world btw where things don't always go as expected. )
Start ups are actually HARD (Score:5, Insightful)
ACTUALLY starting a business is fucking hard: You risk your OWN money* as well as a shit ton of time, sweat, and (more or less) your family, relationships, prime working years - all for something you "hope" will work.
This is essentially what Marx got *completely* wrong, by positing "capital" just existing ex nihilo, instead of recognizing the massive amount of wealth that was invested in all those businesses that didn't succeed. By discounting the 'red in tooth and claw' investment carnage that happened so that the (current) businesses exist, one hand-waves away essentially the entire justification for why business owners are ENTITLED to make more than the downtrodden wage slaves they employ - it is that disparate result that incentivizes people to take the risk to found businesses in the first place.
But I wouldn't say that Millennials are necessarily perceiving it wrongly; as much as that might make their elders uncomfortable. The fact is that capitalism as is practiced in the US isn't really much like capitalism; it's "capitalist" on the up side, but socialist on the down side. (When in fact, capitalism like evolution ONLY advances by the death of noncompetitive entities.) Why found a business, if every buggy-whip-maker you are putting out of business is only going to go on the federal protective dole ensuring that the poor devils never actually fail?
If there's no ability to eliminate your competitors, there's little incentive to jump into the competition.
*Kickstarter is bullshit - and closer to a religious donation than investment. The idea that people are sinking money is only working by the principal of distributed risk, with the interwebs making the distribution part easier; if you can convince 10 million people to each 'risk' $10 with you, that is in some ways a lower bar than getting a handful of VC funds to each invest $25 million in your idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what concerns me most about this economy is how much of it seems wrapped up in the Federal Reserve banks handing out cheap money to a select few big city banks from which it is further doled out with bankers and investors taking up the largest share until what trickles down is not nearly enough to capitalize the actual economy.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure why you think business owners are (in caps) "ENTITLED to make more money". It seems like you think you demonstrated something, but instead seem to just be asserting it loudly.
Re:Start ups are actually HARD (Score:4, Insightful)
"Seeing a void in the market and risking capital to fill it" does (in my opinion) justify owners having greater share of the profits, but that does not appear to be the most common basis of entrepreneurial success in US society.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for being more articulate than I was. I'll go further though, in the spirit of discussion. The OP never said that they were entitled to because of their skill, but risk. Heck, since frequently there are owners of the business (e.g. a VC/Angel/stockholder) aren't the ones supplying the skill, I'm not sure where your argument applies to them being entitled. And certainly there are non-owner key hires whose skill is vital.
I think your point about failed owners is really valid - if the only criteria
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the connection is difficult to make, unless your worldview very much relies on dismissing that connection.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by the word "entitled"? It may sound like I'm being an ass, but there is the "entitled means have a legal right" and "entitled meaning worthy of X". (There are other definitions, but we'll ignore them). The conversation up to now seemed to focus on the second definition. And I want to know if you're trying to shift it to the first or if I'm misunderstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
If, accoding to the article, the prime funding sources are own capital and freinds and family, then I think it is fair to say that Marx had a very good point.
How many start-ups were really start-ups? (Score:2)
Crap hourly pay (Score:2)
Startups are extremely competitive environment (Score:1)
Competitive environments are seen as discriminatory because by their very nature they discriminate against people who achieve less. If your mentality is "everyone deserves a trophy because they tried", and "it's not fair to use one's advantage, whether genetic talent of the fact that parents had time and money to school the child", of course startups are not cool.
How to be a start up (Score:3)
2. Read up on emerging science.
3. Have the academic ability, time and wealth to study more.
4. Have the skill to talk about what is emerging. Learn to talk to people and to talk to large numbers of people.
5. The money and location to build on ideas. To buy new equipment needed.
6. To know your own limits and know when to bing in an outside expert to clear a problem.
7. How to create something new.
8. To protect that creativity. Sell the brand to the world.
8.5 Learn how to do a great interview. Have a great translator to help with international languages. Do an interview at 3 am when needed. Be nice to the person doing the interview. Know your topics and be ready for many varied questions about your past, skills, interests and product/service/brand.
9. How to grow with your brand and when to start a new brand.
9.5 When people report problem thank them for the report and tell them how the problem is getting fixed. Fix the problem and thank the person again telling them what was fixed and when.
10. Teach other people how you did something really new and great.
People don't do great:
They are not that smart.
That are not able to talk about their product to random people.
Their nation has strange tax and funding laws. Starting a new business is really difficult in their nation. Laws stop people. They have no money.
They don't protect their product.
They don't seek the best help to get their product ready in time. Average engineers and artists working for big brands are working on the same problems too.
Don't go to failed nations that allow all your great work to be copied by a local brand.
Look into your workers pasts. Are they criminals? Do they have political activist friends, a political past?
Re: (Score:2)
maybe the learned a lesson from previous cohort? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Hint, check the aspect ratio of the above clip (4:3, not 16:9).