5 ms·
The article also doesn't mention an obvious bias, that is, if a startup starts in Europe, there are a lot of incentives for that startup to move to the U.S. ear
by qiqing 11y ago
The article also doesn't mention an obvious bias, that is, if a startup starts in Europe, there are a lot of incentives for that startup to move to the U.S. early in its life cycle.
In that scenario, the startups who become successful (and who originated elsewhere) all get counted as U.S. successes. This would vastly undercount both the total number of startups elsewhere as well as the number of successful startups.
- ThomPete 11y agoThis is entirely correct and I know several founders who did so, but thats not really the point I am trying to make (which admittedly I didn't make well) The question that still stands is why they are moving the the US.
- Marazan 11y agoBecause the network effect of Silicon Valley is profound. Investors are looking to fund companies with global reach that will break down communication barriers, render national boundaries meaningless and bring us all close together. . . as long as they are located in California.
- ThomPete 11y agoYes and so the question is why does Europe not have anything like that. It does have some places liked London, Berlin and Stockholm but they are all missing a few things. This is what I am trying to explore.
- Marazan 11y agoYou're looking at a power law. Just like Cities in a country follow a power distribution of population (I just doubled checked that rule for UK and they indeed follow an almost perfect power distribution) so "Start up" areas will also follow a power distribution - but due to the extreme mobility of start-up founders and capital that will be applied globally not nationally. Silicon Valley being the pre-eminent location for start-ups is a positive feedback loop which puts it at the extreme tip of the power distribution.