3 ms·

... or simply accept you can't do everything? {INSERT HIGH PERCENTAGE HERE}% of startups fail. What makes anyone think "fixing it for parents" is a more import

by T2_t2 11y ago

... or simply accept you can't do everything? {INSERT HIGH PERCENTAGE HERE}% of startups fail. What makes anyone think "fixing it for parents" is a more important goal than fixing those odds? It baffles me, when I hear these sorts of lines. If you can fix startups so parents can do them, fixing them so that current founders can work less hard, with the same or greater chance of success seems as important. When I phrase it like that, I think the problem with the question becomes self evident.

geofft 11y ago
You're assuming that work is fungible, and that success is a monotonic function of amount of work. There are certain types of work that I don't have the mental energy to do when I get home from a full workday, or at least not to do well. And, honestly, if I try too hard, I risk lowering the quality of my work the next day and burning out completely at some point. And burnout is a fairly large reason that startups fail: "But I think the underlying cause is usually that they've become demoralized" (http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html). There are other types of work (e.g., practicing piano or voice, two pursuits where the amount of time spent is pretty steadily and monotonically correlated with success) that I can do just fine. It seems more than likely that, if we get it to the point where you can do a successful startup on 5 or 6 hours a day, spending an additional 5 or 6 hours per day on the startup is unlikely to make you more successful, but those same 5 or 6 hours can be productively directed towards music practice, raising children, or whatever else you want to do. (There's also a line of argument about parenthood being of intrinsic importance, above success at startups, success at music, etc., but I'll let someone else argue that point.)
- 001sky 11y ago
  success is a monotonic function of amount of work nah, you're mis reading this. the issue is continuity. most people will never become successful because of hyper-competetion and the need for continuity (ie, being in the game). You don't see that many michael jordan career sabbaticals among the great athletes either. And obviously being a great athlete takes loads of work, but not each effort is the same contribution obviously either. But great athletes have a very short window to prove themselves as junior/early pro players, and 95%and fewer in the talen pool will never take a "sabbatical" from the NFL (or whatever league/sport) and get their job back with no questions asked...its cut throat enough as it is for a bench/roster seat. Then, there are people who are so successful in terms of their brand and personal networks etc that they can dabble in and out of various projects at will. But that is not your typical junior partner or junior parent or early-career stage founder. At least not realistically.
spacehome 11y ago
I'm not so sure we should fix the problems of a high percentage of startups failing. One issue is that it's a risk reward trade off -- if there's a high probability of having a successful startup (a rather nice outcome), then everybody would do it. Secondly, as a broader societal concern, a high portion of startups succeeding probably means the problems they're trying to tackle are too easy. Either way, it's not sustainable.

by T2_t2 11y ago

geofft 11y ago

You're assuming that work is fungible, and that success is a monotonic function of amount of work. There are certain types of work that I don't have the mental energy to do when I get home from a full workday, or at least not to do well. And, honestly, if I try too hard, I risk lowering the quality of my work the next day and burning out completely at some point. And burnout is a fairly large reason that startups fail: "But I think the underlying cause is usually that they've become demoralized" (http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html). There are other types of work (e.g., practicing piano or voice, two pursuits where the amount of time spent is pretty steadily and monotonically correlated with success) that I can do just fine. It seems more than likely that, if we get it to the point where you can do a successful startup on 5 or 6 hours a day, spending an additional 5 or 6 hours per day on the startup is unlikely to make you more successful, but those same 5 or 6 hours can be productively directed towards music practice, raising children, or whatever else you want to do. (There's also a line of argument about parenthood being of intrinsic importance, above success at startups, success at music, etc., but I'll let someone else argue that point.)

001sky 11y ago
success is a monotonic function of amount of work nah, you're mis reading this. the issue is continuity. most people will never become successful because of hyper-competetion and the need for continuity (ie, being in the game). You don't see that many michael jordan career sabbaticals among the great athletes either. And obviously being a great athlete takes loads of work, but not each effort is the same contribution obviously either. But great athletes have a very short window to prove themselves as junior/early pro players, and 95%and fewer in the talen pool will never take a "sabbatical" from the NFL (or whatever league/sport) and get their job back with no questions asked...its cut throat enough as it is for a bench/roster seat. Then, there are people who are so successful in terms of their brand and personal networks etc that they can dabble in and out of various projects at will. But that is not your typical junior partner or junior parent or early-career stage founder. At least not realistically.

spacehome 11y ago

I'm not so sure we should fix the problems of a high percentage of startups failing. One issue is that it's a risk reward trade off -- if there's a high probability of having a successful startup (a rather nice outcome), then everybody would do it. Secondly, as a broader societal concern, a high portion of startups succeeding probably means the problems they're trying to tackle are too easy. Either way, it's not sustainable.