5 ms·

Thomas Friedman: Start-Ups, Not Bailouts

58 points by gabrielroth 17y ago

nnutter 17y ago
He's not the first to make this claim and I question whether it is so clear cut. For instance, it seems very likely that some of those 40 million jobs created by start-ups had an effect on established business. Either through competition for growth or even competition for existing market space.
- thwarted 17y ago
  Obviously the people who work in those jobs need to come from somewhere. Are you implying that competition isn't a desirable outcome?
  - queensnake 17y ago
    Slack and inefficiency keeps people employed and spreads the wealth. Until we've got Utopian redistribution, every technical improvement puts someone out of work. Like, say, travel agents. What do people like that do now?
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - rictic 17y ago
      That's silly, zero sum thinking. Unless the market for a good is saturated (everyone who would buy it will), making the production process more efficient creates both wealth and (often) new jobs as the producing company can now grow. As an example, imagine someone develops a bit of tech that improves software development by 100%. Would a dev shop with this tech fire half their programmers, or would they expand their speed and scope and grow faster as a result?
eplanit 17y ago
Mr. Friedman adds to his lengthy list of stories in which he lobbies (it has gotten to be numbingly repetitive, Tom) for increased immigration from India and China.
- gruseom 17y ago
  Why do you single out India and China? This article cites Brin (Russian) and Khosla (Indian); it nowhere mentions China. The immigrants the author plainly argues for are high-aspiring educated risk takers, regardless of where they come from.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
pontifier 17y ago
Immigration and education? It could be years before those things have an effect on the job market. Why not ask people who want to start startups, or are currently starting them what would make it easier to get going quickly? Personally, I would start hiring tomorrow if it wouldn't cost me any money or part of my business. Perhaps a program that helps startups by paying the wages for the first 3 or so employees for up to a year? That would certainly kick start my business, probably many, many, others.
- pontifier 17y ago
  I thought a bit about this, and a loan system like federal student loans but that can only be used to pay employee wages would help me.
  - queensnake 17y ago
    Isn't that a bank, small business loan? You go make your case to a loan officer, you get it or not on the merits.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Perhaps a program that helps startups by paying the wages for the first 3 or so employees for up to a year? What could possibly go wrong....
PG-13 17y ago
There was a painfully high occurrence of "high-I.Q. risk-takers" in this article.
msg 17y ago
High-IQ risk taking does not just come from the school system or immigration. It also comes from the freedom to fail. Increasing the safety net and taking the edge off failure will help people step out on the tightrope.
- kurtosis 17y ago
  I've heard this said many times - that in the U.S. there is less of a "stigma" against founding a company that happens to not work out (for any number of reasons). Can anyone here give examples of how this stigma is more severe in non-U.S. countries? Is it that no investor will ever give money to anyone who has so much as touched an unsuccessful business? Or are there more subtle social factors at work? (i.e. people stop being your friend if your business doesn't work out) I'd really like to hear some stories about how failure was more severely stigmatized that in the U.S. especially in countries that have much stronger "safety nets" than the USA
  - garply 17y ago
    'Keeping face' is very important in China, and founding a failed company would cause you to lose face - which could damage your social network (people willing to trade favors with you). Also, in China, many people don't respect people who start companies. I often hear the opinion that business people almost need to be devious and unethical to succeed here. Plus, there is no comparable appreciation for smaller, boutique, local companies here that there is in the US. The notion that 'small can be good and premium' and 'big can be bad and faceless' doesn't really translate. If you ask a person if they think they'd get better quality at a little, specialized cafe vs. a Starbucks, most people would pick the Starbucks (unlike in the US, where Starbucks has been experimenting with running 'stealth stores' where they don't display their logo and which they attempt to customize to the neighborhood).
    - queensnake 17y ago
      I have only 2nd, 3rd-hand information but, I thought it was every Chinese person's ultimate dream to own & run their own business.
necrecious 17y ago
I liked the idea that if an immigrant create a company that gainfully employes 5-10 people, they get a green card. That would get more entrepreneurial immigrants come and stay in the US.
- prototype56 17y ago
  What would be his legal status while he is doing that ? Or does he have to create his company in his home country and move it to US to get a green card.
  - necrecious 17y ago
    It can be anything from H1B to illegal immigrant. As long as he is here and is putting into the system more than he is taking out then why care about how he got here?
    - prototype56 17y ago
      H1B's and illegal immigrants cannot start companies . Let alone a successful company .
josephd 17y ago
What Friedman should be asking is as technology commoditizes, what other high-growth areas can the US be competitive in?Apart from some narrow niche (OS and productivity software, chip design), it seems the US is content with shifting certain types of hardware design and fabrication to foreign nations, while enjoying the role of brand marketing. Cost is usually cited as reasons. I think the question should be: what other growth areas remain and how can they be exploited by these risk-takers?
brc 17y ago
I'm going to controversial and ask : if successful entrepreneurs are relentleslly resourceful, shouldn't they be able to find a way around the immigration laws? Everyone I ever met who wanted to live in a country found a way to make it happen.
- GFischer 17y ago
  Selection bias? I might not be the best example, but I haven't emigrated yet (to Canada, Australia, the US or the UK) because I am looking to work within the existing inmigration laws (and I'm not motivated - or resourceful, proving the point - enough I guess, but I'm definitely not moving illegally anywhere). For me, they're a powerful deterrent.
  - brc 17y ago
    That's a fair point - selection bias. I thought about that later after I wrote it. I was thinking about people I knew who wanted to move to a country and was successful in doing so, through visa applications, finding jobs with sponsorship or whatever. I realise it's not easy, just trying to play a little devils advocate.

58 points by gabrielroth 17y ago

He's not the first to make this claim and I question whether it is so clear cut. For instance, it seems very likely that some of those 40 million jobs created by start-ups had an effect on established business. Either through competition for growth or even competition for existing market space.

thwarted 17y ago
Obviously the people who work in those jobs need to come from somewhere. Are you implying that competition isn't a desirable outcome?
- queensnake 17y ago
  Slack and inefficiency keeps people employed and spreads the wealth. Until we've got Utopian redistribution, every technical improvement puts someone out of work. Like, say, travel agents. What do people like that do now?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - rictic 17y ago
    That's silly, zero sum thinking. Unless the market for a good is saturated (everyone who would buy it will), making the production process more efficient creates both wealth and (often) new jobs as the producing company can now grow. As an example, imagine someone develops a bit of tech that improves software development by 100%. Would a dev shop with this tech fire half their programmers, or would they expand their speed and scope and grow faster as a result?

eplanit 17y ago

Mr. Friedman adds to his lengthy list of stories in which he lobbies (it has gotten to be numbingly repetitive, Tom) for increased immigration from India and China.

gruseom 17y ago
Why do you single out India and China? This article cites Brin (Russian) and Khosla (Indian); it nowhere mentions China. The immigrants the author plainly argues for are high-aspiring educated risk takers, regardless of where they come from.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

pontifier 17y ago

Immigration and education? It could be years before those things have an effect on the job market. Why not ask people who want to start startups, or are currently starting them what would make it easier to get going quickly? Personally, I would start hiring tomorrow if it wouldn't cost me any money or part of my business. Perhaps a program that helps startups by paying the wages for the first 3 or so employees for up to a year? That would certainly kick start my business, probably many, many, others.

pontifier 17y ago
I thought a bit about this, and a loan system like federal student loans but that can only be used to pay employee wages would help me.
- queensnake 17y ago
  Isn't that a bank, small business loan? You go make your case to a loan officer, you get it or not on the merits.
anamax 17y ago
> Perhaps a program that helps startups by paying the wages for the first 3 or so employees for up to a year? What could possibly go wrong....

PG-13 17y ago

There was a painfully high occurrence of "high-I.Q. risk-takers" in this article.

msg 17y ago

High-IQ risk taking does not just come from the school system or immigration. It also comes from the freedom to fail. Increasing the safety net and taking the edge off failure will help people step out on the tightrope.

kurtosis 17y ago
I've heard this said many times - that in the U.S. there is less of a "stigma" against founding a company that happens to not work out (for any number of reasons). Can anyone here give examples of how this stigma is more severe in non-U.S. countries? Is it that no investor will ever give money to anyone who has so much as touched an unsuccessful business? Or are there more subtle social factors at work? (i.e. people stop being your friend if your business doesn't work out) I'd really like to hear some stories about how failure was more severely stigmatized that in the U.S. especially in countries that have much stronger "safety nets" than the USA
- garply 17y ago
  'Keeping face' is very important in China, and founding a failed company would cause you to lose face - which could damage your social network (people willing to trade favors with you). Also, in China, many people don't respect people who start companies. I often hear the opinion that business people almost need to be devious and unethical to succeed here. Plus, there is no comparable appreciation for smaller, boutique, local companies here that there is in the US. The notion that 'small can be good and premium' and 'big can be bad and faceless' doesn't really translate. If you ask a person if they think they'd get better quality at a little, specialized cafe vs. a Starbucks, most people would pick the Starbucks (unlike in the US, where Starbucks has been experimenting with running 'stealth stores' where they don't display their logo and which they attempt to customize to the neighborhood).
  - queensnake 17y ago
    I have only 2nd, 3rd-hand information but, I thought it was every Chinese person's ultimate dream to own & run their own business.

necrecious 17y ago

I liked the idea that if an immigrant create a company that gainfully employes 5-10 people, they get a green card. That would get more entrepreneurial immigrants come and stay in the US.

prototype56 17y ago
What would be his legal status while he is doing that ? Or does he have to create his company in his home country and move it to US to get a green card.
- necrecious 17y ago
  It can be anything from H1B to illegal immigrant. As long as he is here and is putting into the system more than he is taking out then why care about how he got here?
  - prototype56 17y ago
    H1B's and illegal immigrants cannot start companies . Let alone a successful company .

josephd 17y ago

What Friedman should be asking is as technology commoditizes, what other high-growth areas can the US be competitive in?Apart from some narrow niche (OS and productivity software, chip design), it seems the US is content with shifting certain types of hardware design and fabrication to foreign nations, while enjoying the role of brand marketing. Cost is usually cited as reasons. I think the question should be: what other growth areas remain and how can they be exploited by these risk-takers?

brc 17y ago

I'm going to controversial and ask : if successful entrepreneurs are relentleslly resourceful, shouldn't they be able to find a way around the immigration laws? Everyone I ever met who wanted to live in a country found a way to make it happen.

GFischer 17y ago
Selection bias? I might not be the best example, but I haven't emigrated yet (to Canada, Australia, the US or the UK) because I am looking to work within the existing inmigration laws (and I'm not motivated - or resourceful, proving the point - enough I guess, but I'm definitely not moving illegally anywhere). For me, they're a powerful deterrent.
- brc 17y ago
  That's a fair point - selection bias. I thought about that later after I wrote it. I was thinking about people I knew who wanted to move to a country and was successful in doing so, through visa applications, finding jobs with sponsorship or whatever. I realise it's not easy, just trying to play a little devils advocate.