4 ms·

Startups are a form of volatile research projects that could be done better in a corporate environment. Startups provide precarious and unstable employment, and

Startups are a form of volatile research projects that could be done better in a corporate environment. Startups provide precarious and unstable employment, and on average they fail and lead to unemployment. I personally love working on new, potent ideas, but this is not a viable model of development for society. "Gig economy" is getting out of control, and it's better to kill the startups than to let people abuse the legal loopholes they require. If you cannot provide a certain minimum of employment time, you shouldn't hire people. As for short-term contracts, they were misused a lot post-2008, but the situation is much better now and most people won't work under such contracts.

greglindahl 9y ago
Hey, I'm all in favor of you working on new ideas, but only within an existing corporate environment. But there's plenty of proof that that's a terrible way to advance society at large.
- John_KZ 9y ago
  If a number of people(experienced/experts in a field) are willing to volunteer their time and/or capital in exchange for equity/patents/stock, then it's all good. My problem lies with externalizing the cost and risk to employees. If they need something done and they can't guarantee long-term employment, they can buy commercial services for what they need. Engineering firms and temp offices will be happy to send you a secretary, a software solution or a CAD file with what you asked.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    > My problem lies with externalizing the cost and risk to employees. It's really not your business what other people freely choose to do with their time. Nobody makes anyone work at a startup.
katzgrau 9y ago
Yea I'd disagree. Like the process of evolution, I believe that ideas and the mutation and the proliferation of those ideas are what leads to progress. More seeds.
skookumchuck 9y ago
> Startups are a form of volatile research projects that could be done better in a corporate environment. Check out "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Christensen. Innovation doesn't come from established corporations. It comes from startups.
- grzm 9y ago
  In "The Innovator's Dilemma" Christensen makes a compelling argument why startups can eat an established company's lunch, but it doesn't go so far as say innovation cannot come from established corporations or only comes from startups. There are examples where established companies have innovated. Three off the top of my head: Bell Labs as part of Bell Telephone made many critical innovations; Apple has also continued to innovate over the years. IBM isn't always thought of as innovating nowadays, but they've had a long history of not only patenting new ideas but also bringing them to market.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    The top companies in the US are all new ones (except for GE). AT&T is irrelevant today, as is IBM after it got disrupted by startups Microsoft and Compaq.
    - grzm 9y ago
      Sure, there's turnover. And there will likely always be cycles like that. That only means that companies don't last or innovate forever, not that they can't innovate. Out of curiosity, what criteria are you using for "top companies"? Looking at the top 10 of the Fortune 500 (http://fortune.com/fortune500/ http://fortune.com/fortune500/) and their founding years: 1. Walmart (1945) 2. Berkshire Hathaway (1889) 3. Apple (1977) 4. Exxon Mobil (1870) 5. McKesson (1883) 6. UnitedHealth Group (1974) 7. CVS Health (1964) 8. General Motors (1908) 9. AT&T (1983 as AT&T, 1877 as Bell Telephone) 10. Ford Motor (1903) By market cap (2017, first quarter) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...) 1. Apple (1977) 2. Alphabet (1988) 3. Microsoft (1975) 4. Amazon.com (1994) 5. Berkshire Hathaway (1889) 6. Exxon Mobil (1870) 7. Johnson & Johnson (1886) 8. Facebook (2004) 9. JPMorgan Chase (1871 as J.P. Morgan & Co) 10. Wells Fargo (1852) I'm not listing these as counterfactual, but only as an example. I know there are different ways of measuring "top" companies, and these are two. It's also arguable that these don't capture the idea of "top innovators". I'm interested in knowing what you're using. I'm probably missing something obvious.

greglindahl 9y ago

Hey, I'm all in favor of you working on new ideas, but only within an existing corporate environment. But there's plenty of proof that that's a terrible way to advance society at large.

John_KZ 9y ago
If a number of people(experienced/experts in a field) are willing to volunteer their time and/or capital in exchange for equity/patents/stock, then it's all good. My problem lies with externalizing the cost and risk to employees. If they need something done and they can't guarantee long-term employment, they can buy commercial services for what they need. Engineering firms and temp offices will be happy to send you a secretary, a software solution or a CAD file with what you asked.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  > My problem lies with externalizing the cost and risk to employees. It's really not your business what other people freely choose to do with their time. Nobody makes anyone work at a startup.

katzgrau 9y ago

Yea I'd disagree. Like the process of evolution, I believe that ideas and the mutation and the proliferation of those ideas are what leads to progress. More seeds.

skookumchuck 9y ago

> Startups are a form of volatile research projects that could be done better in a corporate environment. Check out "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Christensen. Innovation doesn't come from established corporations. It comes from startups.

grzm 9y ago
In "The Innovator's Dilemma" Christensen makes a compelling argument why startups can eat an established company's lunch, but it doesn't go so far as say innovation cannot come from established corporations or only comes from startups. There are examples where established companies have innovated. Three off the top of my head: Bell Labs as part of Bell Telephone made many critical innovations; Apple has also continued to innovate over the years. IBM isn't always thought of as innovating nowadays, but they've had a long history of not only patenting new ideas but also bringing them to market.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  The top companies in the US are all new ones (except for GE). AT&T is irrelevant today, as is IBM after it got disrupted by startups Microsoft and Compaq.
  - grzm 9y ago
    Sure, there's turnover. And there will likely always be cycles like that. That only means that companies don't last or innovate forever, not that they can't innovate. Out of curiosity, what criteria are you using for "top companies"? Looking at the top 10 of the Fortune 500 (http://fortune.com/fortune500/ http://fortune.com/fortune500/) and their founding years: 1. Walmart (1945) 2. Berkshire Hathaway (1889) 3. Apple (1977) 4. Exxon Mobil (1870) 5. McKesson (1883) 6. UnitedHealth Group (1974) 7. CVS Health (1964) 8. General Motors (1908) 9. AT&T (1983 as AT&T, 1877 as Bell Telephone) 10. Ford Motor (1903) By market cap (2017, first quarter) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...) 1. Apple (1977) 2. Alphabet (1988) 3. Microsoft (1975) 4. Amazon.com (1994) 5. Berkshire Hathaway (1889) 6. Exxon Mobil (1870) 7. Johnson & Johnson (1886) 8. Facebook (2004) 9. JPMorgan Chase (1871 as J.P. Morgan & Co) 10. Wells Fargo (1852) I'm not listing these as counterfactual, but only as an example. I know there are different ways of measuring "top" companies, and these are two. It's also arguable that these don't capture the idea of "top innovators". I'm interested in knowing what you're using. I'm probably missing something obvious.