4 ms·
I'm not sure "the startup is disappearing" is the only explanation for this data. Isn't it possible that companies are just lasting longer than 2 years? What i
by sjbase 8y ago
I'm not sure "the startup is disappearing" is the only explanation for this data. Isn't it possible that companies are just lasting longer than 2 years?
What if there was a larger percentage of age 0-2 companies '85 because back then, so few were making it past 2? Maybe easier access to capital has increased survival rate (or at least slowed down dissolution by a few years).
This explanation also fits better with the massive influx of cash into VC over the last ~10 years.
- redbeard0x0a 8y agoAlso, the cost associated with running a company is a lot lower now than it was in the past. So it is also easier to last longer than 2 years.
- jimbofisher1 8y agoStartups lasting longer would have nothing to do with this? 0-2 Years represents "New" startups, so the number of new startups is declining.
- sjbase 8y agoThat would be true if this was actually a number, not a percentage. To take a hyperbolic example, there could be 100x more startups at 0-2 years right now than in '85 and 100,000x aged 2-4 years; you'd still see a percentage decline in the former and we'd be pretty far from "the startup disappearing."