9 ms·

Can’t believe you’re making me step in to defend Jeffrey Tucker—who is not I repeat not a journalist by any means, he’s an Austrian School economist, what made

Can’t believe you’re making me step in to defend Jeffrey Tucker—who is not I repeat not a journalist by any means, he’s an Austrian School economist, what made you pull out that weird axe to grind?—but here we are just the same. Even that weird bit of sneering aside, this is a pretty monstrous take. It is a net good to ensure that people are aware of the challenges and the likelihood of success—and how to maximize their success, which generally is to have a measure of real-world experience and skills to rely upon. There is no collective in entrepreneurship, there is no noble sacrifice, there is game theory and economics and it is damned immoral and foolish besides to encourage a Children’s Crusade of starry-eyed kids to transform themselves into debtors and stress wrecks for a theoretical success they are overwhelmingly not—yet—going to have a fair shot at.

coupdejarnac 7y ago
"A monstrous take"- seems a bit hyperbolic. We are on a pro-entrepreneurship site afterall. I'm not the above poster, so I don't know what the poster really means, but I would guess that sacrificing yourself to the collective when you fail means you become a Harvard Business School case study or something similar. Something new was attempted, lessons were learned.
- eropple 7y ago
  Uncritically pushing into risky (and often self-destructive) behaviors people who are largely incapable of adequately assessing that risk--that is cruelty. Defending criticism of that cruelty with sneers about never-done-it and journalists, amirite is monstrous.
- kranner 7y ago
  Using terms like 'sacrifice' and 'collective' seems hyperbolic as well. Sacrifice implies willingly offering oneself for the good of others. A collective implies others chipping in to mitigate a member's failure.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  > "A monstrous take"- seems a bit hyperbolic. No, it's not. You might find this hard to believe, but people can be very impressionable to advice. Here's an actual conversation I had with a young engineer: Me: "So how was your trip to Asia working as a software nomad?" Young Engineer: "I spent all my money and derailed my career. That was stupid and I'll never do it again. I shouldn't have listened to HN." Happy?
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  I would guess that sacrificing yourself to the collective when you fail means you become a Harvard Business School case study or something similar The collective is code for the partners of the VC fund. Their business is to persuade sufficient people to take risks with their careers and even health, so that the numbers work out. Those that fail are the “sacrifices”.
tompccs 7y ago
I wrote the parent comment last thing at night before going to bed. On reflection, and having read the article again, I still stand by it, although I couched it in strong terms in response to the smugness and sneering tone of the article. Young people today are more qualified than ever. They have more degrees and spend longer in education than any generation before. On top of that, there are huge numbers of grad schemes, growing startups and government jobs. Graduate employment is extremely high. His observation that startups have a high failure rate is completely self evident. Obviously deciding to become an entrepreneur doesn't put you on a path to riches. The fact that younger founders have higher failure rates is tautologically obvious too, since most people don't get lucky on their first startup. Most successful founders I know struck gold on their second third or even fourth attempt. That's partly experience (experience in starting startups, not whatever experience he things it is you get from politicking in a corporate in your thirties) and partly how probability works. Now if you want to critique the role of corporates and government in all this - throwing money at useless incubators and other schemes and running competitions that amount to exercises graphic design and a slick presenting style - then I'm all ears. But for a non-risk taker to lecture risk takers on risk just really wound me up.

coupdejarnac 7y ago

"A monstrous take"- seems a bit hyperbolic. We are on a pro-entrepreneurship site afterall. I'm not the above poster, so I don't know what the poster really means, but I would guess that sacrificing yourself to the collective when you fail means you become a Harvard Business School case study or something similar. Something new was attempted, lessons were learned.

eropple 7y ago
Uncritically pushing into risky (and often self-destructive) behaviors people who are largely incapable of adequately assessing that risk--that is cruelty. Defending criticism of that cruelty with sneers about never-done-it and journalists, amirite is monstrous.
kranner 7y ago
Using terms like 'sacrifice' and 'collective' seems hyperbolic as well. Sacrifice implies willingly offering oneself for the good of others. A collective implies others chipping in to mitigate a member's failure.
redis_mlc 7y ago
> "A monstrous take"- seems a bit hyperbolic. No, it's not. You might find this hard to believe, but people can be very impressionable to advice. Here's an actual conversation I had with a young engineer: Me: "So how was your trip to Asia working as a software nomad?" Young Engineer: "I spent all my money and derailed my career. That was stupid and I'll never do it again. I shouldn't have listened to HN." Happy?
goatinaboat 7y ago
I would guess that sacrificing yourself to the collective when you fail means you become a Harvard Business School case study or something similar The collective is code for the partners of the VC fund. Their business is to persuade sufficient people to take risks with their careers and even health, so that the numbers work out. Those that fail are the “sacrifices”.

tompccs 7y ago

I wrote the parent comment last thing at night before going to bed. On reflection, and having read the article again, I still stand by it, although I couched it in strong terms in response to the smugness and sneering tone of the article. Young people today are more qualified than ever. They have more degrees and spend longer in education than any generation before. On top of that, there are huge numbers of grad schemes, growing startups and government jobs. Graduate employment is extremely high. His observation that startups have a high failure rate is completely self evident. Obviously deciding to become an entrepreneur doesn't put you on a path to riches. The fact that younger founders have higher failure rates is tautologically obvious too, since most people don't get lucky on their first startup. Most successful founders I know struck gold on their second third or even fourth attempt. That's partly experience (experience in starting startups, not whatever experience he things it is you get from politicking in a corporate in your thirties) and partly how probability works. Now if you want to critique the role of corporates and government in all this - throwing money at useless incubators and other schemes and running competitions that amount to exercises graphic design and a slick presenting style - then I'm all ears. But for a non-risk taker to lecture risk takers on risk just really wound me up.