3 ms·
Except that he's talking about "startups" not "successful startups." As you said, productivity is essentially revenue per employee, and there's lots of startups
by ojbyrne 18y ago
Except that he's talking about "startups" not "successful startups." As you said, productivity is essentially revenue per employee, and there's lots of startups out there where that is a small number (and not growing fast).
- steveplace 18y agoBut he doesn't define what a startup is, and his data is for all new businesses, not just tech startups, which have a completely different set of data than local barber shops.
- ojbyrne 18y agoThe WSJ says that Obama hasn't defined it either. It also isn't clear what the cited study in the blog post says, though the title ("Productivity Differences across Employers: The Roles of Employer Size, Age, and Human Capital") of the paper does suggest it is for all startups. Link in case someone is an AEA member (to get through the paywall): http://econpapers.repec.org/article/aeaaecrev/v_3A89_3Ay_3A1999_3Ai_3A2_3Ap_3A94-98.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/article/aeaaecrev/v_3A89_3Ay_3A1...
- byrneseyeview 18y agoProductivity is probably something closer to 'value per employee', i.e. the increase in acquisition price due to an employee's actions. I do think that, even for unsuccessful startups, employee #3 is able to do more to proportionally increase their market value than employee #30.
- pg 18y agoSure, but failing startups don't grow as big as successful ones. The median startup employee (which is what you care about when deciding whether startups are good for a national economy) is doing way better than the median startup.