4 ms·

I think you're mistaken, Paul. Most incubators including YCombinator softly exclude single-founder businesses and yet these probably constitute at least 50% of

I think you're mistaken, Paul. Most incubators including YCombinator softly exclude single-founder businesses and yet these probably constitute at least 50% of the pool of start-ups. Add to them all businesses which get profitable enough to avoid taking outside investment and those which never get funding at all and I'd be surprised if 2/10 startup founders raise outside money, even in California. Just assuming people who aren't getting funded aren't pursuing scalable business models is myopic.

ajju 16y ago
You are right, in that this act would exclude folks who want to quit their H1B jobs here and start a startup and are not yet at a stage where they can be funded, or do not want to raise funding. However, if the startup visa act were to remove any filtering requirements for startups, the effect would be a huge spate of tens of thousands of folks who want to open shops, ebay stores or gardening businesses applying along with the single founders of scalable startups - and no one would get a visa in time. The only other 'right' way of fixing this is having the USCIS adjudicate the scalability of business for everyone that applies. That process is hard to scale. Edit: Actually, I forgot - there may be another way. Some other countries have made the process objective instead which makes it scalable, but introduces other filters. For example, Canada uses a points based system where you get points for education, work experience in your field, fluency with languages etc. If you get past a threshold, you get a (relatively) quick interview and permit on the spot. Note that a points based system may exclude a young, college dropout founder with no experience. In other words - a plurality of YC founders. May be you could make it either/or - raise investment, or get enough points based on your profile.
pg 16y ago
I'd also be surprised if 2/10 startup founders raise money. That's why I added the qualification "successful." Pick any non-contrived criterion of startup success you want (going public, exits over a certain threshold, profits over a certain threshold, winning Crunchies, whatever), count the number with and without investors, and let us know what you find.
- trevelyan 16y ago
  Vivek has already done the research, and that's where he gets his 90% non-funded figure. If you want details click through the link provided in the TechCrunch article. The methodology is described on page 7 and seems sensible: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/making-of-a-successful-entrepreneur.pdf http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/making-of-a-successful... This isn't an attack on you or YCombinator. It just doesn't make sense to critique Vivek's points by saying that "nearly all successful startups have investors." Because apparently they don't.
  - pg 16y ago
    This paper doesn't support your claim. All it says about the criteria they used to select companies is the industry they were in. E.g. "Aerospace." Is he talking about SpaceX, or someone's 10-person shop making some component for light aircraft? The distinguishing feature of startups is their growth rate, not the industry they're in. Just look at the evidence in front of you. Think of famous startups you yourself know. Just name 10 well known startups, and see how many in your list haven't taken money from investors.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      He's saying that "thinking of famous startups you yourself know" is a form of bias. He's just too nice to say it. Who cares, by the way, whether a startup is going to "scale" past a 10-person shop? A 10-person shop started by an immigrant creates 9 jobs. That's past the threshold in the existing bill you're championing.

ajju 16y ago

You are right, in that this act would exclude folks who want to quit their H1B jobs here and start a startup and are not yet at a stage where they can be funded, or do not want to raise funding. However, if the startup visa act were to remove any filtering requirements for startups, the effect would be a huge spate of tens of thousands of folks who want to open shops, ebay stores or gardening businesses applying along with the single founders of scalable startups - and no one would get a visa in time. The only other 'right' way of fixing this is having the USCIS adjudicate the scalability of business for everyone that applies. That process is hard to scale. Edit: Actually, I forgot - there may be another way. Some other countries have made the process objective instead which makes it scalable, but introduces other filters. For example, Canada uses a points based system where you get points for education, work experience in your field, fluency with languages etc. If you get past a threshold, you get a (relatively) quick interview and permit on the spot. Note that a points based system may exclude a young, college dropout founder with no experience. In other words - a plurality of YC founders. May be you could make it either/or - raise investment, or get enough points based on your profile.

pg 16y ago

I'd also be surprised if 2/10 startup founders raise money. That's why I added the qualification "successful." Pick any non-contrived criterion of startup success you want (going public, exits over a certain threshold, profits over a certain threshold, winning Crunchies, whatever), count the number with and without investors, and let us know what you find.

trevelyan 16y ago
Vivek has already done the research, and that's where he gets his 90% non-funded figure. If you want details click through the link provided in the TechCrunch article. The methodology is described on page 7 and seems sensible: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/making-of-a-successful-entrepreneur.pdf http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/making-of-a-successful... This isn't an attack on you or YCombinator. It just doesn't make sense to critique Vivek's points by saying that "nearly all successful startups have investors." Because apparently they don't.
- pg 16y ago
  This paper doesn't support your claim. All it says about the criteria they used to select companies is the industry they were in. E.g. "Aerospace." Is he talking about SpaceX, or someone's 10-person shop making some component for light aircraft? The distinguishing feature of startups is their growth rate, not the industry they're in. Just look at the evidence in front of you. Think of famous startups you yourself know. Just name 10 well known startups, and see how many in your list haven't taken money from investors.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    He's saying that "thinking of famous startups you yourself know" is a form of bias. He's just too nice to say it. Who cares, by the way, whether a startup is going to "scale" past a 10-person shop? A 10-person shop started by an immigrant creates 9 jobs. That's past the threshold in the existing bill you're championing.