10 ms·

> What do they thing is the number one reason most people won't start their own business? That's obvious: the number one reason most people won't start their o

by pdonis 4y ago

> What do they thing is the number one reason most people won't start their own business? That's obvious: the number one reason most people won't start their own business is that most new businesses fail. So most people won't try it, since they expect they will fail and don't want to go through trying and failing. Only people who are outliers, often extreme outliers, in their tolerance for failure or their belief that they are exceptional and won't fail (or most likely both) will try it.

ethanbond 4y ago
Have you talked to anyone over the age of say 25 about why they’re not starting a company? It’s not “it’s hard and I might fail.” I only ever hear: I have loved ones whose health, education, and financial security I can’t put at risk. This problem exists even if you have complete certainty you’ll succeed, because en route to that certain success, your loved ones are still at immense risk.
- em-bee 4y ago
  that doesn't make sense. if there is risk then i can't possibly have complete certainty that i'll succeed. "i can't put my family at risk" is exactly the same as "i might fail"
  - highwaylights 4y ago
    It’s not even remotely the same. I might fail to get a hole-in-one at mini golf, but the stakes of trying are pretty much zero. Anyone who either has no dependents or comes from enough money that it doesn’t matter can’t begin to relate to this.
    - badpun 4y ago
      The stakes of failing at a startup when having no dependands are not "pretty much zero". It sucks to kill yourself for a couple of years and have nothing to show for it, especially if you know that, for all that time, you could've coasted in some job and accumulated a nice sum.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        if all you care about is money, sure. but if i hire you i care about your experience, not the money you already accumulated. and if your partner only cares about your money, find a better partner. spending a few years gaining experience instead of earning money is not nothing to show for. on the contrary. it's the more valuable experience for your future. money is not everything.
        badpun 4y ago
        Most people work for money... And you might be getting more valuable experience in a job than being a generalist who runs the startup (the market doesn't need many people like this).
    - em-bee 4y ago
      ok, i see what you are getting at. fear of failure in itself vs actual risk of loosing your savings.
      - highwaylights 4y ago
        For most people it’s actual risk of rendering your children homeless.
        em-bee 4y ago
        that's pretty much limited to the united states though.
        highwaylights 4y ago
        It's really not, I'm not sure why you'd think that. Even then, I imagine there's a lot of countries in the world where running out of money would mean landing in a safety net that still involves relocating to the the most basic accommodation available that may be neither safe nor close to any friends and/or family.
        em-bee 4y ago
        i can only speak about the countries that i know, but no, generally people are not forced out of their homes into the most basic accommodation available. at worst, they may be asked to move into a smaller apartment in the same area, or rent out some of the rooms to supplement the cost of the rent. they are also not uprooted, because family support and social ties are considered important (and better off relatives can be asked to help). especially when there are children, the social environment must be preserved. uprooting people would be considered inhumane. also most european cities generally do not have unsafe neighborhoods. that's really an american thing. (and in third world countries who don't have such a safety net anyways) this needs verification, but i speculate that those countries that actually have a safety net are doing this right, and other countries don't do much at all.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    No, it's really not. If it takes you 5 years to hit your guaranteed $100MM payout, and en route your spouse got hit by a car while you had no insurance and your child had to skip vital years of college because you had no paycheck, then it doesn't actually matter that the $100MM payout came exactly when it was guaranteed to come.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      you are right, i keep forgetting that people in the US don't have affordable healthcare or free quality education.
foobiekr 4y ago
I'm in my late 40s and in the process of starting another company - this is not my first. My NUMBER ONE CONCERN, and the NUMBER ONE CONCERN for most of the prospective hires I have talked to is healthcare. This has been the experience and NUMBER ONE CONCERN for every other person I know who has started a company, and I know a lot of those people since the experience drives you to know other founders. You are completely out of touch if you think the the primary issue is that startups fail. Founders as a group are kind of delusional since believing you can beat incumbents, a mostly irrational proposition, selects for that.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Yeah if you made a pie-chart of headaches for small business owners I'm pretty sure like 25-30% of the chart would just be "healthcare" and that'd be the largest single slice. It's kind of a miracle that small businesses do as well as the do in the US, considering how incredibly bad our healthcare system is for them.
  - foobiekr 4y ago
    Indeed. A friend recently interviewed at a pretty well funded company started by some ex-bigco executives. It has raised a lot of money and has a pretty substantial team. They are, as far as I can tell, not far from product (trials now) and yet friend, who they really actively recruited, as part of his offer, was told he'd have to buy his own insurance using ACA. (a) this was very surprising in legal terms, and I still don't quite get it, but (b) the friend absolutely rejected the offer even though he was otherwise very interested. His issue was that he can compromise on comp, he can compromise on location, and so on, but no way in hell was he going to compromise on health insurance. That take is regardless of whether he would, in fact, be compromising.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      ACA plan quality varies a ton based on where you are, which can make it either an OK option, or something you only use as a last resort and try to get off of ASAP. In my state, there are zero individual plans offered outside the exchange—you call insurers, you call brokers, they'll all tell you the same thing, that every company is completely out of the individual market here unless they're on the exchange—and most years only two providers offer ACA plans, and 100% of those plans have terrible "networks" (which hospitals/doctors/pharmacies/urgent-cares/testing-facilities accept the insurance, for non-US readers). It's literally impossible to buy an actually-good individual plan in my state. Even middling employer-offered insurance is usually overall-better than the "platinum" ACA plans. I mean, I assume the very-rich have some concierge-type options that are good, but for normal people, having to buy individual insurance here means definitely having bad insurance, even if you pay a ton.

by pdonis 4y ago

ethanbond 4y ago

Have you talked to anyone over the age of say 25 about why they’re not starting a company? It’s not “it’s hard and I might fail.” I only ever hear: I have loved ones whose health, education, and financial security I can’t put at risk. This problem exists even if you have complete certainty you’ll succeed, because en route to that certain success, your loved ones are still at immense risk.

em-bee 4y ago
that doesn't make sense. if there is risk then i can't possibly have complete certainty that i'll succeed. "i can't put my family at risk" is exactly the same as "i might fail"
- highwaylights 4y ago
  It’s not even remotely the same. I might fail to get a hole-in-one at mini golf, but the stakes of trying are pretty much zero. Anyone who either has no dependents or comes from enough money that it doesn’t matter can’t begin to relate to this.
  - badpun 4y ago
    The stakes of failing at a startup when having no dependands are not "pretty much zero". It sucks to kill yourself for a couple of years and have nothing to show for it, especially if you know that, for all that time, you could've coasted in some job and accumulated a nice sum.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      if all you care about is money, sure. but if i hire you i care about your experience, not the money you already accumulated. and if your partner only cares about your money, find a better partner. spending a few years gaining experience instead of earning money is not nothing to show for. on the contrary. it's the more valuable experience for your future. money is not everything.
      - badpun 4y ago
        Most people work for money... And you might be getting more valuable experience in a job than being a generalist who runs the startup (the market doesn't need many people like this).
  - em-bee 4y ago
    ok, i see what you are getting at. fear of failure in itself vs actual risk of loosing your savings.
    - highwaylights 4y ago
      For most people it’s actual risk of rendering your children homeless.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        that's pretty much limited to the united states though.
        highwaylights 4y ago
        It's really not, I'm not sure why you'd think that. Even then, I imagine there's a lot of countries in the world where running out of money would mean landing in a safety net that still involves relocating to the the most basic accommodation available that may be neither safe nor close to any friends and/or family.
        em-bee 4y ago
        i can only speak about the countries that i know, but no, generally people are not forced out of their homes into the most basic accommodation available. at worst, they may be asked to move into a smaller apartment in the same area, or rent out some of the rooms to supplement the cost of the rent. they are also not uprooted, because family support and social ties are considered important (and better off relatives can be asked to help). especially when there are children, the social environment must be preserved. uprooting people would be considered inhumane. also most european cities generally do not have unsafe neighborhoods. that's really an american thing. (and in third world countries who don't have such a safety net anyways) this needs verification, but i speculate that those countries that actually have a safety net are doing this right, and other countries don't do much at all.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  No, it's really not. If it takes you 5 years to hit your guaranteed $100MM payout, and en route your spouse got hit by a car while you had no insurance and your child had to skip vital years of college because you had no paycheck, then it doesn't actually matter that the $100MM payout came exactly when it was guaranteed to come.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    you are right, i keep forgetting that people in the US don't have affordable healthcare or free quality education.

foobiekr 4y ago

I'm in my late 40s and in the process of starting another company - this is not my first. My NUMBER ONE CONCERN, and the NUMBER ONE CONCERN for most of the prospective hires I have talked to is healthcare. This has been the experience and NUMBER ONE CONCERN for every other person I know who has started a company, and I know a lot of those people since the experience drives you to know other founders. You are completely out of touch if you think the the primary issue is that startups fail. Founders as a group are kind of delusional since believing you can beat incumbents, a mostly irrational proposition, selects for that.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Yeah if you made a pie-chart of headaches for small business owners I'm pretty sure like 25-30% of the chart would just be "healthcare" and that'd be the largest single slice. It's kind of a miracle that small businesses do as well as the do in the US, considering how incredibly bad our healthcare system is for them.
- foobiekr 4y ago
  Indeed. A friend recently interviewed at a pretty well funded company started by some ex-bigco executives. It has raised a lot of money and has a pretty substantial team. They are, as far as I can tell, not far from product (trials now) and yet friend, who they really actively recruited, as part of his offer, was told he'd have to buy his own insurance using ACA. (a) this was very surprising in legal terms, and I still don't quite get it, but (b) the friend absolutely rejected the offer even though he was otherwise very interested. His issue was that he can compromise on comp, he can compromise on location, and so on, but no way in hell was he going to compromise on health insurance. That take is regardless of whether he would, in fact, be compromising.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    ACA plan quality varies a ton based on where you are, which can make it either an OK option, or something you only use as a last resort and try to get off of ASAP. In my state, there are zero individual plans offered outside the exchange—you call insurers, you call brokers, they'll all tell you the same thing, that every company is completely out of the individual market here unless they're on the exchange—and most years only two providers offer ACA plans, and 100% of those plans have terrible "networks" (which hospitals/doctors/pharmacies/urgent-cares/testing-facilities accept the insurance, for non-US readers). It's literally impossible to buy an actually-good individual plan in my state. Even middling employer-offered insurance is usually overall-better than the "platinum" ACA plans. I mean, I assume the very-rich have some concierge-type options that are good, but for normal people, having to buy individual insurance here means definitely having bad insurance, even if you pay a ton.