I really can't get behind the premise of the article, there are too many parts that simply do not connect. > "Allowing entrepreneurs — and their investors — to

I really can't get behind the premise of the article, there are too many parts that simply do not connect. > "Allowing entrepreneurs — and their investors — to save face by saying they were “acquired” instead of failing is nice, but it’s a bit like the pre-schools where everyone wins a trophy for showing up." The notion that acquihires are failures is purely a moral one - last I checked pre-school trophies aren't worth several houses. I am fairly certain that acquihires who just took home $1-2M in comp will survive your browbeating about not swinging for the fences. > "Not enough people moving to the Valley or coming out of school want to work at companies other people are starting, because it’s so easy to start their own." No, no it isn't. We are now at the point where SF/SV companies are offering $100K to fresh undergrads. For all that the industry has done to lower the barrier to entry for entrepreneurship, it is anything but trivial. A fresh grad shouldering a moderately scary debt load is not going to trivially choose to found a startup over taking a highly-paid position and paring down the debt. How easy does the author think it is to live in SF/SV, work on a startup full-time, fresh out of college, loan payments due, with no income stream? Does she think everyone's a trust fund baby that can afford the $2K SF apartment and just spend all day drinking Blue Bottle while twirling their startup ideas in their heads, right out of school?