9 ms·

OK, so, I am ardently socially liberal, and I've had a man-crush on Jon Stewart that hasn't waned ever since his appearance on Crossfire. But. I don't think t

OK, so, I am ardently socially liberal, and I've had a man-crush on Jon Stewart that hasn't waned ever since his appearance on Crossfire. But. I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. I would support a wider social safety net for entrepreneurs -- er, business owners -- on principle alone, because I think what we should be saying is that these people are vitally important to our economy and to our nation's future, just as much as larger enterprise is, and we should support that. But the thing is, most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. I've spent the last few years encouraging people around me to start or run or improve their businesses, but so many of them just want to be a professional in their field; they don't want to deal with all of the other aspects of running a business. So don't lower entrepreneurial risk because you think it will open more businesses, because you think that the guy with a good paying job and some savings is worried about his health insurance. If he (or she!) wants to open or run a business, he (or she!) will do that regardless. It's one of the few probably universal aspects of entrepreneurship that the people who will do well at it aren't really happy working for other people anyway, they have this itch that they can't scratch unless they strike out on their own, risks or not. But do lower entrepreneurial risk because you recognize the value of entrepreneurs and you want to make sure that small business owners with families can still get good health care and dental care and afford a modest living.

graeme 14y ago
> most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. So? That's like saying "most people won't become olympic athletes, so supporting olympic athletes won't lead to more participation in the olympics. We only need to care about the population of people who might start their own businesses. Not every potential entrepreneur is an entrepreneur. I'm in Canada. The fact that I don't have to worry about any major health costs was a big factor when I decided to start on my own. I might fail, but there's less risk of a catastrophic failure scenario. I'm not the only one who weighs risk this way.
Nogwater 14y ago
I agree that starting a business isn't for everyone. I'm doubtful that I would enjoy it, but I would like to be an early employee at a company. If that company can't afford health coverage, then I can't take that risk for my family. It just baffles me that health coverage is so tied to where you work. What if you could only send your kids to the schools that your employer selected, or eat at the restaurants the your company had a deal with? It's just weird. I don't know if government provided insurance is the solution, but employer provided just doesn't make sense as the only solution.
- jkeel 14y ago
  What I think would be a better solution that could fit in everyone's worldview (those that want a more socialized health care system and those who don't want a powerful federal government) is to have cities provide a public health insurance option that a person or business could buy into. I think that the risk pool would be large and the members would be local (thus giving more rights to local communities rather than the federal government). I think it could then encourage cities to be more healthy cities (less pollution, more activities for locals, encourage walking/biking rather than driving) in order to drive down health care costs for their citizens. Being a healthier city would then encourage people to move to there thus increasing the risk pool. Citizens wouldn't be required to purchase through them but the plans could still be managed by private companies like Aetna, Cigna, etc. so that the plans could be used when local citizens travel to other parts of the country.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    You could do it on a state-by-state basis, where each may provide a differing level of coverage but all of them would provide at least a base-line care for citizens that are residents of that state. This could lead to a form of "competition" where some states might provide perks to help encourage people to migrate there from other parts of the country or make it more attractive for prospective employers. This is the way it's done in Canada. Each province has differing rules as to what's covered, but emergency treatment and preventative care is never impaired by cost or a lack of insurance.
  - 14y ago
Anechoic 14y ago
But the thing is, most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. In the aggregate you may be right. Just from my own personally experience, I can think of at least a dozen folks (extremely well-regarded in their field) who have all expressed to me a desire to strike out on their own, but it's the company-provided healthcare that keeps them from doing that. And (for the most part) these are folks in Massachusetts.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Isn't it possible that's just a handy self-justification, though? If healthcare wasn't an issue, would it be something else?
  - Anechoic 14y ago
    Isn't it possible that's just a handy self-justification, though? Looking specifically at the folks in my circle, I doubt for for two reasons: 1) they've seen me make a living at it for 9 years and they are all as smart, if not smarter than me and generally better connected than me, 2) a couple of folks in particular are supporting family members with medical needs.
    - ryanmolden 14y ago
      #2 is a big issue because insurance companies love to deny pre-existing conditions. I believe there is some time-limit to them doing so, like after being on the plan for 6 or 9 months they start covering, but don't quote me on that. The idea that having a pre-existing condition can screw you pretty severely if you have to switch insurance ilproviders is crazy to me, especially since insurance is so tied to employer in the US. I realize insurance prefers healthy people to subsidize the sick, but once someone is diagnosed, "punishing" them for being sick, everytime they change insurance is just crazy to me. I guess I am too much of a socialist to see how that is a good societal move.
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
kristiandupont 14y ago
I can easily imagine a class of people who would become entrepreneurs if they didn't feel like the risk was too big. Especially people families -- not only might you be risking something on their behalf, you might also have a spouse that's difficult to convince (http://www.inc.com/magazine/201209/meg-cadoux-hirshberg/living-with-doubt-and-doubters.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/201209/meg-cadoux-hirshberg/livi...).
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  Right. Some people might well be willing to take a risk for themselves, but not be willing to take a risk with the health insurance for their kids.
hotpockets 14y ago
Facing a potential health crisis without insurance has got to be one of the biggest disincentives to starting a business. Even if that disincentive is irrelevant to most entrepreneurs, you still have potential entrepreneurs with health issues. If X% of potential entrepreneurs have managed but costly health problems, the disincentive to starting a business must be much higher.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I know a few such people myself, and I don't even really know that many people. One category is people with issues from birth: one friend of mine has a congenital heart defect, which is well managed, but completely disqualifies him from buying health insurance on the open market as an individual. So he is basically forced, against his will, to work for a large corporation, so he can qualify for their group health plan. Note that this is due to something that happened before he was even born. To me, that's not how things should work in a country with real individual freedom and equality of opportunity.
  - bhb916 14y ago
    You misunderstand individual freedom. Freedom, in the context of a "free nation", isn't freedom from consequences or risks (even those out of a person's control), it's freedom from the imposition of state-sponsored force. This is an important distinction. We all invite a little state-sponsored force into our lives (i.e. the persecution of violent crimes, the civil court system, etc). Your version of "freedom" actually requires state-sponsored force at a fairly low threshold: if someone can't pay for their own health insurance or medical bills you're going to force others to pay it for him. You're not asking for voluntary donations, you're taking with the threat of legal consequences. That can't be congruent with any meaningful definition of freedom.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      It is you who misunderstands individual freedom. Freedom is not some formalist anarcho-capitalist construct, but meaningful ability to take individual action. That requires, as Hayek argues, that a functioning state exists, which provides basic physical safety, a minimum of economic security, and contract enforcement, within which people can act as individuals. Absent that, in the "state of nature", people are forced to cling to tribalist groupings (religions, extended families/clans, etc.) for security and coverage of the "risks common to all", which is not individual freedom but collectivism.
stdbrouw 14y ago
Sure, there's people who want to be entrepreneurs and people who don't, but to me it seems like the situation is perfectly analogous to supply and demand and consumer surplus. Most people, if they want something, they'll buy it at any price they consider to be reasonable. Why? Because they really want it – just like people really want to be entrepreneurs, or don't. But lo and behold, when the price of a consumer good goes up, demand almost invariably goes down, because for some people, the cost/benefit equation did change just enough to make it (not) worth it. I know many, many people in Europe that have dreams of starting a company or startup, but without ready access to venture capital, making that dream a reality suddenly becomes much, much harder. So you compromise, and you focus on other dreams that are more attainable. Yes, human psychology might be an important factor in deciding whether someone wants to be an entrepreneur or not, but people's attitudes are generally not as black and white as you make them out to be.
dxbydt 14y ago
>most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. I've spent the last few years encouraging people around me to start or run or improve their businesses, but so many of them ... don't want to deal with all of the other aspects of running a business. True dat. But you point this out as if it is some moral failing on their part. People generally don't want to do uninteresting stuff. "all of the other aspects of running a business" is seriously uninteresting. Its why I don't have a dog - am not interested in picking up dog poop :) If its about the money...I have made 5-6 figures from simple butterflies & straddles - took me less than half hour to devise, and then I just wait for the right mkt opportunity to come along. If its about independence, not working for anybody etc...my boss used to say that while I only have 1 boss (ie. him ), he has infinite bosses ( ie. all the customers of the company ). So I don't see what the big advantage is in being accountable to the masses of the planet because of some bug in some stupid software. There's trons of things infinitely more interesting than being an entrepreneur - Family. Mathematics. Physics. CS.
- justin 14y ago
  > There's trons of things infinitely more interesting than being an entrepreneur - Family. Mathematics. Physics. CS. Depends on your interests. My business is my family -- I started my company with my brother. I was a Physics major when I went to college and I find entrepreneurship much, much more fascinating. Starting companies isn't for everyone, and it would be misleading to say it is. But I don't think anyone can category say that "X is the most interesting thing to pursue."
- Maven911 14y ago
  Im an options trader too, I would like to discuss with you some of your strategies... could you contact me on:mark.samson11 on googles email
aik 14y ago
>> If he (or she!) wants to open or run a business, he (or she!) will do that regardless. I completely disagree. No two people are in the same situation; some people are in situations that make it extremely risky to start a business, and instead will coast through life without acting on a dream. I don't necessarily think this means they're not dedicated enough or not made for it. People don't do things for a lot of reasons, and those reasons often aren't because they don't want to -- rather it's often because there's some boulder blocking their vision.
- dizzystar 14y ago
  I think that those who have nothing to lose are the ones who are more likely to go out and make their own life. It is the people who sat at the opposite end of the interview table hearing 'no' too often that decide they had enough with society and create their own success. Every single successful person I ever met starts with the same story: "I was doing X, and I just quit. I promised that I would never have a job again." Simply put, it is the mindset that is inherent in those that go out and create that make them create. The reality is that people who have a lot to lose are those that aren't going to take a risk. Giving more raises, more insurance, and more social security is going to make people more comfortable with their life as-is.
eli 14y ago
From the article: But what about the risk of, you’re afraid to leave your job and be an entrepreneur because that’s where your health insurance is? I don't know how many people fit that description, but it is certainly more than zero.
- ams6110 14y ago
  There are SOO many things to be afraid of if you're starting a business, I really don't think that health insurance (or especially other things the article mentioned, e.g. retirement savings, medicare, social security) is a showstopper for most people. In starting your own business, you are risking the ability to put food on the table and pay the rent. Health insurance has got to be less scary than that.
  - zrail 14y ago
    I'm not sure about most people. Two points of anecdata: I fell and broke my back almost a year ago. If I had been self employed I would be liable for tens of thousands of dollars. Second: I have a friend who was forced out of the consulting game because of a serious medical issue that private insurance would have cost too much to cover. I can't generalize from two data points but I can say that for me and my friend, lack of a safety net has absolutely been the show stopper.
  - eli 14y ago
    No one single thing is showstopper for most people. But healthcare is a really big deal. If you can't pay rent, then at most you owe your back rent. If you're in a car accident without insurance there is almost unlimited liability. You may owe more than you could ever possibly hope to repay. You may be forced to select treatment that is cheaper, rather than treatment that is better and this could have serious impact on your health.
jshen 14y ago
I have a rare eye disease. I'd love to start my own business, but I didn't because I feared a lose of insurance with a pre existing condition. I completely disagree with your premise that wouldn't do well at it because my itch isn't so strong as to make me risk losing insurance. Btw, what data are you using to draw your conclusion?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
viviantan 14y ago
I'm totally with you about loving Jon Stewart and I'm all for removing barriers for those inclined towards entrepreneurship. But the concept of creating safety nets to encourage more entrepreneurship strikes me as paradoxical. To an extent, the inherent risks that come with starting a new business is a good thing -- it forces would-be-entrepreneurs to assess critically what they would gain or lose before taking the plunge. The inextricable dependency on company health insurance, however, should not have to play a role in that risk assessment. Maybe I'm just being picky over semantics, but instead of creating a "wide safety net for failure," which to me sounds like something that encourages poor business judgment, I would be in favor of reducing the extrinsic risks of starting a new business (e.g. insurance) so entrepreneurs could focus on the risks relevant to the business itself. But like I said, I might be nitpicking over choice of words, so forgive me. Knowing there's a risk of failure isn't so bad -- it makes me try really hard at, well, not failing.
- EricDeb 14y ago
  I agree, but I feel the more likely scenario is the 40 year old with domain expertise who is rationally confident he could strike out on his own but is hindered for fear of losing health insurance/income not only for himself, but for his family. The current conditions seem to discourage these individuals from starting companies in favor of the far more common mid-20s silicon valley web junkie who has far less to lose and a minute chance of success.
  - viviantan 14y ago
    Thank you for pointing that out. Since this is Hacker News I can sometimes be a bit myopic about the different kinds of entrepreneurs. Now that I think about it, the guy from Breaking Bad could be the perfect poster-boy (poster-man?) for what happens when middle-aged dudes don't have safety nets for starting legal businesses!
- wmblaettler 14y ago
  Well put. My thoughts were similar that if the safety net were to allow for excessively risky behavior (as in unsustainable, non-profitable, or predatory business schemes) with repeated failure and limited negative side effects, it could be a net drain on the overall economy.
SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
>I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. TOTALLY disagree, as well as with folks who are saying that "risk is an important part!" For one thing, there are a series of studies that show that people who are more risk tolerant actually create worse start-ups (for example, [1]). There is at least one meta-analysis that indicates that there's more risk tolerance in entrepreneurs (though the individual studies on that point are contradictory) [2], but OF COURSE there's risk in going off on your own, the biggest one being the opportunity cost of the cushy salary you're foregoing for a year. No, it's not for everyone. But that doesn't mean that people who start businesses are reckless, and it is HARD to get a good price on health insurance in most states -- and if you get badly sick in the US WITHOUT health insurance, you're screwed (if and when the health insurance reform kicks in, this could change). I personally refused to quit my job until I knew I'd be able to get health insurance, and it was much harder than I expected despite not having any health problems (as in, I was denied by two providers and had to get the "high risk pool" insurance). So I think it would be effective to reduce the risks of entrepreneurship for people in my situation (i.e., over 35 years old). It's risky enough to begin with; no reason to make it a matter of life-and-death as well. [1] http://paraplyen.nhh.no/sfiles/85/88/1/file/hvide-panos-2012-.pdf http://paraplyen.nhh.no/sfiles/85/88/1/file/hvide-panos-2012... [2] http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.145 http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1...
- vm 14y ago
  We need to define risk here. Startups are risky and most fail. That doesn't change, even if we gave people free health insurance and other benefits. Jon Stewart is arguing to increase the safety net so that downside of failure is less harsh. It won't make the downside scenario less likely, just not as brutal for those who experience it. But I bet his proposal would INCREASE the risk of failure for precisely that reason. People are more likely to hustle harder when their livelihood depends on it [1]. For example, the social safety net is higher across most of Europe and I bet the level of entrepreneurship is higher in the US (I wish I had data about this, please share it if you do). [1] This reminds me of the AirBNB founders selling Obama O's. Such great hustle: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/03/airbnb.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/03/airbnb.html
sterna 14y ago
I can back you up with real word evidence for your claim. In Denmark we have system very close to what John Stewart proposes but still we have far fewer entrepreneurs than in the US. This suggests that culture is much more important for entrepreneurship than a social safety net.
speccy_geek 14y ago
Presumably you think that the laws of supply and demand are bunk? The risk of having poor health cover is part of the cost of entrepreneurship. Reduce the cost of something and people, in the aggregate, will buy more of it.
davidw 14y ago
> If he (or she!) wants to open or run a business, he (or she!) will do that regardless. There's a concept of 'margin' in economics that is applicable here: some people will never open their open their own business, others will, no matter what. In the middle are people who might, or might not. Doing things to make it easier for them will tempt more of them.
greggman 14y ago
I'm only one data point but seeing my dad unable to retire, he's 70, and myself being 47, I'm definitely afraid to give up the cushy job I have. If somehow I knew food, shelter, medical and retirement were covered I'd be far more likely to try a few things now that I wouldn't have hesitated to try 15-20 years ago. I guess the take away is something like this might be better or worse depending on your current situation.
leot 14y ago
> I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. Wait, really? You don't think people factor in downside risk when making life choices?

graeme 14y ago

> most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. So? That's like saying "most people won't become olympic athletes, so supporting olympic athletes won't lead to more participation in the olympics. We only need to care about the population of people who might start their own businesses. Not every potential entrepreneur is an entrepreneur. I'm in Canada. The fact that I don't have to worry about any major health costs was a big factor when I decided to start on my own. I might fail, but there's less risk of a catastrophic failure scenario. I'm not the only one who weighs risk this way.

Nogwater 14y ago

I agree that starting a business isn't for everyone. I'm doubtful that I would enjoy it, but I would like to be an early employee at a company. If that company can't afford health coverage, then I can't take that risk for my family. It just baffles me that health coverage is so tied to where you work. What if you could only send your kids to the schools that your employer selected, or eat at the restaurants the your company had a deal with? It's just weird. I don't know if government provided insurance is the solution, but employer provided just doesn't make sense as the only solution.

jkeel 14y ago
What I think would be a better solution that could fit in everyone's worldview (those that want a more socialized health care system and those who don't want a powerful federal government) is to have cities provide a public health insurance option that a person or business could buy into. I think that the risk pool would be large and the members would be local (thus giving more rights to local communities rather than the federal government). I think it could then encourage cities to be more healthy cities (less pollution, more activities for locals, encourage walking/biking rather than driving) in order to drive down health care costs for their citizens. Being a healthier city would then encourage people to move to there thus increasing the risk pool. Citizens wouldn't be required to purchase through them but the plans could still be managed by private companies like Aetna, Cigna, etc. so that the plans could be used when local citizens travel to other parts of the country.
- astrodust 14y ago
  You could do it on a state-by-state basis, where each may provide a differing level of coverage but all of them would provide at least a base-line care for citizens that are residents of that state. This could lead to a form of "competition" where some states might provide perks to help encourage people to migrate there from other parts of the country or make it more attractive for prospective employers. This is the way it's done in Canada. Each province has differing rules as to what's covered, but emergency treatment and preventative care is never impaired by cost or a lack of insurance.
- 14y ago

Anechoic 14y ago

But the thing is, most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. In the aggregate you may be right. Just from my own personally experience, I can think of at least a dozen folks (extremely well-regarded in their field) who have all expressed to me a desire to strike out on their own, but it's the company-provided healthcare that keeps them from doing that. And (for the most part) these are folks in Massachusetts.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
Isn't it possible that's just a handy self-justification, though? If healthcare wasn't an issue, would it be something else?
- Anechoic 14y ago
  Isn't it possible that's just a handy self-justification, though? Looking specifically at the folks in my circle, I doubt for for two reasons: 1) they've seen me make a living at it for 9 years and they are all as smart, if not smarter than me and generally better connected than me, 2) a couple of folks in particular are supporting family members with medical needs.
  - ryanmolden 14y ago
    #2 is a big issue because insurance companies love to deny pre-existing conditions. I believe there is some time-limit to them doing so, like after being on the plan for 6 or 9 months they start covering, but don't quote me on that. The idea that having a pre-existing condition can screw you pretty severely if you have to switch insurance ilproviders is crazy to me, especially since insurance is so tied to employer in the US. I realize insurance prefers healthy people to subsidize the sick, but once someone is diagnosed, "punishing" them for being sick, everytime they change insurance is just crazy to me. I guess I am too much of a socialist to see how that is a good societal move.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

kristiandupont 14y ago

I can easily imagine a class of people who would become entrepreneurs if they didn't feel like the risk was too big. Especially people families -- not only might you be risking something on their behalf, you might also have a spouse that's difficult to convince (http://www.inc.com/magazine/201209/meg-cadoux-hirshberg/living-with-doubt-and-doubters.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/201209/meg-cadoux-hirshberg/livi...).

Turing_Machine 14y ago
Right. Some people might well be willing to take a risk for themselves, but not be willing to take a risk with the health insurance for their kids.

hotpockets 14y ago

Facing a potential health crisis without insurance has got to be one of the biggest disincentives to starting a business. Even if that disincentive is irrelevant to most entrepreneurs, you still have potential entrepreneurs with health issues. If X% of potential entrepreneurs have managed but costly health problems, the disincentive to starting a business must be much higher.

_delirium 14y ago
I know a few such people myself, and I don't even really know that many people. One category is people with issues from birth: one friend of mine has a congenital heart defect, which is well managed, but completely disqualifies him from buying health insurance on the open market as an individual. So he is basically forced, against his will, to work for a large corporation, so he can qualify for their group health plan. Note that this is due to something that happened before he was even born. To me, that's not how things should work in a country with real individual freedom and equality of opportunity.
- bhb916 14y ago
  You misunderstand individual freedom. Freedom, in the context of a "free nation", isn't freedom from consequences or risks (even those out of a person's control), it's freedom from the imposition of state-sponsored force. This is an important distinction. We all invite a little state-sponsored force into our lives (i.e. the persecution of violent crimes, the civil court system, etc). Your version of "freedom" actually requires state-sponsored force at a fairly low threshold: if someone can't pay for their own health insurance or medical bills you're going to force others to pay it for him. You're not asking for voluntary donations, you're taking with the threat of legal consequences. That can't be congruent with any meaningful definition of freedom.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    It is you who misunderstands individual freedom. Freedom is not some formalist anarcho-capitalist construct, but meaningful ability to take individual action. That requires, as Hayek argues, that a functioning state exists, which provides basic physical safety, a minimum of economic security, and contract enforcement, within which people can act as individuals. Absent that, in the "state of nature", people are forced to cling to tribalist groupings (religions, extended families/clans, etc.) for security and coverage of the "risks common to all", which is not individual freedom but collectivism.

stdbrouw 14y ago

Sure, there's people who want to be entrepreneurs and people who don't, but to me it seems like the situation is perfectly analogous to supply and demand and consumer surplus. Most people, if they want something, they'll buy it at any price they consider to be reasonable. Why? Because they really want it – just like people really want to be entrepreneurs, or don't. But lo and behold, when the price of a consumer good goes up, demand almost invariably goes down, because for some people, the cost/benefit equation did change just enough to make it (not) worth it. I know many, many people in Europe that have dreams of starting a company or startup, but without ready access to venture capital, making that dream a reality suddenly becomes much, much harder. So you compromise, and you focus on other dreams that are more attainable. Yes, human psychology might be an important factor in deciding whether someone wants to be an entrepreneur or not, but people's attitudes are generally not as black and white as you make them out to be.

dxbydt 14y ago

>most people don't want to run their own business no matter how safe you make it. I've spent the last few years encouraging people around me to start or run or improve their businesses, but so many of them ... don't want to deal with all of the other aspects of running a business. True dat. But you point this out as if it is some moral failing on their part. People generally don't want to do uninteresting stuff. "all of the other aspects of running a business" is seriously uninteresting. Its why I don't have a dog - am not interested in picking up dog poop :) If its about the money...I have made 5-6 figures from simple butterflies & straddles - took me less than half hour to devise, and then I just wait for the right mkt opportunity to come along. If its about independence, not working for anybody etc...my boss used to say that while I only have 1 boss (ie. him ), he has infinite bosses ( ie. all the customers of the company ). So I don't see what the big advantage is in being accountable to the masses of the planet because of some bug in some stupid software. There's trons of things infinitely more interesting than being an entrepreneur - Family. Mathematics. Physics. CS.

justin 14y ago
> There's trons of things infinitely more interesting than being an entrepreneur - Family. Mathematics. Physics. CS. Depends on your interests. My business is my family -- I started my company with my brother. I was a Physics major when I went to college and I find entrepreneurship much, much more fascinating. Starting companies isn't for everyone, and it would be misleading to say it is. But I don't think anyone can category say that "X is the most interesting thing to pursue."
Maven911 14y ago
Im an options trader too, I would like to discuss with you some of your strategies... could you contact me on:mark.samson11 on googles email

aik 14y ago

>> If he (or she!) wants to open or run a business, he (or she!) will do that regardless. I completely disagree. No two people are in the same situation; some people are in situations that make it extremely risky to start a business, and instead will coast through life without acting on a dream. I don't necessarily think this means they're not dedicated enough or not made for it. People don't do things for a lot of reasons, and those reasons often aren't because they don't want to -- rather it's often because there's some boulder blocking their vision.

dizzystar 14y ago
I think that those who have nothing to lose are the ones who are more likely to go out and make their own life. It is the people who sat at the opposite end of the interview table hearing 'no' too often that decide they had enough with society and create their own success. Every single successful person I ever met starts with the same story: "I was doing X, and I just quit. I promised that I would never have a job again." Simply put, it is the mindset that is inherent in those that go out and create that make them create. The reality is that people who have a lot to lose are those that aren't going to take a risk. Giving more raises, more insurance, and more social security is going to make people more comfortable with their life as-is.

eli 14y ago

From the article: But what about the risk of, you’re afraid to leave your job and be an entrepreneur because that’s where your health insurance is? I don't know how many people fit that description, but it is certainly more than zero.

ams6110 14y ago
There are SOO many things to be afraid of if you're starting a business, I really don't think that health insurance (or especially other things the article mentioned, e.g. retirement savings, medicare, social security) is a showstopper for most people. In starting your own business, you are risking the ability to put food on the table and pay the rent. Health insurance has got to be less scary than that.
- zrail 14y ago
  I'm not sure about most people. Two points of anecdata: I fell and broke my back almost a year ago. If I had been self employed I would be liable for tens of thousands of dollars. Second: I have a friend who was forced out of the consulting game because of a serious medical issue that private insurance would have cost too much to cover. I can't generalize from two data points but I can say that for me and my friend, lack of a safety net has absolutely been the show stopper.
- eli 14y ago
  No one single thing is showstopper for most people. But healthcare is a really big deal. If you can't pay rent, then at most you owe your back rent. If you're in a car accident without insurance there is almost unlimited liability. You may owe more than you could ever possibly hope to repay. You may be forced to select treatment that is cheaper, rather than treatment that is better and this could have serious impact on your health.

jshen 14y ago

I have a rare eye disease. I'd love to start my own business, but I didn't because I feared a lose of insurance with a pre existing condition. I completely disagree with your premise that wouldn't do well at it because my itch isn't so strong as to make me risk losing insurance. Btw, what data are you using to draw your conclusion?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

viviantan 14y ago

I'm totally with you about loving Jon Stewart and I'm all for removing barriers for those inclined towards entrepreneurship. But the concept of creating safety nets to encourage more entrepreneurship strikes me as paradoxical. To an extent, the inherent risks that come with starting a new business is a good thing -- it forces would-be-entrepreneurs to assess critically what they would gain or lose before taking the plunge. The inextricable dependency on company health insurance, however, should not have to play a role in that risk assessment. Maybe I'm just being picky over semantics, but instead of creating a "wide safety net for failure," which to me sounds like something that encourages poor business judgment, I would be in favor of reducing the extrinsic risks of starting a new business (e.g. insurance) so entrepreneurs could focus on the risks relevant to the business itself. But like I said, I might be nitpicking over choice of words, so forgive me. Knowing there's a risk of failure isn't so bad -- it makes me try really hard at, well, not failing.

EricDeb 14y ago
I agree, but I feel the more likely scenario is the 40 year old with domain expertise who is rationally confident he could strike out on his own but is hindered for fear of losing health insurance/income not only for himself, but for his family. The current conditions seem to discourage these individuals from starting companies in favor of the far more common mid-20s silicon valley web junkie who has far less to lose and a minute chance of success.
- viviantan 14y ago
  Thank you for pointing that out. Since this is Hacker News I can sometimes be a bit myopic about the different kinds of entrepreneurs. Now that I think about it, the guy from Breaking Bad could be the perfect poster-boy (poster-man?) for what happens when middle-aged dudes don't have safety nets for starting legal businesses!
wmblaettler 14y ago
Well put. My thoughts were similar that if the safety net were to allow for excessively risky behavior (as in unsustainable, non-profitable, or predatory business schemes) with repeated failure and limited negative side effects, it could be a net drain on the overall economy.

SomeCallMeTim 14y ago

>I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. TOTALLY disagree, as well as with folks who are saying that "risk is an important part!" For one thing, there are a series of studies that show that people who are more risk tolerant actually create worse start-ups (for example, [1]). There is at least one meta-analysis that indicates that there's more risk tolerance in entrepreneurs (though the individual studies on that point are contradictory) [2], but OF COURSE there's risk in going off on your own, the biggest one being the opportunity cost of the cushy salary you're foregoing for a year. No, it's not for everyone. But that doesn't mean that people who start businesses are reckless, and it is HARD to get a good price on health insurance in most states -- and if you get badly sick in the US WITHOUT health insurance, you're screwed (if and when the health insurance reform kicks in, this could change). I personally refused to quit my job until I knew I'd be able to get health insurance, and it was much harder than I expected despite not having any health problems (as in, I was denied by two providers and had to get the "high risk pool" insurance). So I think it would be effective to reduce the risks of entrepreneurship for people in my situation (i.e., over 35 years old). It's risky enough to begin with; no reason to make it a matter of life-and-death as well. [1] http://paraplyen.nhh.no/sfiles/85/88/1/file/hvide-panos-2012-.pdf http://paraplyen.nhh.no/sfiles/85/88/1/file/hvide-panos-2012... [2] http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.145 http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1...

vm 14y ago
We need to define risk here. Startups are risky and most fail. That doesn't change, even if we gave people free health insurance and other benefits. Jon Stewart is arguing to increase the safety net so that downside of failure is less harsh. It won't make the downside scenario less likely, just not as brutal for those who experience it. But I bet his proposal would INCREASE the risk of failure for precisely that reason. People are more likely to hustle harder when their livelihood depends on it [1]. For example, the social safety net is higher across most of Europe and I bet the level of entrepreneurship is higher in the US (I wish I had data about this, please share it if you do). [1] This reminds me of the AirBNB founders selling Obama O's. Such great hustle: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/03/airbnb.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/03/airbnb.html

sterna 14y ago

I can back you up with real word evidence for your claim. In Denmark we have system very close to what John Stewart proposes but still we have far fewer entrepreneurs than in the US. This suggests that culture is much more important for entrepreneurship than a social safety net.

speccy_geek 14y ago

Presumably you think that the laws of supply and demand are bunk? The risk of having poor health cover is part of the cost of entrepreneurship. Reduce the cost of something and people, in the aggregate, will buy more of it.

davidw 14y ago

> If he (or she!) wants to open or run a business, he (or she!) will do that regardless. There's a concept of 'margin' in economics that is applicable here: some people will never open their open their own business, others will, no matter what. In the middle are people who might, or might not. Doing things to make it easier for them will tempt more of them.

greggman 14y ago

I'm only one data point but seeing my dad unable to retire, he's 70, and myself being 47, I'm definitely afraid to give up the cushy job I have. If somehow I knew food, shelter, medical and retirement were covered I'd be far more likely to try a few things now that I wouldn't have hesitated to try 15-20 years ago. I guess the take away is something like this might be better or worse depending on your current situation.

leot 14y ago

> I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. Wait, really? You don't think people factor in downside risk when making life choices?