5 ms·

>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 par

>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
- slurgfest 14y ago
  By this 'principle,' measures like eliminating the corporation as a risk management tool, or even imposing artificially severe punishments for business failure, should increase hustle and therefore mean more successful businesses.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    True. That doesn't mean that there isn't some optimum amount of downside, for optimal progress and human flourishing and whatnot. But an automatic assumption that what we currently have is that optimal amount seems to just be a bias towards the status quo.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Well yes, of course. vm, like many people, misreads "no pain, no gain" to say, "pain == gain."
- Vivtek 14y ago
  I disagree with this. It's one thing to hustle to make your ramen budget. It's another to hustle to succeed before your son needs that kidney transplant. There's hustle, and then there's killing stress. I can only surmise you're young and single.
  - koko775 14y ago
    Agreed. I'm 24 and the overriding reason why I haven't started a startup is that for the past three+ years I've had my hands full supporting my family, who fell on hard times due to the economic downturn. I can't risk my parents being on the streets dying from lack of healthcare. I'm willing to take the risk for myself, but right now my parents have nobody to turn to. It's exceedingly clear to me that "they would start a startup anyways" takes a very privileged view, as if risks are there to be taken willy-nilly, and the fallout of a failure nothing much in the grand scheme of things. That may be true for the self, but if others depend on you, it's a whole different perspective and some responsibility must be taken.
  - 14y ago

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

slurgfest 14y ago
By this 'principle,' measures like eliminating the corporation as a risk management tool, or even imposing artificially severe punishments for business failure, should increase hustle and therefore mean more successful businesses.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  True. That doesn't mean that there isn't some optimum amount of downside, for optimal progress and human flourishing and whatnot. But an automatic assumption that what we currently have is that optimal amount seems to just be a bias towards the status quo.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Well yes, of course. vm, like many people, misreads "no pain, no gain" to say, "pain == gain."
Vivtek 14y ago
I disagree with this. It's one thing to hustle to make your ramen budget. It's another to hustle to succeed before your son needs that kidney transplant. There's hustle, and then there's killing stress. I can only surmise you're young and single.
- koko775 14y ago
  Agreed. I'm 24 and the overriding reason why I haven't started a startup is that for the past three+ years I've had my hands full supporting my family, who fell on hard times due to the economic downturn. I can't risk my parents being on the streets dying from lack of healthcare. I'm willing to take the risk for myself, but right now my parents have nobody to turn to. It's exceedingly clear to me that "they would start a startup anyways" takes a very privileged view, as if risks are there to be taken willy-nilly, and the fallout of a failure nothing much in the grand scheme of things. That may be true for the self, but if others depend on you, it's a whole different perspective and some responsibility must be taken.
- 14y ago