3 ms·

Yet again, the failure to distinguish between startups and small companies generally. This "proves" that Larry & Sergey starting Google at 25 is a bad data poi

by pg 17y ago

Yet again, the failure to distinguish between startups and small companies generally. This "proves" that Larry & Sergey starting Google at 25 is a bad data point by showing that a lot of 50 year olds start landscaping companies.

timr 17y ago
I don't think the tone of the article was that "it's bad to start a company when you're young", so much as "it's okay to start a company when you're old."
csbrooks 17y ago
I'm not sure if you mean it to, but something about that strikes me as derogatory toward 50-year-olds with landscaping companies. They are taking a big risk too, and doing something important, even if it's not as sexy as a 20-year-old making a web startup. (Or maybe it's just the older I get, the less enthralling the young, inexperienced founder appears to me?)
- pg 17y ago
  A landscaping company is structurally different from a startup. That kind of service business only scales linearly.
  - encoderer 17y ago
    If the comments on the linked page are to be believed, it's worse than your assumption: Apparently Kauffman only selected "small businesses" with at least $1MM annual sales and 50 employees. That excludes an awful lot of landscaping companies AND legitimate startups. My gut also says it skews a little towards older entrepreuners. Because it takes time grow to $1MM in sales, and I'd imagine that more young people found startups that fail than do 40 and 50 year olds.
bd 17y ago
There were actually two different reports: one about general entrepreneurial activity index (3D graph) [1] and another one more specific about tech companies (39 years median age of founder, $1MM revenue) [2]. While your critique is probably on spot for [1], I'm not so sure about [2]. Authors defined "technology" company as working in: semiconductors, computers, communications, biosciences, defense/aerospace, environmental, software, innovation/manufacturing related services (check Appendix for more detailed classification). Age of founder was counted at the time of the incorporation of the company. Of course, there is a survivorship bias, but doesn't this just mean that companies founded by older founders had higher chances to grow to $1MM in sales/20 employees/branches with 50 employees? [1] http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/kiea_042709.pdf http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/kiea_042709.pdf [2] http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/Education_Tech_Ent_061108.pdf http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/Education_Tech_Ent_061...

by pg 17y ago

timr 17y ago

I don't think the tone of the article was that "it's bad to start a company when you're young", so much as "it's okay to start a company when you're old."

csbrooks 17y ago

I'm not sure if you mean it to, but something about that strikes me as derogatory toward 50-year-olds with landscaping companies. They are taking a big risk too, and doing something important, even if it's not as sexy as a 20-year-old making a web startup. (Or maybe it's just the older I get, the less enthralling the young, inexperienced founder appears to me?)

pg 17y ago
A landscaping company is structurally different from a startup. That kind of service business only scales linearly.
- encoderer 17y ago
  If the comments on the linked page are to be believed, it's worse than your assumption: Apparently Kauffman only selected "small businesses" with at least $1MM annual sales and 50 employees. That excludes an awful lot of landscaping companies AND legitimate startups. My gut also says it skews a little towards older entrepreuners. Because it takes time grow to $1MM in sales, and I'd imagine that more young people found startups that fail than do 40 and 50 year olds.

bd 17y ago

There were actually two different reports: one about general entrepreneurial activity index (3D graph) [1] and another one more specific about tech companies (39 years median age of founder, $1MM revenue) [2]. While your critique is probably on spot for [1], I'm not so sure about [2]. Authors defined "technology" company as working in: semiconductors, computers, communications, biosciences, defense/aerospace, environmental, software, innovation/manufacturing related services (check Appendix for more detailed classification). Age of founder was counted at the time of the incorporation of the company. Of course, there is a survivorship bias, but doesn't this just mean that companies founded by older founders had higher chances to grow to $1MM in sales/20 employees/branches with 50 employees? [1] http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/kiea_042709.pdf http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/kiea_042709.pdf [2] http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/Education_Tech_Ent_061108.pdf http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/Education_Tech_Ent_061...