4 ms·
The main problems with this idea is (1) state welfare institutions are not in a good position to judge an entrepreneur's likelihood of success or even gauge if
by netcan 13y ago
The main problems with this idea is (1) state welfare institutions are not in a good position to judge an entrepreneur's likelihood of success or even gauge if they are an entrepreneur and (2) a welfare's system's priority is to avoid abuse.
Also, I think that the group of people who are willing to live on welfare incomes and the group of people who will start successful companies doesn't overlap very well.
Current welfare systems in Europe sometimes do a good job of promoting self employment by failing. A person on a welfare income is disincentivized from earning officially. They can lose benefits by earning and a lot of the time the fear of these is bigger than the reality. This means that to earn extra they need to work unofficially which is usually some form of self employment. The problem is in allowing the transition from this to larger scale official businesses.
- vincentleeuwen 13y agoI totally agree that welfare institutions themselves are in no position to judge. I firmly believe though that institutions within the ecosystem like VC firms or accelerators could take up that role. As for the income. I believe that (at least here in Amsterdam) the average startup founder that is bootstrapping lives on an amount that quite resembles welfare income. (if not less)
- cmac2992 13y agoWhat incentive do VCs and accelerators have vet significantly more startups?
- vincentleeuwen 13y ago1) Discovery - New initiatives are on their radar early 2) Business - Nobody said they should do it for free. Most (local) accelerators and VCs are not exactly raking in the millions, so this could be an easy 2nd business model.