5 ms·

I would hypothesise that there are two reasons for this. 1. The size of the US market is a huge advantage. Startups targeting and operating in the US market ca

I would hypothesise that there are two reasons for this. 1. The size of the US market is a huge advantage. Startups targeting and operating in the US market can grow bigger. China has the same advantage. 2. Americans are less risk-averse because Americans are mostly descendants of immigrants. And immigrants are more likely to have a less risk-averse DNA.

Athas 13y ago
> 2. Americans are less risk-averse because Americans are mostly descendants of immigrants. And immigrants are more likely to have a less risk-averse DNA. Do you have any evidence that this is a genetic trait, and not a cultural factor? I have never heard this postulated before, but it would certainly be interesting if true.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  No, this is just an idea that occured to me a long time ago in school, it may be completely wrong.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    This is the great thing about the pop psychology part of evolutionary psychology. Now everyone can make up any theory that they want relating to genetics, and just support it with their own arguments and/or common sense - no empirical science or investigation needed on their part. And now just say 'genetics' and their argument sounds like it came from some hard-ish science, and was not just conjured up by their own mind.
    - RivieraKid 13y ago
      I clearly stated that it's a hypothesis. The biggest assumption, that immigrants are less risk-averse, sounds very plausible to me.
      - Dewie 13y ago
        > I clearly stated that it's a hypothesis. Yes, after someone explicitly asked you to back up your initial statement. > The biggest assumption, that immigrants are less risk-averse, sounds very plausible to me. And that's my point. All you need to talk about hereditary traits in these contexts is some vague notion of what seems plausible and believable, and not any actual data. And yet, people are probably going to find it more believable because genetics are involved than someone who explicitly bases it on some purely sociological theory, because genes sound more tangible than sociological theory and the statistics based on that. It's not that there is anything wrong with making up theories. But by stating that it has to do with genes - without any initial disclaimer that it is just a theory - makes it sound like it is based on data and not just a theory.
Hermel 13y ago
3. The opportunity costs of failing are higher in Europe. Thanks to welfare and lots of vacation, the founders of a startup have to sacrifice much more leisure time vs. the alternative (working at an existing corporation). For the same reason, it is also harder to find risk-seeking employees. They prefer doing financially ok with lots of leisure time over having the chance of getting rich without leisure. In the US, they don't have much holiday in either scenario.
- hga 13y ago
  What about the frequently (and generally??) much higher difficultly in letting people go, which I'm told results in it being much more difficult to get hired in the first place? To the extent that's true, that would make it much more difficult to find good, "risk-seeking" or at least risk tolerant employees.
higherpurpose 13y ago
I think there are two main issues that stops Europe from becoming a start-up hub, too: 1) a cohesive market, which is also your first point. EU is huge, bigger than US, but the market isn't very cohesive at all. The first time I heard about the EU Commission wanting to push for turning EU into a "federation of states", much like US, I was pretty pissed off, because I know that just means increased corruption at the top, with fewer people having more power over a huge region. And I still think that's going to happen, unfortunately. But now I also think we can't turn down the advantage of having a cohesive market like US. Maybe if we can delay it into 2020's, by then the Internet will make things a lot more democratic, and it wouldn't be so easy to be corrupt at the top of EU. 2) I'm not so sure it's genetics. I think it's the culture, but not even the "entrepreneurial American culture", but the Silicon Valley culture. First off, there's no "start-up center" in Europe, certainly not one as concentrated with entrepreneurs and especially investors, as Silicon Valley. And second, people aren't used to "pitch their ideas" to investors, which are few and hard to find to begin with. There may be a lot of rich people, but they aren't actively seeking entrepreneurs to invest in their ideas. So it very rarely happens. That's why you don't see start-ups that "change the world" from Europe, because while a start-up getting millions of dollars just based off an idea is kind of a daily occurrence in Silicon Valley, it almost never happens in Europe.
MrJimacks 13y ago
> immigrants are more likely to have a less risk-averse DNA > less risk-averse DNA > risk-averse DNA You're stupid

Athas 13y ago

> 2. Americans are less risk-averse because Americans are mostly descendants of immigrants. And immigrants are more likely to have a less risk-averse DNA. Do you have any evidence that this is a genetic trait, and not a cultural factor? I have never heard this postulated before, but it would certainly be interesting if true.

RivieraKid 13y ago
No, this is just an idea that occured to me a long time ago in school, it may be completely wrong.
- Dewie 13y ago
  This is the great thing about the pop psychology part of evolutionary psychology. Now everyone can make up any theory that they want relating to genetics, and just support it with their own arguments and/or common sense - no empirical science or investigation needed on their part. And now just say 'genetics' and their argument sounds like it came from some hard-ish science, and was not just conjured up by their own mind.
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    I clearly stated that it's a hypothesis. The biggest assumption, that immigrants are less risk-averse, sounds very plausible to me.
    - Dewie 13y ago
      > I clearly stated that it's a hypothesis. Yes, after someone explicitly asked you to back up your initial statement. > The biggest assumption, that immigrants are less risk-averse, sounds very plausible to me. And that's my point. All you need to talk about hereditary traits in these contexts is some vague notion of what seems plausible and believable, and not any actual data. And yet, people are probably going to find it more believable because genetics are involved than someone who explicitly bases it on some purely sociological theory, because genes sound more tangible than sociological theory and the statistics based on that. It's not that there is anything wrong with making up theories. But by stating that it has to do with genes - without any initial disclaimer that it is just a theory - makes it sound like it is based on data and not just a theory.

Hermel 13y ago

3. The opportunity costs of failing are higher in Europe. Thanks to welfare and lots of vacation, the founders of a startup have to sacrifice much more leisure time vs. the alternative (working at an existing corporation). For the same reason, it is also harder to find risk-seeking employees. They prefer doing financially ok with lots of leisure time over having the chance of getting rich without leisure. In the US, they don't have much holiday in either scenario.

hga 13y ago
What about the frequently (and generally??) much higher difficultly in letting people go, which I'm told results in it being much more difficult to get hired in the first place? To the extent that's true, that would make it much more difficult to find good, "risk-seeking" or at least risk tolerant employees.

higherpurpose 13y ago

I think there are two main issues that stops Europe from becoming a start-up hub, too: 1) a cohesive market, which is also your first point. EU is huge, bigger than US, but the market isn't very cohesive at all. The first time I heard about the EU Commission wanting to push for turning EU into a "federation of states", much like US, I was pretty pissed off, because I know that just means increased corruption at the top, with fewer people having more power over a huge region. And I still think that's going to happen, unfortunately. But now I also think we can't turn down the advantage of having a cohesive market like US. Maybe if we can delay it into 2020's, by then the Internet will make things a lot more democratic, and it wouldn't be so easy to be corrupt at the top of EU. 2) I'm not so sure it's genetics. I think it's the culture, but not even the "entrepreneurial American culture", but the Silicon Valley culture. First off, there's no "start-up center" in Europe, certainly not one as concentrated with entrepreneurs and especially investors, as Silicon Valley. And second, people aren't used to "pitch their ideas" to investors, which are few and hard to find to begin with. There may be a lot of rich people, but they aren't actively seeking entrepreneurs to invest in their ideas. So it very rarely happens. That's why you don't see start-ups that "change the world" from Europe, because while a start-up getting millions of dollars just based off an idea is kind of a daily occurrence in Silicon Valley, it almost never happens in Europe.

MrJimacks 13y ago

> immigrants are more likely to have a less risk-averse DNA > less risk-averse DNA > risk-averse DNA You're stupid