I'd say starting a company to make something people want in order to sell it for money is still relevant. It's just that you're looking at working quietly, humbly, but perseverantly for the next 25 years, slowly growing the business and balancing the risks and opportunities along the way. You won't be looking for an "exit" because you want to take care of the company you built. That's a very different story from whatever vibe it is that startups acquired after the dotcom boom, i.e. find something that hasn't been done before, scales quickly, and sell the company after a few years for 1000x, and then something.
That never was sustainable, I think, and effectively it became a glorified hiring process for big tech who bought the best toy companies to get to the people behind. And now even big tech figured it's cheaper to just hire the talent directly and not buy their token company for a few million first just to get the guys in.
Not saying a good company with a good idea and execution at the right time couldn't still make it big quick: there always were some lucky ones and there will always be. But the process isn't repeatably stable enough that there's a lot of wasted effort to make a few shooting stars. And everybody seems to be slowly accepting that. Go for it if the opportunity arises but if you spend 10 years trying and trying without the fish biting you're likely better off saving off from a decent salary when those years have passed.
> you're looking at working quietly, humbly, but perseverantly for the next 25 years
> That never was sustainable, I think
Another aspect with this being (un)sustainable is lack of affordable healthcare. I bet many people would take more risks if they didn't have to worry about this aspect of their lives.
The Swedes sure seem to think so. Per capita Swedish entrepreneurship is like 7x the rest of the euro zone, and they’re convinced that it’s that aspect of the social safety net that help prop up that high level of personal risk taking.
It's not the only factor for sure, but it definitely contributes.
Jokingly Swedish and Spanish colleagues have said that weather probably plays a part too - because it's so cold outside, lots of time is spent indoors - some of it with friends socialising or chilling (they even have a word for it, Fika), but not only. So you have lots of opportunities to read, think, explore, experiment.
In contrast, in Spain the weather is often nice and sunny, so you're outside more often, with friends, drinking and eating. You don't really have a lot of alone time at home to think and tinker and innovate.
It's purely anecdotal, but there might be something to it.
The swedes do claim this is one of the things that leads to higher entrepreneurship, but yeah, it's certainly not an explanation in and of itself. Good contrary example is the UK - they also have the NHS, but real estate is so expensive that they can't generally acquire premises for HW labs.
I'm on mobile and can't search well but it's a topic that's been discussed on HN many times before.
Agreed. I was starting a small law firm (small biz, not a startup) and asked other dudes who had done the same what they did for healthcare. The all said the same thing -- I had my wife get a job at a bank.
But at that point, does it fit a startup definition?
In my view, startups always involve rapid growth and VC money to achieve it. If the company doesn't meet that criteria, isn't that simply a regular business?
I agree however it's the 'Paul Graham' definition. i.e. a trade off must be maintained between the bottom line and growth and a startup is a business that prioritises growth over basic financial sustainability.
I've seen economists argue the opposite saying a startup is no different to a regular business. It depends on which definition you wish to subscribe to.
What makes you think that? Still plenty of startups being founded, many achieving success. It's long odds, of course, but what exactly is "unsustainable" about this? (And unsustainable to whom, exactly?)
That never was sustainable, I think, and effectively it became a glorified hiring process for big tech who bought the best toy companies to get to the people behind. And now even big tech figured it's cheaper to just hire the talent directly and not buy their token company for a few million first just to get the guys in.
Not saying a good company with a good idea and execution at the right time couldn't still make it big quick: there always were some lucky ones and there will always be. But the process isn't repeatably stable enough that there's a lot of wasted effort to make a few shooting stars. And everybody seems to be slowly accepting that. Go for it if the opportunity arises but if you spend 10 years trying and trying without the fish biting you're likely better off saving off from a decent salary when those years have passed.