I get the disdain for VCs -- it's a specific model with a specific set of failure modes. So that's fair.
What I don't understand is this dislike for investing ahead of growth or success. Why is the expectation that everything can be done bootstrapped or constantly profitable?
Companies take investment. If you're building a product that will be valuable for a long time, there will always be a period at the beginning where the entity requires somebody to put their investment into it. If the idea is small enough that one or two rich dudes with Google money can do forgo their salaries, that's great. But even a team of five for 18 months is a significant investment, and somebody needs to pony up. Should startups only consist of rich people who can afford to roll the dice?
Instead of fully rejecting the model, I believe that companies should take VC money with a finite plan towards profitability. If you take $2mil in seed money and hire a team of 8, get to $2m / year in revenue. If you want to take another bite at the apple, there will be VCs who fund you at that point. If not, you're not dead.
Real progress takes real investment. Ignoring that fact ignores a wild world of interesting, viable companies.
> What I don't understand is this dislike for investing ahead of growth or success. Why is the expectation that everything can be done bootstrapped or constantly profitable?
I don't see a disdain for investing, I see a general disdain for the misaligned incentives between founders and investors which has been around SV for decades. It's been a heated topic of debate at least since Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple and yet the VC industry keeps growing and growing.
Paid for by?... I distrust free anything. VCs aren’t free money; healthcare is paid for by someone; professors have a salary even if tuition is waived; UBI requires cash to materialize from someone’s efforts...
Further removing people from the most important parts of life and entrusting those to a benevolent central authority is a risk I’d personally _not_ take. The lessons I learned from the most recent US presidential election is how grateful I am for separation of powers and limits on the scopes that any one person (or branch of government) can actually impose on my day-to-day life.
I’d prefer to not see UBI furloughed because two parties I’m not connected to would prefer to grandstand over a budgetary rounding error than solve problems.
UBI needs to be furloughed. UBI aka just a scheme to keep the money flowing from the prole’s wallet into altman’s pocket. Universal basic EQUITY is a different thing. But he’s not offering that.
None of these things are free. Doctors, teachers, schools, and income guarantees cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere (i.e. taxes).
The (unfortunate) reality is that for most people you either need a lot of savings or an investor to get a company off the ground [1]. I am skeptical that free education or a $10k/year UBI would change that.
[1] One notable exception is companies that can be started on the side, but UBI would not affect those very much, either.
But yet somehow Europe is a wasteland by comparison to the States for startups. In many, particularly, Northern European countries health care and college is the norm, even if UBI is further off, there are many subsidies and benefits one can have.
It is the desire, hunger, and unmet needs that creates many startups.
I don't think so; there must be many other factors. You seem to be saying that people are more motivated by not being able to afford healthcare and college for themselves or their kids, and that seems bonkers to me. If that were the motivation, people would be getting jobs at universities rather than founding startups, as most universities have fantastic health insurance and reduced tuition for employees' children. On the other hand, if I have a chronic medical condition, I can't currently leave to found a startup without risking my health alongside all the money I'm risking by quitting my job.
No that’s the opposite of what I was saying. It is OP who suggested this. I agree of course free health etc. does not make me do a startup. Otherwise many more would exist in the Nordics.
What I don't understand is this dislike for investing ahead of growth or success. Why is the expectation that everything can be done bootstrapped or constantly profitable?
Companies take investment. If you're building a product that will be valuable for a long time, there will always be a period at the beginning where the entity requires somebody to put their investment into it. If the idea is small enough that one or two rich dudes with Google money can do forgo their salaries, that's great. But even a team of five for 18 months is a significant investment, and somebody needs to pony up. Should startups only consist of rich people who can afford to roll the dice?
Instead of fully rejecting the model, I believe that companies should take VC money with a finite plan towards profitability. If you take $2mil in seed money and hire a team of 8, get to $2m / year in revenue. If you want to take another bite at the apple, there will be VCs who fund you at that point. If not, you're not dead.
Real progress takes real investment. Ignoring that fact ignores a wild world of interesting, viable companies.