Why Startups Condense in America

bariswheel writes "The controversial genius developer/writer/entertainer Paul Graham writes an insightful piece on Why Startups Condense in America. Here's the skinny: "The US allows immigration, it is a rich country, it is not (yet) a police state, the universities are better, you can fire people, work is less identified with employment, it is not too fussy, it has a large domestic market, it has venture funding, and it has dynamic typing for careers. Inquire for details within."

Comments

Better Universities?

[eldavojohn]

Another good article by an intelligent man.

But I don't agree with all of it:

4. American Universities Are Better.

That's odd, all the studies and anecdotal evidence presented to me suggest otherwise. I don't think the universities themselves are better, you're just more likely to make better contacts here than abroad. And the only reason for that is because Americans have money and a lot of them use it to invest (as Paul pointed out).

I've been through undergrad and grad schools in the US and I have to say that there were more than a few courses where I didn't learn anything.

Why is he asking about Universities in Europe? What about Eastern Europe or the Ukraine or Russia? What about the results to the programming challenge that everyone made a big fuss about? What about China's Universities?!

I'm not as confident about the US as Mr. Graham is. In fact, I'm kind of afraid when someone like him writes an article like this because it feels like we're creating a false sense of security as an industry leader.

Re:Better Universities?

[gowen]

American Exceptionalism (or any other Exceptionalism through history, British Exceptionalism in particular) has never needed, or wanted, hard evidence. Like Manifest Destiny, it simply relies on an assertion of superiority, backed up by the evidence of being the most powerful country in the World, (like Britain was in the 19th Century, or France in the 18th).

The only trouble with this is, it blinds us to what makes those empires really succesful -- natural resources, opportunism and good old blind luck, in the form of historical happenstance.

startups

[56ker]

As a European I find the article rather America-centric. Here for example in the UK about 10% of people are self-employed. Yes, technically those are pretty much all "startups". Here however most people don't have the desire to chase VC funding, float on the stock market or found an international company (as a number of US startups have).

Of course part of the problem (both in the US and over here) is that a lot of businesses tend to have a blinkered restricted view of just selling/dealing with their domestic market (which of course in the US is larger) rather than doing business globally (which in a lot of businesses is the best way to grow).

Let me get this straight...

[damburger]

The guys evidence that there aren't any good Universities in Europe, is that American professors can't name any aside from Cambridge?

Does this say more about higher education in Europe or the US?

Innovation comes from freedom of expression

[bariswheel]

lots of bitter, negative opinions on this one. To add to the discussion instead of criticizing (which is fine - in small doses), I believe government (or lack thereof) is key for innovation. If you have an oppressive regime luring over you, there will be minimal startups; people will have little incentive to innovate, or fear to innovate. What he's trying to do in this article is to find commonalities within the 'American persona' to find out whether Silicon Valley is clonable. I believe That's the root of his thesis. He addresses personality traits such as Americans being free spirited risk takers, and it's a point well taken. "Startups are the kind of thing people don't plan, so you're more likely to get them in a society where it's ok to make career decisions on the fly." - P. Graham

Mr Graham needs to travel more...

[costas]

I think TFA has a very narrow view of the rest of the world. Yes, the US has succeeded brilliantly in creating and fostering a start-up culture (where everyone else has failed) but his reasons, are well, mis-informed and a bit narrow-minded. Let me put in my $.02 and €0,02 as well:

• Immigration: The US has a great immigration policy, but it's not really that much different from a lot of advanced Western countries, esp. when it comes to skilled workers (researchers, college graduates, etc). E.g., the UK has a much larger talent pool it can draw from for immigrants (esp. Commonwealth citizens) yet there have been very few successful UK startups. Same could be said for Germany, the Nordic countries, and most of Southern Europe.
• The US is a rich country: so is most of Western Europe, Australia, NZ, Southeast Asia, Japan, etc. Arguably the latter regions have even better infrastructure than the US.
• The US is not a police state: again, neither is any EU member or the rest of Western Europe. Still, the only big European startup as of late has been Skype, and even that was US-funded.
• American Universities are better: absolutely, but not for the reasons stated. American universities are just more free to make money from their R&D, unlike most say European ones. Since they can run research for profit they can also hire the best professors and researchers they can find and that creates a virtuous cycle. In Europe for example, most research schools are state institutions and thus professor salaries are set to a nationwide scale. Plus it's much harder to profit from R&D.
• You can fire people in America: labor mobility is not a US invention. If you are faced with stifling labor laws, you can work around them. You can use contractors, bankruptcy law, subsidies, the list goes on. Plus, Anglo-Saxon countries with liberal labor laws (UK, Australia), still haven't fostered startups that well.

The rest of the list is even more wooly than these bits. Here's my take as to why the US does startups better:

• Failure is an option: there is less if any stigma associated with failure, making the option of going to work for a startup a much less negative one.
• The market does not favor incumbents: unless you are trying to create a new market, it's much harder to compete with incumbent competitors outside the US, as they are usually politically protected (for fear of loss of jobs, political gains, what-have-you). If you think AT&T has a strong lobby in DC, consider what would happen if say the Ministry of Communications was the one running AT&T. That still is (directly or indirectly, through equity stakes) the case in most of Europe.
• There's no history of startups: nothing attracts people like success and when you don't have your local Netscape or Yahoo or Google to draw inspiration from and try to immitate their success, you are that much less likely to try to start up a company.

One important factor...

[Noryungi]

And one factor that should not be underestimated is that the U.S. Government has been willing -- and able -- to bankroll a lot of scientific projects for the past 50+ years. Think about it:

1. The Manhattan Project: start of nuclear energy. Immediate military applications, of course.
2. The ENIAC, first electronic computer: first model bought by the U.S. Census Bureau, second model bought by the N.S.A.
3. The Apollo program: biggest space-race project of all times, with benefits too numerous to list here, from electronics to materials to aerospace engineering (including military applications, of course).
4. The Internet: bankrolled by DARPA, then by the NSF, both US Governement agencies.
5. Nano-technology, the Genome Project, etc... etc...

Don't forget that, for many years, the USA have been at the forefront of technology and science because the US Governement -- meaning you, Happy American Tax-Payers! -- has been very happy to sign big, fat juicy checks to US corporations, US Universities, US Think Tanks, etc. Also, the US Governement was able to do this because, right after the end of WWII, the USA were one of the very rare country in the world with industries left intact and a lot of natural resources.

Now that the US Governement is pretty much anti-science, and that the US debt is soaring to ever more dangerous summits, I am not so sure the USA can maintain their advance on the rest of the world. But we'll see.

Re:Largely true but a flipside too

[LWATCDR]

"While the German car industry has come up with fuel injection, ABS braking and constant four wheel drive over the past 20 years the US industry has invented the cupholder and the SUV."
Not exactly... GM had fuel injection in the 1950s. All wheel drive was developed in Germany because Audi competed heavily in rally racing. A from of racing that isn't all that popular in the US. Not to mention that AWD isn't all the great of an addition to most cars. It eats more gas and is expensive to maintain. It is good for people that like to drive fast in really bad weather. As far as US contributions to the Automotive art? Pollution controls are a huge one. The US had pollution controls on auto decades before anyone else did. As such they paid for the majority of the development costs.
"Likewise, somehow the Japanese are great craftsmen. This skill is reflected in the quality of Toyota's manufacturing and the remarkable qualities in Japanese portable electronics. Apple may have invented the ipod, but the walkman and the transistor radio all came out Japan."
The transistor radio came out the US. The Transistor came out of the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor-Radio "The first commercial transistor radio, the Regency TR-1, was announced on October 18, 1954 by the Regency Division of Industrial Development Engineering Associates of Indianapolis, Indiana".
Followed by, "Transistor radios did not achieve mass popularity until the early 1960s when prices of some models fell below $20, then below $10 as markets became flooded with radios from Hong Kong."
One of the big jokes about "Transistor radios from Japan" was the Transistor wars. Japanese companies would advertise how many transistors they put in the radios, so they would put in extra transistors that really did nothing. I guess they thought more was better even if it really wasn't. Honda and Toyota both build cars in the US now. According to consumer reports many US cars are now more reliable than most cars from EU countries now. Toyota, Honda, BMW, and VW all build cars in the US now. You may say that Toyota and Honda have a culture of high quality in automotive production how ever to make the claim that it is cultural sort of ignores Suzuki which really doesn't have that high of a reliability rating or Nissan which while makes some very good cars also has some that have gotten poor reliability ratings. the US does seem to have a remarkable history of innovation. Some countries like the UK has a great history of destroying innovation. Read about Frank Whittle sometime. The real key to the the success the US has is that is seems to be willing to adapt to change and to take the best of other cultures and allow it to become part of the US culture.

You are just repeating tired stereotypes that mean nothing and are frankly just not true.