Comment by MarkusWandel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MarkusWandel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Go big or go home". This seems to be a uniquely north-American attitude. Germany, or maybe Europe, is full of so-called "Mittelstand" companies that are good in what they do, have 500-ish employees, have been in the same family ownership for generations and provide a good solid living for everyone involved. What is wrong with that? It goes without saying that staying mid-sized doesn't mean staying complacent, but you can innovate without growing huge.

Here in Ottawa, there was a debacle a few years ago. A typical such company, Swiss Pastries, changed ownership or at least management. The new attitude was "grow at all costs", they overextended themselves, went bankrupt, and Swiss Pastries is no more. Ottawa now has no local source of soft pretzels along with other delicacies that they made. It's almost a scorched earth approach. If you can't make the company huge, you might as well destroy it, because not being huge means you've failed.

The previous paragraph is based on reading a few news articles at the time. If I'm wrong, I'm guessing it still makes a textbook example of "go big or go home" going wrong and I'd love to see more details.

> What is wrong with that? It goes without saying that staying mid-sized doesn't mean staying complacent, but you can innovate without growing huge.

There is nothing morally wrong with this and I think most Americans are entirely in support of this ethos. In fact it is a truism that politicians are always talking about how important "small businesses" are.

But the emergent property of our corporate finance system is that those businesses get swallowed up or crushed by huge conglomerates over time. We have a pretty toothless anti-trust regulation system these days and big corporations have enough economies of scale, regulatory capture, and other practices to destroy any business below a certain size.

It's as if there is no protected shallow water in the business ecosystem. You're always in a place where a shark can get you, so if you aren't as big as a shark, you're bait.

Per my comment above - those industries tend to be government protected in a variety of different ways, and with all the fundamentals (sustainable company culture, most capital expenditures done, capital available as needed). It's essentially a sheltered niche.

Germany is also quite 'stodgy' and not adopting many of the changes (social, technical, etc.) until things have been worked out. Which just isn't the way the US works.

For better or worse, the US is the wild west in these issues. You end up with companies overextending themselves and blowing up (not just here of course), or companies not pushing hard enough and getting swallowed by or crushed by competitors - churn is harder, faster here, as is the adoption of new ideas.

There is a reason Germany has essentially zero interesting tech companies, and it isn't because engineers don't like beer.

I get the argument, but what’s the upside of the US approach? Germany is on par or better in society happiness (couldn’t find a metric to confirm that). Why do so many people feel the empty need for soulless growth of these monster companies?

Those companies provide the foundation of pensions (including German ones in many cases), give opportunity for people to move social ladders, provide jobs, etc.

Money also is the most universal proxy for value you're going to find anywhere, and for those seeking to maximize their chances to get the most of it - the US is the place to be right now.

Which is also why there is so much demand immigration wise (along with not terrible schools, reasonable social discourse, stable govern't comparatively, etc.) - if you're an up and coming, ambitious person looking to make it big, there is no better place in the world right now, with some notable edge cases. (China for instance, but only if you're Chinese).

Germans (and most Western Europeans, but definitely not Eastern Europeans from what I've seen!) currently prioritize social stability and a base level of comfort and care over over the possibility of getting (individually) filthy rich.

There are pros and cons to this, obviously, and different people will weight them differently based on their backgrounds.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - Steinbeck

Very true - but it isn't just Americans, or even mostly Americans (by birth) playing this game, at least in tech.

I've worked with plenty of Indians, Germans, Chinese (fewer hard chargers though - they tend to stay in China more recently), French, Czech, Russians, all here to, for lack of a better phrase - to get paid. More than 'native born' Americans, that's for sure.

Even for 'native born' Americans, they almost all moved to the bay area (or the office/city they are in) from another state, sometimes half way across the country, and almost none grew up in the area the business or office is in. People who are ambitious will move to the opportunity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com