Maybe it really is socialism kills entrepreneurial spirit. If you can be an artist or a 35hr/wk public servant and live well, why bother being an entrepreneur?
In Quebec, Canada you still see a lot of that mindset where a successful entrepreneur is more associated with a slimy businessman than a smart person. It's slowly changing however.
Historically, didn't the employees speak French and the bosses English?
From what I understood, there was very much a glass ceiling and discrimination, similar to what was going on here in the south. Capital wouldn't be loaned across ethnic lines for instance.
That might contribute to the perception of entrepreneurs being shady: they historically were there to fleece the locals, not build and prosper.
Maybe because I don't want to be a public servant? I mean, it's important work that needs to be done, but the impression I get from my wife is that it involves a lot of bureaucracy.
If we had a basic income or something like that, it would be much easier to take the risk to become an entrepreneur.
No saying that healthcare is not a factor, I just doubt that the parent's explanation that free healthcare is holding back would-be entrepreneurs is well-founded.
For example, I would expect more small local businesses in red states than blue states. The tech sector will favor large corporations because of the magnitude of investment involved, at least traditionally (if we are to believe the "economies of scale" explanation; some challenge it, but at the very least, it is causally relevant). So you might see more startup entrepreneurship in blue states because that's where the tech expertise is already concentrated. And because those in tech tend to have college degrees at higher rates, and colleges tend to encourage neoliberal and left-leaning views, you should expect to see more tech in blue states because of that, so you have a self-reinforcing process (there are of course other considerations).
But I wouldn't attribute entrepreneurship to the presence of social programs. On the one hand, those who need social programs are not going to be very educated and are most likely going to be much more interested in making basic ends meet over some business venture. On the other hand, once they receive social benefits, they are often not very motivated to try to start a small local business like a food cart either since they have food on the table. So you need to appeal to cultural factors to account for motivation as well.
I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion.
"Screw this I'm starting my own business" is far, far more common in the blue collar world than the white collar world and they tend to vote way redder.
There could be other correlations as well, including having the technical ability to create something of marketable value, management experience from a previous job, a certain level of financial / career security, family members willing to invest, etc.
Blue areas may also be slightly more prosperous, creating a local market of customers (people and businesses) with money.
Yes, if one uses self-employment as a proxy for entrepreneurship. The US trails Canada and Western European countries in self employment as a percentage of the labour force.
https://data.oecd.org/chart/6xG6
Edit: the US has the lowest rate in this OECD dataset.
I strongly disagree, it might be all relative of course, but dismal is not a word that would even come close.
If you need someone to come in on your greenfield project and hit the ground running, thats what contractors are usually used for; the beginning and the end of the lifecycle.
I'm self-employed and tend to work for a single client at a time, usually on projects of between half a year and two years. I work on a team with employees, doing similar work, except I'm more empowered, more in control of my own way of working (also because the tax service demands that, which is good in this case). I'm not being exploited the way employees or gig workers are. And if the government thinks this is some kind of tax loophole, I'd happily pay more tax, as long as I can continue working this way.
For engineers for example, you will earn higher income and pay less tax, different rates. And larger companies usually have a set asside budget for contractors.
Its easier as an engineer as its never hard to find another job. If this wasn't the case, you would see a higher percentage of employees who require job securoty.
Nothing to do with regulation from my experience, just better pay and more flexibility.
I distinctly remember being told by an Austrian I met once that they need a sizable amount of liquid assets up front before they can even qualify for operating a business.
To put it in a different context; the self-delusional con job that was the lie about how wonderful and amazing the Afghan national army was for the last about 10 years minimum, is a perfect example of just how broad, deep, and long a blatant fraud can be perpetuated in such an open and overt manner, all underpinned by all kinds of shiny presentations and back rubbing soliloquies.
It's all fake. I know that makes people's cognitive dissonance flare up, but that's the uncomfortable truth. The emperor in fact has no clothes on, nor do any of his courtiers. We will see how long the charade can last.
If your point is something more specific about OECD self-employment data, or the processes and practices for a specific or category of "OECD types of datasets" or general practices of society-level datasets...I encourage you to make that point, and give others something to work with.
Being self-employed in Europe is a product of the reality that companies are willing to pay contractors much more than the equivalent employees. If you are highly skilled, being self-employed is the only way to earn what you are worth.
Much of it depends on how they define self employed. "Contract Work" doesn't count as self employed for the government.
>Those figures appear to go against other surveys showing huge growth in contract work, which is transforming the U.S. labor market. A survey conducted in December by NPR/Marist found that contract work makes up 20 percent or more of the U.S. workforce.
>Why the seemingly large discrepancy?
>Many point to the government's methodology. The Labor Department, for example, did not include people who augment their income through contract work
The story is going to be more complicated. Ethos is an important factor. Some countries have cultures that are prohibitive or discouraging for entrepreneurs or encourage safety and comfort over risky pursuits, and working for a large corp is going to be more compatible with that than risking your neck to run your own business. I suspect countries that have national health care are going to correlate strongly with those which are risk averse and therefore less entrepreneurial.
Don't know about Canada, but in my neck of Europe (Slovenia) it seems everyone who is ambitious defaults to entrepreneurship. Because it's the only way to advance or get anywhere interesting at all. And almost everyone has a sidehustle or two.
To the point that a while back the government had to crack down on sidehustling and associated grey economy. Laws like not being allowed to "help your neighbors" build a house.
Now I live in San Francisco and the entrepreneurship spirit is much less. Tech just pays far too well for most people to faff around starting their own thing. To quote a friend of mine "Dude, I'd be stupid to start a company right now! Have you seen how much companies will pay for my skills? wow"
It would be interesting to see a comparison of entrepreneurship between US and Canada in the early 1900s before health care and especially job sponsored health care were so common.
No, the puritans (and Europeans in general) considered bankruptcy a moral failing and it was punished with societal banishment and prison.
The United States invented modern bankruptcy law. States have taken it a step further and protected most major assets from being seized in a bankruptcy (house, car, certain amounts of cash), so the absolute worst case from failing is that you dust yourself off, wait a few years and try again. It's just part of the culture now.
In Canada, you look at the country's history and even its current head of state and... it's a foreign non-elected monarch. The other head of state is non-elected as well and is supposed to be a representative of the crown. Same thing for their senate, all nominated. Even until recently, the highest court of the country was... in London! That would simply be unthinkable in America.
This kind of things permeate aspects of life; there is this notion that there is a natural order of things and that people are born into certain roles. And it also seems true in the business world; Banking and Telecom, for instance, are fiercely protected and have an almost impossible moat to surmount for a competitor to come and disrupt the market.
I can’t even get people up here to try new startups that Americans will download and try at the first suggestion.
Canadians have a pastime of whining about our Big 5 banks. Nobody ever switches to another bank.
Same with telecom. We complain about the prices. Nobody tries their competitors like Freedom.
I hear stories of students joining startups in the USA over FAANG. Here many people do startups to boost their resumes for big company jobs (I was part of a startup accelerator where a lot of people were resume building). I know people doing this now. Building startups to be more employable by Amazon.
Well, yes. Because Americans aren't very risk averse, and are pretty strongly novelty-seeking.
That also seems to be the case for investments.
Everything seems to be centered around "safe" businesses with proven track record or just real estate. There's no VC putting money on a crazy idea (and they getting a home run one time out of 10).
Different cultures. Different mindsets towards entrepreneurship and individuality.
It shouldn't pass the smell test as you're smelling three different things :)
Running a small business like a store, farm, etc without a spouse that carries the insurance is insane. Even businesses like bars and restaurants over time have tipped to larger or even public companies.
When I was a 1099 consultant, I had a heath issue that would have bankrupted us if my wife wasn’t working for a municipal government with good insurance.
You see more of these types of businesses in Europe.
Second, with a $10K deductible, it sounds like you have a HDHP (high deductible health plan), of which the main feature is lower premiums, and also the ability to fund an HSA (health savings account) for additional tax savings.
Even with your deductible, a wide variety of basic and preventive health services are available for free to you under ACA's minimum essential coverage provision. For example, see this list [0] for all adults, along with a similar ones specifically for women and children.
What's more striking is the 50% jump in business applications around the time of covid. Maybe that's in part due to stimulus?
Well yeah… if we’re going to repeat the same thing and expect to see a certain outcome, we had better see that outcome where this has already been implemented. It’s the closest thing to a crystal ball that we’re going to get.
"Freedom Care" sounds like an oxymoron. If you need "care" you are not "free".
It's not about "care", it's about risk mitigation. You are not sick now, but you have no idea when you or one of your dependents might become sick and need $$$.
Far and above is the lack of paycheck which encompasses healthcare.
"If money was no object, what would you be doing?" The question isn't, "if you had your healthcare covered, what would you doing?"
The answer to the first question effectively never, "working for my current employer". For the 2nd question, it's still plausible.
Nobody wants to "pay rent twice", and it can certainly be a lot harder to stop working when you have a big recurring expense like that, but it's possible to plan for it. Depending on the business you're getting into, it won't be your top expense.
The latest official data says "In 2017, the UK spent £2,989 per person on healthcare, which was around the median for members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development."
This is about US$330 per person per month.
(I don't have any point to make. Just thought I'd share the data I found.)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
Entrepreneurship and self-employment are scary.
It's a commonly held myth that bigger companies offer lower premiums to employees, that is most certainly not always the case.
Agreed. But this is exactly why it's been slow (read: impossible?) to happen. Big Inc has no interest in seeing the status quo change. High healthcare premiums keeps all but the bravest chained to the system.
Even the ACA never lived up to its own name. Never. We all know this, yet no effort to fix it, adjust it, etc. That says a lot. Actions speaker louder than words.
Let them eat ACA.
The problem with the plan came when the GOP and Trump went and gutted the penalties for non compliance of the individual mandate. At this point I doubt Biden re-instates it especially with all the hubbub over the vaccine mandate. The optics would be bad bad, especially with the vaccine mandate and the ACA individual mandate disproportionately hurting younger working families.
"Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a new report that shows 31 million Americans have health coverage through the Affordable Care Act – a record. The report also shows that there have been reductions in uninsurance rates in every state in the country since the law’s coverage expansions took effect. People served by the health Marketplaces and Medicaid expansion have reached record highs."
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/06/05/new-hhs-data-show-...
Note: I'm not against a national plan. But the current implementation is a mess.
Source: me working for myself and paying healthcare premiums for self and family 2003-2018
I and I'm sure many others are opposed to subsidizing people who decided to play video games and smoke weed all day with our tax dollars. If you're an entrepreneur, you're not harmed by this, you can afford to pay for it. If you're a small business owner, this should save you money. If you're disabled or old, you already get subsidized and would continue to get subsidized. Everyone else - pay for the services you receive.
The first 2 categories need better help than healthcare insurance. I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.
Who's saying that? The U.S. pays about twice as much per capita as most other developed countries for healthcare which implies that a 2x savings should be at least theoretically possible, but I don't think there are serious claims of 10x savings unless you're talking about premiums for low-income people that are heavily subsidized.
> I think it's plainly obvious after SF spending $50k/homeless person that more money isn't going to help them.
The only conclusion I draw from that is that the money San Francisco is spending isn't being used efficiently.
edit: s/medicare/medicaid/
IIUC, one of the best predictors of a person's earning potential (which we can of course use as a proxy metric for their worth to the economy) is the wealth of their parents. So, why not quit funding public schools? It's two birds with one stone: only those who choose to have children will be responsible for paying for the services they receive (viz. tuition for an education), and we eliminate a subsidy for undesirables who (statistically speaking) are much more likely to become welfare leeches.
That's what I call a win-win.
edit: rather horrifyingly, this sarcasm is going over people's heads (my fault, of course). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29388282
I almost added an /s, and perhaps I should have. haha