> The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream.
We have a huge "social safety net" here in France and yet we are way less entrepreneurial than in the US. I moved to Peru for 4 years to save some money and then came back to start a business, the entrepreneurial spirit was way strong stronger there even though the social safety net is inexistent.
Fact is, having a social safety net makes people comfortable in their poor economic situation and does not require them to take risks. Even in the US, the number of new companies created each year has decreased as the welfare state has grown.
Peru might have a lot more entrepreneurially minded people, and more self-employed people but France certainly has more successful tech startups (even on a per capita basis).
Just as lack of a safety net biases towards action and self reliance, it also skews the risk/reward ratio of those actions firmly towards those most likely to keep the roof over ones head.
True, but then arguably education (and especially several years of heavily-subsidised tertiary education) is part of the safety net, and the safety net certainly contributes towards choice to pursue that education rather than accepting the first shitty informal sector opportunity that enables them to support themselves.
Obviously there are plenty of other social and economic differences between Peru and France, but the fact that even Peru's relatively small number of highly-educated people is still highly likely to be underemployed doesn't exactly speak wonders for the potential of all these entrepreneurially-minded Peruvians to actually create jobs.
Peru does have public education too so I don't think that's the issue. It's just that people are less educated in general so schools are not that good. South Korea has half of its schools private and they're doing great so I don't think you even need public schooling to be doing great as a country.
I moved to Peru for 4 years to save some money and then came back to start a business, the entrepreneurial spirit was way strong stronger there even though the social safety net is inexistent.
Indeed, the problem is more with the bureaucratic paperwork more than anything else, it takes 6 months to just have the legal paperwork to start a company there.
(To hopefully avoid some arguments I should probably preface this with saying that I am 100% in favor of something like basic income.)
> The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream.
I don't think that will make most people into successful businesspeople (let alone "entrepreneurs" in any non-facile sense of the word), and I don't think that was entirely the point the article was trying to make.
Even with basic needs supported, you still need capital to get a business off the ground "correctly". Unfortunately, in a basic income environment, I bet the people taking full advantage of it still wouldn't have access to that kind of capital.
I've had my own small business for several years now, but I'm looking for work again. The business has several promising irons in the fire, but I lack either the skill or resources to make any of them take off. Having access to basic income wouldn't substantially change my predicament; having access to good credit, capital, or talent would.
>> The solution is providing a social safety net that enables that bulk of the population to pursue their dream.
> I don't think that will make most people into successful businesspeople (let alone "entrepreneurs" in any non-facile sense of the word), and I don't think that was entirely the point the article was trying to make.
I fully agree! While financial safety is by no means sufficient as a base for successfully starting a business, I do think the article makes a good point of it being necessary, though.
(And I think its important to emphasize that most businesses are not of the venture-backed startup type mostly discussed on this site.)
1. Contrary to justice or a sense of fairness
2. Contrary to laws or conventions, especially in commerce; unethical: unfair dealing and
3. Not kind or considerate.
"Easier to be creative"? Of course. However it does not there is a correlation between having this social safety net vs creativity, or increased economic output, or willingness to take risks.
You've heard a Marxist slogan and thought it was timely huh?
Cause it's either evil monolithic collectivism or saintly and righteous fantasy individualistic libertarianism, those are the two options.
It's not like we can't recognize that most individual success is predicated on a healthy and functional society, one that is inclusive and takes care of its members, rather than one that caters solely to individuals fortunate enough to be born into families that have existing wealth.
No, the conclusion is, people should stop just saying that anybody can do it, that all it takes is willingness to take chances, to dare to fail etc. These are important things, as the article also takes care to clarify, but if you fail to mention the importance of a safety net, or you fail to mention the fact that most entrepreneurs come from well-off backgrounds, then you're implying (probably unwillingly) that people who don't go into startups are simply lazy or cowards. While in reality there exists a pretty good reason why many might not dare to take the leap just yet.
It's basically giving people complexes. And it might be further exacerbated by the need we all have to ascribe our success exclusively to our own work, never to any external factors (luck, rich parents).
Cool. Know your place, leave enterpreneurship to blue bloods - that's the conclusion?