Skip to main content

You don`t have to be crazy to start a business

Are entrepreneurs crazy? The question has certainly been asked. The costs of the start-up life can seem insanely high. You give up your salary and benefits and find yourself eating delivery pizza and living with roommates into your 30s. You never have a day off. You will live with the constant risk that everything could come crashing down around you, leaving you with no job, no income and a black mark on your resume. Economists have long believed that these costs are too high for a person who is both normal and rational. Barton Hamilton of Washington University found in 2000 that the median earnings of an entrepreneur were 35 per cent less than the median salaried worker. A team of University of Chicago economists found in 2002 that the financial return to entrepreneurship is no better, on average, than the return from putting your money in the stock market. 

This makes the decision to start a business look a little irrational. Entrepreneurs seem to be getting lower average returns with much higher risk something that economics says that normal, rational people never do. There have been many attempted explanations for why people might launch themselves into a start-up career despite these dismal average results. They might be irrational, overestimating their own chances of success. They might be lured by the small chance of a huge payoff, like a lottery ticket. They might simply love the lifestyle of running a business. Or they might be driven to find out if their pet idea really has legs. 
These things might all be true, especially of the type of people who chose entrepreneurship. But a professor at University of California Berkeley`s Haas School of Business has found another factor that may have been largely overlooked until now. Gustavo Manso realised that the payoff of entrepreneurship goes beyond the chance that your business will succeed. Starting a business is a form of experimentation that can boost your prospects later in life,even if the business fails. In his paper, Manso considered not just the current situations of entrepreneurs versus salaried workers, but their lifetime earnings. This is an important distinction, because most of the entrepreneurs we see at any point in time are simply experimenting with their new ideas. If the idea fails, they go back to a regular job, having lost only a few years of higher salary. If the venture succeeds, they can make a lot. In terms of lifetime earnings, that might not be such a bad gamble. To test this idea, Manso needed data that tracked the same sample over different points in time. He got it from the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which followed young people for about three decades. 
Comparing the lifetime earnings of entrepreneurs and salaried workers, he found that entrepreneurs actually make more, on average. Sure enough, self employment tends to last only a short time, maybe two years on average people who fail get out quickly. What`s more, Manso finds that entrepreneurs experience only slightly higher lifetime earnings variance that is, risk than people who go the salaried route. In other words, the lifetime risk-return trade-off of starting a business looks pretty attractive after all. Of course, Manso`s data doesn`t distinguish between types of entrepreneurship someone who starts a corner store is treated the same as someone trying to launch the next Uber. So we still don`t know whether the high octane venture-capital-funded startup lifestyle that has become so celebrated in the media is a good economic bet or not. But Manso`s analysis has at least given us a better tool for making that calculation. So if entrepreneurship actually offers a better return than the salaried life, why don`t more people do it? The answer probably lies in human psychology. In most risky decisions stock investments, career choices you have at least some idea of the chances of success and failure. But when you try to create a new business, you don`t really know how likely you are to succeed. When Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to start a software company, he didn`t know whether his decision was a near-certain money-maker or a long shot. Psychologists and economists find that many people instinctively shy away from that sort of ambiguity. Only a few love it. These may be exactly the sort of people who become entrepreneurs people whose battle cry, in the immortal words of Han Solo, is `Never tell me the odds!
You don`t have to be crazy to start a business by Noah Smith, 
By arrangement with Washington PostBloomberg News Service

Brilliant, Crazy, Cocky: How the Top 1% of Entrepreneurs ...
Brilliant, Crazy, Cocky: How the Top 1% of Entrepreneurs Profit from Global Chaos. Sarah Lacy, TechCrunch ...

Linda Rottenberg: For Entrepreneurs, "Crazy" Is A ...
About this presentation As the CEO and Co-Founder of Endeavor, Linda Rottenberg works with entrepreneurs ...

Taran Noah Smith Evil Laugh For Two Minutes - YouTube
Oct 9, 2014 - Uploaded by tnsjtt
This is Home Improvement, season 7 episode 5, A Night To Dismember.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, ReligionCultureSciencePeace

Popular posts from this blog

A historic moment in the Arab world

لحظة تاريخية في العالم العربي
As a democratic revolution led by tech-empowered young people sweeps the Arab world, Wadah Khanfar, Al Jazeera's director-general, shares a profoundly optimistic view of what's happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and beyond. In the first talk posted online from the TED 2011 conference in California, Khanfar describes the powerful moment when people realised they could step out of their homes and ask for change. "كما ثورة ديمقراطية بقيادة الشباب التكنولوجيا ذات صلاحيات تجتاح العالم العربي ، وضاح خنفر ، الجزيرة المدير العام والأسهم وجهة نظر متفائلة بشكل كبير ما يحدث في مصر وتونس وليبيا وخارجها. وفي اول حديث له نشر على الانترنت من مؤتمر تيد 2011 في ولاية كاليفورنيا ، خنفر يصف لحظة قوية عند الناس أدركت أنها لا يمكن الخروج من منازلهم ونطلب من أجل التغيير." This talk was given on March 1, 2011 in Long Beach, California. TED 2011 is taking place between March 1 and Mar…

Our Captured, Wounded Hearts: Arundhati Roy On Balakot, Kashmir And India

With his reckless “pre-emptive” airstrike on Balakot in Pakistan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has inadvertently undone what previous Indian governments almost miraculously, succeeded in doing for decades. Since 1947 the Indian Government has bristled at any suggestion that the conflict in Kashmir could be resolved by international arbitration, insisting that it is an “internal matter.” By goading Pakistan into a counter-strike, and so making India and Pakistan the only two nuclear powers in history to have bombed each other, Modi has internationalised the Kashmir dispute. He has demonstrated to the world that Kashmir is potentially the most dangerous place on earth, the flash-point for nuclear war. Every person, country, and organisation that worries about the prospect of nuclear war has the right to intervene and do everything in its power to prevent it.  Keep reading  >>>>

India has built around itself an aura of a global power whose time has come. For at least the last t…

Kashmir Jihad - Analysis & Options


Kashmir is an incomplete agenda of partition of India. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars on this issue. According to UN resolutions, Kashmiris have to decide their accession to Pakistan or India through impartial plebiscite, which could not take place due to Indian reluctance. Recently, India revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special autonomous status to Kashmir, it was done to unilaterally integrate occupied Kashmir. This is a violation of the UN resolutions and the Simla bilateral agreement, which demands to maintain status quo until the final settlement. The US and world powers are emphasizing that Kashmir should be resolved bilaterally, though India has refused to hold talks with Pakistan. In the present scenario, while India has turned Kashmir into the largest prison of 9 million people, denying basic human rights and oppressing the Kashmiris' who want freedom from India, Pakistan cannot watch as a silent spec…