The European Union should devote some of the untold billions they rain on farming subsidies and bailouts, and provide a EU-wide venture fund. YC model, other alumni and successful tech leaders select the most promising startups in a competitive bid for a fixed share ratio. This would do more for EU tech innovation that any other bureaucratic and academically driven initiatives had thus far.
Or EU could stop ruining the market with all their current programs and deregulate. Most "startups" in the EU are nothing more than grant chasers. There's very little private VC money because of all the grants. Even legitimate projects that take these grants aren't necessarily any better for it because of all the overhead they introduce.
It's most pronounced in new EU countries that get flooded with these funds.
Lack of money is not the problem. The problem is that anything remotely successful gets acquired by a US entity or that people don't even bother to try to get off the ground in the EU but that they start in SV through YC or some other US based accelerator.
As another poster pointed out, there are plenty of billions being sloshed about. But in my experience all this does is subsidize private investment. If an investor knows that the money they are putting in will unlock 3:1 in public money, then there's a pretty good argument for the investor to only give you a quarter of what you actually need. What's less thought about is how much time is wasted chasing tiny check sizes from these government programs. And then the reporting requirements are insane, hour by hour break downs of work plus reports and presentations at the end. They also don't like to give out large amounts and would rather fund lots of small partial projects, wasting even more time.
As far as innovation in the EU goes, the governments (yes, plural, another problem) need to get out of the way. I'm usually positive when it comes to the functioning of European governments, but this is one of the major exceptions.
I argue for European federalism, but also realize that's unrealistic. One possible step in the right direction would be to have an EU wide company structure with a single set of rules that makes investment between different European countries less complicated for companies and investors. I've also thought that a high profile EU investor could force some change by making it a requrement for their portfolio companies to immediately invert ownership to a Delaware Corp. That would open them up to US capital while simultaneously pissing of a lot of the innovation people in the government.
Money will not solve the EU's pervasive problem with corruption and grift. I'm thinking of huge investments like the 1bn euro flagship fund for graphene that have done nothing except prop up existing institutions of well-connected academics
European tech ecosystem is a bit weird. I went through hundreds of job openings and pretty much all of them ask for experience with language X and framework Y for N years. I have yet to seen a description that doesn't care about what languages the candidate know. Its almost as if companies don't belive that engineers are capable of learning a new language or framework
Also I noticed there is too much focus on agile, scrum, DDD, etc.
And the pay is too low compared to living expenses. There are a lot of software engineering jobs that pay higher even in India.
Only good thing is you get to live in Europe and travel.
There is no such thing as a European tech ecosystem. It is very different depending on exactly which country you look at. Where did you focus your investigation?
It's interesting he's jumping straight to "moonshots". Not a lot of companies come out of Europe, and I don't get the impression that's due to a lack of ambitious ideas. Rather, it's really hard to start a company in Europe – the tolerance for risk just isn't there (legally or otherwise).
As someone who has worked in both US and German-based startup, I agree that risk tolerance is a huge factor. Everyone from VC's to employees here seem to be way more hesitant to invest in an idea which hasn't been proven elsewhere in some form. That's a pretty bad recipe for moonshots, which by nature need to break the mold a bit.
People are also much more risk averse in terms of business model. For instance, the idea of loss-leading to gain market-share will play much better in the US than Germany, where it seems people would rather settle for modest revenue but stay in the black the whole time.
Another factor is the concept of work and work-life balance. In Germany holidays are sacred, and you won't generally find people putting in tons of overtime to get a product off the ground. That's great when you're a worker, but it does mean a slower pace than I saw in the US.
I believe it‘s rather an issue with the size of the market. It‘s just so much easier to internationalize when you are already the dominant player in the world‘s largest market, the US. Scales matter, see China.
> Rather, it's really hard to start a company in Europe
As always, depends on where. Sweden has (or used to, at least before) basically a website where you can create a company, and it's mostly free to start the company as an individual (at least the basic form) so you can't really complain that it's hard.
In Spain, it's also relatively easy, just have to go sign some papers (and depending on company type, invest some money into it), but it's hardly "really hard".
Not sure about the rest of Europe, but can't imagine it's a lot harder than these two examples (counter examples incoming surely).
Although, if you with "it's really hard to start a company" mean "it's really hard as a unknown startup to raise funds from VCs", then yes, European investors do way more due diligence and are more risk averse, compared to US investors. But there are more things than startups :)
Creating companies is indeed a bureaucratic nightmare in Germany (where I currently live); but its doable if you need it done.
It's easier in e.g. Finland, Sweden, Estonia (which actually have produced some nice startups like Spotify, Skype, etc.). IMHO given the relatively small populations, places like that are actually remarkably successful when it comes to startups and technology companies. Finland has a mere 5 million people. I mean, Nokia for whom I used to work came from that tiny country and dominated the smart phone market for a while.
However, the real issues are more related to securing investments and funding and the inevitable process of having to shut down a company in case it fails. Which with a startup is more likely to happen than not. Failing fast is hard in a legal system that is purposely designed to make this hard.
It's also risky. You take a personal risk when you start a company and when a company can't pay its bills, it's the managing directors who are on the line with their personal capital. Limited liability is not so limited in Germany and it prevents companies from taking risks. There are all sorts of tricks to prevent that from escalating of course but they all involve the use of accountants, lawyers, and other middle men that are costly. And given that it is hard to raise seed capital in Germany, very little gets off the ground here.
Berlin where I live is a bit unusual in the sense that despite all this, there are loads of startups here and a density of capital and talent that is hard to find elsewhere in Europe. I always joke that this is despite the German government rather than because of their policies. It's basically a weird side-effect of the place being pretty much bankrupt. Local government here is basically just moving paper around and tends to be very hands-off because they have no budget for basically anything; including going after pesky startups taking liberties with the rules and regulations. Everything in this country is regulated to death but Berlin seems to be reasonably relaxed and informal.
For better or worse, people just showed up here from all over the world and started doing stuff after the wall came down. Lately, big German corporations that are trying to look hip are opening startup accelerators all over Berlin. Like all of them: Bosch, Siemens, VW/Porsche, etc. all are present here. Silicon Valley also moved in: MS, Apple, Tesla, Google, etc. all have offices here. And of course Tesla is building a Giga factory.
It's a complicated issue. Facebook pays well but their product is toxic to society. Google, Amazon, and Apple pay well but they can because of their moats and the lax US regulatory environment. Would FAANG be able to pay as well when anti competition regulations start to kick in and chip away at their revenue streams? Euro pay is definitely much lower (and needs to rise to meet the value technologists deliver), but perhaps its unrealistic to expect US tech comp (that's likely to compress anyway with remote work normalizing).
TLDR SV pay is likely too high and unsustainable in the long term. Equity moonshots are already lottery tickets, and you can't set public policy based on lottery tickets.
“We all know that one of the greatest challenges is access to capital. And that is why I’m sharing today that I will devote €1bn of my personal resources to enable the ecosystem of builders”
He's made his billions on the backs of builders, the musicians who can record music all day long but will be lucky to receive pennies for a million listens. The 98.6% of artists outside of Spotify's top tier are making an average of $12 per month (https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/spotify-million-ar...).
Why can't Ek share his largesse with the builders who make it possible for his service to exist?
Historically, artists never made much money selling music. Artists made most of their music going on tour, selling merch, or monetizing their likeness.
I see spotify more like as an audio-based customer acquisition channel, like the radio.
Maybe it could build in some kind of "donate" patreon-like feature into the app. I wish Soundcloud had this.
> Instead of finding a singular solution to a problem we need to think about a system-wide solution, healthcare is a great example of this. There are many structural problems in healthcare and just like we did with Spotify, you need to go, piece by piece and create something that actually is a win-win for all stakeholders.
Ah, Spotify, famously a win-win for all its stakeholders, including the musicians who can no longer make a living by recording music.
It seems so misguided to ask Ek to share; if he distributed his 3 billion it would not materially change the lives of the millions of artists on the platform.
The guys who always get paid are the majors, and the majors are the one who ensure the top artists (who are signed to thos labels) are always given the majority of the share.
Because in terms of potential benefit to society, this is orders of magnitude more efficient than giving artists a few more bucks.
I don't even agree that they deserve it. The aggregate musical output is valuable, sure, but individually it's commoditized and worthless for all but the top musicians.
> He's made his billions on the backs of builders, the musicians who can record music all day long but will be lucky to receive pennies for a million listens.
Ah, you surely mean recording companies and copyright holders that take up to 70% of Spotify's revenue and pay out pennies to artists. Why don't you ask those companies where all the money is going?
> Why can't he share his largesse with the builders who make it possible for his service to exist?
Well, he is sharing it. At IPO Spotify disclosed that had paid "$9.7 billion in royalties to artists, music labels and publishers since it launched in 2006." [1] The thing is, Spotify doesn't have direct contracts with artists (and can't afford to for fear that the Big Four[2] will pull their content). So the question is: where did those billions go?
Let's read the article you're commenting on (emphasis mine):
--- start quote ---
Spotify pays the major record companies a 52% share of all net receipts attributable to streams of their artists. This was a figure the parties agreed to during negotiations in 2017, and it’s believed to have remained unchanged since.
According to Spotify’s Q2 results, the firm generated €1.89 billion ($2.05 billion) in the three months to end of June. We can therefore broadly assume that 52% of this money, or $1.07 billion, is being paid in recorded music royalties to labels and distributors, who will carry a portion of that over to their artists.
--- end quote ---
The article then continues being disingenuous pretending that 100% of the money that Spotify pays out goes to artists and that Spotify is solely responsible for that money.
So what is that "portion that labels and distributors carry over to their artists"?
Oh, look, only 12% of music revenue goes to artists [3] But obviously, it's the sole responsibility of Spotify (and Amazon, and Apple), and not of the Big Four that hold the music world hostage.
"Ek mentioned machine learning, biotechnology, materials sciences and energy as some of these areas."
Material science in particular has endless promise. With the new XFEL infrastructure there is lots of potential too. Some examples of what we could do is replace plastics with bulk metallic glass, save energy in transport with low density steel, and more broadly with eutectic systems.
I'm a little amazed at how little the Y Combinator model has been copied in Europe.
Now, obviously any new incubator wouldn't come even close to being able to offer what YC does right now with the extensive network etc. But hell, just offering 10-15 startups €120k every six months for ten years would be worth a shot. Maybe fly those companies to Berlin or London or Stockholm. Help them out with whatever you can, but mostly let them figure it out themselves. Maybe focus on startups from the EMEA region.
The costs would consist of the fund (€36M) plus the cost of operating the program (perhaps a €1M/year). That would still amount to below €50M.
Idk. There are probably plenty of reasons why this would be a bad idea, but if I'd ever have 50 million to spend, this is what I'd try.
The YC model has not been copied anywhere, and FYI there have been a zillion attempts at incubators in Europe. The problem is generally not money, it's a wide array of other things.
Even in other US cities with local incubators and seed funding, startups all face the prospect of needing to visit SF for serious VC rounds later. If these companies are going to need investment from SF, why not just incorporate in Delaware and walk the well-worn path from startup to the NYSE?
The problem in Europe is definitely not money, there is plenty of that. Also - 'moonshots'? They are big, failed R&D projects that may or may not pan out. Europe needs their own 'Salesforce' (i.e. 100 000 high paying jobs, massive revenues and value creation) not 'Drone Balloons'.
The issues are many and they are often at odds with other things, like 'quality of life'. From lack of large centres of innovation, not quite the right immigration system and attitudes towards migrants, a lack of hyper competitive attitude towards business (easy to see how this could be corrosive from another perspective), taxation and payroll taxes / inability to let people go (i.e. France), really closed business systems all over Europe, smaller markets, lack of risk taking everywhere from buyers, to investors, lack of big, cash-flush acquirers like Oracle, MS, etc. that eat up a lot of startups, a lack of 'flexible 1->n workforce' - ie the kinds of staffers that know how to go with a growing company and help it get established (this is a big ingredient of 'secondary domain knowledge' missing everywhere outside the Valley), to more sophisticated kinds of financing, and finally even just the right cooperative kind of attitude. Despite the competitiveness, there is definitely a 'goodwill' in the Valley that doesn't exist in most parts of the world.
Elk would be much better in trying to help Europe understand and overcome structural limitations because they already have the money.
"We all know that one of the greatest challenges is access to capital". I don't recognize this. If I look around, there's enough money looking for an investment. Being risk-averse, lots of regulations and fragmented market are way bigger issues.
As a software developer in a southern European country, the current scenario is just appalling. Salaries have receeded to the levels of the worst years of the previous decade, and we are now forced to make less money with worse conditions than at our previous jobs, because there is nothing better available.
This is good news, but we need investment two orders of magnitude higher before we think about fixing this situation.
If you are an American or Australian thinking of moving to southern Europe, consider moving to a developing country somewhere else instead. The job market will be similar and life will be much cheaper.
Positive article. Ek is correct when he states the entrepreneurial spirit in the United States is quite absent in Europe. In fact, investing in "deeptech" startups is a preferable action in relation to this net worth. On the topic of net worth, why did he remark "We all know that one of the greatest challenges is access to capital." His net worth is $ 4.5 billion. Still, it is a noble venture of his to promote entrepreneurship in Europe(quality it substantially lacks).
IMO the whole VC model is totally ass backwards. Spend money on infra (direct thing we want) or UBI, and let actual demand drive the investment.
Whether it's innovation grants or QE-driven VC, this is just supply-side bullshit making Frankenstein unprofitable hypeups.
If materially content Europeans don't wanna buy more money, that's great! Just keep on reducing working ours until it's clear what needed to be automated, and send the engineers to work on that.
Too bad there is no website yet for his European moonshots investment venture. A couple of months ago, Sam, Max, and Jack Altman built something similar, "Apollo - Funding for moonshots" (https://apolloprojects.com/).
[+] [-] yholio|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pilsetnieks|5 years ago|reply
https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-funding/gettin...
https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-funding/gettin...
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/cohesion-fun...
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/social-fund/
[+] [-] speedgoose|5 years ago|reply
You have the horizon 2020 and horizon Europe programs for example. It's not perfect of course but it works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Res...
[+] [-] auganov|5 years ago|reply
It's most pronounced in new EU countries that get flooded with these funds.
[+] [-] odiroot|5 years ago|reply
It's really a common thing.
[+] [-] jacquesm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xfaded|5 years ago|reply
As far as innovation in the EU goes, the governments (yes, plural, another problem) need to get out of the way. I'm usually positive when it comes to the functioning of European governments, but this is one of the major exceptions.
I argue for European federalism, but also realize that's unrealistic. One possible step in the right direction would be to have an EU wide company structure with a single set of rules that makes investment between different European countries less complicated for companies and investors. I've also thought that a high profile EU investor could force some change by making it a requrement for their portfolio companies to immediately invert ownership to a Delaware Corp. That would open them up to US capital while simultaneously pissing of a lot of the innovation people in the government.
[+] [-] CerealFounder|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgeburdell|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blocked_again|5 years ago|reply
Also I noticed there is too much focus on agile, scrum, DDD, etc.
And the pay is too low compared to living expenses. There are a lot of software engineering jobs that pay higher even in India.
Only good thing is you get to live in Europe and travel.
[+] [-] yxhuvud|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ma2rten|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gkoberger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skohan|5 years ago|reply
People are also much more risk averse in terms of business model. For instance, the idea of loss-leading to gain market-share will play much better in the US than Germany, where it seems people would rather settle for modest revenue but stay in the black the whole time.
Another factor is the concept of work and work-life balance. In Germany holidays are sacred, and you won't generally find people putting in tons of overtime to get a product off the ground. That's great when you're a worker, but it does mean a slower pace than I saw in the US.
[+] [-] sveme|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diggan|5 years ago|reply
As always, depends on where. Sweden has (or used to, at least before) basically a website where you can create a company, and it's mostly free to start the company as an individual (at least the basic form) so you can't really complain that it's hard.
In Spain, it's also relatively easy, just have to go sign some papers (and depending on company type, invest some money into it), but it's hardly "really hard".
Not sure about the rest of Europe, but can't imagine it's a lot harder than these two examples (counter examples incoming surely).
Although, if you with "it's really hard to start a company" mean "it's really hard as a unknown startup to raise funds from VCs", then yes, European investors do way more due diligence and are more risk averse, compared to US investors. But there are more things than startups :)
[+] [-] raverbashing|5 years ago|reply
It isn't too hard (thankfully) to get finance for a moderately viable idea.
[+] [-] stkdump|5 years ago|reply
Thats not true. Many companies are in Europe, much more than in the US: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr...
In Europe we have more companies of all sizes instead of accumulating into few mega-companies. But that has nothing to do with risk tolerance.
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|5 years ago|reply
It's easier in e.g. Finland, Sweden, Estonia (which actually have produced some nice startups like Spotify, Skype, etc.). IMHO given the relatively small populations, places like that are actually remarkably successful when it comes to startups and technology companies. Finland has a mere 5 million people. I mean, Nokia for whom I used to work came from that tiny country and dominated the smart phone market for a while.
However, the real issues are more related to securing investments and funding and the inevitable process of having to shut down a company in case it fails. Which with a startup is more likely to happen than not. Failing fast is hard in a legal system that is purposely designed to make this hard.
It's also risky. You take a personal risk when you start a company and when a company can't pay its bills, it's the managing directors who are on the line with their personal capital. Limited liability is not so limited in Germany and it prevents companies from taking risks. There are all sorts of tricks to prevent that from escalating of course but they all involve the use of accountants, lawyers, and other middle men that are costly. And given that it is hard to raise seed capital in Germany, very little gets off the ground here.
Berlin where I live is a bit unusual in the sense that despite all this, there are loads of startups here and a density of capital and talent that is hard to find elsewhere in Europe. I always joke that this is despite the German government rather than because of their policies. It's basically a weird side-effect of the place being pretty much bankrupt. Local government here is basically just moving paper around and tends to be very hands-off because they have no budget for basically anything; including going after pesky startups taking liberties with the rules and regulations. Everything in this country is regulated to death but Berlin seems to be reasonably relaxed and informal.
For better or worse, people just showed up here from all over the world and started doing stuff after the wall came down. Lately, big German corporations that are trying to look hip are opening startup accelerators all over Berlin. Like all of them: Bosch, Siemens, VW/Porsche, etc. all are present here. Silicon Valley also moved in: MS, Apple, Tesla, Google, etc. all have offices here. And of course Tesla is building a Giga factory.
[+] [-] ResearchCode|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|5 years ago|reply
TLDR SV pay is likely too high and unsustainable in the long term. Equity moonshots are already lottery tickets, and you can't set public policy based on lottery tickets.
[+] [-] ma2rten|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knuthsat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|5 years ago|reply
He's made his billions on the backs of builders, the musicians who can record music all day long but will be lucky to receive pennies for a million listens. The 98.6% of artists outside of Spotify's top tier are making an average of $12 per month (https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/spotify-million-ar...).
Why can't Ek share his largesse with the builders who make it possible for his service to exist?
[+] [-] devmunchies|5 years ago|reply
I see spotify more like as an audio-based customer acquisition channel, like the radio.
Maybe it could build in some kind of "donate" patreon-like feature into the app. I wish Soundcloud had this.
[+] [-] overton|5 years ago|reply
Ah, Spotify, famously a win-win for all its stakeholders, including the musicians who can no longer make a living by recording music.
[+] [-] nemothekid|5 years ago|reply
The guys who always get paid are the majors, and the majors are the one who ensure the top artists (who are signed to thos labels) are always given the majority of the share.
[+] [-] bllguo|5 years ago|reply
I don't even agree that they deserve it. The aggregate musical output is valuable, sure, but individually it's commoditized and worthless for all but the top musicians.
[+] [-] mxschumacher|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmitriid|5 years ago|reply
Ah, you surely mean recording companies and copyright holders that take up to 70% of Spotify's revenue and pay out pennies to artists. Why don't you ask those companies where all the money is going?
> Why can't he share his largesse with the builders who make it possible for his service to exist?
Well, he is sharing it. At IPO Spotify disclosed that had paid "$9.7 billion in royalties to artists, music labels and publishers since it launched in 2006." [1] The thing is, Spotify doesn't have direct contracts with artists (and can't afford to for fear that the Big Four[2] will pull their content). So the question is: where did those billions go?
Let's read the article you're commenting on (emphasis mine):
--- start quote ---
Spotify pays the major record companies a 52% share of all net receipts attributable to streams of their artists. This was a figure the parties agreed to during negotiations in 2017, and it’s believed to have remained unchanged since.
According to Spotify’s Q2 results, the firm generated €1.89 billion ($2.05 billion) in the three months to end of June. We can therefore broadly assume that 52% of this money, or $1.07 billion, is being paid in recorded music royalties to labels and distributors, who will carry a portion of that over to their artists.
--- end quote ---
The article then continues being disingenuous pretending that 100% of the money that Spotify pays out goes to artists and that Spotify is solely responsible for that money.
So what is that "portion that labels and distributors carry over to their artists"?
Oh, look, only 12% of music revenue goes to artists [3] But obviously, it's the sole responsibility of Spotify (and Amazon, and Apple), and not of the Big Four that hold the music world hostage.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/how-spotify-licenses-and-pay...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#Consolidation
[3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180819/00051140461/only-...
[+] [-] pb7|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ganzuul|5 years ago|reply
"Ek mentioned machine learning, biotechnology, materials sciences and energy as some of these areas."
Material science in particular has endless promise. With the new XFEL infrastructure there is lots of potential too. Some examples of what we could do is replace plastics with bulk metallic glass, save energy in transport with low density steel, and more broadly with eutectic systems.
[+] [-] Pandabob|5 years ago|reply
I'm a little amazed at how little the Y Combinator model has been copied in Europe.
Now, obviously any new incubator wouldn't come even close to being able to offer what YC does right now with the extensive network etc. But hell, just offering 10-15 startups €120k every six months for ten years would be worth a shot. Maybe fly those companies to Berlin or London or Stockholm. Help them out with whatever you can, but mostly let them figure it out themselves. Maybe focus on startups from the EMEA region.
The costs would consist of the fund (€36M) plus the cost of operating the program (perhaps a €1M/year). That would still amount to below €50M.
Idk. There are probably plenty of reasons why this would be a bad idea, but if I'd ever have 50 million to spend, this is what I'd try.
[+] [-] jariel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chillacy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrale|5 years ago|reply
I seriously suggest those people to look at the society they have created, and do some soul searching.
[+] [-] thom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jariel|5 years ago|reply
The issues are many and they are often at odds with other things, like 'quality of life'. From lack of large centres of innovation, not quite the right immigration system and attitudes towards migrants, a lack of hyper competitive attitude towards business (easy to see how this could be corrosive from another perspective), taxation and payroll taxes / inability to let people go (i.e. France), really closed business systems all over Europe, smaller markets, lack of risk taking everywhere from buyers, to investors, lack of big, cash-flush acquirers like Oracle, MS, etc. that eat up a lot of startups, a lack of 'flexible 1->n workforce' - ie the kinds of staffers that know how to go with a growing company and help it get established (this is a big ingredient of 'secondary domain knowledge' missing everywhere outside the Valley), to more sophisticated kinds of financing, and finally even just the right cooperative kind of attitude. Despite the competitiveness, there is definitely a 'goodwill' in the Valley that doesn't exist in most parts of the world.
Elk would be much better in trying to help Europe understand and overcome structural limitations because they already have the money.
[+] [-] lawrenceyan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notadog|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kabes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] remir|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkl95|5 years ago|reply
This is good news, but we need investment two orders of magnitude higher before we think about fixing this situation.
If you are an American or Australian thinking of moving to southern Europe, consider moving to a developing country somewhere else instead. The job market will be similar and life will be much cheaper.
[+] [-] somerandomboi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ericson2314|5 years ago|reply
Whether it's innovation grants or QE-driven VC, this is just supply-side bullshit making Frankenstein unprofitable hypeups.
If materially content Europeans don't wanna buy more money, that's great! Just keep on reducing working ours until it's clear what needed to be automated, and send the engineers to work on that.
FAANG envy is depressing and pathetic.
[+] [-] langitbiru|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jonplackett|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aty268|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply