This has been posted a bunch of times [1] and argues for lax worker protections as a reasonable trade off for "innovation", which is fine if you're comfortable making the trade off of continuing trend of rapidly declining global fertility rates [2] because of economic insecurity (which governance.fyi goes into detail on [3]). Those arguing for people to have more kids while also arguing innovation requires making it easy to fire citizen workers, leading them to not have economic security and therefore not have kids will need to pick a lane. I also admit that fertility rate decline causes are numerous and complex, with the caveat that economic insecurity does not help based on all available data.
"You should economically suffer so that we can have a small cohort's idea of innovation" ain't gonna sell well to the general public, unless you're offering robust non employer government provided and guaranteed social safety nets in lieu of jobs (healthcare, housing, basic income, etc). If those safety nets are on offer, certainly, this piece's argument might hold some water.
One relevant motivation for innovators is to escape poverty or the risk of poverty. When you have an adequate social safety net, there is little incentive to overwork oneself in order to build something new. It’s also natural not to keep thinking on what big idea you want to go after for fame and fortune when neither is that much attractive.
Also, it’s worth noting most startups fail, and when that happens, founders are often worse off than when they started. Well born founders can try until something sticks, but poor ones have, at best, one chance.
While they weren't a startup, they were a small pharmaceutical company (Novo Nordisk). Yet Ozempic in its various forms totally upended the diet and "comfort food" marketplace. They even distorted the economy of Denmark... They face competition, and need a follow-on, but that's the nature of the pharma biz. Huge, big-loss, big-win field, and if anybody has a drug in any form that addresses Alzheimer's (for example), the profit will be damn near infinite.
Europe has all sorts of biotech/pharma. Heard of mRNA drugs? Germany, amongst other sites.
Novo Nordisk is a century old behemoth of a pharma company. They were the first to commercialize Insulin, after promising the Canadian inventor they would use the profits "for the good if humanity".
Define "a Tesla". VW AG sold about a million BEVs globally last year, a 33% year on year increase. Tesla sold 1.6m globally, a 9% year on year decrease. If those trends continue, VW AG will overtake Tesla in BEV sales in a year or so.
toomuchtodo|11 days ago
"You should economically suffer so that we can have a small cohort's idea of innovation" ain't gonna sell well to the general public, unless you're offering robust non employer government provided and guaranteed social safety nets in lieu of jobs (healthcare, housing, basic income, etc). If those safety nets are on offer, certainly, this piece's argument might hold some water.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fworksinprogress.co%2...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=governance.fyi
rbanffy|11 days ago
Also, it’s worth noting most startups fail, and when that happens, founders are often worse off than when they started. Well born founders can try until something sticks, but poor ones have, at best, one chance.
jleyank|11 days ago
Europe has all sorts of biotech/pharma. Heard of mRNA drugs? Germany, amongst other sites.
enslavedrobot|11 days ago
rsynnott|10 days ago