stalcottsmith | 8 years ago | on: Private Property Is the Real Threat to Online Freedom of Speech (2015)
stalcottsmith's comments
stalcottsmith | 9 years ago | on: Does It Make Sense for Programmers to Move to the Bay Area?
stalcottsmith | 9 years ago | on: It’s Tough Being Over 40 in Silicon Valley
stalcottsmith | 9 years ago | on: Lessons from a 45-year Study of Super-Smart Children
I have no experience with them yet.
stalcottsmith | 9 years ago | on: Why the Great Divide Is Growing Between Affordable and Expensive U.S. Cities
stalcottsmith | 9 years ago | on: Tesla's 'Autopilot' Will Make Mistakes. Humans Will Overreact
stalcottsmith | 9 years ago | on: Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015)
stalcottsmith | 9 years ago | on: Buffer Layoffs
stalcottsmith | 9 years ago | on: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)
stalcottsmith | 10 years ago | on: How the decimation of the IPO market has hurt the economy and worse
I did this once prior to an acquisition of a company I worked for and lost the money. It's pretty much a stupid move unless you are already wealthy and a founder or controlling exec with better insight and control over the outcome.
Also, when an employee exercises options and then sells the resulting share in a public company, they receive a multiple of earnings. Earnings != dividends but suppose all the earnings in a period were paid out as a dividend (they wont be of course) -- the shareholder will get only that amount whereas if they sell the share, they will receive a multiple often 10-15x or more of earnings. Most people benefit more from an exciting lump sum payout than an unpredictable drip at a time.
stalcottsmith | 10 years ago | on: GitHub is apparently in crisis again
stalcottsmith | 10 years ago | on: The right way to start a company
One such way to build a company is to bootstrap a services business and productize. This is a well-worn path to at least modest size. Another way is to create a studio to fire off many ideas and see what sticks. There are more than a few of these right now.
Many companies and businesses are organically conceived and grown over decades. They are complicated. They start with one thing and move into another. They are not neat and pretty. They grow more based on the longevity, character and commitment of the founder than on the inherent brilliance of any one idea. You don't have to have a flash of inspiration which you test and walk away if it doesn't work. Once you employ people and cultivate their loyalty this type of approach is toxic anyway. It may only work in certain little islands like SV.
Many large businesses are built on successive episodes of inspiration, revelation or innovation that occur over decades, with much perspiration in between.
Business growth is like a multi-stage puzzle. Getting to $100k/yr is one stage. Getting to $1m/yr is another. Getting to $10m/yr is yet another. $100m/yr and so on... Business grows as you and your abilities grow.
A creative person figures out how to solve the puzzles, unlock growth and move in new directions.
Everything is possible if you are not beholden to one narrow model of how to start, finance and grow a business. The first key is to know yourself and what you want.
stalcottsmith | 10 years ago | on: The Law That Makes U.S. Expats Toxic
The real harm for business people overseas is that opportunities may be closed for you to invest in other businesses or to join a board or something because your status as a US Person causes a burden for others. At the 100 million dollar level I imagine this is not a big deal but at the startup and smaller growth company level it seems problematic. This reduces the opportunity for soft diplomacy and representing the brand of America to foreign people of means and substance.
I would be curious to know if you have experienced or anticipate experiencing this. Perhaps where you are is more closed to foreigners but there are countries where foreigners do lots of business. Have you been invited to invest or participate in boards?
stalcottsmith | 10 years ago | on: U.S. Paychecks Grow at Record-Slow Pace
The U.S. has many factors contributing to economic competitiveness but also some serious drags: difficulty accumulating capital savings among the middle and lower classes, inefficient cities and suburbs, housing that is too extravagant and expensive for people of modest means, mortgages still underwater, high cost education and a very expensive health care system riddled with fraud. Most of these are due to unwise policies anchored on the public and private accumulation of debt. All of them are solvable with a proper understanding of the issues.
The complaints about the 1% or 0.1 or 0.01% largely can be traced to the architecture of this system which is anything but a free market. It guarantees large cash flows for favored groups who naturally support it.
Refactoring all this will require a great deal of capital spending, internal migration and a shift in incomes away from sectors that have been supported by policy such as finance, gov, education, entitlements, war, retail and healthcare in favor of redesigning the American lifestyle along leaner, more competitive lines. Think smaller homes closer to work and more sharing. Yes it will look more like other more competitive parts of the world do today. It may be called a depression 20-30 years from now but it's better to think of it as cleanup and refactoring-- a clearing out and reckoning of all the bad decisions and policy driven malinvestments of decades.
The biggest thing many people really have control over is their own lifestyle expectations and location. Naturally young people sense this and are cutting back accordingly. Not sure how many are willing to relocate for opportunity.
For average joes in the U.S. the high water mark was probably the 70s and 80s. The stuff that led to America #1 occurred between 1870 and 1960. We've been coasting for a while pretending we still have a beast under the hood and gas in the tank. It's just now becoming ever more difficult to paper over the situation with more debt.
The U.S. still has amazing positive attributes and strengths. Labor force mobility, the most efficient system for consumer goods distribution in the world, generally high quality building and housing stock (albeit inefficiently spread out), generally high knowledge and expectations of service and quality, etc. The list is actually long and the cultures ability to adapt and reinvent itself is a strong reason not to bet against the U.S.
We could opt for a basic income but not at anywhere near the levels of currently expected individual prosperity. We'd have to redefine poverty to something more along the lines of what the rest of the world considers poverty and say, we can help you avoid that. America is not presently designed to support a "middle class" life at $10-20 a day. Some other counties are.
stalcottsmith | 11 years ago | on: Why we are leaving Dropbox
stalcottsmith | 11 years ago | on: “So, …” What?
stalcottsmith | 11 years ago | on: The Man Who Conquered, Then Warped Silicon Valley
stalcottsmith | 11 years ago | on: The Man Who Conquered, Then Warped Silicon Valley
stalcottsmith | 11 years ago | on: The Man Who Conquered, Then Warped Silicon Valley
stalcottsmith | 11 years ago | on: The Man Who Conquered, Then Warped Silicon Valley
It seems there is now a four-way breakdown among American techies:
* Mistrust BigGov but trust BigTech
* Trust BigGov, mistrust BigTech
* Trust both BigGov and BigTech
* Mistrust both BigGov and BigTech
And it all depends on your base political philosophy or leanings.This article is a pretty formulaic example of what happens when someone from the 2nd perspective discovers John Perry Barlow's writings.