@carlwimm, normally I agree with your analysis but you are taking an enormous leap here. The article in question is 144 words long, not near enough analysis to bring the battle cry of "socialism" into it. I read it as starting up a company is hard. Any neophyte looking at today’s environment would conclude that it’s harder now. The founders institute is a private resource, kudos to them; they are doing the right thing, a win for everyone. Since you have brought government in to the equation, I'll bite.

Countries success depends upon innovation and growth. It is in a government’s interest to provide a fertile ground for this innovation and provide resources to those with the ideas. Teach them, foster them, and nurture them. If left to the devices of investor and corporate elites there will be a skewed result in the favor to where the dollars reside. That said, in itself is bordering on extremist because we all know that it’s not that cut and dried. We could expand the debate over “trickle down” vs. “empower up” but I choose not to go there.

There must be a partnership between the ones with ideas and drive (startups), the ones with the money (investors), and the ones with a social interest (government). Too rosy a picture you (may) say? The system is broken in a number of places: the greed of VC and ineptitude of government are the culprits of my choice to blame. Let’s continue to spend our resources to fight a war and see how that effects the economy.

To wade into the realm of socialism on thefunded is a fool’s argument. I don’t mean to cut you down but the argument needs to go in another direction. I just think you are on the wrong path. Thanks for getting me riled up on a Monday Morning.

Yes. Luck is a big part of it, and unfortunately I haven't felt too lucky recently.

Desire leads to an idea or vice versa. this is a long way from start up. Most people espousing 'start ups' are clueless as to what they take. Some just barrel along and make money and suddenly that are a bona fide start up. Others get trapped in elaborate strategies. ADVICE IS # 1. Capital is # 2.

Where in the world do you find footing to make the leap from the idea that young people have innovative ideas but don't act on them, to causality in 'socialist ideas to overtax the productive'? Having hired dozens of interns over the last decade+, consider the trends spawn from the capitalist free market that I see fueling this current generation of under performing workers.

The cost of higher education has skyrocked, with universities and the financial institutions with which they collude chasing deeper pockets (parents). The last two decades have seen an onslaught of marketing and lobbying focused on creating a culture that believes that parents must save and pay for higher education. Financial instruments have been pushed on consumers encouraging parents to save money for their children's education with some slight tax advantage, legislation put in place by financial institution and educational institutions lobbyists. Colleges now compete to put the nicest climbing walls in their rec centers, the biggest flat screens up in their student centers, confident that parents will pay the bills as students relax between classes.

The last five interns I hired from the local top 3 engineering school had no idea how to work, having sought a job for a resume builder, I must presume. One called me from a beach in Germany telling me he would not be to work that week. The intern I hired from a local community college this year is putting himself through school, needs the internship for tuition, and is brilliantly productive. With that work ethic, he has a good chance at future success, under 'socialist taxation' or not.

@carlwimm, I suggest you look elsewhere to target your anti tax politics.

Blame it on Obama and his lack of interest in entrepreneurs...

Yes, all Obama's and Socialism's fault. The previous 8 years had nothing to do with the current climate. The recession is his fault. The lack of entrepreneurialism is his fault. I think Global Warming might be his fault too.

Increased vocational training, inexpensive technology, and low-cost freelance labor make it easier for people to start businesses. However, complex regulations, poor entrepreneurial training, and a challenging operating climate make building world-class technology companies difficult.

TheFunded Founder Institute set out to (1) identify strong entrepreneurs through a quantitative testing model, (2) provide these entrepreneurs with the best training available to build a technology company, and (3) ensure that the graduating entrepreneurs have the proper incentives and support to succeed.

Hopefully, this will lead to increased number of high quality technology businesses formed over the next five years.

I agree that @carlwimm makes a huge leap from the article to the "socialist idea to overtax". But there is a correlation here that I believe rings true.

@chas123 touches on it directly: this new generation of workers have an "entitlement" mentality the precludes them from doing what is necessary to get the job done. In some cases (like the kid calling from a beach in Germany to say they weren't going to be into work), there seems to be an outright disdain for responsibility, accountability, and ... err ... work.

And why shouldn't there be? The last four administrations have done as much as they can to assure the upcoming generations that it's "not their fault." Whether that be in the form of guaranteed student loans (it's not your fault education is expensive), the minimum wage (it's not your fault you have fewer skills than the average broom stick), or countless social "benefit" programs (it's not your fault you're a woman, a minority, transgendered, incarcerated, poor, an orphan, an indian, etc.) And if that weren't enough, the endless battles against those who have succeeded (against all odds, in some cases) should drive the point home clearly: "If you succeed, it's entirely your fault, and we're going to make you pay for taking advantage of the rest of us."

No - I think @carlwimm's leap may have been great, but the chasm he crossed rings true nonetheless.

Really? we have to listen to tea-bagging dumbassery here as well. Using socialism as a straw man is starting to get pretty old.

Uhhh... what's hard about this: increasing taxes on the fruits of people's labor leads to... less labor.

Re: comment #6: I really wish I had this web site, opportunities like the Founder's Institute, blogs like Paul Graham's and the training his team does, etc. It's just incredibly valuable in and ultimately worth millions in terms of better deals, higher chances of success, etc. So Thank You Founding Member and all the smart, experienced people who post to this web site!

It might be more relevant to talk to people who *actually* have been working with young entrepreneurs to understand the problems they're facing.

20 years ago, a startup meant 3-5 years of effort to get to profitability. This meant you could refine, rework, and refocus your business - you would become a better entrepreneur through the experience, and that was *valued*. If the startup did not succeed, it wasn't held against you - on the contrary, you might end up doing due diligence for your investors or starting another business or teaching.

This is no longer true. Startups are not focused on profitability, but instead of flip-ability - offloading a spin job for mucho bucks to some cash-heavy company for the eyeballs or some such (and this is true even for software / hardware businesses, crazy as that sounds). Since you've got a short timeframe to dumping the biz, the experience earned, the "business character" you acquire - wisdom, patience, fortitude, guile - is discounted since it's all due to "luck or lies".

So what's this mean for the unsuccessful entrepreneur? No second chances for one. Either you're lucky and get another gig, or you're not and you're all the way out.

Is it any wonder young people don't want to commit themselves? Since most startups don't work out as home runs, entrepreneurs who earn their first command and show resilience and initiative aren't promoted to the ranks of funded veterans - they're just losers without a future. And since one funded company looks very much like another nowadays (innovators are not welcome), is it any surprise that even young people are thought of as commodities?

So go ahead, train these guys (most of them are guys BTW). But when you're only looking at one-shots and luck instead of building businesses (hey, read the NYTimes for what equity firms do to "real businesses" - they mine them out, destroy their value and wreck their market, but it's OK because the pirates did OK), loyalty and determination and character get in the way of a quick buck.

Doesn't sound "socialist" to me - just sounds like the short-term greed of a smash-and-grab anarchist using capitalism to destroy our nation instead of build it. Think about it.

tp # 7, richardluck

you nailed part of the the issue that I refer to as 'socialism" .... the entitlement mentality is part of it.

But there is something worse. When you learn that your whole life will be played out with your lips glued to the teat of mother government, you develop a passivity that is really the crux of the issue.

Passivity is a state of mind that is encouraged naturally by a system that turns over the individual to a collective.

The description of socialism as just a system of income redistribution, is a weak, limp definition.

As start up CEOs, we have to face the fact that we are not, by nature or nurture, passive.

Every start up tries to make a difference. Every start up tries to stand out. Every start up is individual.

And every one that we start up, starts out in salute to Woody Allen's famous statement....

80% of life is just showing up.

This is not a tax issue. I made the point that in a collectivized society, people turn out as "non starters", because the hurdle to become a self starter is too high for a drone to leap.

To # 5, hexellent

Pointing at G Bush (the last 8 years) and letting the current "White House Wonder" off the hook as being not so bad by comparison, misses the issues as well.

The USA started to lose its status as a Republic in the early 1900's, when it , among other things, started to become an imperial power, brought in the "great leveler" of income tax , destroyed solid money with a central bank, etc.

Now all the USA has is a democracy.

Every president since the early 1900's has contributed to the problem,... some more and some less.

The rugged individualist of the early 1900 has given way to the sinecure supper club.

What I wrote in the post is true. Society produces drones, in super abundance.

I am glad I was never one of them.

best wishes

Just my opinion, but I think there are more appropriate forums for this type of discussion, these off topic conversations dilute the premise of thefunded.com

to # 12, Livu

respectfully and forcefully disagree ... that there are other forums

What other resource do we have if not the "start up mentality" in great quantity?

Whatever damages that supply, whatever constrains that supply, hits at the heart of what we do.

If we can't discuss it as entrepreneurs, on an entrepreneur forum, then where ...

economicsophistry.com
meaninglessblog.com

or perhaps we should confine our discussion to the "free speech" zone, always located 6 miles from where the President and the others who do affect our lives, happen to be.

best wishes.

@matthewokeefe -- lame, lame, lame -- so if you are taxed you rather be homeless and sleeping on the streets.

@carlwimm -- and what is wrong with socialism? sure beats Bush's fascism.

To # 14, liberal

Actually fascism and socialism have the same basic objective in mind ... subjugation of the individual to the collective.

Don't believe me ... look up how and from what the term fascism derives.

And in my opinion, it doesn't much matter what material your chains are made of.

best wishes

@carlwimm: just to clarify my first post: my recent experience with the fund leads me to conclude that it's a wonderful resource for identifying well defined and discrete ways for us, the entrepreneurs, to move our businesses forward.....particularly in the area of finance. It's not that I want to pretend that macro economic pressures and issues fail to exist, but rather that if the user base of thefunded sinks into the deep underlying factors that led to the present situation, we'll lose our grip on the direct and concise 'toolbox' of info that we have now.
Best wishes to you too, we all need it. (not responsible for spelling and grammatical errors, posting from an iPhone while consuming my share of Corona)

to # 16, Livu (and the Corona)

:)

You make a very good point.

Forward, always forward.

Recessions, though, also have the opposite effect: The force people with good ideas who had been sitting too comfortably in corporate jobs and lost them to act, and they significantly cheapen the cost of labor, they increase the supply of talent, and they test all the companies for real strength, whittling down the playing field in favor of the fittest, a form of entrepreneurial natural selection.

We as Entrepreneurs and CEO's are just more thoughtful now. I have at least 3 or 4 ideas in my head and I am running my company now for the past 5 years. I just need to think things through and am not interested in just putting up a web site and say advertising will generate revenue. I have seen so many companies that are nothing more than web site and no idea of their business model. I am interested in a real business model that will enable launching a company that can start generating cash right away. It has more to do with how to build it in phases and not do it the old fashioned way where you just build it and hopefully money will come. I want a very agile development where each increment generates cash. It takes time to think it through but execution, once started, will be rapid.