It's possible that democrats are voted into office more often after periods of low growth, because of their promises to provide relief. Then, once they take office the economy recovers due to its natural cycle.
As for the 8 years and no exits, it should be noted that the average time to a successful acquisition is 7 years, 8.25 for IPO. Reference: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/14/crunchbase-reveals-the-aver.... There are a few TechStars companies that are doing really well and should exit for >100M. SendGrid comes to mind.
Also, I think the section regarding TechStars success makes an assumption mistake:
"The national rate of failure for startups is 75-90%. So lets say it was a good year and Techstars Chicago received a 1000 applicants/startups to choose from. You know based on national averages that 750-900 of these companies will fail. That leaves 100-250 that will succeed. Techstars is only taking 1% of applicants, which is 10 startups. Unless Techstars is picking poorly, they are selecting companies that are positioned for success from day one. These startups would most likely succeed with or without Techstars."
The common assumption that 75%-90% of startups fail is usually regarding venture backed startups, not people who fill out the TechStars applications. I would wager that the if you looked at the failure rate of anyone who had an idea they wanted run through an accelerator, the failure rate would be much, much higher. What you should benchmark TechStars against VC performance.
I had the same reaction. I actually stopped reading after that. It was clear from that point that the article was pushing an agenda and would twist(probably from a lack of understanding) to support that agenda.
I agree with this sentiment. Everyone exists in some sort of bubble created by their geography, culture, ethnicity, wealth, etc. It's an inherent limitation of the human mind. The claim that the rich are more out of touch than the poor or middle-class is to simply place a value judgement on whose "reality" is more "real". For instance, does the fact that the average lower income american have a substantially better existence than millions in rural Africa, India, and Asia make them out of touch with reality? Isn't it probable that a poor Somalian would say that an American working at Walmart who complains about his or her suffering is "out of touch" with "reality" as defined by the majority of humanity?
My biggest concern with American politics is that everyone sees the other side as evil or wrong. We could have a much more productive debate if we did a better job of understanding the positions rather than just dismissing them as "out of touch with reality".
I don't think unpaid internships should be illegal. I worked in a lot of unpaid internships early in my career, and it helped me build my skill set. In some cases, a position didn't exist, I just asked if I could work for free to learn. Those are jobs I wouldn't have had, much to my detriment, if the employer feared being sued or fined for not paying me.
I think this is particularly important if you're trying to learn how to run a company rather than learn specific job skills.
I agree. This an over-simplistic view of how companies function and, frankly, a bit immature. I started my career as an engineer and I felt at times many of the sentiments expressed in this post. However, since then I've launched my own start up and had to take on the CEO role, which required me to do sales, marketing and manage people. Having to shoulder those responsibilities has really changed my perception. Everybody is under different pressures and until you are in their shoes it is often hard to understand the decisions they're making. We've since been acquired and I'm an employee again. As a result of these experiences, I'm much more sympathetic to my bosses and people in non-technical roles.
I'm reminded of why McArthur was removed from the command of the UN forces in Korea. McArthur came out strongly against Truman in the press, because Truman refused to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese, who at the time were not a nuclear power but were successfully driving the UN forces out of the peninsula. Truman was forced to sack McArthur. McArthur then went on a national tour talking about how Truman was basically an idiot and losing the war. McArthur suggested that if he was elected president he could bring the war to a speedy conclusion. Truman started taking a real beating in the press as a result. Then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs came out and publicly said that while McArthur's strategy would drive the Chinese back, McArthur didn't appreciate the wider political implications of his strategy. China, at the time, was an ally of the Soviet Union. A strike against China could have forced the Soviets into the war or at a minimum destabilized other areas of the world, such as Eastern Europe. The Chairman's defense of Truman basically shutdown McArthur's political aspirations.
I don't mean to imply that the McArthur case is what is going on here. It's very possible that this person's managers are all just idiots. What I'm suggesting is that he take a breath and try to better understand the pressures and perspective of people he works with. I find that the majority of people I work, even those I'm not impressed by, mean well and cursing them out isn't moving the strategy, profits or even that particular conversation in a positive direction. (That doesn't mean I haven't gotten mad and lost it. I have. It's just those aren't my proudest moments.)
The challenge with applying quantum physics at the level our actions take place is that the laws of classical physics rule. So does that randomness impact our actions in any way or are our actions deterministic for all intensive purposes?
Do you think you should hold a person morally responsible for a terrible result they have no control over? For instance, if I shoved person A into person B and as a result person B fell onto the third rail of a commuter train, would you hold person A morally responsible?