Why does so much innovation come from America? Because it sucks.(blog.ejovi.net)
blog.ejovi.net
Why does so much innovation come from America? Because it sucks.
http://blog.ejovi.net/people-innovate-in-america-because-they-are-a
14 comments
Maybe America sucks just enough for there to be problems to innovate, while still being able to support said innovators.
There's a fair ammount of (necessity-inspired) innovation coming out of Africa: http://www.economist.com/node/21560912
Haven't you seen all of the news stories about Indian firms trying to make cheaper smartphones, tablets, and low-gas smartcars?
Of course, education, immigration and a legal framework without a high degree of fraud are also important.
I don't think individualism would be a major factor.
I don't think individualism would be a major factor.
Change, including solutions, comes from an unwillingness to adapt oneself to the status quo. Innovation is abhorrent to conformity, and conformity puts a deathly pallor on creativity. A tolerance for quirkiness is essential, embracing it is better.
> I don't think individualism would be a major factor.
There are many countries which satisfy your former criteria yet lack this; none of them have the same innovation economy that the United States possesses.
There are many countries which satisfy your former criteria yet lack this; none of them have the same innovation economy that the United States possesses.
I can concede this. I don't really know the answer. But individualism alone doesn't seem to be enough.
Their are plenty of artist and individualist in Germany which has a very large art culture. Would Germany be considered one of the more innovative countries in the world?
Their are plenty of artist and individualist in Germany which has a very large art culture. Would Germany be considered one of the more innovative countries in the world?
[deleted]
I have a friend who emigrated to US from China when he was in his 50s, and that was about 15 years ago. He's an entrepreneur who sells machine tools via paper catalog and his website. It's truly fascinating to meet with him every few months and just talk business, family, life, all that stuff.
He has this hypothesis that one of the primary reason for American innovative dominance is due to the ubiquity of basements in America. His theory goes that while much of the rest of the 1st world countries are very crowded in the cities, America has room such that even folks who live in the cities have basements.
Basements being where the majority of the "tinkering" is done, because you don't have to leave home to go work on your pet project. Because basements aren't as "livable" as the rest of the house, they are usually relegated to work benches, mini-offices, and the less-sightly kind of things you wouldn't want sitting out in your living room or cluttering up your closets. And they're as big as the house - so plenty of space to work with.
Because just about everyone has basements, everyone has convenient access to a private working sanctuary to attempt to live out their dreams.
So that's basically how his hypothesis goes. It's one of the more interesting thoughts I've heard, and it's fascinating to see it from the perspective of an outsider who moved here and made something of himself.
Coming from a machinist background (rather than a hacker who can work just about anywhere with a laptop), the availability of a basement for him to keep his machines is something that might seem obvious to him, and certainly lends to why he holds this as true.
Surely it's not the whole truth, but it certainly makes one think.
He has this hypothesis that one of the primary reason for American innovative dominance is due to the ubiquity of basements in America. His theory goes that while much of the rest of the 1st world countries are very crowded in the cities, America has room such that even folks who live in the cities have basements.
Basements being where the majority of the "tinkering" is done, because you don't have to leave home to go work on your pet project. Because basements aren't as "livable" as the rest of the house, they are usually relegated to work benches, mini-offices, and the less-sightly kind of things you wouldn't want sitting out in your living room or cluttering up your closets. And they're as big as the house - so plenty of space to work with.
Because just about everyone has basements, everyone has convenient access to a private working sanctuary to attempt to live out their dreams.
So that's basically how his hypothesis goes. It's one of the more interesting thoughts I've heard, and it's fascinating to see it from the perspective of an outsider who moved here and made something of himself.
Coming from a machinist background (rather than a hacker who can work just about anywhere with a laptop), the availability of a basement for him to keep his machines is something that might seem obvious to him, and certainly lends to why he holds this as true.
Surely it's not the whole truth, but it certainly makes one think.
Paul Graham seems to have a similar theory. I believe he calls it "marginal space".
http://www.paulgraham.com/marginal.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/marginal.html
[deleted]
There are almost no basements in California (a basement's purpose is to protect the foundation from shifting during the winter freeze-thaw cycle). Considering how much innovation comes out of CA I'd say that theory is debunked.
What about garages?
Functional equivalent of basements when it comes to marginal space. In colder areas people wouldn't imagine tinkering around in garages as it's way too cold.
California and the entire southwest however, have garages; which serve the same purpose with respect to the entrepreneur assertion. So I wouldn't go debunking anything so quickly.
In California you can replace "basement" with "garage".
California has a lot of garages though. Its a similar sentiment.
I've read this, but I don't know if it's true other than my own anecdotal experiences. But the reason that so much innovation comes from America because the it's so damn easy to start a business and take risks while having protection from the law. I can (and have) started businesses in under an hour with full legal protection of the law. That is, my personal assets are separated from my business assets. This includes getting a bank account and federal tax ID number. In the state of Nebraska this costs around $125. In other words, it's dirt cheap to do so.
I've also been told that officials are not as corrupt in other countries. I can't verify this, as all of the foreign countries that I've visited has been for leisure.
It could also be stated that it's in our culture and our DNA... that if you work hard you too can live the American Dream and prosper. Obviously, that's not always the case, but that statement is repeated quite often from peers, schools, and businesses so maybe some citizens start to believe it i.e. self-fulfilling prophesy.
I've also been told that officials are not as corrupt in other countries. I can't verify this, as all of the foreign countries that I've visited has been for leisure.
It could also be stated that it's in our culture and our DNA... that if you work hard you too can live the American Dream and prosper. Obviously, that's not always the case, but that statement is repeated quite often from peers, schools, and businesses so maybe some citizens start to believe it i.e. self-fulfilling prophesy.
This sounds true if you look at Japan and most of Europe, where it seems entrepreneurs have to pay for their failed business debts for the rest of their lives.
Not going to touch the link-baity thesis of the article, but I'm glad I read it if for no other reason than the mention of Larry Hillblom. A quick read of his Wikipedia article[1] was surprisingly interesting, what with the missing body, scrubbed house, and paternity saga.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Hillblom
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Hillblom
The substance of the article is more similar to "America is awesome because it doesn't stifle the free-market", but I guess that isn't as intriguing to potential clickers.
The thinking is interesting but very, very incomplete. In France most service are full of crap as well, probably as much or maybe more so than in the US. You have to cope with super inefficient postal systems, long queues in administrations, trains running late and going on strike the whole time - I could make a list that runs for hours but that is not the point.
Innovation does not JUST happen because people are angry. It's necessary but that is not the only way. You need access to capital. You need flexible labor laws. You need an ecosystem that will support new initiatives even against existing laws and principles. And there are cultural aspects as well.
The fact that the poster considers Japan as "not a source of innovation" is flawed, as there is still a lot of innovation happening in here. It's just that he probably does not see it, but many companies are introducing new services all the time in Japan - if you don't bother watching what is happening and just look at the headlines in English papers, you are missing something.
Innovation does not JUST happen because people are angry. It's necessary but that is not the only way. You need access to capital. You need flexible labor laws. You need an ecosystem that will support new initiatives even against existing laws and principles. And there are cultural aspects as well.
The fact that the poster considers Japan as "not a source of innovation" is flawed, as there is still a lot of innovation happening in here. It's just that he probably does not see it, but many companies are introducing new services all the time in Japan - if you don't bother watching what is happening and just look at the headlines in English papers, you are missing something.
From a logical standpoint this makes no sense at all, but it was still a fun mental experiment.
I guess if this was true, innovation would go up when countries suck, thus leading to a better situation and less innovation, which means the country would eventually suck again… after a while, would things finally come to a stop at an innovation/suckiness equilibrium?
I guess if this was true, innovation would go up when countries suck, thus leading to a better situation and less innovation, which means the country would eventually suck again… after a while, would things finally come to a stop at an innovation/suckiness equilibrium?
You've got to be kidding right? Your entire argument is based on the rail system? Which is still one of the most extensive in the world?
The US has less of a need for a national passenger rail service. The low faire airlines filled that gap long ago (southwest?)...
I don't buy it.
The US has less of a need for a national passenger rail service. The low faire airlines filled that gap long ago (southwest?)...
I don't buy it.
It should be extensive, United States of America is the 3rd largest country by land mass in the world. Larger than China.
Airline deregulation didn't occur in the USA until the late 70's. Until then most American's still preferred to travel by car. Not rail.
So I do agree that American's had less of a need for a national rail because the country had a well developed interstate highway system for all those cheap gas guzzling cars. Great until gas became expensive. Oops.
I would argue southwest could only succeed because of a failed rail system. But I have no data to support that theory.
Airline deregulation didn't occur in the USA until the late 70's. Until then most American's still preferred to travel by car. Not rail.
So I do agree that American's had less of a need for a national rail because the country had a well developed interstate highway system for all those cheap gas guzzling cars. Great until gas became expensive. Oops.
I would argue southwest could only succeed because of a failed rail system. But I have no data to support that theory.
As others have mentioned, the basic idea that angry people innovate more smacks of a first-world mentality: there are many places in the world where people are far angrier than in the US, yet most of are so far removed from being centers of innovation that people scarcely even dream of innovation coming out of them anymore.
But they do say that necessity is the mother of invention, and so perhaps it's more a matter of finding the balance point: supporting people to the point that innovation seems possible, but not doing everything for them to the point that innovation seems unnecessary.
But they do say that necessity is the mother of invention, and so perhaps it's more a matter of finding the balance point: supporting people to the point that innovation seems possible, but not doing everything for them to the point that innovation seems unnecessary.
"Correlation does not imply causation"
Yes, need problems in order to have innovative problems. With this theory, third world nations with the worst infrastructure would be booming with innovation.
There is so much more required than problems. America drives innovation because of many factors, including standard of living, capitalistic markets, freedom of choice, and access to educational opportunities.
Yes, need problems in order to have innovative problems. With this theory, third world nations with the worst infrastructure would be booming with innovation.
There is so much more required than problems. America drives innovation because of many factors, including standard of living, capitalistic markets, freedom of choice, and access to educational opportunities.
I've lived and done business in Europe and America. IMHO, employment law in America is easier for new ventures, and the risk-taking mentality is more celebrated in America. You can have an excellent life in either place. But for launching a new innovation, America is the best environment I've seen, even with all its many problems.
[deleted]
Well this whole thing was pretty dumb.
By that logic we should see the most innovation coming out of the worst places on earth.
How's that innovation coming out of the Sudan going? Lots of things that suck there that could be fixed.
What, Greece doesn't have a load of problems that should drive innovation?
America has a culture of individualism, problem solving, and allowing those who solve problems to keep the spoils of their market victories.