Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:56 PM Feb 2013

"Building a startup will be the home ownership of the next century"

I don't usually watch it, but today on The Cycle I caught a segment With David Kidder, author of The Startup Playbook. In the first part of the segment, here, they showed that quote, from Chris Dixon "Tech Entrepreneur" in the first part of his book.

Home ownership was an extremely popular investment for the "middle class" for decades, so much so that it was often a major contributor to retirement for tens of millions of people. Even when pensions failed to materialize, there was the home to fall back on. Those days are likely over, and fantasizing (romanticizing?) that they will return may leave one dead and in the streets. Tens of millions of good jobs are gone, will never return in our lifetime, and the jobs that are left are under huge pressure from technology, robotics, and software. We are developing into an "hourglass economy", with some good jobs on top, a lot of people fighting for scraps around the bottom, and the middle largely gone. We could build walls and try to secure it all again, but the rest of the world is moving forward without us, so that is unlikely to be a good strategy for a nation such as ours. Beyond that, the cost to build up what we need now is likely in the scores of trillions of dollars, and no one seems interested in re-investing such sums, even if it was possible to lay our hands on it.

Maybe it's time to put aside the longing for the old cheese that no longer exists and go on the hunt for the new.

You don't have to build the startup, but you can sure work with others to create one. It doesn't even have to be a new idea, it could just be figuring out how to do something that is already being done but locally, and begin to educate your neighbors as to the reason buying from your group is better for their bottom line. Learn to own the assets, to squeeze a profit from it, maybe even create a cooperative effort that takes care of your whole group.

Not easy, and it can take a long time, but if you think the future is going to be any better than this, and that some semblance of the past is going to return before you return to dust, you might be fooling yourself.

Public resources might even be useful - in this story...


...Arizona State is planning in the next few months to roll out a network of co-working business incubators inside public libraries, starting with a pilot in the downtown Civic Center Library in Scottsdale. The university is calling the plan, ambitiously, the Alexandria Network.


I talked with a woman the other day who, with some friends, got a free room in the back of a doughnut shop to do a similar thing, and all they invested was their own wireless router. And buy some doughnuts periodically.

You may not even need to start a business, just educate each other on the manufacturing resources available in your community, and teach yourselves what you need to know to work in this century, as opposed to the last one. A local community college can help, but 3D printers can now be bought for a few hundred bucks, and one can get a kit for Arduino processor kit from Make Magazine for around a hundred bucks to teach yourself programming a machine, so you may not even need to pay a school for the privilege. Such knowledge could become very useful. For example,

How robots are eating the last of America’s—and the world’s—traditional manufacturing jobs, found here.

Or

Can America code its way to more factories? Here.

These are some very powerful trends that people may resist, or ignore at their own peril. Many will take advantage of them around us, so would be to our benefit to learn to profit from them. Or at least not be bulldozed by those that do.

Just a thought. Not that we are behind, but the word "startup" won't even get past our spell checker. That's seems like a lesson.

Good luck.
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

maxsolomon

(33,345 posts)
1. The next century sounds like a major hassle.
Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:07 PM
Feb 2013

Will they be "fighting for scraps around the bottom" in Scandinavia or Germany? Or just in The Greatest Country On Earth?

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
4. Other nations stand up for their PEOPLE, not their banksters and the Corporate Masters
Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:43 PM
Feb 2013

They institute fair wage laws, social welfare and tax equity, tariffs, trade barriers, restrict the free flowing hot capital, etc.

The nations that are functional, that is. I'm not talking about corrupt states: Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Spain, and the like. Nor Mafia states, like Russia and China.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
8. That's already here for millions of people, it seems. And while I get your point,
Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:19 AM
Feb 2013

312 million people here, for the most part, will have to do the best they can with what they have, eh?

Sad, but no time to worry about it.

zazen

(2,978 posts)
3. but if global supply chains for food/necessities break down
Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:36 PM
Feb 2013

then there may be a renaissance of relocalized businesses, based on barter, local currencies, and/or the limited amount of money that needs to be spent on basic needs.

I don't expect the 1% to make it easy. Suddenly all of the perks that inure to corporations won't apply when groups of 3-5 middle-class liberals with college degrees launch a lot more cottage businesses.

But, there are several folks arguing that in the "long descent" this sort of self-reliance will be more necessary. I don't think it's going to be as hunky dory and pretty as the article makes it out to be. But how we get there from here involves an ongoing reframe of new needs in the context of current values, which is why it's framed in a more pro-tech-futurist sort of language.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
9. Or if our environmental issues rise up to bite us in the ass even harder, or
Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:31 AM
Feb 2013

if the magic surplus of shale oil turns out not to be the pot o' gold, or N. Korea or Iran or one of those decides they would be better off in a war (like you said, WW III, or maybe just WW II.7), or even earthquakes, here.

Or maybe our commodity traders really find a way to take it all, and the too big to jail banks wind up being not too damn big to fail on their own anyway, and all that money we spent trying to keep them out of jail goes down the tubes.

Or worse, none of that happens and people can't survive on the jobs, and slowly but surely we find that we can't support what we have, with a population that has learned to be so dependent on others. And that seems very possible.

There are some bright spots. I read solar should be cheaper than coal in 10 years, cheaper than oil in 20, so there are possibilities. But I sorta doubt that will be enough to provide for everyone.

phantom power

(25,966 posts)
10. There are two facets (at least) to that question
Sat Feb 23, 2013, 03:16 PM
Feb 2013

The first facet has to do with individuals' or group strategies - the micro-economic aspect, I suppose. In that respect, there's nothing really controversial about people attempting to start a business, or innovate. People are always doing that to one extent or other, in any economy.

The 2nd facet is more of a macro-economic response. My take on the OP is that Kidder and Dixon are making a macro-economic statement, about how the national economy ought to evolve. My response to that is, unless and until the federal govt embarks on some large-scale Keynesian spending on our national infrastructure (and I don't just mean physical infrastructure, although that's part of it), the ability of anybody in our country to innovate and start new business is going to be needlessly limited.

So, I think what I'd suggest to people like Kidder and Dixon, is that if they want to see the kind of growth and innovation they are describing, they should be first advocating for govt spending, social safety nets, etc. Without that sort of context, it mostly reminds me of Cheney gassing off about people making a living on eBay.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»"Building a startup ...