Category: Entrepreneurship

Why Have Job Killing Tech Startups Gotten a Pass From Public Outrage?

As I was reading The Everything Store, a book that chronicles Jeff Bezos’ and Amazon’s rise to its current status as retail giant, I was struck by how similar Amazon and WalMart are, but how different their public reputations are.

Walmart is consistently one of the most hated companies in the US. Some people even call them evil. Amazon is consistently one of the most loved. But when you really peel away the layers, both companies are nearly identical. Walmart employs 20x more employees than Amazon and Amazon cloaks itself in startupy, technology marketing, but 0ther than that, they’re pretty much the same.

They both have used advanced technology and inventory management systems to outclass their rivals. They’ve both used extremely low margins for extended periods of time to put their rivals out of business. They’ve used the same bully tactics to punish rivals.

Both exploit their non executive/technology workers by working them to the bone and paying them low wages. Both put their rivals out of business, killing local and online commerce and eliminating choice in the market. And up until this year, Amazon didn’t even pay sales tax, giving it an unfair advantage over brick and mortar stores. (See Amazon infographic)  Yet Amazon is rated as one of the most trusted and Walmart among the most hated.

This dichotomy plays itself out in nearly all tech startups. Although I’d contend that the majority of new startups are net job killers that make huge amounts of money for a small number of people, a bit of money for another larger group and give non monetary benefits to the rest, startups have been able to successfully wrap themselves in the all protecting shroud of being job creators and the engine of our economy. Almost nobody questions it.

The public thinks startups are the way out of slow job growth. So do politicians on both sides of the aisle. Startups are the job creators. They’re completely meritocratic. They’ve (or in this case, we’ve) been almost deified by the adoring public, press and politicians. This deification has brought with it an insidious self righteousness and self aggrandizement that’s reaching social darwinist proportions that we haven’t seen since the gilded age.

Too many founders and the general public have bought the narrative that founders are rugged individualists that succeed all on their own. That they deserve massive rewards because everyone else who hasn’t done it is lazy or stupid. And the most sacred of all, that startups create jobs. Startups and entrepreneurs have wrapped themselves in a narrative of technology and progress that allows people like Jeff Bezos to say things like “were not putting people out of business, the future is happening to them,” and say it with a straight face and a sense of self riotousness. If you want insight into this new phenomenon, look to Peter Theil, who’s best advice for prospective founders is to “find monopolies” where you can take the entire market.

So in our new world Walmart is hated and Amazon loved. It’s bizarre. From my point of view they’re pretty much the same. One just happens to be wrapped in better marketing. I wonder how much longer this tech inoculation will last?

I’d love to get a discussion going, so please leave comments or email me directly.

Lack Of Skin In The Game Is The Root Of Our Problems

You can trace nearly all of the problems in the world back to one cause: lack of skin in the game. From the financial crisis, to our broken government, to most wars, corruption, pollution and famine, you’ll find a lack of skin in the game as the foundational cause of nearly every one.

What is skin in the game? According to Nassim Nicholas Taleb, “skin in the game is about being harmed by an error if it harms others.” In finance, it means having personal monetary risk associate with any deal you make. A simple example: If I create an investment fund and invest my own capital so that I own 10% of the fund, I have skin in the game. If the fund loses money, I lose money. My decisions not only affect my investors, they affect me. If I don’t invest any of my own money, but make high fees just for managing the fund, whether it goes up or down, I don’t have skin in the game. Taleb believes that skin in the game is “the most important marker of credibility.” Without it, he continues, people are “frauds.”

When people share in the costs and benefits of their decisions that affect others, they are more likely to make good decisions than if they just impose their decisions on others. Taleb believes skin in the game is “a moral imperative” that should serve as the base of a functioning society. I agree wholeheartedly.

The financial crisis was caused by bankers who made incredible amounts of money whether their investments made money or not. The Iraq war happened because the people authorizing the war didn’t have to fight. Neither did the vast majority of their children. The war was fought by a small sliver of the US: our volunteer army. If George Bush or his supporters would have had to send their sons and daughters to war, I bet we wouldn’t invaded Iraq.

Our government doesn’t work because bureaucrats who make laws aren’t affected by them. Lawmakers don’t have skin in the game because massive gerrymandering has rendered their seats safe, unless they’re caught, as the saying goes, “with a dead girl or a live boy.” Global warming is an incredibly hard problem to solve because we don’t have actionable skin in the game. The consequences will happen far off in the future, likely to our grandchildren.

Lack of skin in the game causes the rich to not participate in their own communities because they believe their outcomes are no longer connected to their local communities. A massive student loan bubble because universities don’t have skin in the game to actually help students to get a job after they graduate. Journalists and bloggers to pontificate endlessly without any consequences for being wrong. Large companies and the top 1% to go to extreme lengths to avoid paying taxes because they feel decoupled from their communities: they can operate from anywhere, recruit employees worldwide and be citizens of the world.

More controversially, Jaron Lanier argues that many internet companies that are worshiped as paragons of having skin in the game in fact don’t. He contends that they’re wrecking our economy and that internet companies, via siren servers, are killing, not creating jobs and pushing too much economic activity off the books. They use the world’s most powerful servers to create defacto monopolies that earn money via arbitrage, solely because they have access to the most powerful computer, not because they are taking risks and creating value. (Read my previous posts for background.)

Taleb and Lanier are two of the most important thinkers of our time. It’s interesting that they both find a lack of skin in the game as the core cause of the world’s problems even though they write about completely different subjects.

So how can we start to fix our broken institutions? Simple. Add more skin in the game. Some examples from Taleb: In Roman times, bridge builders, or members of their family, had to sleep underneath newly built bridges for a time. If it collapsed, the builder lost too. He continues:

I feel much safer on a plane because the pilot, and not a drone, is at the controls. Similarly, cooks should taste their own cooking; engineers should stand under the bridges they have designed when the bridges are tested; the captain should be the last to leave the ship. The Romans even figured out how to deter cowardice that causes the death of others with the technique called decimation: If a legion lost a battle and there was suspicion of cowardice, 10 percent of the soldiers and commanders — usually chosen at random — were put to death.

Now I wouldn’t advocate for the Roman Legion’s solution, but what if we started to design public policy, laws and societal norms that required some amount of skin in the game as a moral imperative, along the lines of “thou shall not steal?” What if we said that it’s immoral to force decisions on others when you don’t have skin in the game?

What if we required bankers to personally invest in any deal they proposed to their own investors? Or their bonuses were tied to long term performances? Or if we devolved more power to local institutions instead of concentrating power at the federal level? What if we forced siren servers to have skin in the game and not make money solely on arbitrage? Or pushed the 1% to once again have skin in the game in their local communities? What if we had a partial military draft? Or some sort of selective service? Or forced banks to keep at least 50% of any loan they originated?

I don’t have many specific proposals yet, but all we need to do is use skin in the game as our guiding heuristic. We should be extremely skeptical of anyone who doesn’t have real skin in the game. The likelihood that they are a fraud is exponentially higher.

What do you think? Is skin in the game as important as I believe it is? Do you have any proposals to push for more skin in the game? What do you think we can do to help push for more skin in the game?

Financial Times and La Segunda Articles

I was featured in two articles over the last few days. The first, Chile Property: Pro Business Policies Lures Foreign Entrepreneurs, written by Nick Foster in the Financial Times, covers the Santiago’s property market from a foreign perspective. My part:

Nathan Lustig, 28, is an entrepreneur from Milwaukee, US, who came to Santiago in 2010 under the government’s Start-Up Chile programme, which offers grants to promising new businesses, both foreign and Chilean, who set up in the country. Many are in the ecommerce, biotechnology and finance sectors. “Santiago is the most livable city in Latin America and there is wonderful hiking on your doorstep,” says Lustig. “Business-wise, there may be some extra bureaucracy here [compared with the US], but the rules are understandable and you feel confident that they are not going to change suddenly.”

“There is now a real cluster of young foreign entrepreneurs in Bellas Artes,” says Lustig, who has opened Andes Property, a company offering furnished units to the steady stream of expat arrivals in Santiago.

Lustig’s main gripes are air pollution and petty crime, while the distance from home is also a drawback: “It takes 14 or 15 hours to get to Wisconsin. On the other hand, if you are doing business with New York, or just watching sports or talking with friends there, there is no time difference in the southern winter, and only two hours difference in the summer.”

Read the full article over on the Financial Times website.

I was also featured along with my business partner Enrique Fernandez and many other entrepreneurs and stakeholders in the Chilean entrepreneurial community in a special entrepreneurship section of the Chilean national daily La Segunda in an article titled Nathan Lustig: Si Y No Con Santiago. The article talks about the pros and cons about doing business in Chile and how Chile can improve its ecosystem.

nathan lustig la segunda

 

My Talk From The Forward Technology Festival

Last month I gave a talk at the Forward Technology Festival in Madison. The format was Pecha Kucha, which means that you get 20 slides that automatically move forward every 20 seconds. I gave my presentation on How I Evaluate an Opportunity and talked about the lessons I’ve learned from ExchangeHut, Entrustet, Startup Chile and various other business ventures. Pecha Kucha is harder than it looks and this version was 100x better than my first crack at the format. Check it out here: