Tag: government

Is Your City Startup Friendly?

Category : Entrepreneurship
Posted on by

I was talking with a few people at the last High Tech Happy Hour and the last Capital Entrepreneurs meeting about what makes a city startup friendly.  We came up with a short list, but I’ve been thinking about it ever since.  What makes a city startup friendly and how can cities that are not startup friendly make changes to become more startup friendly?

Startup friendly cities need to have a high density of smart people.  Potential founders of startups need other smart people who could be potential partners, contractors or employees.  Most cities that have a high density of smart people happen to be cities with large universities that attract a huge supply of smart people each year.  It helps that these cities have universities because it’s even better to have young smart people, rather than simply smart people.  Young people can afford to take bigger risks and are more willing to work longer hours for little or no pay than older people who may already have families, mortgages or other obligations.

Another helpful characteristic is low cost of living.  If founders can live cheaply and find cheap office space, it makes it much easier for a startup to get off the ground.  Additionally, having a low cost of living allows startups to stretch their investment dollars much further.  Employees, rent and just about everything else is cheaper.  I talked to one Madison-based founder who has successfully sold one company and is on his second startup who believes that Madison’s low cost of living is one of the most important reasons why his company succeeded and his competitors did not.

Access to affordable office space in a business incubator is another key characteristic of startup friendly cities.  Business incubators are an important asset for startups, especially if they are affordable.  Unfortunately, many incubators I’ve seen end up charging close to market rates.  Incubators are an important step for startups because they are usually the first move from working out of the founder’s bedroom.  They also provide camaraderie, connections and bring startups out of isolation because the rest of the people in your office are also running startups.  It’s much better for a startup to move into an affordable business incubator with other startups, rather than move into an affordable office space next to a lawyer, construction contracting company and a non-profit.

It is extremely important for startups to interact in a community of other startups. Having other entrepreneurs around, especially entrepreneurs who have been successful in the past, is important because founders can ask for advice when they have problems.  A mentor program like MERLIN Mentors is very important because it matches up experienced people who have been successful before with inexperienced startup founders.  These mentor programs not only build a community of startups, but they provide specific feedback to startups and help them overcome challenges that they might not if they were left on their own.

Another important aspect of an entrepreneur community is free networking events like the High Tech Happy Hour and Capital Entrepreneurs. Events like the High Tech Happy Hour bring smart people together who are not necessarily focused on entrepreneurship and startups, but are fertile ground for finding employees.  Local, free entrepreneurship groups like Capital Entrepreneurs offer founders of startups a place to meet others who are doing what they are doing.  It also creates a community and gives founders of startups some semblance of co-workers.  Starting a startup can be lonely if you do not get out and interact with others who are facing the same challenges and dilemmas that you are.

These free networking events provide a way for experienced entrepreneurs to mingle with people who are just getting started.  Experienced entrepreneurs set an example and show everyone in the city that starting a company is viable.  They can also provide advice, but simply having experienced, successful entrepreneurs in your city makes your city startup friendly.  Cities like Boston, San Francisco and Seattle have these networks.  Others like Madison and Boulder are just getting started, but are on the right track.

These experienced entrepreneurs can introduce inexperienced founders to professional service providers like lawyers and accountants who are willing to help entrepreneurs.  It also helps if your city cultivates a network of experienced, flexible professional service providers.  These service providers should be willing to take equity, give discounts or defer payments into the future for startups that they think are going to be successful.  It is extremely helpful if startups can still get top notch professional services, without breaking the bank during the company’s research stage.

These professional service providers can help startups gain access to capital that they need to fund their business.  Ideally, a startup friendly city will have VCs, angels and other rich people who are interested in investing in startups, but not all cities must have all three.  A strong network of professional service providers who work with entrepreneurs can make introductions to rich people who are willing to invest.  Some startup friendly cities can be heavy on angel and rich individuals, but light on VCs.  Another way cities can help entrepreneurs is by advocating for small business loans and other alternative ways of funding.

Startup friendly cities generally have support programs in place for entrepreneurs.  They tend to have low taxes.  It is much easier to start a startup in a city that does not have 10% sales tax, like the city of Chicago.  The state of Wisconsin provides a 25% tax credit to angel investors who invest in certified Wisconsin startups.  Wisconsin also offers low interest loans that are forgiven if the startup fails.  Both of these programs help entrepreneurs succeed.  Other states have implemented programs that fund early stage startups.

Finally, many people who start statups generally like living in cities.  They like walking to work and living in tolerant environments.  They like to be able to meet in coffee shops, go to interesting restaurants and enjoy life with their peers.  It’s best to have good weather.  Low crime and good schools are also helpful.  Overall, creating a city with high quality of life keeps the three most important ingredients, experienced entrepreneurs, rich people and smart, young people, in one place.

Cities can begin to implement policies that help foster entrepreneurship.  Cities can start by creating a business incubator for startups that offers offices (with windows) at 50% discounts.  They can start to create mentor programs like MERLIN and create entrepreneur networking groups like Capital Entrepreneurs.  Service providers can start offering discounts or equity for service deals.  Once one service provider has success offering this deal, it quickly becomes the industry standard.  I’m not advocating that government do all of this.  People who want to see their cities become more friendly to startups have to do some of the work themselves.

Government does have a place.  It can offer incentives for startups to move to their cities.  It can lower taxes or offer government programs that provide easier access to capital.  It could create a new business incubator and it could help create a community of entrepreneurs by publicizing entrepreneur success stories or the local startup community.  Government could help make cities more startup friendly simply by being more friendly to startups themselves.

Characteristics of Startup Friendly Cities

Figure out if your city is startup friendly.  Rate your city on a scale of 0-2 for each characteristic and score total the score at the end.  0 means that your city does not do it at all, 2 means your city does is very well.

  1. Access to capital
  2. High concentration of smart people
  3. Low cost of living
  4. High concentration of rich people
  5. Network of experienced entrepreneurs
  6. Mentor programs
  7. Low cost startup incubator
  8. Low taxes
  9. Governemnt support
  10. Flexible professional service providors
  11. Free networking events
  12. High quality of life
  13. Tolerant, vibrant, walkable cities
  14. Large universities
  15. Culture of entrepreneurship
  16. Educated workforce
  17. Good weather
  18. High concentration of science and technology workers
  19. Direct national flights
  20. Entrepreneurship advocacy groups

I would say Madison, WI gets a score of 23/40.  Milwaukee gets a 13/40.  San Francisco gets 36/40.

How startup friendly is your city?  Do you agree with my list?  Do you have any characteristics to add?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

October Book Reviews

Category : Books
Posted on by

I only had time to read two books in October, but they were both interesting and well worth my time.  One was fiction and one was non-fiction.   Check out my reviews from past months here.

SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance – Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner.  SuperFreakonomics is a great follow up to the Stevens’ first effort, Freakonomics.  If you enjoyed Freakonomics, you will love SuperFreakonomics.  They tackle all sorts of problems with data, which you hardly ever see in most other walks of life.  Ever since I read Freakonomics, I’ve been fascinated with the way they look at problems and issues and I’ve been reading the Freakonomics blog in the New York Times daily.  In SuperFreakonomics, Levitt and Dubner tackle emergency room safety, the efficacy of child car seats, prostitution and most controversially, global warming.  They also present some amazing history about this history of vaccines, car seats and health care in their trademarked, data driven, but still humorous style.

I won’t ruin any more of the book for you, but there has been a huge outcry from the global warming establishment about SuperFreakonomics’ take on global warming.  Dubner and Levitt say that global warming has become a “new relgion complete with dogma and good and evil.”  They have been proven right because they were immediately criticized by the global warming establishment when the book was released.  I liked the way they tried to bring reason and science back to the global warming debate and move it away from political, religious debates that it has become, but was suprised that they advocated so hard for geo-engineering.

Levitt and Dubner (and I) love to point out that most of our problems come from unintended consequences of well meaning policy decision.  Many times, these unintended consequences could have been predicted ahead of time, but weren’t looked at for a variety of reasons.  They advocate geo-engineering the planet, but don’t take any time to talk about the potential unintended consequences.  There may not be many (but I doubt it), but I was expecting them to address the issue at least a little bit.  That said, SuperFreakonomics is entertaining, informative and well worth reading.

Absurdistan – Gary Shteyngart.  Not many books can make me laugh out loud.  I was on a flight to NYC, reading Absurdistan and trying not to laugh out loud and failed fairly miserably.  Absurdistan is the fictional story about a young, Jewish, fat, son of an oligarch, Russian immigrant to New York City and his trials and tribulations going between Russia, the US and Absurdistan, a fictional country located near Iran.  I read it on the advice of of someone who likes many of the same books I’ve read and wasn’t disappointed.

Shtyngart’s writing is really fun.  He mixes in hip hop references with geopolitical feelings musings that would only occur to a Russian who moved to the US.  One of my favorite parts is about how people in the 3rd world applaud whenever a pilot safely lands a plan “as if it were some kind of miracle”, whereas in the West, people complain about being late and rush to get off.  The section on a Holocaust Museum in Absurdistan is brilliant writing and worth reading on its own.  The books is a scathing critique of just about everything from Russian politics, American foreign policy, fat people and corporations.  While a little slow in places, each chapter has at least a gem worth finding.  I recommend reading this book if you like history, politics, different cultures and good writing.  As a bonus, after reading Absurdistan, Oscar Wao and The White Tiger, I now know how to say a certain part of the male anatomy in Russia, The Dominican Republic and India.

Are you Missing the Unintended Consequences?

Category : Political Science & Economics
Posted on by

I attended a talk by Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food, last night at the Kohl Center in Madison.  Pollan is one of my favorite writers and thinkers because he almost always has a new take on old problems that bring new and interesting points to the debate.  Pollan is most famous for In Defense of Food, an “eater’s manifesto” on how to eat well and forsake the “western diet” of processed foods and refined carbohydrates.  His book is interesting on many levels, but what struck me during the talk was how many of the problems that Americans have relating to their diet are unintended consequences of well-intentioned policies crafted by nutritionists, nutritional scientists, government bureaucrats and health-conscience consumers.

For example, Pollan talks about how throughout American history, there have been “blessed” and “evil” nutrients.  In the 1800s, protein was evil and John Harvey Kellogg led the charge against this scorage, leading many Americans to give up their traditional eggs, bacon, sausage and pancakes for boxed cereal, with the blessed carbohydrates.  Later, it was fat, leading to the creation of margarine and transfat to replace real butter and animal fat.  The Atkins phenomenon brought protein back because carbs were supposedly bad.  There have been many other examples of this throughout American history, but these are the easiest ones to see.  Each of these movements were started by people with good intentions who wanted to make Americans healthier.  At best, they did not work.  At worst, they made things worse.

The margarine and other plant fats that scientists created ended up being worse than the fats that they were replacing.  Pollan claimed that this switch led to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths from heart disease and other preventable diseases.  These deaths were an unintended consequence of food scientists and the government’s good intentions to help American live healthier lives.

Pollan’s talk led me to start thinking about other unintended consequences and how many people miss their impact in everyday life. I found some relating to our food, including some potential ones relating to Pollan’s “eater’s manifesto.”  Subsidizing the corn and soybean market after the USSR’s wheat crop failed in order to ensure that we never went hungry led to monocultures and a crash in farm prices, which led to fewer family farms.  It has led to America’s overproduction of cheap corn, which made high fructose corn syrup the cheapest and easiest sweetener to work with, leading to cheaper manufactured food and fatter, less healthy Americans.  Cheap subsidized corn and soybeans make it tough for farmers in Africa to compete and pull themselves out of poverty.  Now I don’t believe that each of these are straight cause and effect relationships, but its clear that these unintended consequences of trying to make sure that America’s food supply is secure have continued to ripple across the world since the 1970s.

Pollan’s manifesto advocates that we eat food, not too much, mostly plants and move away from packaged, processed “food like substances.”  This is a good goal, but he also advocates moving away from monoculture and large industrial farms.  The thinking is that we we have healthier plants, animals and humans if we diversify our food supply and stop growing huge amounts of corn and soybeans for use in just about everything.  Pollan believes that these types of changes could help solve global warming, the healthcare crisis and  potentially the current economic crisis.  It is clearly a noble goal, but what about the unintended consequences?

If farmers move away from high yielding monocultures, might we be at a larger risk of famine in the future as populations rise?  Could we lose jobs in the current food industry?  Could lower yields lead to higher food costs, much like how increased demand for corn based ethanol raised food prices worldwide, with most of the increased hurting the world’s poor?  Are there some other unintended consequences that Pollan’s way of thinking might bring about, much like the other big changes to our food supply brought to America’s dinner tables?

Personally, I think it is worth experimenting with Pollan’s ideas because I’m not sure we can do much worse than we are doing now, but it would be foolish to simply accept them and begin to implement them immediately.  I don’t believe that Pollan is calling for this, but I have not seen much research into the potential unintended consequences of his ideas. It reminds me a story I just came across the other day about tuna fishing.

In the early 1990s, groups like Greenpeace were outraged that tuna fishing companies were killing hundreds of dolphins with each catch.  Here’s how tuna fishing works

The main way that tuna is caught is through purse seines in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Basically, after a large group of tuna is located, a miles-across purse seine net is closed around them via a group of small boats associated with a large factory ship.  It’s an effective way to catch large amounts of fish for not a lot of money.

This technique is pretty standard- the main variation lies in how the large group of tuna is located. There are basically three ways to do this.

1) Get lucky and happen to stumble across a large group of tuna visible from the surface in the middle of an enormous ocean. Obviously, this isn’t terribly practical.

2) Attract tuna using floating objects.  Stay tuned, we’ll come back to #2.

3) Follow dolphins, because dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific are often associated with large schools of tuna. Dolphins are easy to follow because, unlike tuna, they have to come up for air.

For a long time, #3 was the most common way of catching tuna. The problem with this method was that by definition, dolphins are right there- and they get caught in the net as well. Despite the honest effort of many sailors to free dolphins (there is a long maritime tradition of respecting dolphins), by some estimates, around 500,000 dolphins a year were killed as a result of bycatch.

Sounds terrible, right?  500,000 dolphins EACH YEAR were killed as a result of this tuna fishing.  Groups like Greenpeace and others marshaled public support and got the rules changed, making dolphin following illegal.  People could not fish for tuna by following dolphins to big groups of tuna.  So what happened?

Tuna fishing fleets rapidly switched over to method #2, attracting tuna using floating objects.  If you put a log in the middle of the ocean, within hours it will be surrounded by fish. It may have something to do with the fact that many open ocean fish can go their entire lives without encountering a hard surface.

The floating objects now used by tuna fishing fleets are quite high tech- they have sonar and video cameras that allow the flagship to detect how many fish are near that object. Once there are enough, the purse seine comes and scoops them all up- and the floating object is redeployed.

The big problem with this method is that floating objects don’t only attract tuna. EVERYTHING is attracted to floating objects, including sea turtles, sharks, seabirds, billfish, and, yes, dolphins!

Well-intentioned groups like Greenpeace and others tried to help the dolphins by making fishing for tuna by using dolphins illegal, but the unintended consequences of their actions have created “The Ecological Disaster that is Dolphin Safe Tuna.” Here are some stats comparing the bycatch of both methods of fishing.  First, the floating log method, then the old, dolphin method:

Ten thousand sets of purse seine nets around immature tuna swimming under logs and other debris will cause the deaths of 25 dolphins; 130 million small tunas; 513,870 mahi mahi; 139,580 sharks; 118,660 wahoo; 30,050 rainbow runners; 12,680 other small fish; 6540 billfish; 2980 yellowtail; 200 other large fish; 1020 sea turtles; and 50 triggerfish.

By trying to help dolphins, groups like Greenpeace caused one of the worst marine ecological disasters of all time. Few other fisheries are as bad for groups like sharks and sea turtles as the purse seine fishery, and none are as large in scale.

“Ten thousand sets of purse seine nets around mature yellowfin swimming in association with dolphins, will cause the deaths of 4000 dolphins (0.04 percent of a population that replenishes itself at the rate of two to six percent per year); 70,000 small tunas; 100 mahi mahi; 3 other small fish; 520 billfish; 30 other large fish; and 100 sea turtles. No sharks, no wahoo, no rainbow runners, no yellowtail, and no triggerfish and dramatic reductions in all other species but dolphins.”

In other words… the only species that “dolphin safe” tuna is good for is dolphins!  The bycatch rate for EVERY OTHER species is lower when fishing dolphin-associated tuna vs. floating object associated tuna! The reason for this is obvious- floating objects attract everything nearby, while dolphins following tuna doesn’t attract any other species.

If you work out the math on this, you find that 1 dolphin saved costs 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large fish, 27 sharks, and almost 1,200 small fish.

“Dolphin Safe Tuna” is one of the most egregious examples of unintended consequences that I have heard about in a long time.  I wonder if we may repeat similar mistakes with global warming (now called climate change), health care, taxes, the bank bailouts and our monsterous national debt.  We should at least try to look at the potential downsides and unintended consequences of our larger decision in all aspects of our lives – political, business and personal – so that we do not make another mistake like margarine or dolphin safe tuna.

Nobody Voted for President Pelosi

Category : Political Science & Economics
Posted on by

That is a subheading from the August 1st Economist article called Crunch Time: A difficult Summer for the White House and it sums up how I feel about the Obama Administration so far.  I did not vote for him (or McCain), but I had hoped that he would live up to his “post-partisan” rhetoric during his campaign and rise above the political fray.  I thought there was a chance that he would be able to stop the “gotcha political culture” and really focus on big problems.  So far, the Democrats’ plans have not lived up to their billing.  The Economist explains it well:

Worse, the plans have usually ended up running away from tough decisions. With the stimulus bill the flaws were forgivable: there was an urgent need to give the economy a boost. But the House of Representatives has produced a cap-and-trade bill that is protectionist, riddled with exemptions and which gives away the permits that are supposed to force carbon-emitters to change their ways. There is a growing danger that this bill will not be passed through the Senate and reconciled with the House version in time for the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December.

With health care, Mr Obama’s preference for vague statements of principle rather than detailed specification has led to a House proposal that loads taxes onto the rich, sets up a state-run insurance scheme that many fear will put private-sector providers out of business and fails to contain, let alone reverse, the escalating costs of treatment while adding an expensive requirement that everyone have health insurance, with large subsidies where needed. Barely any Republicans could support this proposal as it stands. Frantic efforts to save the reform effort are under way in the Senate, but it is distinctly odd to note that the president’s signature policy is now being devised for him by a gang of six senators. Financial regulation is also stuck.

President Obama has allowed the Democrats in Congress, especially the House, to run the country, outsourcing the details, and arguably the Presidency, to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  This is not what most centrists and even some Democrats voted for.  Right now, Obama is risking his Presidency by allowing the rest of his party to trot him out to support poorly thought out, unpopular legislation.

On health care, Obama has allowed the Democrats in Congress to take the easy way out (and protect their supporters): soaking the rich, refusing to touch tort reform (trial lawyers) and ruling out taxing health benefits (unions).  He has made deals with Big Pharma and the insurance companies that do not address the rising costs of health care.  These plans only try to bring the uninsured into the current system.  While a noble goal, it could well bankrupt the country.  Instead of truly trying to rise above partisan politics and making touch decisions to both cover all Americans and stem the rising costs of health care, Obama has outsourced his responsibilities and is risking his presidency.  Until yesterday, Obama was silent when Democrats bashed real concerns about the competing plans voiced by Americans, causing his approval ratings to sink.

The Republicans are no better and possibly worse.  Instead of trying to reach across the aisle or propose any solutions of their own, they are simply saying “no.”  Its almost like the end of Rome when out of touch, rich, elites did everything they could to stay in power at the expense of the rest of the population.  Both sides seem out of touch and angry whenever there is disagreement.  Obama would be well served to tell Pelosi and Reid who’s boss and come forward with a detail oriented, innovative plan that cuts across constituencies and addresses both cutting costs and covering everyone.

What do you think?  Do you agree that Obama has outsourced the tough decision to Congress?  Should he confront Pelosi/Reid?