it is not just a function of companies moving after they are successful. just look at silicon valley where most of the best start-ups are founded. silicon valley is a classic global zero-sum game because the network effects are so strong... look at attempts in chile, dublin, london etc. to create startup hubs, they are struggle with the fact that silicon valley is taking all the best companies first...
re 2) that's a good point i didn't thikn of that and many countries may seek to nationalize big corporations to keep them based in the domestic country etc..
clearly i'm not arguing that there will be no companies in some countries and all the companies in other countries, but maybe just a more extreme version of what you already see now where most of the big technology companies are based in just two countries: usa and china... maybe you need only half of all the companies in the world to be global enough to serve the world from just one location/country to have extreme international inequality/differences in % unemployed etc.
Are you suggesting socialism as the answer to the issue?
I don't understand how in a place where we talk about building fortunes via startups and innovation, we also talk about stifling the very motivation for these companies to exist.
You do this, and suddenly every company moves overseas and chooses to pay taxes in another country, at which point we lose the possibility of jobs and the tax money that these companies provide.
You are supposing that an American company needs to have been founded in the US. That's not true. There are many tech companies, including 1B+ ones, that were founded out of the US and then moved there. The availability of capital is so great in the US -even comparing with Europe- that makes a lot of sense to move there.
Moreover, some decentralization and diversity in economy can only bring benefits to the world, monoculture is toxic in the long run.
While this is true, it'll be years (probably decades) before starting technology startups anywhere else in the world is as likely to succeed as it is in the US (particularly Silicon Valley, but Boston will do, in a pinch, I guess). You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. But, hopefully, some of the Brits and Canadians and Indians, etc. who come to the states to build their startups will strike it rich, and go back home and help develop a startup friendly culture. It'll still be decades before any place is as big as the valley, but it'll be a start.
The countries I'm talking about have produced many startup founders. They move to the US and never move back. The successful role models don't exist in that country, because as soon as people start becoming successful they move out and never return.
To go further, I suspect that many of those companies would not have been founded at all, reducing the innovation of the world as a whole. Even all countries, put together, are not a zero-sum game: freer movement of people can increase total opportunities for human achievement.
The list would be dominated by American and Chinese companies even if each person on the planet had an equal chance of founding a huge company. The question is whether big countries like the US and China would be overrepresented per capita. And looking at that list, it's not at all clear. UK, Switzerland, Germany, and South Korea all have companies near the top.
To build on this comment, I disagree with pg's statement that startups have and will spread somewhat randomly. The biggest defining factor is having a (more) free market in a given place (inc. lower taxes and a /proper/ legal system).
In fact, that's largely why northern Europe had the Industrial Revolution and why most startups are in the US today. Because the US seems to be becoming more statist, that could definitely change.
I was actually talking about it with my roommate: if the next big companies could pop from other countries than the USA
And it's actually hard the believe and here is why:
- The USA is one big country one over 300millions people, one main language, one main culture, one currency ... and a shit lot of money ready to be invested
- When you start a company in France only 60 million people few investors, a small startup world, ...
And if i want to expand my company to europe, i need to get the different languages, different culture, different bank and sometimes different currency.
And if you want to invest it's harder because the VC system is different, they are not much a big fan of competition.
It's a pain is the ass to grow big quickly there and also the mentality is different.
Same, always a pleasure to to discuss stuff with you, you usually bring a lot of depth.
>> I actually don't know how many did outside smart people being hired at Google, ...
Leaving aside the entrepreneur(and the excessive hero worship around them), it's clear that startup companies highly depend on high quality employees. And the stats: Asian tech workers in Santa Clara are 50%[1].
Other stats: around 20% of US scientists and engineering are Foreign born. International students earn more than half of advanced STEM degrees in the U.S(and are probably behind half the university research). And what about second generation foreigners ?
And what about startups ? most of the successful startups in my country, which is known for startup quality, are bought before they can grow into to full form employing thousands.
And let's not forget - the effects are not linear - it's about ecosystems and power laws, things building on top of each other.
>> Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China seem to be examples of winners that ensure trade is very positive for them vs major countries. India seems to be one of the losers but has potential that's untapped.
Usually such growth path was through manufacturing, but there's some data from india hinting that china and manufacturing don't offer that path anymore, which is pretty worrying.
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that would-be founders should stay in their home countries and start their startups there?
If so, then the answer is that it depends on the country and the nature of the startup. There are certainly some combinations of country/startup where the founders would be better off in Silicon Valley. It's up to the individual founders to decide if theirs is.
Very true. Many countries are on their way to developing entire industries around tech. This was previously only exclusive to US, maybe Japan.
Some of those countries are attracting previously unheard-of talent and subsequent funding from the US. It's hard to imagine how future US startups can ever compete.
Successful US technology businesses tend to detach from the rest of the world, they stop becoming very good comparison points (eg vs a local or semi-local technology business in a given smaller market). They first have the US to massively scale into, which can be enough by itself to generate a vast business, then they tend to rapidly push global.
If you look at that list: Facebook (global), Google (global), Dropbox (global), Airbnb (global), Palantir (US military money). And then Lyft, which is going to push global.
And among some of the other giants: Microsoft (global), Amazon (global), Apple (global), Netflix (global), Oracle (global).
Many of the prominent start-ups in the US are then backed by the proceeds from all of that (further enabling lucrative start-up pay), and it keeps cycling upwards.
The point being, they scale and extract at a hyper global scale. That enables extremely unusual compensation.
This is one of those things that sounds great on paper but in practice basically kills any chance of a startup environment in the country. Why would a startup wish to grow in such a nation if there are other places where the ability to buy useful services from other international companies are so much cheaper?
You do make good points, but I'll counter that the US is the place for startups because that's where the customers are. The countries you list do not have 200 million internet-connected individuals with first-world levels of wealth. Western Europe is similar, with a bit more friction in crossing jurisdictional boundaries, most notably in accepting and processing payments.
That said, it's certainly possible for a startup company to exist in Singapore or somewhere but target and sell to US customers. The communication and regulatory hurdles will be higher, but not insurmountable.
re 2) that's a good point i didn't thikn of that and many countries may seek to nationalize big corporations to keep them based in the domestic country etc..
clearly i'm not arguing that there will be no companies in some countries and all the companies in other countries, but maybe just a more extreme version of what you already see now where most of the big technology companies are based in just two countries: usa and china... maybe you need only half of all the companies in the world to be global enough to serve the world from just one location/country to have extreme international inequality/differences in % unemployed etc.
reply