Jeff Bussgang: A Lost Generation of Entrepreneurs? | Hacker News Reader

Jeff Bussgang: A Lost Generation of Entrepreneurs?

pehub.com

10 pointsquant8 comments

What is the mark of success? VC funding and IPOs? What about the thousands of under 30s who have made good products, are living a good life from the earnings, and aren't seeking to be bought out? I know more than a few under 30s entrepreneurs who don't live in the Valley, have reputable positive cashflow sites, and spend much of their free time traveling the world and meeting new people. How is that not success if that is exactly what they wanted to do? Yet you won't hear about them in lists like these, though they have had garnered lots of media coverage about their projects.

Success varies person to person. Four billion in the bank and a fully-booked schedule may be success to one while $240k in savings with absolutely no obligations may be success to another. This doesn't mean they are not entrepreneurs. It just means they don't fit the author's/society's definition of success.

Good points. I think including Jack Dorsey in the meaningful success category suggests the OP was a bit wooly-headed. Unless I missed the news of Twitter's exit.

Following yesterday's discussion on the software architecs thread.

Doesn't the lack of experience, toughness and soft skills make it really hard to 20 somethings to have success as founders?

Maybe it's my environment but from what I have seen, I live in a latin country(one of the least of the latin ones, Portugal), your skills of comunication are fundamental. And every business initiative needs backstage moves.

People here will just dismiss you for your age or step on you on the first flaw.

I have to disagree with the age fetishization in this article. You hear the same thing about math and the creative arts, especially in popular depictions: that a mathematician or artist is "dead" by age 30.

It's not true. Creatives of all stripes (mathematicians, painters, poets, entrepreneurs) peak between 45 and 55. The ones who peak at 25 are extreme outliers.

There was a study that indicated the average age for peak scientific productivity in Nobel Prize winners was 27.

So while not dead at 30, if you haven't completed your magnum opus by then you are doomed to also-ran status, at least in the hard-intellectual fields.

Nobel winners must be alive at the time of the prize being awarded. Given the lag between profound discovery/invention and the widespread recognition of that profoundness, isn't it likely that those who did their best work at age 55 would be dead by the time their work is recognized? So, are we observing anything other than selection bias?

Those sorts of awards, in general, are designed to encourage rising greatness rather than recognize it posthumously. This was the rationale behind giving Obama the Peace Prize so early in his presidency.

I believe it's a requirement for the Fields Medal that the recipient be under 40.

Interesting, and surprising, because most scientists in modern times are still just implementing their advisors' ideas at 27.

I'd believe that they peak in "freshness" in their late 20s and early 30s, but I think the peak of competence is later. This is how art works, as well. For example, Shakespeare presumably developed his fame shortly after Richard III, which he wrote at 28; but he did his best work (the "five tragedies", and his better comedies) in his late 30s and early 40s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com