What this doesn't take into account is the fact that 90+% of kids out of college who decide to become entrepreneurs don't get traction, don't network with other CEOs, and aren't getting the respect of people even if they fail. It's like only looking at the failures among companies that have been YC funded, and not looking at all the companies that failed after not even getting funded.
While I am sympathetic to the author's thesis, the discussion is pretty meaningless unless you acknowledge that there is opportunity cost to doing a startup. Sure, you learn a lot and set up good contacts even if your startup fails - but the risk is in what <i>other</i> opportunities you might be missing. It's not sufficient to just be better off than when you started.
This is a pretty rosy "worst case" scenario. madhouse was acquired; most people would consider that a success. The vast majority of failed startup founders <i>do not</i> get a VP position at their next job.<p>I suspect that for the vast majority of failed startups, the cost is mostly pride and the lost wages of having a steady job for that 2-3 years. The benefit is whatever experience you gain from that time period - people will judge you based on your skill level and what you've learned.<p>There's also a much-worse case where people take on $100ks of debt, lose their friends, lose their home, get divorced, and waste 10 years of their life on a venture that was doomed from the start. This outcome is fairly easily avoided by keeping perspective and constantly re-evaluating whether the potential upside merits the risks you're taking, but it does happen to some people.
The title of this article contradicts itself and doesn't match the content of the article, which contains an awful lot of "if's" to sustain the words "risk free".<p>I almost stopped reading after inferring that he believes being the CEO of a startup that your interviewer has never heard of, and for which "traction" probably can't be defined in less than 10 minutes of conversation, is a credential that will improve your chances at another company.<p>Selling a company is an accomplishment. Usually. (Sometimes that "sale" is a marketing fiction, but, whatever). Most entrepreneurs --- in fact, <i>most</i> of the entrepreneuers that <i>get traction</i> --- don't manage to sell their companies.
<i>When your son started this venture he auto promoted himself from SW engineer to the CEO / CXO - A level he may have never achieved or achieved after a very long time period in a regular career with big SW companies</i><p>There is an astronomical difference between being a CEO of a 2-5 man company that barely has any clients (if that much) and a CEO of a large company with a massive number of clients, employees, and large revenues. It's like comparing a "lead" accountant for a 5 person non-profit with a lead accountant that took Google to IPO. To quote Jules from Pulp Fiction, "ain't in the same f#$% ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same f#$% sport."
In the Indian context, this article makes much more sense!<p>Note for instance the opening, "Recently I met with parents of the founder of one of our portfolio companies." :) How many times would PG have met with the parents of a YC founder?<p>Money during bootstrap phase would be from parents ->
A middle-class kid fresh out of college, could be easily supported by his parents for 3-5 years, staying at home, with no additional expenses. Given many parents support grad school, supporting their kids while they're working on a startup would not be a stretch (if they agree with this article or see the fire in their kids).<p>If the startup goes anywhere but dead, (in a year or so) the founders would have got a reasonable amount of independent mgmt experience, ability to startup and deliver, and exposure to industry far greater than their peers.<p>Now in India there is a severe lack of middle management capable of independent decision making, project level leadership, and delivery. There is also a shortage of folks who can think at a product and market level, as opposed to a customer/service level. A guy coming out of a startup (even failed) who can demonstrate these skills would be quite better than his peers who may have far more experience in sw development.<p>If the startup fails within a few months or years, worst case, an MBA may be in store, although it would certainly not be as exciting :)<p>Many of the guys who are doing this would probably be of upper-class, or upper-middle class, whose families would certainly encourage such risk taking.
If you get traction and press attention particularly, then doors and options open up to you. Also if you have a chance to speak at a conference you get a lot of respect, often from people who didn't know who you were previously.<p>However, getting traction and press attention are the hardest bits. Also, how much of your own money do you lose before quitting?<p>That said, even if you fail, if you had a job before, the chances are you could at least do the same thing again after.
nicely written article.<p>Still it should be considered that the author is a VC. Hence it's in his utmost interest to portray entrepreneurship as quasi risk-free. The more people decide to start a company, the bigger his choice while selecting a company for funding.
Reminds me a bit of 37signals who is kind of doing the same thing, in order to promote their applications.