What NYC Needs: A New Narrative

This brings to mind something pg wrote about New York:<p>"New York tells you, above all: you should make more money. There are other messages too, of course. You should be hipper. You should be better looking. But the clearest message is that you should be richer." - <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html</a><p>Of course, founders can make plenty of money. But New York does seem to be unusual in how much it lionizes people who already have lots of money (or least, people who allocate lots of it). I don't expect to see the phenomenon discussed in this blog post change anytime soon.

This article is too meta and meandering. What is this new narrative? What is the old narrative that needs replacing? That said, NYC has a number of "structural" issues which make it a less than ideal place to start a silicon valley style startup. These same issues can be an advantage for different sorts of startups. A change in narrative is not going to change these.

I agree with the general push of the article, that we should get back to admiring entrepreneurs rather than VCs, but I have to admit, NYC doesn't do a great job of welcoming entrepreneurship. NYC is an extremely expensive place for a company with little to no revenue, considering wages and rent are so high. I also haven't heard of any tech incubators here either (there might be, so please correct me if I've missed them). A startup could easily grow 3 hours North in Albany with half the early-phase burn rate and have access to both the NYC and Boston VC pools.

What an absurd ego battle. I'm sorry I took the bait to read it.<p>You can stop with the False Choice that opens the piece: Who's the hero of the startup universe? Is it the entrepreneur, or is it the investor?