Skip to comments.Obamacare could help fuel a tech start-up boom (Ridiculous Article)
Posted on 09/30/2013 6:03:13 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
Computerworld - WASHINGTON -- The arrival of Obamacare may make it easier for some employees to quit their full-time jobs to launch tech start-ups, work as a freelance consultant or pursue some other solo career path. ....... snip
(Excerpt) Read more at computerworld.com ...
Computerworld is not only USELESS in terms of tech info (despite it’s name) but this idiot has NEVER done a start up. Start ups happen no matter what. They occur because someone has a bright idea (which may or may not be all that bright) and is willing to put in the time and work to get things going. Start ups aren’t about salaries or benefits or niceties. Start ups are about 16 to 20 hour days 6 and 7 days a week for a seemingly endless period of time. They are for the young and driven.
Having worked at any number of start ups when I was younger trust me when I tell you this man is an idiot (so is his thesis)
I think they are praying for a similar occurrence to the Dot-Com boom that saved Bill Clinton’s behind with a massive boost to the economy. Fat chance with the Titanic sized anchor that is Obamacare pulling the rowboat of the current economy down... down... DOWN.
Inspired by Pelosi
It could also fuel an underground cash-and-carry market for real medical care.
They are for the young and driven.
Per the article:
The average age of people who create a tech start-up is 39, and not 20-something,” said Bachenheimer, despite the famous examples created by people such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. On top of that, there are twice as many tech start-up founders who are over the age of 50 as those who are younger than 25, he said.
Last week they were claiming that Obamacare will increase exports.
Be careful when one says tech ‘founder’. That flounder at the top is the guy who sold his last biz or managed to get the first round of funding. The people who work at the start up and the idea guys aren’t 50 (or even 39). This is one of those pointless articles that really says a lot about nothing
It’s certainly forcing employees from full time jobs into 29ers status.
But I don’t think that’s what the author wanted to talk about.
Chicks on the Right was taking calls today about Obamacare, many callers talked about becoming 29ers. And people who were part timers (like school bus drivers) can’t do things like lunch room duty anymore because it gets them over 29.
I remember in the 1990's Computerworld wrote some slobbering article about how the new head of the IRS -- supposedly a "tech savvy" guy, who "got it," because he was appointed by Clinton -- was going to completely overhaul the antiquated system there with a "daring" 15 year rebuild from the ground up.
Unfortunately their hopes were dashed by an outgoing system architect who was leaving government after a few very frustrating years to go corporate, who shocked the reporter with this exchange:
CW: So what do you think of the new IT guy at IRS and his plan to rebuild the entire government financial structure in 15 years?
Coder: He's a complete jackass.
CW: Why would you say that?
Coder: Are you actually serious? Fifteen years? The smartest people in this industry don't even know what a computer is going to look like in fifteen years. A rewrite that takes more than three years is going to fail.
CW: Really, why?
Coder: Because any IT project that takes more than three years fails, that's all there is to it.
Now, why did a young kid who hadn't even worked in a serious development shop know that, but a top-level IT manager did not? And why did Computerworld, which covered one flop after another in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's, not know that either?
The IT trade press is pathetic. All they do is take press releases from marketing departments, change the order of the words around, and then slap their bylines on them. Now they're not even clever enough to use press releases from tech giants who (might) know what they're talking about. No. Now they're actually accepting them from the government as well.
"There is a big difference between mortgaging your house on something you can control, and risking going bankrupt by an illness because of something you can't control," said Bachenheimer. No one can predict a car accident or a serious illness, he said.
Every entrepreneur has to have a source of cash flow sufficient to keep his or her life operational before their startup business generates any positive cash flow. Anybody who wants health insurance considers that part of the necessary expenses, like the rent, or mortgage payment, food, gas, etc.
Startup entrepreneurs also understand that financing a startup by mortgaging your house is really risky, because if your cash flow can't cover the mortgage payments for even a short period of time, you lose your house. And assuming you can control the cash flow of your startup is usually a bad assumption.
Startup entrepreneurs also understand that a serious accident or illness is likely to end your participation in the startup, and in many cases your cash flow will end too.
Bachenheimer's entire premise is flawed. What Obamacare does do is increase the risk and cost of hiring employees, so any startup should either seek to avoid having any employees or ensure as many as possible are part time employees.
Being able to fund your own health insurance from capital or reliable cash flow is like being able to fund your food, rent, and gas. None are usually an impediment for entrepreneurs. The hard part is funding inventory, machinery, and employees. That's the hard part.