5 ms·

Correct. This is why you see almost no billion dollar "tech" companies coming out of Scandinavia or Europe in the past 10 years. The places with so called, work

Correct. This is why you see almost no billion dollar "tech" companies coming out of Scandinavia or Europe in the past 10 years. The places with so called, work life balance.

francamps 9y ago
Spotify? Edit: you did say 'almost'.
- atupis 9y ago
  Mojang, Skype, Klarna, King and couple others. Sweden produces probably more unicorns per capita than any other country.
  - tigroferoce 9y ago
    Don't forget Supercell and Nokia (which are Finnish). And it might not be a startup, but Ikea too.
  - atlantique 9y ago
    Skype is Estonian.
    - tskaiser 9y ago
      Skype (the company) was founded by Niklas Zennström, a swede. Skype (the software) was originally developed by estonians. The company is what is pertinent to the discussion :)
      - aedron 9y ago
        It was founded by Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis (Danish) in equal measure. The software was based on Janus Friis' earlier work (the Kazaa p2p network). It was developed by an outsourced team in Estonia.
        tskaiser 9y ago
        As a Dane I'm a bit embarrassed to forget Janus Friis. Thank you for the correction and elaboration.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
King-Aaron 9y ago
There was a great scene in a Clive Owen movie - Shoot Em Up - where he goes on a bit of a rant about the correlation between fancy cars, driving like an asshole, and success. I think there's a small level of vague relevance here. "Mr. Smith: I move my finger one inch to use my turn signal. Why are these assholes so lazy they can't move their finger one fucking measly inch to drive more safely? You wanna know why? DQ: Not particularly. Mr. Smith: Because these rich bastards have to be callous and inconsiderate in the first place to make all that money, so when they get on the road, they can't help themselves. They've gotta be callous and inconsiderate drivers too. It's in their nature." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov4JvTiQWUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov4JvTiQWUU
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  well, unless one suffers from schizophrenia, one's behavior shouldn't change much at work/home/whatever situation (slightly yes, but not significantly). there are only so many masks one can put on themselves and only for so long. a-holes will remain a-holes, maybe a bit more successful on average, but many times a proper clusterf_ck on others. nothing to envy about
leogiertz 9y ago
I don't know, during the last decade we've had billion dollar tech companies such as Spotify, King and Klarna come out of Stockholm which isn't the largest hub in Europe.
ojosilva 9y ago
Europe has plenty of passionate "asshole" founders and other workaholic types. The lower avg valuation of the tech scene has more to do with investors and general aversion to risk, dependency on public sector financing (really awesome but limiting in maneuverability), stronger status quo legislation, reduced VC scene and a more limited early-adopter audience for your products.
finolex1 9y ago
That is a spurious relationship at best. Actually you couldn't possibly have chosen a worse example. Scandinavia actually has the highest share of billion-dollar exits compared to the rest of the world (7% of such exits compared to 2% of global GDP and 3% of total European population) http://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-nordics-are-the-best-for-startups-2016-6 http://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-nordics-are-the-best-f... Anecdotally, famous Nordic startups include Spotify, Skype, Mojang (behind Minecraft), King (behind Candy Crush, Farm Heroes), Rovio and Supercell.
- elmar 9y ago
  Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU
  - fastball 9y ago
    This guy makes claims with 0 evidence. Points he makes: 1. Nordic countries have more über wealthy per capita. 2. Nordic countries are social democracies. Then he draws the conclusion, with no corroborating evidence, that these two things are inextricably linked. No data to link these two points at all. Nordic countries in general have a high GDP PPP, and that is probably not solely (or at all) due to being social democracies. Scandinavian systems need to be efficient due the nature of their environment, e.g. they have a lot of land and not a lot of population, and fairly harsh climate (e.g. poor farming conditions). I would almost argue that "being cold" is probably a better indicator of national wealth per capita than "being a social democracy" (though admittedly, I haven't done thorough research either). I mean, look at Canada. Look at the non-farming bits of the US vs. the farming bits. Look at North versus South Italy. etc. Industrialization is more efficient and effective in regions where alternative methods of production weren't great in the first place. For reference, here is the population density of the nations he was comparing (in people per km^2): Iceland - 3; Norway - 16; Sweden - 22; US - 33; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territor... The US has 11x the population density of Iceland. Easier to have shared wealth when each person in your country can have 11x the land they could have in another country (with the caveat, of course, that this only applies if you are an industrialized nation). I mean, just look at one of his "indicators" - billionaires per million people. By that metric, iceland is at that top. But there is only a single billionaire in iceland. Statistically, then, it's easier to be a billionaire in iceland. In practice, however, that is not the case. Things like population subsets need to be considered. In the US, you have a very large population, which is obviously going to impact per capita stats. However, you need to ask what proportion of those people are actually pursuing wealth in a way that could ever result in becoming a billionaire. e.g. a grocery bagger, probably never to be a billionaire. A plumber? Same. A hippy in a commune? Same. No data has been shown to adjust for lack of competition. At the end of the day, you have to look not at the total population, but at how many people are actually competing to become uber wealthy. Because, while attaining wealth isn't a zero-sum game, it certainly isn't an "everyone wins" game either. Scandinavian countries have a very high proportion of jobs that don't really have a cap on upper income, such as software/game development, banking, music production, etc. because they have exceedingly efficient economies (as he actually touches on). However, there is not clear reason to believe that they are efficient because they have social democracies. In fact, the converse (they became social democracies because they already had efficient economies) is just as likely, if not more so.
Mikushi 9y ago
> The places with so called, work life balance. I'd rather have a real work life balance (it's not so called, it's very real) than any amount of abuse working for a US style startup would throw at me. Most of my colleague would as well. To have the disdain for life you seem to display you must live in a very distant place from a sane version of reality.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Consider the possibility that the disdain may be ironic :)
nikcub 9y ago
That is a bad example - Scandinavia is punching way above it's weight and reputation in terms of number of unicorn startups[1] produced on a per capita basis. Sweden has a population of 9.8 million yet it has produced Skype, Mojang, Spotify, King, Klarna [0] Australia has 2.5x the population but only two unicorns. The UK and London market themselves as the capital of unicorns in Europe yet with 6.5x the population they have either the same number of unicorns or just four more (depending how you count them). That is remarkable for a country like Sweden, especially when considering the strength and size of the Swedish expatriate community in tech around the world (many tend to leave). In terms of similar results, I think only Singapore is in similar or better unicorn per capita territory. [0] http://www.technologist.eu/sweden-the-land-of-unicorns/ http://www.technologist.eu/sweden-the-land-of-unicorns/ [1] "unicorn" isn't the best measure since it is a private valuation and you can get different answers depending on who you ask, but most people would recognize those Swedish startups as being successful.
- sundvor 9y ago
  Remind me again what unicorns Australia has? Atlassian is not one of them, having left due to AusGov being so anti-startup.
  - farkas 9y ago
    Depends on what you mean by "left". We are technically a UK incorporated company, headquartered and half our staff in Sydney and many of our staff and customers in the USA. I still consider us Australian though.
    - sundvor 9y ago
      Thanks for your comment! My apologies, no disrespect intended - I should have clarified I meant "left" for the purpose of your IPO. It was and is fantastic to see Australian talent prosper to such heights. I see many clever companies where I live in Melbourne - however I am saddened by what I perceive as the neglect the government is showing for the tech sector, especially startups; I'm looking e.g. at how share options are taxed. I believe there's a lot of lost opportunity here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
s73ver 9y ago
So what? Even at Uber, 90% of their employees, the ones who actually made the company as valuable as it is, won't see much in terms of reward for it, and they'll have sacrificed that work-life balance to do so.

Correct. This is why you see almost no billion dollar "tech" companies coming out of Scandinavia or Europe in the past 10 years. The places with so called, work life balance.

francamps 9y ago

Spotify? Edit: you did say 'almost'.

atupis 9y ago
Mojang, Skype, Klarna, King and couple others. Sweden produces probably more unicorns per capita than any other country.
- tigroferoce 9y ago
  Don't forget Supercell and Nokia (which are Finnish). And it might not be a startup, but Ikea too.
- atlantique 9y ago
  Skype is Estonian.
  - tskaiser 9y ago
    Skype (the company) was founded by Niklas Zennström, a swede. Skype (the software) was originally developed by estonians. The company is what is pertinent to the discussion :)
    - aedron 9y ago
      It was founded by Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis (Danish) in equal measure. The software was based on Janus Friis' earlier work (the Kazaa p2p network). It was developed by an outsourced team in Estonia.
      - tskaiser 9y ago
        As a Dane I'm a bit embarrassed to forget Janus Friis. Thank you for the correction and elaboration.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

King-Aaron 9y ago

There was a great scene in a Clive Owen movie - Shoot Em Up - where he goes on a bit of a rant about the correlation between fancy cars, driving like an asshole, and success. I think there's a small level of vague relevance here. "Mr. Smith: I move my finger one inch to use my turn signal. Why are these assholes so lazy they can't move their finger one fucking measly inch to drive more safely? You wanna know why? DQ: Not particularly. Mr. Smith: Because these rich bastards have to be callous and inconsiderate in the first place to make all that money, so when they get on the road, they can't help themselves. They've gotta be callous and inconsiderate drivers too. It's in their nature." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov4JvTiQWUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov4JvTiQWUU

saiya-jin 9y ago
well, unless one suffers from schizophrenia, one's behavior shouldn't change much at work/home/whatever situation (slightly yes, but not significantly). there are only so many masks one can put on themselves and only for so long. a-holes will remain a-holes, maybe a bit more successful on average, but many times a proper clusterf_ck on others. nothing to envy about

leogiertz 9y ago

I don't know, during the last decade we've had billion dollar tech companies such as Spotify, King and Klarna come out of Stockholm which isn't the largest hub in Europe.

ojosilva 9y ago

Europe has plenty of passionate "asshole" founders and other workaholic types. The lower avg valuation of the tech scene has more to do with investors and general aversion to risk, dependency on public sector financing (really awesome but limiting in maneuverability), stronger status quo legislation, reduced VC scene and a more limited early-adopter audience for your products.

finolex1 9y ago

That is a spurious relationship at best. Actually you couldn't possibly have chosen a worse example. Scandinavia actually has the highest share of billion-dollar exits compared to the rest of the world (7% of such exits compared to 2% of global GDP and 3% of total European population) http://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-nordics-are-the-best-for-startups-2016-6 http://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-nordics-are-the-best-f... Anecdotally, famous Nordic startups include Spotify, Skype, Mojang (behind Minecraft), King (behind Candy Crush, Farm Heroes), Rovio and Supercell.

elmar 9y ago
Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU
- fastball 9y ago
  This guy makes claims with 0 evidence. Points he makes: 1. Nordic countries have more über wealthy per capita. 2. Nordic countries are social democracies. Then he draws the conclusion, with no corroborating evidence, that these two things are inextricably linked. No data to link these two points at all. Nordic countries in general have a high GDP PPP, and that is probably not solely (or at all) due to being social democracies. Scandinavian systems need to be efficient due the nature of their environment, e.g. they have a lot of land and not a lot of population, and fairly harsh climate (e.g. poor farming conditions). I would almost argue that "being cold" is probably a better indicator of national wealth per capita than "being a social democracy" (though admittedly, I haven't done thorough research either). I mean, look at Canada. Look at the non-farming bits of the US vs. the farming bits. Look at North versus South Italy. etc. Industrialization is more efficient and effective in regions where alternative methods of production weren't great in the first place. For reference, here is the population density of the nations he was comparing (in people per km^2): Iceland - 3; Norway - 16; Sweden - 22; US - 33; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territor... The US has 11x the population density of Iceland. Easier to have shared wealth when each person in your country can have 11x the land they could have in another country (with the caveat, of course, that this only applies if you are an industrialized nation). I mean, just look at one of his "indicators" - billionaires per million people. By that metric, iceland is at that top. But there is only a single billionaire in iceland. Statistically, then, it's easier to be a billionaire in iceland. In practice, however, that is not the case. Things like population subsets need to be considered. In the US, you have a very large population, which is obviously going to impact per capita stats. However, you need to ask what proportion of those people are actually pursuing wealth in a way that could ever result in becoming a billionaire. e.g. a grocery bagger, probably never to be a billionaire. A plumber? Same. A hippy in a commune? Same. No data has been shown to adjust for lack of competition. At the end of the day, you have to look not at the total population, but at how many people are actually competing to become uber wealthy. Because, while attaining wealth isn't a zero-sum game, it certainly isn't an "everyone wins" game either. Scandinavian countries have a very high proportion of jobs that don't really have a cap on upper income, such as software/game development, banking, music production, etc. because they have exceedingly efficient economies (as he actually touches on). However, there is not clear reason to believe that they are efficient because they have social democracies. In fact, the converse (they became social democracies because they already had efficient economies) is just as likely, if not more so.

Mikushi 9y ago

> The places with so called, work life balance. I'd rather have a real work life balance (it's not so called, it's very real) than any amount of abuse working for a US style startup would throw at me. Most of my colleague would as well. To have the disdain for life you seem to display you must live in a very distant place from a sane version of reality.

icebraining 9y ago
Consider the possibility that the disdain may be ironic :)

nikcub 9y ago

That is a bad example - Scandinavia is punching way above it's weight and reputation in terms of number of unicorn startups[1] produced on a per capita basis. Sweden has a population of 9.8 million yet it has produced Skype, Mojang, Spotify, King, Klarna [0] Australia has 2.5x the population but only two unicorns. The UK and London market themselves as the capital of unicorns in Europe yet with 6.5x the population they have either the same number of unicorns or just four more (depending how you count them). That is remarkable for a country like Sweden, especially when considering the strength and size of the Swedish expatriate community in tech around the world (many tend to leave). In terms of similar results, I think only Singapore is in similar or better unicorn per capita territory. [0] http://www.technologist.eu/sweden-the-land-of-unicorns/ http://www.technologist.eu/sweden-the-land-of-unicorns/ [1] "unicorn" isn't the best measure since it is a private valuation and you can get different answers depending on who you ask, but most people would recognize those Swedish startups as being successful.

sundvor 9y ago
Remind me again what unicorns Australia has? Atlassian is not one of them, having left due to AusGov being so anti-startup.
- farkas 9y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "left". We are technically a UK incorporated company, headquartered and half our staff in Sydney and many of our staff and customers in the USA. I still consider us Australian though.
  - sundvor 9y ago
    Thanks for your comment! My apologies, no disrespect intended - I should have clarified I meant "left" for the purpose of your IPO. It was and is fantastic to see Australian talent prosper to such heights. I see many clever companies where I live in Melbourne - however I am saddened by what I perceive as the neglect the government is showing for the tech sector, especially startups; I'm looking e.g. at how share options are taxed. I believe there's a lot of lost opportunity here.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

s73ver 9y ago

So what? Even at Uber, 90% of their employees, the ones who actually made the company as valuable as it is, won't see much in terms of reward for it, and they'll have sacrificed that work-life balance to do so.