I started to get the same sense, and remembering a couple of the following things have helped me keep my bearings:
-Startup advice, especially from this corner of the world, applies to a very specific way of creating a software company through venture capital, and subsequently, aggressive growth. It is also built to take advantage of a highly optimistic financial environment that, to me, seems to be temporary (look at VC's performance as an asset class).
-The main purveyors of "startup canon", if you will, just so happen to directly benefit from more people taking their advice and entering the startup pool. In the most jaded view, Graham and the like's advice/essays/mantras are propaganda that, if more people listen to, directly improves their portfolio. I don't go quite that far as a lot of the advice is sensible and experience based, but it's really important to remember that their advice isn't philanthropic.
-Finally, startups are just businesses. The entrance of venture capital into the equation suspends the normal rules of business for a while, but eventually they do return. And while the way software allows people/companies with little to no capital attack large markets is unique, I feel like a lot of founders would do well to broaden their perspective beyond the relatively brief history of silicon valley when looking for insight on guiding their businesses.
I definitely believe there are more cynical motives in SV than many wish to believe. There's a reason VCs and incubators overwhelmingly target naive college kids. Most of their programs are structured such that any participation by less-naive persons is impractical.
The VC line on this is simply that "college kids are just super innovative, pure, unadultered". Ignoring the fact that this is basically an optimistic list of synonyms for "naive", if you believe that line of horse hockey you are likely one of the naive college kids being taken advantage of (or wish you were).
It's a real shame because startups could benefit greatly from the mature leadership available out in big bad "corporate America". Not talking multi-million dollar CEOs here, just regular experienced folks who have mortgages and families to support because they're older than 20 and would like at least a market-competitive salary.
Instead, VC firms hoard this maturity and experience for themselves, and leave their founders locked in apartments, surviving off a stipend that has room only for ramen to the exclusion of both fair treatment and personal dignity.
There is undoubtedly an insidious element in this. There's no way experienced investors are looking at these companies and sincerely saying "Oh yeah, those two 23-year-olds definitely have a handle on this."
The simple truth is that for many investors, it's an entertaining, [relatively] cheap, and profitable lottery. And they want to keep it cheap.
It's encouraging that others also see this. I don't know what workable solutions to this problem would look like, but recognizing it's a problem is a good first step.
> - working overtime is no substitute for bad planning
I feel like I know what you mean, but this one feels off to me. I think you mean, "working overtime is no substitute for good planning." As in, working overtime is a consequence of bad planning (not always, but an indicator at least).
Exactly. It seems to bump against the warning against eating up your buffer. Whether that's physical space, time, or money. We all need some wiggle room to deal with the unexpected, don't run to the edge with everything or one small mistake will ruin everything.
Except that financed companies seeking high growth may for a while abide by "cash creates cash flow", "deals that don't make money can still make you grow", and "spend on growth fast, so you'll be bigger than the next crisis".
Extremely risky, but those seem to be the norm on companies that get huge.
-Startup advice, especially from this corner of the world, applies to a very specific way of creating a software company through venture capital, and subsequently, aggressive growth. It is also built to take advantage of a highly optimistic financial environment that, to me, seems to be temporary (look at VC's performance as an asset class).
-The main purveyors of "startup canon", if you will, just so happen to directly benefit from more people taking their advice and entering the startup pool. In the most jaded view, Graham and the like's advice/essays/mantras are propaganda that, if more people listen to, directly improves their portfolio. I don't go quite that far as a lot of the advice is sensible and experience based, but it's really important to remember that their advice isn't philanthropic.
-Finally, startups are just businesses. The entrance of venture capital into the equation suspends the normal rules of business for a while, but eventually they do return. And while the way software allows people/companies with little to no capital attack large markets is unique, I feel like a lot of founders would do well to broaden their perspective beyond the relatively brief history of silicon valley when looking for insight on guiding their businesses.