I don't see how that conclusion can be drawn from this kind of data.
EDIT: It looks like the post has been edited, so this criticism is no longer relevant.
I don't even need to look at the data to say that in the US most successful companies have at least one white, male founder. Does that mean that if you start a tech company and are non-white or non-male you should make sure to partner up with one to ensure success? Is it just a bias due to demographics? It it a real factor related to an intrinsic advantage of white males in making successful startups (even if it's just an external cultural factor)?
Or, is it a much more complex issue that can't and shouldn't be so easily infographed and turned into a convenient piece of folk wisdom?
Taking this data, which incidentally is extremely incomplete, and using it as a rubric on how to start your company is little more than cargo cultism.
Your next two sentences explain why this isn't true.
The implication that this can indicate which number that gives you the highest chance of success is completely bogus. Without taking account failures (or distribution of attempted companies by founder count) you have no data whatsoever for discussing what is most likely to succeed.
Makes me ask, what is this doing on HN?
1. Collecting karma for the submitter. ("Why X is foo" followed by "why X is NOT foo" followed by "Foo is irrelevant, it's actually all about bar").
2. Promoting the guy on the other side of the link. Unfortunately Vibhu Norby is one droplet in the indistinguishable white mist that makes up the ever-expanding Svbtle Borg, so it probably isn't working all that well.
(Yes, I totally do 2. Every chance I get to link to myself, I take.)
Problems:
1. How did Deloitte define their data set? (edit: I found out, it's in the report)
2. Does fast growth == success?
3. How is a founder defined?
4. What about companies that failed?
I did some digging on the US census site and found these numbers (for 2008):
- 22,614,000 returns were filed for non farm sole proprietorships. Of these, 16,434,000 indicated any type of income. Combined, these 16.4 million sole proprietorships reported a net income (less loss) of $265 billion.
- 3,146,000 returns were filed for partnerships. These returns showed a total of 19,300,000 partners. Of these, 1,609,000 returns indicated any type of income. Combined, the 1,609,000 partnerships reported a net income (less loss) of $458 billion.
Some numbers:
- 72.67% of sole proprietorships reported income.
- 51.14% of partnerships reported income.
- 22.614 million sole proprietorships generated $256b in net income (less loss). This is an average of $11,320.42 per proprietorship started.
- 3.146 million partnerships (covering 19.3 million people) generated $458 billion in net income (less loss). This is an average of $145,581.69 per partnership started. Or, this is a net income (less loss) of $23,730.57 per partner.
Using US census information on non incorporated businesses (in 2008) provides some interesting space for thought. A higher percentage of sole proprietorships report income, but on average partners in a non incorporated business report more income. This seems to indicate that it might be easier to get started if you go alone, but adding founders increases the magnitude of success (when it works out). Logically, this makes some sense, though I hesitate to make any conclusions based off of this data.
While this data is interesting, it is ultimately quite useless at answering the question. First off, this data is on all non incorporated businesses (other than farms). Therefore, this data may or may not be applicable to technology. The Deloitte report (and the writer's research) indicates that the top 100 technology companies have an average of 2.12 founders. The US census data gives an average of 1.62 founders per company. That difference could indicate differences in the two populations (ie - tech companies versus all companies) or sampling differences (Vibhu looks at 100 companies, I'm looking at data on 41 million).
The problem with a single individual managing responsibilities is that there are still plenty of tasks that need to be done so it becomes a question of what you can automate and what you can outsource for as cheap as possible. Basically, good delegation and management skills.
This mischaracterizes the dialog.
The issue is about a specific type of company, startups, and a specific definition of "startup," that used by venture capital.
PG's comments were as narrowly focused as his essays and YC itself. His data set was not the Tech Sector, but a particular type of business.
Not really ... it only indications that more single founders fail to grow fast enough to make Deloitte's list.
I'm happy that there are a bunch of single founder companies. I'm planning to start one, as a single founder.
