95% of the best founders are outside the US? Really? if that were the case we'd have seen a lot more publicly traded companies of the size of Yahoo, Microsoft, Intel, eBay, etc. If it could have happened, it would have happened. We aren't even tapping the founder set we have in the US proportionally.
I applaud the concept of adding diversity to the pool (even-gasp! people with accents--) but I have a sneaking suspicion this is really about finding cheaper labor for the us based companies in the end. What investors are really going to put money into companies in countries in Africa and Asia where property rights, IP, and other laws don't protect companies as well as the US? What about places that demand even more corporate taxes? Color me skeptical.
You are ascribing malice to an entity that has good intent. 45% of the world's market cap for public equities remains in the United States, and that's something that is a function of governance, rule of law, court systems, financial reporting, and measures against corruption. As a result, capital is more readily available in the United States.
Founders, on the other hand, are from all over the world. They come to the United States to build their businesses. Some will return to their home markets. We want to make both of those things happen a lot more. It really is all aligned.
By those estimates, the United States accounts for less than 4.44% of the world's population. Or, to put it another way, more than 95% of the world's population is outside the US.
So, unless you believe that there is something special about people in the United States that makes them better founders than people from other countries, it's not a massive stretch of the imagination to conclude that there are 19x as many good founders outside the US as there are inside it.
Actually I would argue that it is a big stretch of the imagination that there are 19x as many good founders outside the US. The problem is by the opportunity provided of where people live, their status is society, and a variety of other factors such as available education, access to technology etc. For that reason the multiplier has to be much less.
I totally agree with you from a statistical view-point but there are definitely cultural, social, educational differences between Americans and non-american that may give us the upper hand in founding companies (as evidence by the founders of many large tech companies). I definitely DO believe that that we have a larger relative portion of our population that poses more of the characteristics required to be a successful founder.
See also PG's comment on founders with strong accents.
except that many, many of those folks have no access to running water or even a basic education. China, Africa, India. Let's start there.
Now let's remind ourselves that >50% of the US population, specifically women and people of color, have been systematically excluded from the US based system.
I'm not saying that the USA is Best, by any means. A lot of people from outside the US work harder, longer and smarter. I welcome them to our community.
But the facts remain that the USA is where this phenomenon was originated, born of a complex brew of culture, investment, corporate freedom, property rights, and so on. Many have tried and most have failed to recreate this.
I predict this will be more of the same: white male and asian/southeast asian programmers. The idea that YC would choose african founders in africa after systematically excluding african founders in the US just seems impossible to imagine. If A US based African entrepreneur is scary, what's it going to be like when they go to Nairobi? The corruption in those countries is rampant. it's not as easy as it sounds.
Again, don't misinterpret my comments as xenophobia or American exceptionalism. They aren't. I'm observing significant challenges. That doesn't mean no one should try, but we all shouldn't applaud this until we actually see it happening outside of predominantly white, western countries.
Garry, If we're going to talk about expectations, I expect more from YC than the miserable record of admission to YC for women and minorities to date. The stats shown at the women's founders' conference were a perfect example. See the link below for deets if you haven't already.
Until YC admits that the possibility of bias exists (I am charitably suggesting it's totally unconscious by the way)it will never be able to correct this problem. The longer the partners try to shout "there isn't a problem," the longer it will persist. I'm much nicer about this than other people, but it doesn't make me any less concerned. And I'm happy to discuss with you my experiences in any forum, public or private and to listen as well as talk. I'm not an anonymous troll, as you know.
Yes, if there wasn't a problem with bias then why would there be a need for Startup Weekend for Women? Why would the only female-driven product from TCD be a manicure app?
Every time I've pitched anything technical to men, you can see their eyes glaze over the minute I start getting into any detail. It's not that they don't understand, it's that they assume I _don't_ really know what I'm talking about, and the value of my speech is zero.
I agree that these reactions aren't necessarily intentional, but they do happen, and until there is an acceptance that it does happen, technically-minded women will continue to be discouraged from launching technical startups.
It's not worth the time to argue here. they really do have their heads in the sand, no matter how many women founder days they throw and no matter how much they try to say it's not true. the numbers don't lie, and our experiences don't lie. They don't really care to fix it--as evidenced by the fact that they refuse to even admit it's possible something might be wrong.
As a founder I don't have a lot of time to waste on stuff that yields no results, so I just come here for fun, when time permits. But there's a reason I'd never, ever apply to Y Combinator, and many women and minorities feel the same way. We'll just let the free market sort it out. Plenty of investors realize the arbitrage open to them.
I applaud the concept of adding diversity to the pool (even-gasp! people with accents--) but I have a sneaking suspicion this is really about finding cheaper labor for the us based companies in the end. What investors are really going to put money into companies in countries in Africa and Asia where property rights, IP, and other laws don't protect companies as well as the US? What about places that demand even more corporate taxes? Color me skeptical.