While musing on the inevitable decay of our debt-ridden society, Chuck and I happened upon an hypothesis today: Entrepreneurs aren’t first-born children.
Think about it…first-born kids in families are dedicated, responsible, typically over-parented. They live quite well within rules. They’re not interested in rebellion or “changing the game”. Instability scares them.
Yes, those are broad generalizations based upon no hard data. But, if you’ll let me assume these as true, the consequence is:
First-borns like stability and rules so much that they’re happy to remain in a mediocre (yet stable) job while other opportunities are out there, especially those that involve “being your own boss”. Kids that were scheduled, coached, and parented their entire waking childhood have NO IDEA how to operate in a vacuum.
(Note, I’m not saying I do, either. I’m an only child. That means I have a first-born’s need for stability and boundaries crossed the last-born’s immaturity and desire for instant gratification.)
Anyway, that led me to take a leap: Maybe our societal ills come from smaller median family size. If you’ve got a nation of only-children or families with 2 kids, maybe you’re missing that “large family” leavening of personality. I’m talking about those spunky middle kids who had to operate like independent contractors from age 2 onwards.
I dunno…it was just a thought. Sociology fascinates me, though I question how one can grab any sort of concrete conclusions out of it.