The mean age of high-tech founders is 43, economists say
Great data, but I&#x27;m pretty disappointed with many of the other conclusions.<p>In the opening line the article states that the 5 largest tech companies were founded by those age 30 and lower. Why? The article isn&#x27;t very helpful here. It seems to say that they are anomalies, which is a little unsatisfying.<p>&gt; &quot;one may reconcile the existence of great young entrepreneurs with the advantages of middle age by noting that extremely talented people are also extremely talented when they are young.&quot;<p>So they destroy the myth of the young founder, by perpetuating the myth that these founders were superhuman (extremely talented is the word they used). As evidenced by valuations of their companies continuing to rise as they got older.<p>I find Malcom Gladwell&#x27;s conclusion more satisfying: When the internet was born, these people were closest to it in - in part because they were young.<p>I&#x27;d extend Gladwell to argue: In once in a lifetime technology revolutions, the young may be advantaged in creating a handful of super valuable companies. And those companies are so central and their small head start is so so powerful, that those companies succeed, at times in spite of their founders.<p>My conclusion: If you happen to be in college during a technological revolution, you won the lottery and should start a company. Otherwise, you are better off learning, accumulate resources, and founding late in your career.