I was referring not to just valley tech startups but investing in new small businesses overall. Per the U.S. Gov Small Business Administration:
> "Despite the jobs lost during the recession, large businesses generated 6.7 million net new jobs over the past 25 years. During the same period, small businesses generated 12.9 million net new jobs, meaning small businesses have accounted for 66 percent of employment growth over the last 25 years."
> "18% of small businesses fail within their first year, while 50% fail after five years and approximately 65% by their tenth year in business. This information is as per the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
Combined with the long-term (25-year) data I cited further above, this indicates the majority of small businesses are started up recently. The pool of small companies is constantly turning over and refilling with new startups - of which the vast majority die in less than ten years and a very few grow to be large companies (thus no longer counted in the pool). By definition, the shape of the small business pool must be a very slender, very long curve when graphed by employee count.
I think the tech community has perhaps a different set of connotations associated with the term "startup" than the non-tech, non-valley populace. The vast majority of startups (ie small companies started in the past five years) aren't technology companies and aren't fast growth. Yet there are so many of them, they comprise two-thirds of new job creation. Even better, many of these newly created jobs are entry-level, don't require advanced degrees or rare skills and don't require relocation to costly and crowded urban centers.
I think this misconception of small businesses is pretty common in the high tech community. Before I was a tech entrepreneur in the valley, I started out as a non-tech entrepreneur far from the valley. Then I was a tech entrepreneur far from the valley, in a mid-western U.S. state. Despite being in the fairly large state capital, the largest regional newspaper wrote a story about "Tech Companies Here in the Capitol", citing my software startup and the local Radio Shack store as the only two :-). Yet the local Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Administration and entrepreneurship clubs were overflowing with pre-launch and just launched new startups ranging from a new kind of farm animal feed distributor to sandwich shops to (non-franchise) local restaurants to karate studios. Together these small businesses employed thousands of people in a city whose population could probably all fit within a few square blocks of NYC.
I also want to point out, the organic, diverse, self-renewing nature of small business reality outside the tech, valley, urban bubbles is incredibly encouraging. As much as I love tech (and how rewarding it's been for me personally), I'm thankful the fickle, boom/bust, incestuous nature of high-tech startups is statistically the rare exception of new companies being started which drive new job creation.
Well, I'd just call those new businesses, but dictionaries agree with you. I was using Paul Graham's definition of "startup", which is something more specific: http://paulgraham.com/growth.html. That's about growth, not tech, so feed distributors could qualify.
This is absolutely not true.