Should You Start A Business Instead Of Waiting For The Axe?

Should you start a business now instead of waiting to get the axe?

Nick Sturge who runs a business incubation project in the UK says it’s less risky to start your own business using the resources of a business incubator than to stay in the corporate world! Is that true or is he just looking for more customers?

Here were his exact words:

Nick Sturge, said, “With many major technology corporations laying off staff by the thousands, starting a business with the resources of a focused business incubator behind you is now less of a risk than staying where you are and waiting for the axe to fall. If you have already been laid off, there’s never been a better time to look at the option of starting on your own – there’s never been more support available.”

SETsquared centres provide business mentoring, coaching, access to university expertise, investment readiness training, introductions to potential investors and subsidised office space. Many of the entrepreneurs that start businesses in them come from large corporations. They include ex-executives at Vodafone, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Rolls Royce, as well as academics seeking to commercialise their research. “It can cost from as little as £100 a month to get set up in a SETsquared centre and we estimate that the facilities, advice and expertise we offer is provided at about one-tenth of the cost of buying it on the open market”, adds Sturge.

Sturge claims to have the data that Business Acceleration works… especially for high income people in the corporate technology world.

As the talk of the stimulus churns through Washington, I’ve monitored the chatter of economic development professionals who are looking at the cost of job creation through the stimulus – hundreds of thousands of dollars per job compared to thousands per job through encouraging local businesses to grow. They look at Sturge’s article and may not be so bold in their statements but they know they can do a better job than they’re given credit for at far less expense than the current promise of a federal “jobs” program.