Every time I’m alerted to pieces such as Backing female founders could give £250bn economic boost I think, “If hamsters had wings, they would fly”. An extract:
“If women started and scaled businesses at the same rate as men, it would deliver a potential £250bn boost to the UK economy.”
The decades roll by and we keep seeing these pieces. The idea that investors are disinclined to invest in female-led start ups and developing companies is absurd. The solution to the non-existent ‘problem’ is obvious of course, for women to collectively risk their money in female-led start ups. Hmm, what could possibly go wrong?
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Quite. Last night a “rich house poor house” programme illustrated why these exhortations haven’t worked for the 40 years I’ve been aware of them. The rich were a couple where the man had built up a thriving “trades business”. Having sold it for £150million he was having trouble not being a “workaholic” and was starting another l, despite having heart surgery due to “years of stress”.The poor were a couple with children, he a plasterer and she a gardener. Cut a long story short the rich bloke paid for driving lessons for the plasterer so he could” have a full diary of jobs” and training for the woman to be a plumber. The male worker(in the rich man’s business) enthused at the possible £100k earnings if you worked 60 Hr weeks. Entirely predictably the woman was interested in the training being part time and the opportunity earn a decent amount while being a P/T plumber. All the research shows women who go self employed or start a small business generally do so to have a “work life balance” while men do so to “be your own boss” and maximise earnings.
If one really does want to increase small businesses to grow in reality getting Gov. not make it so hard through tax and red tape. But if you had to take a “gendered” approach the data shows you would in fact target men for investment. Because they really are a better bet for business growth. Even if it’s not good for their health! It is good for the economy, employment and dividends.
Any funds going to women only are in fact funding a lot of small businesses that the originator does not intend to grow beyond a manageable “work life balance”. In effect subsidies to alow part time work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve always had some respect for Scandinavian countries which did the research and concluded that getting equal outcomes on the pay gap etc. Could only be achieved if men worked a lot less. Hence policies of paternity leave, family leave etc. to get the men to be less work oriented. Of course they then had to make this “compulsory” as it turned out men still worked harder. Fortunately for their continued prosperity it turns out to be really hard to get those pesky men to kick back and stop striving.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If hamsters had wings…. That reminds me of an East African proverb I once found in a book of proverbs from around the world: “Before you complain about the tiger, be grateful God didn’t give it wings.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha very good! Thanks.
LikeLike