Technical jargon: What does "scaling" actually mean?

Ever since low-cost TV channels started trying to infect Switzerland with start-up fever, everything suddenly has to scale, otherwise nobody will start to think, let alone act. This is not exactly conducive in a country where the rate of job creation (scaling of jobs) - the area that will represent the economic success of a country in the future - is worse than is often said.

While in the US, not only the giants Amazon (founded in 1994, employees in 2016: 351,000), Google (1998, 72,053) and Facebook (2004, 17,048), but also smaller start-ups in particular have created around three million new jobs, Swiss start-ups usually remain stuck in the early stages. ETH and EPFL are similarly successful breeding grounds as Stanford and Harvard in the USA. But Swiss ETH and EPFL spin-offs usually don't get off the ground after the first round of financing due to a lack of risk appetite and capital.

There would be no shortage of ideas. Nor would there be a lack of motivated young entrepreneurs. The reasons why start-ups have such a hard time in Switzerland are 1. inertia, 2. skepticism and 3. complacency: the inertia of investors who prefer to buy more luxury goods with mostly old money from their family offices, trusts and funds rather than provide venture capital. If they do invest it in start-ups, it is only to show it off in Rotarian, Rennweg or other clubs instead of providing sound management support. And when the second or third round of financing is needed to scale the business, they get cold feet.

The skepticism of the Swiss towards everything new and different. And the complacency of young entrepreneurs who are quickly satisfied with what they have achieved and plan their exit from the company too early instead of showing courage and thinking big. Even TV series will probably not be able to change this.