One way you could oversimplify the Canadian economy is to say that it revolves around three things: natural resources, real estate, and high immigration. (You can tell me I’m wrong in the comments below.) More recently, we’ve also been touting the growing number of tech workers in our cities. But in some ways this is a bit of a vanity metric. 

I think of it in terms of two different categories of workers. There are tech workers that are the result of foreign companies opening satellite offices to take advantage of the weak Canadian dollar and our more enlightened immigration policies. And there are tech workers that are the result of Canadian-based companies innovating, growing, and needing more talent. Think Shopify.

The former situation is not at all bad, but a lot of the value is going to accrue outside of the country. Whereas in the latter situation, we get to be the principal recipients and we get all of the positive externalities associated with innovation and entrepreneurship. One of these is a powerful compounding effect. Successful startups tend to beget even more new companies. 

So even though I work in and benefit from one of the three things that I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I believe that we need to be much better at encouraging a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in Canada. We’ve become too complacent.

This is a critically important topic that we don’t seem to be talking about nearly enough. So I plan to do more of that here on the blog.

I was picking up food the other night on Bloor Street (via Uber Eats) and the lineup of delivery drivers outside of the restaurant was at least ten people deep when we arrived. While we were waiting, another handful of drivers pulled over to quickly pickup their deliveries. This is what is happening in our cities right now, especially here in Toronto while we live through another stay-at-home order. And the numbers certainly reflect it.

Last month in March, Uber's delivery business (which is separate from the company's mobility business) recorded a 150% year-over-year increase in annualized gross bookings. The company's run-rate as of March is now $52 billion. To put this number into perspective, the company's mobility business also had its best ever month in March with an annualized gross bookings run-rate of $30 billion.

Delivery > mobility right now. Makes sense.

To further put this into perspective, total restaurant spending across the entirety of the United States was $670 billion in 2019 (figure from Benedict Evans). So Uber Eats has quickly become a meaningful part of how we eat. I obviously believe that people are dying to get out and eat at restaurants again, but these figures are still interesting nonetheless.

It's also interesting to think about the above trendline from a broader logistics perspective. Alongside the rise in Uber Eats, we are seeing a wave of capital move toward "rapid delivery apps." These are platforms that allow meals, groceries, and other stuff to be delivered, in some cases, almost right away, which aligns with where I think consumers are moving. Rather than making lists and doing weekly shops, it's now about just-in-time delivery.

It's arguably a lazier way of going about things, but water will always find the path of least resistance.

Many, or perhaps most, of these platforms have adopted an asset light approach. Instacart, which partners with existing grocers, would fall into this category. Their model revolves around gig workers going into existing stores, picking orders directly from the shelves, and then delivering those orders. And it is what Blair Welch was getting at in his recent RENX interview when he reasoned that grocery shopping is still being done, almost exclusively, at local stores.

This approach is enough for Instacart to be valued at nearly $40 billion, according to the Financial Times. So something seems to be working.

Back in the old days, and by the old days I mean the 1980s, there were a handful of ways in which you were likely to get rich. You either inherited it, or you made it in oil or real estate. The Forbes list of the 100 richest Americans was first published in 1982 and, at that time, 60 of the people on this list had inherited their wealth. Of the 40 new fortunes on the list, about 60% were primarily related to oil or real estate. If you couldn't inherit your money, these two industries were a good place to start.

But as Paul Graham explains in this recent essay about "how people get rich now," this is no longer the case. On the 2020 list, there were 73 new fortunes, but only 4 stemmed from real estate and only 2 stemmed from oil. As you might imagine, today's biggest driver is what we call tech and, more specifically, it is people founding tech companies (there are also a couple of examples of early employees doing very well). Of the 73 new fortunes last year, approximately 30 came from tech, including 8 of the top 10 fortunes on the list.

Given how many people are starting new companies today (it has become easier and cheaper) and given how many of these companies are quickly growing to big valuations (things are scaling faster), it is perhaps tempting to think about this period of time as being entirely unprecedented. Never before have we seen so many young people getting rich by starting their own company. And never before have we seen such inequality.

However, Graham argues in his essay that this period of time is the default. What we saw in the second half of the 20th century was actually an anomaly. Indeed, if you go back to the end of the 19th century, the richest people in the US were mostly people who were starting their own companies and taking advantage of new technologies, such as that of mass production.

His claim is that for the most part it wasn't really viable to start your own company in, say, the 1960s. Instead, most people simply went to work for a big company that had some sort of oligopolistic positioning in the market. And it turns out that was pretty good for maintaining a strong middle class. Less people were getting fabulously rich. I'd like to see some more data points around entrepreneurship and wealth during this era. But regardless, I think it's pretty clear that the dominant sources of wealth have changed.