When Entrepreneurship Becomes the Preferred Path: Redesigning Society for the Startup Majority

By Futurist Thomas Frey

I’ve been wrestling with a provocative idea: what if entrepreneurship becomes the preferred career path for most people—not everyone, but the majority? Not a few risk-takers launching tech unicorns, but 60-70% of the workforce viewing venture creation as more desirable than traditional employment.

This isn’t far-fetched. Automation is eliminating routine jobs. The gig economy has normalized portfolio careers. AI tools are democratizing capabilities that once required entire teams. Younger generations increasingly view corporate employment as risky—why trust a company to provide stability when layoffs come without warning?

But here’s what fascinates me: our entire social infrastructure—schools, holidays, heroes, values—is built for an employee-majority culture. What happens when entrepreneurship becomes the norm and traditional employment becomes the alternative path?

The School System Split

Our current education model assumes everyone needs identical preparation for corporate life: sit still, follow instructions, memorize facts, get credentials. It’s one-size-fits-all for an employee world.

An entrepreneur-majority society would require a fundamental split in educational pathways—not tracking by ability, but by temperament and interest. Some students genuinely thrive with structure, stability, and specialization. They’d follow a refined version of traditional education, preparing for roles in established organizations where expertise matters more than innovation.

But the majority would choose the entrepreneurial track, which would look radically different. Starting in middle school, students would run real micro-businesses—not simulations, but actual ventures with customers, revenue, and consequences. They’d learn financial literacy through managing budgets, persuasive communication through pitching ideas, and systems thinking through solving actual problems.

High school would abandon the one-size-fits-all college prep model. Entrepreneurial-track students would build portfolios of ventures—some failed, some successful, all documented with lessons learned. Instead of “what’s your GPA?” we’d ask “what have you built, what failed, and what did you learn?”

Teachers would split too. The entrepreneurial track needs mentors who rotate between running businesses and coaching students. They’d teach by example, showing how to spot opportunities, test assumptions, and pivot when reality contradicts your plan. Failure wouldn’t earn bad grades but would be celebrated as data collection.

The key is choice. Not everyone wants the uncertainty of entrepreneurship. Some people prefer specializing deeply in engineering, medicine, or research within stable organizations. That’s valuable and necessary. But the education system should stop pretending that path suits everyone while treating entrepreneurship as a rebellious alternative.

Holidays That Reflect New Values

National holidays reveal what cultures value. Today we celebrate independence, veterans, workers, presidents—the heroes of an employee-based democratic society. When entrepreneurship becomes the preferred path, our holidays would evolve.

Imagine “Founders Day”—not celebrating billionaires, but everyday people who took the leap and started something. Communities would host local founder fairs where people share their ventures, seek collaborators, and tell origin stories. It wouldn’t glorify success but normalize the act of beginning.

“Resilience Day” could honor productive failure and comebacks. Families would share stories of ventures that didn’t work and what they learned. The media would interview people whose first three businesses failed before the fourth succeeded. The cultural message: setbacks are inevitable, recovery is honorable.

We might keep Labor Day but transform its meaning—celebrating not the dignity of employment but the dignity of all productive work, whether in companies or ventures. It would honor both the specialist who perfects their craft within organizations and the generalist who builds new ones.

“Mentor Day” would recognize that entrepreneurship requires networks. A day to honor the advisors, first customers, patient investors, and experienced guides who help new founders navigate. Because when most people are entrepreneurs, everyone needs someone who’s been there before.

The New Heroes

We’d still have sports stars and actors, but they’d share the cultural stage with founder-heroes whose journeys inspire action. Not the billionaire tech founders we lionize today—that’s still lottery-winner thinking. Instead, we’d celebrate people who built sustainable, meaningful ventures that solved real problems.

The heroes would be the restaurant owner who weathered three years of losses before finding the right concept. The software developer who left a comfortable job to build tools for underserved markets. The teacher who started an educational consulting practice after realizing schools needed what she knew. The nurse who launched a home healthcare service that competitors eventually copied.

We’d tell stories emphasizing the journey over the outcome. Documentaries would follow founders through the unglamorous work of customer discovery, cash flow management, and team building—not Shark Tank theater but actual problem-solving. Reality shows would chronicle the messy middle of ventures: the pivot moments, the near-death experiences, the small victories that keep you going.

Children would grow up with dual aspirations: some dreaming of mastering a craft within great organizations, others dreaming of solving problems they see in their communities. Both paths would be respected. The cultural shift would be that entrepreneurship is no longer seen as riskier than employment—it’s just a different risk profile.

The Cultural Infrastructure

When entrepreneurship becomes the preferred path, practical infrastructure must adapt. We’d need portable benefits untethered from employers—health insurance, retirement accounts, and disability coverage that move with you. We’d need bankruptcy laws that encourage trying again rather than punishing failure permanently.

Financial institutions would evolve. Instead of mortgages requiring proof of employment, we’d see lending products designed for founders with variable income. Banks would evaluate loan applications based on venture potential and founder capability rather than pay stubs.

Our language would shift. “What do you do?” might become “what are you working on?” Status would derive less from job titles and more from problems solved. Professional networks would organize around skills and interests rather than employers and industries.

Mentorship would become institutionalized. Successful founders would routinely dedicate time to coaching newer entrepreneurs, not as charity but as cultural obligation. Communities would formalize these relationships through local founder networks, co-working spaces, and regular meetups.

The family dinner table would change too. Households might run side ventures together, with teenagers contributing ideas and labor. Inheritance would include not just assets but customer relationships, supplier networks, and operational knowledge. Business wisdom would pass between generations like family recipes.

The Persistent Employee Path

Critically, this isn’t about eliminating traditional employment. Hospitals need surgeons who’ve spent decades perfecting their craft. Research labs need scientists focused on narrow problems for years. Large manufacturers need engineers who deeply understand complex systems.

These roles require stability, specialization, and institutional support. They’re valuable precisely because someone else handles the business operations while experts focus on expertise. An entrepreneur-majority society would respect this path as the right choice for certain temperaments and certain problems.

The difference is that employment becomes a deliberate choice rather than the default assumption. Young people would ask themselves: “Do I want to build new things or perfect existing things? Do I thrive with autonomy or structure? Do I want to be a generalist founder or a specialist expert?” Both answers are honorable.

Final Thoughts

We’re already seeing this shift. Younger generations increasingly prefer starting ventures over climbing corporate ladders. They’ve watched their parents survive layoffs, mergers, and restructurings. They know employment security is largely illusion. They’re choosing different risks.

But we haven’t built the cultural infrastructure to support this transition. We’re still telling kids to get good grades, go to college, and find a good job—as if that path offers the stability it once did.

An entrepreneur-preferred society requires intentional design: schools that offer genuine pathways for different aspirations, holidays that celebrate creation and resilience, heroes who normalize the founder journey, and infrastructure that makes venture building practically feasible.

The question isn’t whether this transformation will happen—it’s already underway. The question is whether we’ll adapt our culture intentionally to support it, or whether we’ll cling to employee-era assumptions while the world changes around us.

When entrepreneurship becomes the preferred path for the majority, everything changes. We should start preparing now.

Redesigning Education for Multiple Career Pathways

Building Economic Infrastructure for Entrepreneurial Societies