It's a false dichotomy for self-funded/bootstrapped businesses. But if you consider yourself a startup, you have to deliver growth. It's that pressure that leads to the 70+ hour weeks. It's entirely possible to own and run a business while still putting in reasonable hours. But it's unlikely that business is a startup, by Paul Graham's definition of the word.
For reference, Paul Graham defines a startup as:
A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not
in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to
work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit."
The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with
startups follows from growth.
I personally consider that definition to be bollocks. To me, the defining characteristic is the intent of the company, in terms of it's ultimate size / position. IOW, it's "where you're going", not "how fast you're planning to get there".
I know it goes against the currently accepted groupthink, but I don't believe growing fast is the only way to grow a big company. Or rather, it might be better to say that "at any given point in time, it might or might not be important to be growing fast".
Take establishing a dichotomy between "self-funded/bootstrapped" and "vc funded". I would call that a false dichotomy itself, since it's not an immutable characteristic of a company. You can bootstrap for years, then decide to go chase VC money when/if you need it to achieve your goals.
Another dichotomy may also be pursuing the growth at the behest of investor vs doing it on your own. Growth, or adding value too, can have different meanings to the investor vs innovator. Startups that make money become businesses.
This idea is key, regardless of what the dictionary definition of startup is. A startup cannot merely be a profitable business. If that were true many more startups would be still running today. But if you take investment of 10 million and you're positive cashflow of, say, 200,000 in your first year with a projection of 1 million / yr in 10 years, you will be shut down and sold off: Investors want AT LEAST a 2x return in that same timeframe otherwise it isn't worth it.
Really? Quoting Paul Graham as you would quote the Gospel?
I agree with the comment above, that's the definition of startup according to PG, not THE definition. Especially not a definition carved in stone you can quote to justify a false dichotomy.
What about innovation? It's not true that innovation comes only from growth. Geez I don't even think it's true all other startup features come from growth.
This is what a VC that needs to grow its money would tend to let you believe. Oh, wait...
Please don't make snide generalizations about this community, especially when they're self-refuting. It's a genre of unsubstantive comment we can do without.
For reference, Paul Graham defines a startup as: