558,000 small businesses. Why we should thank the recession.(blog.crowdspring.com)
blog.crowdspring.com
558,000 small businesses. Why we should thank the recession.
http://blog.crowdspring.com/2010/06/558000-startups-and-small-businesses-why-we-should-thank-the-recession/
7 comments
Unfortunately, this may just be caused by companies reclassifying existing workers and postponing the hiring of new full-time employees, instead preferring "contractors." See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02reich.html?pagew....
the question is how many of these are actual startups, and how many of these are "consulting" companies, that people started in order to get/keep a job
I agree that many of these being people hustling for a buck and not starting a business.
The other thing is, shouldn't we wait to see if these businesses are successful before we start saying it is a good thing for the economy?
The other thing is, shouldn't we wait to see if these businesses are successful before we start saying it is a good thing for the economy?
What's the difference between "hustling for a buck" and "starting a business"?
The intention? Not everyone who is now "working for themselves" is trying to start a business. Take my house cleaner for instance, she would rather have a job and has no intention to grow her business or be in it long term.
"... studies have shown that the historical failure rate for new businesses is 50% over five years ..."
I've always heard that the failure rate for new businesses was closer to 90%. (I don't have the sources to back that up, but neither does he.)
I've always heard that the failure rate for new businesses was closer to 90%. (I don't have the sources to back that up, but neither does he.)
IF the free market is a "Good Thing" AND Big Government and Big Business can AND you are able THEN Go start a small Business
END
Even after you weed out all the consultants and what not, how many of these are actually sellable businesses? And how many are things like photo studios, etc?
Professional photography is a lot like consulting. The differences are that you can't hid bad photography like you can hide bad code, and once you're established, you can charge higher rates than you can as a software consultant.
(I'm already able to charge a higher rate for photography than I am for software development, and I have 17 years in the industry, most of wasted because of the fact that most code is crap, and most management aren't intelligent enough to realize that hero developers are incompetent.)
(I'm already able to charge a higher rate for photography than I am for software development, and I have 17 years in the industry, most of wasted because of the fact that most code is crap, and most management aren't intelligent enough to realize that hero developers are incompetent.)
Why does a business need to be sellable to be valuable? And why aren't photo studios valuable? Our company uses photo studios to photograph our products - they're definitely valuable to us and I see more competition in the space as a good thing (good photos are expensive!).
A photo studio is a small business. Many are successful. Why wouldn't such a business count as a viable startup/business?
Companies like most photo studios aren't really companies at all, they are just jobs for the founders. they can't grow beyond the work capacity of the individual. They have no real value beyond their assets.
What does that have to do with anything? Successful photo studios can be quite profitable businesses, generating quite a bit of income.
Is it really a company if it's revenue goes to zero when the owner retires, or takes a vacation, what if they get hurt and are unable to work Does the company keep making money? If it makes money with out the owner doing all the work then it's a company if the owner MUST work to make it generate revenue then it's really just a job.
So you're basically saying that if the founder(s) have to do actual work in order to maintain profitability than it's not a company?
I should also point out that there are quite a few successful photography photography studios that not only have employees, but also pass their business down to successors, so they DO outlive their founders.
In the end, it's honest work for honest pay, which in my experience is not the case in IT, which is usually a waste of talent. I've worked in the IT industry for 17 years as a software developer, and most of what I've seen is that most of the developers in the industry make up for a complete lack of talent and skill with a lot of hackery and long hours.
I should also point out that there are quite a few successful photography photography studios that not only have employees, but also pass their business down to successors, so they DO outlive their founders.
In the end, it's honest work for honest pay, which in my experience is not the case in IT, which is usually a waste of talent. I've worked in the IT industry for 17 years as a software developer, and most of what I've seen is that most of the developers in the industry make up for a complete lack of talent and skill with a lot of hackery and long hours.
By that standard, Apple isn't really a company.
IF there is no potential for growth beyond the work capacity of a single individual then yes that is not a company but a job.
I've never said that all studios are like this. It just seems to be that most are.
I've never said that all studios are like this. It just seems to be that most are.
Great stuff.
While it's great that people can be resourceful and ingenuous in times of duress, it's a bit off to praise the duress for that.