The quantity of moonshine available is not unlimited but it is not fixed either.
If you are poor and decide that you can take on Wal Mart, then you are doing it wrong. How do you explain immigrant success? Why shouldn’t every generation of native born poor have the same percentage of successful entrepreneurs as the population of poor immigrants?
People frequently oversimplify economics and simply chant “supply/demand” and when we are talking about things like unemployment, it is misleading. but when you are simply saying that prodictivity creates wealth, that’s kinda axiomatic.
Basic income virtually eliminates any disincentives to work that a welfare program might create. You don’t lose basic income because you are making too much money.
And the theory is that there are enough of those potential entrepreneurial poor that they could employ a large portion of the rest.
You don’t need to be Milton Friedman to know that productivity creates wealth nor do you have to be Isaac Newton to know that the the derivative of 2x is 2. What’s the point of your post other than to insult?
Productivity creating wealth is such a controversial and esoteric concept only Nobel Prize winning economists can mention it! I’m so glad I didn’t step out of my pay grade and mention terms like profit or costs. That would have Pitting worthy!
Your cite is only considering the subset of poor individuals with household incomes actually below the poverty line, though. Based on the Census data that your cite linked to, out of about 26,500 adult individuals age 18-64 below the poverty line, approximately 10,700 or about 40% worked, of whom about 2700 worked full-time and year-round.
However, that doesn’t take into account the disabled, people in school, and poor people with incomes slightly above the official poverty line. When you break down that additional data, it turns out that a majority of heads of households aged 18-64 with household incomes up to 125% of the poverty line do work at least half-time.
Again, SA, you keep talking out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. Repeatedly you insist that you weren’t talking about “large-scale solutions for poor people in general” and get all indignant about being expected to back up any such claims.
And then, repeatedly, you turn around and make more sweeping claims about successful entrepreneurship being easily attainable by poor people in general. You can’t have it both ways.
But that doesn’t stop you from constantly trying, with perpetual oscillations between unsupported generalizations (such as the ones I quoted previously) and angry denials that you’re making any such generalizations. You’re doing it again in this very post:
FFS, SA, do you ever even listen to yourself? You’re complaining that I say entrepreneurship succeeds only for the most high-functioning minority of the poor, and then you’re admitting that entrepreneurship succeeds only for the most high-functioning minority of the poor, and that if significantly more of the poor were equally high-functioning, that would damage their chances as entrepreneurs!
That is, you’re willing to bet me that some people who have already successfully made it as entrepreneurs are doing fine as entrepreneurs. :dubious: Yeah, that takes a whole lot of guts.
But no, that very safe assertion doesn’t count as evidence that you have any idea what you’re talking about when it comes to the general likelihood of success of entrepreneurship among poor people.
As it happens, though, we no longer have a disagreement on that issue, because you’ve now agreed with me that entrepreneurship isn’t a realistic path to financial success for any but the highest-functioning minority of the poor. At least, until the next time you flip-flop on the issue.
As is usually the case, this insistent rhetoric to the effect that “anybody can do it, but everybody can’t do it, in fact most people can’t do it, but anybody can do it” is not designed to provide any useful assessment of the success of microentrepreneurship among poor people or any serious policy recommendations about how microentrepreneurship among poor people could be made most effective.
What it’s designed to do is to provide a rationalization for being apathetic and callous about poverty, along the lines of “well if people don’t want to be poor then they should just start their own business, because anybody could succeed at that if they really tried, and if they don’t then their poverty is their own fault so fuck them.”
Nobody’s been “attacking income opportunities” in any way. What we’ve been trying to establish is about what percentage of the poor can be realistically expected to “make it on their own” via such opportunities.
Now that you’ve admitted (at least for the moment) that realistically speaking that percentage is “relatively small”, we don’t have any argument with you about the intrinsic goodness of business opportunities per se. In particular, nobody at all is trying to deny that entrepreneurship, for the minority of poor people for whom it has a good chance of success, is an excellent thing.
It also doesn’t count the folks who work under the table.
Note that this article is from 1997, before welfare reform kicked in and people could get indefinite cash assistance. If people were supplementing this subsidy with “side businesses” back in the days of few-strings-attached money, you better believe they are doing it now that long-term assistance is largely limited to SNAP and we have Craigslist, eBay, and Etsy.
The poor are already entrepreneurial. They are just too risk averse (and with good reason) to make those full-time “legal” gigs.
You’re exactly right, no one said that everyone or most people can move easily. They (you?) said “People” can easily move to some other part of the country, without qualifying it at all. That was my whole point. Without a qualifier it seemed whoever was making the claim essentially suggested that “People” who can not do this are the exception, not the rule.
The last part of your comment (“Aside from the fact…”) makes no sense to me at all. I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
The point is, people who are right now “in poverty” (isn’t this whole thread about getting out of it once you’re already there?) are exactly the ones who can NOT easily move around to other parts of the city, state, country, or world where their prospects might be better.
Actually, Shodan’s link did not even address the point to which he claimed to be responding.
The original statement was that most of the poor work. His “response” only addressed full time employment, carefully ignoring all the poor who work part time.
Sure I can. It’s easy.
Over here we have group A. Group A is poor people. Some are employed full-time in low paid jobs, some are employed part-time in low paid jobs, and some are unemployed. Generally speaking most of them are capable of improving their lot in life by seeking to earn money in any of a variety of ways that consist of providing services to their community. All of them, however, would not be able to go out en masse and make money at these jobs because there aren’t as many of these jobs as there are poor people. Fortunately there are more than enough jobs to go around for those few (percentage wise) who find themselves inspired enough to go out and pursue these kinds of work. Thus we can correctly say that any members of Group A who wish to pursue these lines of work will find them available, and we can also acknowledge the achingly obvious fact that a) only a very small percentage of Group A will attempt to make money this way; and b) the fact that these opportunities exist does not mean that Group A as a whole can employ them.
Now, because I have serious doubts that even this explanation will make sense to you, let me put it another way. Let’s say that for whatever reason Group A would benefit by an airplane flight to Miami. However, only a small percentage of the people in Group A have the wherewithal to make the flight. As we can see, generally speaking everyone in Group A stands to gain from traveling to Miami, but only a relative few will actually be able to make it.
I hope that this clears things up for you so that you can understand the difference in meaning when one talks about a group in general terms about things that ultimately will be available to only a relative few.
Now you’re just being silly. You made specific claims about certain qualities the poor must possess in order to succeed in these lines of work, i.e., "entrepreneurship has the power to be very successful for the most healthy, capable, motivated, intelligent minority of the group. You even bolded these qualities just to make sure everyone knew exactly what qualities you were convinced they need to succeed.
I countered by observing that they didn’t need to possess the “most” of any of these qualities to succeed, but rather only the same as would be needed to fulfill minimum wage type work.
So now you’ve switched horses and are trying to argue that because only a few will these types of entrepreneurship, they are therefore “the most high-functioning”, so you were right all along and I’m talking out both sides of my mouth by claiming they needn’t be exceptionally healthy, capable, motivated, intelligent, etc., because now you’ve determined that by trying in the first place these people are therefore “high-functioning” and therefore fall under the rubric of these other qualities you listed. I quarrel with this description for two reasons: one, in your very specific listing of the qualities a poor person would have to possess, “high-functioning” appears nowhere, so you’re attempting to shoehorn in a new quality previously unmentioned in order to declare yourself right; and second, to undertake work mowing lawns or cleaning houses or in of the many other opportunities available, requires no greater functioning ability than would be required to find a job working for someone, which many of the poor have done, and in some cases many times. So no, people don’t have to be especially high-functioning to undertake this type of work, and therefore I’m not admitting that they are.
No, I’m willing to bet you in order to prove to you first-hand that you’re wrong when you assertively make such ignorant proclamations as “earning pretty good money on the order of $30 an hour” isn’t “anything close to realistic”. The fact is that it’s not only realistic but being done all the time. And I can prove it with real live people who’ve done it…myself included.
But of course you know this, and that’s why you have to keep changing things up in order to try to make yourself come out on top. If you were as sure that $30/hour isn’t realistic as you so authoritatively state, you’d take me up on my bet in a heartbeat because you’d be certain I’d lose. The fact you haven’t taken me up on it shows you aren’t as sure of yourself as you try to come across, and the fact you have to try to recast the nature of it into something it isn’t in order to weasel out of it while trying to save face is just icing on the same cake.
As for me I’m done with you, and I’m done with this hijack. If anyone reading this thread would like to make more money than you’re making now, whether you’re currently employed or not, I would encourage you to consider taking on some of the methods I’ve mentioned in this thread for doing so. There are a lot of advantages and benefits to these types of work. You can work as little or as much as you want. You can set your own hours. You can start small and grow from there as you like. Most require little to no significant investment. Even mowing can be gotten underway for less than $200 if the equipment is bought used, and a complete set of brand new equipment can be had for $500 to $600, which isn’t a lot for work that pays $30/hour. And each of these kinds of work bring in cash every day. And if you strike out (which in the main will happen only if you don’t try hard enough), no real harm is done. Washing windows, painting houses, cleaning houses, etc., require very little investment, and mowing equipment can usually be sold for about half what you paid for it. So you really don’t have anything to lose unless you’re absolutely penniless, and in that case I’m sure you have enough intelligence and common sense to know what’s possible for you and what isn’t.
And to anyone wanting to try, I’d warn not to pay attention to any ‘nattering nabobs of negativity’. They have reasons of their own for discouraging you. They don’t want you to succeed, or even to try. They are not your friends.
It links to census data; you even quoted the link. But those are older numbers. I posted 2014 numbers elsewhere:
However as pointed out, not all those people can work. And official poverty lines don’t necessarily match what many of us would think of as poor.
I get your point. I’m not trying to blame the victim but when it was suggested that entrepreneurship could alleviate some poverty, one of the responses was the case of Kansas City where there are lots and lots of poor so that even if you had a lot of entrepreneurs you still couldn’t employ everyone. This sort of excuse making attitude is basically saying “just give them money because nothing else will work”
I went out on my own after being admitted to the Bar. I had everyone close to be basically telling me that although they loved me, I was a fucking fool for doing so. Two years later, I have paid off my start up expenses and am making more money than I would if I had taken the most prestigious job offered to anyone in my graduating class. I am looking into a loan so I can hire another attorney and another staff member and expand my business even more.
Of course it isn’t for everyone. I am sure that equal parts of luck and skill has played a part in my success, probably more luck than skill. But it worked for me and I am no longer dependent on the beneficence or business skill of another person to increase my salary. The more productive work than I put in, the more that goes directly in my pocket.
That being said, the government itself puts up far too many barriers to entry for would be entrepreneurs. At least around here, I need to get a state business license: $35, and a city business license: $30. I am subject to the self-employment tax, unemployment compensation tax, and workers compensation tax. If you own anything you want to keep, you better get malpractice insurance, CGL insurance, and asset protection insurance and/or form a corporation or LLC. The State of West Virginia, in a fit of absolutely lunacy, allows cities to collect a Business and Occupation Tax on the gross receipts of a business. If I collect $2M in revenue, but have $2.1M in expenses, I have a $100k loss for the year, but the city taxes me on $2M. Absolutely absurd.
I also have to pay quarterly taxes which can be a trap for the unwary who do not put aside money as it comes in. If I pay an employee, say $15 per hour, I have to add social security tax, unemployment tax (state and federal) and workers comp tax on top of that wage. That diminishes the amount of wage I could pay otherwise.
Since I want to keep good, quality employees, they need health insurance which the cost has increased 60% in the last two years. The government does not require a business of my size to provide health insurance, but I do because as I said, I want healthy and happy employees, and I want my employees to feel like part of the “family” and not need outside sources of income. But that is my business model and it has worked so far. I don’t look down upon other businesses that simply look at their bottom line as part of their model.
The minimum wage is also a barrier to entry. Although none of my employees make near minimum wage, the fact that the wage is set artificially inflates all other wages. Proposals to increase it to $15 per hour would require me to pay my employees about $29 or $30 per hour, putting me out of business.
If after all of that, I am still making a profit, the state and feds pull out the giant taxation dick and assess me at higher rate for the more money I make.
Although it is getting better, this freedom that one has by not having a boss means sleepless nights and heavy drinking to keep one’s sanity. It is all on you. Nobody else at the office is going to step in and run your business. If you punch a time clock, you are done until the next day. When you work for yourself, it is hard to “clock out” as since all time is your time, it becomes difficult to separate work time from family time. Relationships suffer.
So, in short, not everyone can do it. Not everyone who does do it will succeed, and some who do succeed will die from liver failure. 
This self employment tax is exactly equal to the employer and employee portions of social security and medicare tax. There is no additional tax that you are paying that the employer and employee are paying combined in other situations AFAICT.
That’s hardly what we refer to as a barrier. Or are you saying that you should be immune from tort liability?
I don’t know if you recognize this as a sales tax but that is what it is.
It also diminishes the wages you would receive if you were someone else’s employee.
That doesn’t sound correct.
There is a big difference between running a legal practice and mowing lawns
Also worth noting that, overall, lawyers benefit enormously from business regulations. Even putting aside all of the work that such regulation create for lawyers (and the fact that a lawyer’s lifeblood, the public court system, is funded by taxes), lawyers earnings are much higher than the market would set them because the supply of lawyers is artificially restricted. It is extremely time-consuming and expensive to receive a license to practice law, which makes it so that even though a competent paralegal could do a big portion of your work for much cheaper than you, they are forbidden by law from doing so.
If you got rid of the minimum wage and all the other regulations that UltraVires is complaining about, and also got rid of the cartel protection for lawyers (even if it was partial, in the way that many states treat nurse practitioners), it would probably be a wash.
Correct. However, it is debatable whether it is a perfect match. I pay 15.3% of my earnings in self-employment taxes. An employee has 7.65% taken out of his check. If an employee gets $30k per year, he pays 7.65% in payroll taxes. If I make $30k per year, then I pay 15.3% in payroll taxes.
You have a colorable argument that without the employer portion of the tax, that the employee would actually make ($30k+7.65%, too lazy to calculate) and it is exactly the same. But inefficiencies in the system make it not exactly the same. Plus the psychological aspect of not seeing it taken is important.
Tort liability is another subject with regard to government expanding the liability of business. But it is one borne almost solely by the employer. The employee is not liable for unsafe conditions. Again, you might argue that this would be reflected by diminished pay, but it is an expense seen solely by the employer and is a barrier to entry. It makes a difference in Shodan’s $30 lawn mowing if I am being paid through payroll versus earning it as a business owner.
It is on top of any sales tax. Professional services are not taxed in West Virginia, however. But this type of tax is not collected at the point of sale and passed on to the state. It means that I am getting hit even if I am not profitable, which happens to many startups in the first couple of years. It could put into bankruptcy those developing businesses who may actually be successful in a few years.
Yes, but again, it is not always a perfect match.
It is. If a paralegal makes $20/hour in today’s market, what happens when the minimum wage is $15/hour? Does the paralegal still make $20?
Of course there are differences, but the similarities are more prominent, at least when we are talking about small business. As a lawyer, I need customers (called clients) just like the lawn service needs customers. The mowers and weedeaters have to be serviced, just like my pending cases need “serviced.” The gas cans need filled and the trucks need maintained, just like I need to pay for depositions, court transcripts, and filing fees.
I don’t disagree with any of this in principle, but the thread is not about opening a law firm, it is opening any small business. It may be argued that I am suckling at the government teat (although I would certainly dispute that in another thread) the lawn business certainly is not.
It sounds like most of the differences are in your head and not in your wallet.
Yes, there is risk associated with owning a business. The capital requirements and overhead of a lawn mowing service are not in the same league as a law practice.
This sounds like an excise tax that you are not subject to. There are some localities that charge a business tax too. maybe you are talking about those?
These taxes CAN be collected at point of sale can’t they? Is your water company passing these taxes on to you? What rate is your locality charging you?
How frikking close do you want to get. We are talking about rounding errors here.
Why would the paralegal get a 50% pay raise? Will they leave to go work a fryalator? Their pay may have to increase over time as the inflationary effects of the minimum wage takes effect but that should increase your revenue as well.
But right now the minimum wage is NOT $15 (and I doubt we will see that anytime soon) so I think we can safely ignore the minimum wage issue.
The capital investment and overhead involved with running out a lawn mowing service out of a pickup truck versus a law practice out of an office near the courthouse puts them in entirely different ballparks. Remember we are talking about microbusinesses as a pathway out of poverty so scale and relative risks matter.