Yes, but the problem is for every success story, like your friend, there’s another company out there losing revenue because his customers are now spending money somewhere else. You have to add them all up, not just the successes.
What is possible for one person to do is impossible for an entire class of people to do, because frequently, success is a zero sum game. My success comes at someone else’s expense.
It’s like the “get a better job” argument. Yes, I can get a better job, Joe down the street can get a better job, but 10 million people can’t all get a better job at the same time. It’s a realistic argument for one person with financial problems, it’s an unrealistic argument when discussing a nationwide problem with poverty.
Thanks but I doubt the data. I’d like to know if they are counting the ones that go under each year. Plus 52% seems WAY too many home-based jobs. Are they counting the fools that fall for work at home schemes?
Meh. It may be a government agency, but they have a mission to create data that looks the way they want it. If over half the jobs are home-based, how good are they?
Look Bob, small businesses create more jobs because they are generally more labor intensive enterprises. Also, there is a minimum number of employees to maintain most businesses that does not grow proportionally with the size of a business. For instance a very small business with 10 employees may need a full time accountant. But the same business grown to 100 employees probably doesn’t need 10 accountants. Finally, there are way, way, way more small businesses than large businesses. So you don’t need the figures to see that small businesses are likely to be the best source for jobs. And since the figures confirm that, what is the basis for your argument?
Also, keep in mind that when the government uses the term “small business” it doesn’t just mean Mom and Pop type businesses. Small business are generally 500 employees or less or ~ $7M in revenue. That covers a lot of ground.
Now, a business doesn’t fundamentally change when it goes from 500 to 501 employees, or from $7M to $7.1M in revenue. But the definition has to be quantitative, and that is what the government, in all its wisdom, has deemed to be relevant.
Well, to some extent you can. As was pointed out, most “small businesses” are sole proprietorships - or inherently small. My dentist is never going to employ 5,000 people, she’ll employ three, maybe four. A receptionist who also handles all the billing/insurance/business management stuff, two hygenists and herself. My brother in law is a small business - he’s a CRNA - he employs himself. He isn’t hiring anyone. My personal accountant isn’t likely to become Price Waterhouse Coopers. The guys who run my favorite restaurant employ about fifteen people, they aren’t interested in becoming the next Ruth’s Chris. My dogwalker isn’t about to open up a factory and create demand. My lawnservice guy isn’t interested in being Chemlawn - right now its just him, he might get big enough to hire a few college kids during the summer.
The stakes are much higher than that today. If that company isn’t making something lots and lots of people want, or isn’t in a position to dominate in at least one sector of the industry, it will fail. It’s not just about demand from customers; it’s about competitiveness within industry.
Not really. Big companies don’t compete, they carve up areas and charge about the same, like cell phone, gas companies and cable providers. They know they have a demand. But they can maintain a high profit margin by not fighting over customers.
Competition in most fields died long ago.
Small businesses like restaurants and bakeries depend on local customers to keep them alive. If a big national chain moves in they die.
When you say things like “success is a zero sum game” in defiance of all evidence and common sense, it makes me doubt if we’re discussing the same universe.
The economy is not zero sum. People, on the whole, can get wealthier, and in fact that has been the general trend for quite a long time now - people have in fact gotten MUCH wealthier. Yes, we’re in recession right now. It won’t last forever, just as the last one didn’t last forever.
The fundamentals are different now. we are not getting richer but poorer. Opportunities are shrinking with pay. But now our corporations are on a world stage with every intention of getting the cheapest labor possible. They will ship your job abroad happily if they get someone to do it for 1.3rd the price.
But that is a short term resolution with long term damage. Our corporations deal in short term intervals. They get bonuses on yearly performance. Dumping workers will make the books look good every year. There is a long term problem though. The ability of the lower paid and poor people to buy is being harmed. Demand is dropping. The theory was that China and India would be able to compensate for the drop in American demand.
But that is not happening. Overall demand is dropping. The American buying machine was the engine of the economy. It is sputtering.
I was actually thinking of iPhones as a specific example of the exception that proves the rule, but thinking more about it, it’s really not the case. First of all, although there may not have been a demand for iPhones in particular, you could certainly make a case for handheld electronics being in pretty high demand. Just think of handheld videogames, laptops, mobile phones, PDAs, etc. Secondly, look at how smartphones were designed prior to the iPhone and how they were designed after. Apple certainly was ahead of the curve, but companies such as LG, Samsung, HTC, etc waited for there to be a demand before making something iPhone-like.
Although I don’t entirely disagree with the thought that demand can be created, I think it’s a much rarer event.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinions, but can you offer any facts that support it? Especially considering the mountains of evidence to the contrary?
