2 ms·
But we used to have a large number of $20-$40 million-per-year companies where people had decent jobs and worked. When that becomes a marque of a schmuck then w
by ArkyBeagle 11y ago
But we used to have a large number of $20-$40 million-per-year companies where people had decent jobs and worked. When that becomes a marque of a schmuck then we have a problem.
I think some of these overvalued... frankly, Pet Rock companies aid and abet this. Don't get me wrong, WE are the problem here but the effects are not good.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoI read this that you have a preference for a number of mid-cap companies which employ modest numbers of people at "decent" jobs. (decent in quotes because as a subjective description it's hard to pin down what a given individual considers decent and another individual doesn't). The current economy supports a large number of those. And they provide steady employment for a large number of people. But often times in this forum (HN) companies providing jobs which are considered "CRUD" are not held in high esteem and so you don't hear about them. So perceptions can be biased as well. I worry more about non-allocation when you can't get credit from banks and you companies sit on giant hordes of cash. That slows the economy down and makes it hard for new experiemental companies to get going.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoI have seen a lot of mid-cap companies trashed by people trying to go for the brass ring. There is absolutely nothing wrong with CRUD. It's all CRUD to an extent. To your last sentence - yep.