5 ms·
#1 is South Dakota?? If anything that should be an indication that whatever metrics they used are not very empirically relevant. Judging from their report, it
by ericz 16y ago
#1 is South Dakota?? If anything that should be an indication that whatever metrics they used are not very empirically relevant.
Judging from their report, it seems like most of the factors are related to various forms of taxes and healthcare. What about significant factors like talent or mentorship? Size of market and characteristics of the population?
- jquery 16y agoWhy do you believe South Dakota a bad place to start a business?
- alain94040 16y agoBecause you can't name one business that started there, whereas you can name how many of the Fortune 500 that started in California?
- jquery 16y agoDo you think that is a good metric for how successful a given small business is likely to be, or do you think that's mostly a reflection of the state's size, geography, and history?
- TomOfTTB 16y agoI'd say the inverse of what you're saying is true. It's natural for small states that want to attract business to create policies that are friendly to new enterprises. California is such a mess in large part because it has so many successful companies that are stuck here.
- dublinclontarf 16y agoThe title is "Small business survival index", which Fortune 500 company do you know that is a small business?
- evgen 16y agoSimple. There is no one there. It is hard to start a thriving business when your market does not exist.