5 ms·

The article doesn’t offer any suggestions, of course. It just lists categories of those individuals bringing in $1 million or more per year. But the list did s

The article doesn’t offer any suggestions, of course. It just lists categories of those individuals bringing in $1 million or more per year. But the list did strike me as notable, in that the numbers are so small. Less than 10,000 people total in the whole US bring in at least a million in revenue. And their profits are likely to be a fraction of that (though informational trades may have a much larger margin). That makes me think these are outliers. Not sure one can learn much from such a small sample size, as their successes are more likely to be due to highly specific individual circumstances, rather than any coherent general perspective. I’d be happy to be shown otherwise though.

barry-cotter 8y ago
10,000 people is a small number on the context of the entire US labour force but it is very far from being a small sample size.
- gamechangr 8y ago
  The articles doesn't imply there are only 10,000 people? Look at a quote just one group: >"The largest group (9,143 businesses) is the professional, scientific, and technical services sector," If you add up all the categories mentioned you get 33,618 businesses above $1 Million
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Same order of magnitude, still insignificant.
    - gamechangr 8y ago
      original OP here. It's quite significant actually, if you visualize it correctly. This article doesn't say there are 33,000 businesses making $1M a year (or you're right that's pretty small). It says there are 33,000 businesses making a $1m a year that have only 1 full time employee. That's big. Is it a commentary on the gig economy making 33,000 millionaires out of traditional business sectors? I'm not saying that's true, but something is shifting and it's big.
Jack000 8y ago
these businesses probably represent very specific circumstances where it's not worth it to hire at least one full time employee.
robotresearcher 8y ago
> Less than 10,000 people total in the whole US bring in at least a million in revenue. TFA: "The number of nonemployer establishments with annual revenue over $1 million grew by 5.7 percent to 38,029 in 2015"
- crucialfelix 8y ago
  A lot of these are businesses that have contactors and freelancers. That makes them nonemployer companies. Maybe the growth is reflecting more gig economy, less benefits and employment guarantees.

barry-cotter 8y ago

10,000 people is a small number on the context of the entire US labour force but it is very far from being a small sample size.

gamechangr 8y ago
The articles doesn't imply there are only 10,000 people? Look at a quote just one group: >"The largest group (9,143 businesses) is the professional, scientific, and technical services sector," If you add up all the categories mentioned you get 33,618 businesses above $1 Million
- coldtea 8y ago
  Same order of magnitude, still insignificant.
  - gamechangr 8y ago
    original OP here. It's quite significant actually, if you visualize it correctly. This article doesn't say there are 33,000 businesses making $1M a year (or you're right that's pretty small). It says there are 33,000 businesses making a $1m a year that have only 1 full time employee. That's big. Is it a commentary on the gig economy making 33,000 millionaires out of traditional business sectors? I'm not saying that's true, but something is shifting and it's big.

Jack000 8y ago

these businesses probably represent very specific circumstances where it's not worth it to hire at least one full time employee.

robotresearcher 8y ago

> Less than 10,000 people total in the whole US bring in at least a million in revenue. TFA: "The number of nonemployer establishments with annual revenue over $1 million grew by 5.7 percent to 38,029 in 2015"

crucialfelix 8y ago
A lot of these are businesses that have contactors and freelancers. That makes them nonemployer companies. Maybe the growth is reflecting more gig economy, less benefits and employment guarantees.