4 ms·

There are 2 states in the forest: growing trees and rotting trees. Nothing in between. So this cancer analogy is a bit absurd. The same with business: business

by lnsru 6y ago

There are 2 states in the forest: growing trees and rotting trees. Nothing in between. So this cancer analogy is a bit absurd. The same with business: business is growing or dying, I am not buying “we don’t want grow” argument.

pulse7 6y ago
Please look at this list of the oldest companies in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies They are still operating, but they didn't grow. Even trees in the forest don't grow indefinitely...
- kgwgk 6y ago
  > Even trees in the forest don't grow indefinitely... Their trunks keep getting wider.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  Kinda interessting how majority seem to be from japan or german countries. And they all have very specific business. I wonder how big they are, and whether their size is somewhat constant through their history. Also, how many of them are really the same company, and not actually a batch of different companies just operating under the same name.. Like if a company operated for some time before it goes bust and some years later a different company continues the operation under the same name, but with different people, concepts, etc. would it still be regarded the same companies on that list? In certain cases continuing the tradition and a good name is worth big money and asien companies seem to have traditions around this concept.
lm28469 6y ago
> The same with business: business is growing or dying I know plenty of people with small businesses that are neither growing nor dying, just paying the bills and making enough money to live happily. I'm kind of scared that people can't even imagine this is a possibility to be honest... Not everything has to be the next facebook and have 100% yoy growth
- sxg 6y ago
  Maybe those companies don't have net growth, but they still need some sort of growth. Regardless of what industry you're in, every business will face inevitable losses—customers will decide to leave, inflation will occur, equipment will need to be repaired/replaced, etc. Those losses need to be offset by growth. While net positive growth isn't necessary, it is a major motivator for launching your own business. If you don't have net growth, then you're exchanging both your efforts in working at the business as well as in the day-to-day running of the business in exchange for a relatively fixed income. I'm not sure that the risk involved combined with the income to hours-worked ratio is much more beneficial than just working as an employee with much lower risk and no responsibility to run/manage the business.
  - bmitc 6y ago
    That’s not what people mean by growth of a company. That’s maintaining a balanced, viable system.
    - tome 6y ago
      "Growth" is used as a term for a particular property of every biological system https://basicbiology.net/biology-101/mrs-gren https://basicbiology.net/biology-101/mrs-gren. Perhaps it would help if people in this discussion defined their terms.
  - lm28469 6y ago
    I wouldn't consider "replacing" a lost client or a broken tool as growing. A company with good finances should already have planned for that. Either way I highly doubt that's the "cancer" the article is talking about.
    - sxg 6y ago
      Right, the article is talking about a different sort of growth, but I'm responding to your assertion that there are companies that are neither growing nor dying. I agree that some companies may be sustainable while having net zero growth, as you stated. I disagree that these companies do absolutely nothing to attempt to grow their businesses and don't even think about growth. At minimum, these net zero growth companies must at least grow enough to offset their losses at a sustainable pace. That means these companies do have to participate in traditional growth activities. Specifically, I'm responding to: > I'm kind of scared that people can't even imagine this is a possibility to be honest... From the outside looking in, a net zero growth company appears to be living happily as you stated, but I don't think this reflects reality on closer inspection. All net zero growth businesses exist in a dynamic equilibrium in which they're constantly facing losses and constantly finding ways to grow to (at minimum) offset those losses. And these are just considerations for your own business. What about the competition? If your competitor is willing to build a net positive growth company, what are your odds of survival in the long-term?
grumple 6y ago
Businesses cannot and need not grow forever. I don’t buy your argument. Stable businesses can and do exist.
- Ekaros 6y ago
  Let's take a natural monopoly. Like electric grid. Can these companies really grow forever? At some point they should have build transmission lines to everyone that they can profitably afford to. Then they can either expand to some other field or keep paying 5-20% to their owners as dividends each year... I don't see later option as bad one. Clearly they can provide service and invest to keep it running or even to optimize it. But growth might be impossible.
  - lnsru 6y ago
    Assuming country is healthy with steady growing inhabitant number and this natural monopoly also grows naturally with it.
    - grumple 6y ago
      Populations will stabilize, relying on future population growth is just a pyramid scheme.
bmitc 6y ago
Your analogy does not work. The growth of a forest is different from the growth of a company, which seeks to maximize revenue and profit, often via more customers or exploring existing customers. A forest on the other hand maintains a steady state. Okay, trees continue to grow, but forests have natural ways of ensuring that trees and the other flora do not over occupy. A forest maintains balance, whereas many companies want to eat the world.
fsloth 6y ago
A symphony orchestra does not grow or rot. It stays mostly the same. Of course the value of the institution and the quality of the output may fluctuate over time. I don't think it's growth that is the key for healthy organization - it is the drive to deliver quality output. When that drive withers the rot start. I don't see the quality of output and the drive for quality necessary linked to a constant growth in terms of revenue and so on.
gdubs 6y ago
This is a very incorrect take on forests. They’re incredibly intricate ecosystems in balance. They are anything but black and white, grow or die situations. Cancer in a forest would be the invasive tree that wipes out all of the native species which can’t compete. Or a blight that destroys the dominant trees.
A12-B 6y ago
This isn't really biologically true though? Trees can be in a state of stasis where they are neither growing nor dying. source: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=642#:~:text=The%20second%20big%20difference%20between,plants%20can%20keep%20growing%20indefinitely http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=642#:~:text=The%2....
baq 6y ago
trees 300-500 years old are not unusual. organisms can grow without blowing themselves or their ecosystems up.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
A lot of successful businesses adapt constantly but they don't grow in size. If you define "growth" as constantly changing to adapt to circumstances then you are right. But if you define "growth" as becoming bigger in size, I don't agree.

by lnsru 6y ago

pulse7 6y ago

Please look at this list of the oldest companies in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies They are still operating, but they didn't grow. Even trees in the forest don't grow indefinitely...

kgwgk 6y ago
> Even trees in the forest don't grow indefinitely... Their trunks keep getting wider.
slightwinder 6y ago
Kinda interessting how majority seem to be from japan or german countries. And they all have very specific business. I wonder how big they are, and whether their size is somewhat constant through their history. Also, how many of them are really the same company, and not actually a batch of different companies just operating under the same name.. Like if a company operated for some time before it goes bust and some years later a different company continues the operation under the same name, but with different people, concepts, etc. would it still be regarded the same companies on that list? In certain cases continuing the tradition and a good name is worth big money and asien companies seem to have traditions around this concept.

lm28469 6y ago

> The same with business: business is growing or dying I know plenty of people with small businesses that are neither growing nor dying, just paying the bills and making enough money to live happily. I'm kind of scared that people can't even imagine this is a possibility to be honest... Not everything has to be the next facebook and have 100% yoy growth

sxg 6y ago
Maybe those companies don't have net growth, but they still need some sort of growth. Regardless of what industry you're in, every business will face inevitable losses—customers will decide to leave, inflation will occur, equipment will need to be repaired/replaced, etc. Those losses need to be offset by growth. While net positive growth isn't necessary, it is a major motivator for launching your own business. If you don't have net growth, then you're exchanging both your efforts in working at the business as well as in the day-to-day running of the business in exchange for a relatively fixed income. I'm not sure that the risk involved combined with the income to hours-worked ratio is much more beneficial than just working as an employee with much lower risk and no responsibility to run/manage the business.
- bmitc 6y ago
  That’s not what people mean by growth of a company. That’s maintaining a balanced, viable system.
  - tome 6y ago
    "Growth" is used as a term for a particular property of every biological system https://basicbiology.net/biology-101/mrs-gren https://basicbiology.net/biology-101/mrs-gren. Perhaps it would help if people in this discussion defined their terms.
- lm28469 6y ago
  I wouldn't consider "replacing" a lost client or a broken tool as growing. A company with good finances should already have planned for that. Either way I highly doubt that's the "cancer" the article is talking about.
  - sxg 6y ago
    Right, the article is talking about a different sort of growth, but I'm responding to your assertion that there are companies that are neither growing nor dying. I agree that some companies may be sustainable while having net zero growth, as you stated. I disagree that these companies do absolutely nothing to attempt to grow their businesses and don't even think about growth. At minimum, these net zero growth companies must at least grow enough to offset their losses at a sustainable pace. That means these companies do have to participate in traditional growth activities. Specifically, I'm responding to: > I'm kind of scared that people can't even imagine this is a possibility to be honest... From the outside looking in, a net zero growth company appears to be living happily as you stated, but I don't think this reflects reality on closer inspection. All net zero growth businesses exist in a dynamic equilibrium in which they're constantly facing losses and constantly finding ways to grow to (at minimum) offset those losses. And these are just considerations for your own business. What about the competition? If your competitor is willing to build a net positive growth company, what are your odds of survival in the long-term?

grumple 6y ago

Businesses cannot and need not grow forever. I don’t buy your argument. Stable businesses can and do exist.

Ekaros 6y ago
Let's take a natural monopoly. Like electric grid. Can these companies really grow forever? At some point they should have build transmission lines to everyone that they can profitably afford to. Then they can either expand to some other field or keep paying 5-20% to their owners as dividends each year... I don't see later option as bad one. Clearly they can provide service and invest to keep it running or even to optimize it. But growth might be impossible.
- lnsru 6y ago
  Assuming country is healthy with steady growing inhabitant number and this natural monopoly also grows naturally with it.
  - grumple 6y ago
    Populations will stabilize, relying on future population growth is just a pyramid scheme.

bmitc 6y ago

Your analogy does not work. The growth of a forest is different from the growth of a company, which seeks to maximize revenue and profit, often via more customers or exploring existing customers. A forest on the other hand maintains a steady state. Okay, trees continue to grow, but forests have natural ways of ensuring that trees and the other flora do not over occupy. A forest maintains balance, whereas many companies want to eat the world.

fsloth 6y ago

A symphony orchestra does not grow or rot. It stays mostly the same. Of course the value of the institution and the quality of the output may fluctuate over time. I don't think it's growth that is the key for healthy organization - it is the drive to deliver quality output. When that drive withers the rot start. I don't see the quality of output and the drive for quality necessary linked to a constant growth in terms of revenue and so on.

gdubs 6y ago

This is a very incorrect take on forests. They’re incredibly intricate ecosystems in balance. They are anything but black and white, grow or die situations. Cancer in a forest would be the invasive tree that wipes out all of the native species which can’t compete. Or a blight that destroys the dominant trees.

A12-B 6y ago

This isn't really biologically true though? Trees can be in a state of stasis where they are neither growing nor dying. source: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=642#:~:text=The%20second%20big%20difference%20between,plants%20can%20keep%20growing%20indefinitely http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=642#:~:text=The%2....

baq 6y ago

trees 300-500 years old are not unusual. organisms can grow without blowing themselves or their ecosystems up.

spaetzleesser 6y ago

A lot of successful businesses adapt constantly but they don't grow in size. If you define "growth" as constantly changing to adapt to circumstances then you are right. But if you define "growth" as becoming bigger in size, I don't agree.