4 ms·

At its peak during the 1980s and 1990s this is exactly what Inc magazine focused on, businesses making between $10 million and $100 million, the vast middle sec

At its peak during the 1980s and 1990s this is exactly what Inc magazine focused on, businesses making between $10 million and $100 million, the vast middle section of American business, the tens of thousands of medium sized businesses that make up the bulk of the economy. And Inc was very popular, because at that time it was a very popular idea for an entrepreneur to build a business on that scale. After 2000 that particular ideal faded away, and also the market for what Inc magazine offered faded away. Slowly, but increasingly, the focus shifted to "unicorns." There were a few contributing factors: 1. In the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s it was still possible to start a business and grow it to $20 million, and then remain relatively stable at that level. However, the creation of new businesses has been in decline since the 1970s, a trend partly offset by the explosion of software startups, but still the trend is downwards. 2. Consolidation. In 1999 there were 8,000 businesses listed on all of the USA's stock markets (NYSE, Nasdaq, etc). In 2022, there are only 3,400 businesses listed. These last 20 years have seen the fastest consolidation in the history of the USA. As such, the middle zone of American business is under pressure. Much more now than before 2000, a business has to get big, or get bought, or go under. So the dream that Inc magazine was selling in the 1980s and 1990s simply isn't realistic any more.

specialist 4y ago
I'd like to see a Gini coefficient type analysis for businesses. Knowing nothing about nothing, I wonder about the role of financialization and tax policy in driving this transition. Stuff like the preference for growth stocks over value stocks, replacing pensions with individual retirement accounts, and cutting capital gains taxes. However we got here, my belief (hope) is our economies would be more resilient with more small to mid-size companies. Ditto more fair.
- icelancer 4y ago
  Tax rates on small businesses - especially in my county/state combination - are absolutely brutal and have significantly gone up over time in comparison to larger businesses as a percentage of revenue. There's a lot of reasons for this, none of which I think are deliberately intended to harm small businesses, to be clear, but it's frustrating all the same.
icelancer 4y ago
>> As such, the middle zone of American business is under pressure. Much more now than before 2000, a business has to get big, or get bought, or go under. So the dream that Inc magazine was selling in the 1980s and 1990s simply isn't realistic any more. I guess. Our HQ is in an industrial-commercial zone, and there are no shortage of small businesses making $1-100MM doing stuff I've never heard of, have probably existed for decades, and just do quite well for themselves. I've driven around 5-10 square miles over the last few years around here just to take inventory of said businesses, and so many of them don't have websites or meaningful online presence, yet clearly do decently well. I think people just don't talk about these businesses, or care very much. Only Mike Rowe really seems to care about small business / blue collar-type work (Dirty Jobs). I guess Guy Fieri does a good job of highlighting restaurants in his work, too. Kinda sad.

specialist 4y ago

I'd like to see a Gini coefficient type analysis for businesses. Knowing nothing about nothing, I wonder about the role of financialization and tax policy in driving this transition. Stuff like the preference for growth stocks over value stocks, replacing pensions with individual retirement accounts, and cutting capital gains taxes. However we got here, my belief (hope) is our economies would be more resilient with more small to mid-size companies. Ditto more fair.

icelancer 4y ago
Tax rates on small businesses - especially in my county/state combination - are absolutely brutal and have significantly gone up over time in comparison to larger businesses as a percentage of revenue. There's a lot of reasons for this, none of which I think are deliberately intended to harm small businesses, to be clear, but it's frustrating all the same.

icelancer 4y ago

>> As such, the middle zone of American business is under pressure. Much more now than before 2000, a business has to get big, or get bought, or go under. So the dream that Inc magazine was selling in the 1980s and 1990s simply isn't realistic any more. I guess. Our HQ is in an industrial-commercial zone, and there are no shortage of small businesses making $1-100MM doing stuff I've never heard of, have probably existed for decades, and just do quite well for themselves. I've driven around 5-10 square miles over the last few years around here just to take inventory of said businesses, and so many of them don't have websites or meaningful online presence, yet clearly do decently well. I think people just don't talk about these businesses, or care very much. Only Mike Rowe really seems to care about small business / blue collar-type work (Dirty Jobs). I guess Guy Fieri does a good job of highlighting restaurants in his work, too. Kinda sad.