4 ms·

It is insanely hard to build a business, and I speak as someone who has built businesses in both tech and franchising (which should theoretically be much more s

It is insanely hard to build a business, and I speak as someone who has built businesses in both tech and franchising (which should theoretically be much more straightforwards). At the primordial stage, before there are reliable revenues, you must have everyone marching to the same drum. If you can’t do what I say, please GTFO because you are actively harming what is already hanging on by a thread. If I can’t fire bad people then I can’t build a business, period. And if you don’t like it, please go create a business model, raise and invest the capital, hire the workers, spend a huge fraction of your waking hours worrying and agonizing over the business, and then deal with entitled people who have way less stake in the game who think they can do it better. One thing I like about government offices is that the people most motivated to live in insane bureaucracies, punch a card, act entitled, and hurt customers go to work for them. At least it exits a large fraction of nightmare employees from the private sector pool.

nkjnlknlk 4y ago
Wow. It sounds like you'd benefit from society where the risk of innovating (assuming your business is innovating in some capacity) is not life or death! I daresay a more equitable society would make it so you have an easier time with running your business as well.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
You don't have the right to build a business. You have the right to try, of course, but it's not like there's some natural law that you should be able to succeed. So appeals to "it's hanging on by a thread!" don't really do much for me; maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees, in which case I'd really rather the thread be cut. Your comment about firing people is kinda flippant. That’s your prerogative as a business owner, but don’t be surprised when your employees treat you just as transactionally as you treat them.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  People have the right to freely associate with who they want, ergo the right to build a business.
  - eropple 4y ago
    If they'd like to operate as a sole proprietorship with unlimited liability, perhaps. If they'd like to operate as a virtual person that insulates personal assets from liability, then the society that grants such a charter absolutely should get to put boundaries on what, as a collective deployer of potentially significant capital, that business is allowed to do.
- dvt 4y ago
  > maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees This is a weird take, as it absolutely does. Kind of how the viability of a military also relies on an imbalance of power between generals and privates. Power structures are fundamentally necessary in productive endeavours.
  - petsfed 4y ago
    Two things: First, power structures are not fundamentally necessary in productive endeavors, but division of responsibility absolutely is. I submit to your authority in situation A, and you in turn submit to my authority in situation B. But insofar as there is a power imbalance, it is a function of how the responsibility is divided, and how often situation A comes up vs situation B. Is there actually a power imbalance between a general and a private though? There is absolutely a difference in scope of responsibility, but a general, BY THEMSELVES, does not have some special ability to compel that the private does not. The organization inflicts discipline, and its clear that the discipline is necessary for the organization to achieve its goals. But armies that understand the enforcement of discipline as the exercise of a power differential frequently mutiny. I've read pretty frequently that when you start conceptualizing your marriage in terms of power structures, you may as well draw up the divorce papers, because that endeavor is no longer productive.
    - dvt 4y ago
      > I've read pretty frequently that when you start conceptualizing your marriage in terms of power structures, you may as well draw up the divorce papers, because that endeavor is no longer productive. This is an interesting conversation, and I think my counterargument would be that governments, marriage, and other such institutions (schools, etc.) are not what I would consider "productive" endeavors, but rather "sociopolitical" ones†. In those cases, I agree that power imbalances are extremely detrimental to their goal. A military is different in that regard (and so is a corporation). You're right that if the power differential becomes oppressive, you'll have a mutiny, but that's neither here nor there. (The contrapositive is if there's a zero power differential you have anarchy.) † I'm not sure where courts would stand. They're probably a special case of societal institution that also requires power differentials.
- dasil003 4y ago
  You're missing the point. It's not about entitlement or rights. The point the GP is making is that in a true startup situation, either everyone rows in the same direction, or the business fails and everyone loses their job. This is a very different situation from an established large-scale business. You might say: "doesn't matter, worker rights are worker rights, and it's on the entrepreneur to make sure he can meet the legal obligations". That's fine if you feel that way, but you'll get a startup ecosystem more like France than the US though.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    I'm not missing the point. I just disagree with it. I don't see "business fails" as an inherently bad thing. Some businesses aren't viable and that's okay! To use your rowing analogy: presumably, unless someone is actively trying to sabotage the team, everyone is rowing in the same direction. The issue is more, are the rowers being given enough breaks? Are they demanding too many? Is the captain beating them if they don't row fast enough? etc etc. We can quibble about where the lines are. But if the boat can't stay afloat without pushing workers to their breaking points, then maybe the boat deserves to sink.
    - dasil003 4y ago
      You've set up a strawman that has nothing to do with what the GP said.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  To be clear - IMO any business that is not profitable is hanging by a thread. I invest capital and time in building new entities that I am confident can and will become profitable. I am potentially losing all of my money and time if that doesn't happen, and the vast majority of businesses fail. Creating a successful, sustainable, profitable business is a very difficult (yet rewarding) endeavor that I have had success at in the past. And my point is that anyone who wants to stop me from doing so I need to get rid of ASAP before they put any more of my time and money at risk, and being obligated by the government to keep dead weight around (i.e. unions) is insane, from my perspective as an entrepreneur.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Like I said to the other commenter: I understand the point you’re trying to make, I just disagree with it. If you tell me the only way some business can become profitable is if the employees don’t unionize, what you’re actually saying is that the business isn’t viable if employees can negotiate on equal footing. And I mean, I understand why your perspective as an entrepreneur is that you should be allowed to negotiate at an advantage — it benefits you! My perspective is that if that’s the line between being profitable and not, it’s just not a viable business. Like you said, most businesses fail, and this one couldn’t make enough money to cover its costs.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      You haven’t really answered why, you just keep saying you don’t agree. How do you create a startup and avoid hiring union workers that will drag your business to the ground?
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        You don't. If your startup can't survive a unionized workforce, you didn't build a viable business. Not all business ideas are viable and that's okay!
        4y ago
kilburn 4y ago
It is not _necessary_ to get large investments and people who dedicate every walking minute of their lives to build a succesful company. There are plenty of businesses built on the back of solid work done under healthy life-work balance conditions.
- analognoise 4y ago
  That's the kind of startup I'd join: "I have a reasonable plan, and it doesn't involve bullshit appeals to grinding, absurdist rowing metaphors, or rely on setting cash on fire for growth" "Sign me up."
spamizbad 4y ago
People are going to be mad at you but rather than getting mad the correct thing to do is to just not work for a startup. Working at a startup means dealing with a boss (and a business) living on the razor's edge. Maybe that's exciting to you and you want to work really hard to see it succeed -- in which case, go for it! However, if it's just a job to you, you're actually better off working somewhere else. Also, be aware that most startups are either unable or unwilling to share a piece of the "upside" with you, beyond their ability to simply give you a job, so there's really no point in working for them unless you specifically prefer that work environment OR you can't get hired anywhere else. I will also say if you're a very talented engineer your talents are likely going to be wasted at a startup. The founder(s) will be too inexperienced and/or under-resourced to utilize your skills beyond building an MVP or whatever. If you're fine with that, again, go for it. But if you're looking for deep technical challenges you're going to need to join a more mature organization.

nkjnlknlk 4y ago

Wow. It sounds like you'd benefit from society where the risk of innovating (assuming your business is innovating in some capacity) is not life or death! I daresay a more equitable society would make it so you have an easier time with running your business as well.

jakelazaroff 4y ago

You don't have the right to build a business. You have the right to try, of course, but it's not like there's some natural law that you should be able to succeed. So appeals to "it's hanging on by a thread!" don't really do much for me; maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees, in which case I'd really rather the thread be cut. Your comment about firing people is kinda flippant. That’s your prerogative as a business owner, but don’t be surprised when your employees treat you just as transactionally as you treat them.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
People have the right to freely associate with who they want, ergo the right to build a business.
- eropple 4y ago
  If they'd like to operate as a sole proprietorship with unlimited liability, perhaps. If they'd like to operate as a virtual person that insulates personal assets from liability, then the society that grants such a charter absolutely should get to put boundaries on what, as a collective deployer of potentially significant capital, that business is allowed to do.
dvt 4y ago
> maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees This is a weird take, as it absolutely does. Kind of how the viability of a military also relies on an imbalance of power between generals and privates. Power structures are fundamentally necessary in productive endeavours.
- petsfed 4y ago
  Two things: First, power structures are not fundamentally necessary in productive endeavors, but division of responsibility absolutely is. I submit to your authority in situation A, and you in turn submit to my authority in situation B. But insofar as there is a power imbalance, it is a function of how the responsibility is divided, and how often situation A comes up vs situation B. Is there actually a power imbalance between a general and a private though? There is absolutely a difference in scope of responsibility, but a general, BY THEMSELVES, does not have some special ability to compel that the private does not. The organization inflicts discipline, and its clear that the discipline is necessary for the organization to achieve its goals. But armies that understand the enforcement of discipline as the exercise of a power differential frequently mutiny. I've read pretty frequently that when you start conceptualizing your marriage in terms of power structures, you may as well draw up the divorce papers, because that endeavor is no longer productive.
  - dvt 4y ago
    > I've read pretty frequently that when you start conceptualizing your marriage in terms of power structures, you may as well draw up the divorce papers, because that endeavor is no longer productive. This is an interesting conversation, and I think my counterargument would be that governments, marriage, and other such institutions (schools, etc.) are not what I would consider "productive" endeavors, but rather "sociopolitical" ones†. In those cases, I agree that power imbalances are extremely detrimental to their goal. A military is different in that regard (and so is a corporation). You're right that if the power differential becomes oppressive, you'll have a mutiny, but that's neither here nor there. (The contrapositive is if there's a zero power differential you have anarchy.) † I'm not sure where courts would stand. They're probably a special case of societal institution that also requires power differentials.
dasil003 4y ago
You're missing the point. It's not about entitlement or rights. The point the GP is making is that in a true startup situation, either everyone rows in the same direction, or the business fails and everyone loses their job. This is a very different situation from an established large-scale business. You might say: "doesn't matter, worker rights are worker rights, and it's on the entrepreneur to make sure he can meet the legal obligations". That's fine if you feel that way, but you'll get a startup ecosystem more like France than the US though.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  I'm not missing the point. I just disagree with it. I don't see "business fails" as an inherently bad thing. Some businesses aren't viable and that's okay! To use your rowing analogy: presumably, unless someone is actively trying to sabotage the team, everyone is rowing in the same direction. The issue is more, are the rowers being given enough breaks? Are they demanding too many? Is the captain beating them if they don't row fast enough? etc etc. We can quibble about where the lines are. But if the boat can't stay afloat without pushing workers to their breaking points, then maybe the boat deserves to sink.
  - dasil003 4y ago
    You've set up a strawman that has nothing to do with what the GP said.
monero-xmr 4y ago
To be clear - IMO any business that is not profitable is hanging by a thread. I invest capital and time in building new entities that I am confident can and will become profitable. I am potentially losing all of my money and time if that doesn't happen, and the vast majority of businesses fail. Creating a successful, sustainable, profitable business is a very difficult (yet rewarding) endeavor that I have had success at in the past. And my point is that anyone who wants to stop me from doing so I need to get rid of ASAP before they put any more of my time and money at risk, and being obligated by the government to keep dead weight around (i.e. unions) is insane, from my perspective as an entrepreneur.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Like I said to the other commenter: I understand the point you’re trying to make, I just disagree with it. If you tell me the only way some business can become profitable is if the employees don’t unionize, what you’re actually saying is that the business isn’t viable if employees can negotiate on equal footing. And I mean, I understand why your perspective as an entrepreneur is that you should be allowed to negotiate at an advantage — it benefits you! My perspective is that if that’s the line between being profitable and not, it’s just not a viable business. Like you said, most businesses fail, and this one couldn’t make enough money to cover its costs.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    You haven’t really answered why, you just keep saying you don’t agree. How do you create a startup and avoid hiring union workers that will drag your business to the ground?
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      You don't. If your startup can't survive a unionized workforce, you didn't build a viable business. Not all business ideas are viable and that's okay!
      - 4y ago

kilburn 4y ago

It is not _necessary_ to get large investments and people who dedicate every walking minute of their lives to build a succesful company. There are plenty of businesses built on the back of solid work done under healthy life-work balance conditions.

analognoise 4y ago
That's the kind of startup I'd join: "I have a reasonable plan, and it doesn't involve bullshit appeals to grinding, absurdist rowing metaphors, or rely on setting cash on fire for growth" "Sign me up."

spamizbad 4y ago

People are going to be mad at you but rather than getting mad the correct thing to do is to just not work for a startup. Working at a startup means dealing with a boss (and a business) living on the razor's edge. Maybe that's exciting to you and you want to work really hard to see it succeed -- in which case, go for it! However, if it's just a job to you, you're actually better off working somewhere else. Also, be aware that most startups are either unable or unwilling to share a piece of the "upside" with you, beyond their ability to simply give you a job, so there's really no point in working for them unless you specifically prefer that work environment OR you can't get hired anywhere else. I will also say if you're a very talented engineer your talents are likely going to be wasted at a startup. The founder(s) will be too inexperienced and/or under-resourced to utilize your skills beyond building an MVP or whatever. If you're fine with that, again, go for it. But if you're looking for deep technical challenges you're going to need to join a more mature organization.