4 ms·

Seems kinda "no duh" to me. An non-employer owner is essentially employing themselves, right, having to do the work of an employee, just with the added work and

Seems kinda "no duh" to me. An non-employer owner is essentially employing themselves, right, having to do the work of an employee, just with the added work and benefits of being the owner. An employer-owner does not have to do the work of an employee, and is likely able to employee people to deal with the added work of ownership, leaving only the benefits. The median for non-employer owner being 24k while the median for employee is 62k is surprising, I would expect the owner to be above or comparable. I guess there's a lot of unsuccessful one-person businesses. Looking at the full report, the median household income for NEO is 100k, and 110k for employee, and wealth for NEO is 5k higher. So there's something else going on there.

cpncrunch 2y ago
Yeah, I think the study is clouded by all the struggling 1-person businesses. As someone running a fairly successful 1-person business, I have to say that my wellbeing seems to be higher than the small employer owners that I know, due to all the hassles they have dealing with employees.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  A teacher or a kid who paints houses in the summer is a 1-person business. They file a Schedule C but they may just make a few thousand dollars a year from their "business". I don't think income statistics on "one-owner businesses" are particularly meaningful without some more breakdown.
tstrimple 2y ago
Non-employer owner includes folks who rent property as their "business". I'm sure there are tons of folks who are semi-retired and just renting out part of their property to cover most of their ongoing expenses. These folks wouldn't have a business in the sense they are trying to maximize profits. Just doing enough to maintain their existing lifestyle. I could see myself doing the same or similar. Starting a business with the goal of growing it to the point of just sustaining my family's lifestyle to bridge the gap to retirement. Once we own this house and our kids become self-sufficient, our monthly expenses can drop quite drastically and we'll be able to sustain ourselves off of something much more modest than my current salary. Giving boat tours on the great lakes while fixing up a small cabin or something like that. Also considered a camp site / cabin rentals. Something that gives me an excuse to get outside more and moving around but rarely involves urgency and deadlines. All things which can earn some money, but unless I really grind at it they really aren't designed to grow too much.
akira2501 2y ago
> leaving only the benefits. Well.. those and the liabilities and risk.
- Gud 2y ago
  Such as? It seems to me that whatever risk the owning class has can be easily controlled by diversifying. And what liabilities do they have?
  - sandspar 2y ago
    The fact that you call them the "owning class" makes it seem like you're not interested in fair handed analysis.
    - jjj123 2y ago
      Is that not what they are? It’s not like it’s a pejorative term.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > And what liabilities do they have? All of them associated with operating their business. The most pertinent to this discussion would obviously be workers compensation in cases of work related injury or illness.
    - Wool2662 2y ago
      That's what insurance is for. And if it gets really bad, there is the corporate veil for that. Just declare bankruptcy and start over. Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company.
      - akira2501 2y ago
        > That's what insurance is for. Is insurance that offers unlimited coverage free? No? That's a liability, then. You will have to pay this insurance whether you are profitable or not. That's a risk, you see? > there is the corporate veil for that. Very few business actually structure themselves in such a way to receive this benefit. It's not automatic either, you'll still need lawyers to make this argument for you in court should you be sued. > Just declare bankruptcy and start over. You do realize there are multiple different types of bankruptcies and not all of them allow you walk away and "start over." > Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company. Yes, those are called "profits" and they are taxed. Most companies are not entirely liquid and the majority of the value is in the operation not in past "extracted" money.
shrubble 2y ago
1 person businesses often write off huge swaths of their expenses in the year they occur. Mileage reimbursement etc. adds up as well.
barfbagginus 2y ago
I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between self employed and NEO. They both do the work of an employee, with added administrative work, like you point out. But NEOs are about as happy and wealthy as employees, while SEs are less so. I couldn't find clear definitions for the two categories. I will note that SEs include contractors. They may have less admin work than other owners or SEs, but also less freedom and opportunity to innovate, and perhaps more cause to feel unhappy. Aside from that, I don't have much insight into non-contractor SEs, how they differ from NEOs, and why they're supposed to be less happy.

cpncrunch 2y ago

Yeah, I think the study is clouded by all the struggling 1-person businesses. As someone running a fairly successful 1-person business, I have to say that my wellbeing seems to be higher than the small employer owners that I know, due to all the hassles they have dealing with employees.

SoftTalker 2y ago
A teacher or a kid who paints houses in the summer is a 1-person business. They file a Schedule C but they may just make a few thousand dollars a year from their "business". I don't think income statistics on "one-owner businesses" are particularly meaningful without some more breakdown.

tstrimple 2y ago

Non-employer owner includes folks who rent property as their "business". I'm sure there are tons of folks who are semi-retired and just renting out part of their property to cover most of their ongoing expenses. These folks wouldn't have a business in the sense they are trying to maximize profits. Just doing enough to maintain their existing lifestyle. I could see myself doing the same or similar. Starting a business with the goal of growing it to the point of just sustaining my family's lifestyle to bridge the gap to retirement. Once we own this house and our kids become self-sufficient, our monthly expenses can drop quite drastically and we'll be able to sustain ourselves off of something much more modest than my current salary. Giving boat tours on the great lakes while fixing up a small cabin or something like that. Also considered a camp site / cabin rentals. Something that gives me an excuse to get outside more and moving around but rarely involves urgency and deadlines. All things which can earn some money, but unless I really grind at it they really aren't designed to grow too much.

akira2501 2y ago

> leaving only the benefits. Well.. those and the liabilities and risk.

Gud 2y ago
Such as? It seems to me that whatever risk the owning class has can be easily controlled by diversifying. And what liabilities do they have?
- sandspar 2y ago
  The fact that you call them the "owning class" makes it seem like you're not interested in fair handed analysis.
  - jjj123 2y ago
    Is that not what they are? It’s not like it’s a pejorative term.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > And what liabilities do they have? All of them associated with operating their business. The most pertinent to this discussion would obviously be workers compensation in cases of work related injury or illness.
  - Wool2662 2y ago
    That's what insurance is for. And if it gets really bad, there is the corporate veil for that. Just declare bankruptcy and start over. Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > That's what insurance is for. Is insurance that offers unlimited coverage free? No? That's a liability, then. You will have to pay this insurance whether you are profitable or not. That's a risk, you see? > there is the corporate veil for that. Very few business actually structure themselves in such a way to receive this benefit. It's not automatic either, you'll still need lawyers to make this argument for you in court should you be sued. > Just declare bankruptcy and start over. You do realize there are multiple different types of bankruptcies and not all of them allow you walk away and "start over." > Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company. Yes, those are called "profits" and they are taxed. Most companies are not entirely liquid and the majority of the value is in the operation not in past "extracted" money.

shrubble 2y ago

1 person businesses often write off huge swaths of their expenses in the year they occur. Mileage reimbursement etc. adds up as well.

barfbagginus 2y ago

I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between self employed and NEO. They both do the work of an employee, with added administrative work, like you point out. But NEOs are about as happy and wealthy as employees, while SEs are less so. I couldn't find clear definitions for the two categories. I will note that SEs include contractors. They may have less admin work than other owners or SEs, but also less freedom and opportunity to innovate, and perhaps more cause to feel unhappy. Aside from that, I don't have much insight into non-contractor SEs, how they differ from NEOs, and why they're supposed to be less happy.