5 ms·

Tempting to deduce that employing people will make you happier and wealthier: it wont. It will just kill your business faster and reduce the chance you show up

Tempting to deduce that employing people will make you happier and wealthier: it wont. It will just kill your business faster and reduce the chance you show up in a Gallup poll as a business owner at all. People who have employees and haven’t yet gone out of business are likely to have a good product and business model. Having a good business model is likely to make you wealthier than not having yet found a good business model. “We interviewed a 100 bananas and found that the ripe ones were yellow”

rjzzleep 2y ago
> “We interviewed a 100 bananas and found that the ripe ones were yellow” I had to google to see if this was from somewhere else, but seems like no. Thank you for this wonderful comment. EDIT: one of the most toxic part of VC culture is that growth is measured by headcount growth.
- gizmo 2y ago
  Most startups can’t hang on to their explosive revenue/user growth without also growing headcount. There are plenty of bad VCs out there but there are also plenty of founders who postpone recruitment because it’s a drag.
kaliqt 2y ago
Agreed. I made a lot of mistakes hiring out my first set of employees, turns out that people are incredibly difficult to handle and manage, even when they are on a payroll.
catlikesshrimp 2y ago
"That poll is biased" according to Red Dacca and the hairy banana. (Those bananas do exist)
barfbagginus 2y ago
It seems like employing others without failing is the condition they find is linked to higher happiness and wealth, rather than just trying to employ. I'm okay with that insight. Employing others is riskier, but gives happiness and wealth advantages to the tiny 2% that succeed. A question I have: of the 2%, what fraction comes from money and privilege, what fraction comes from the middle class, and what fraction comes from the lower class? I think class matters here. I think we'd also find class has to do with employer success rate as well. Another Q: if and when we have a Queer Autonomous Communist Revolution, what happens to that bourgeois 2%? Gulag driven re-education, right? C'mon, Queer Autonomous Gulags! (/S, but not fully)
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  That "bourgeois" is (or at least used to be) a synonym for city-dweller, and even today is still associated with even small business or even just home ownership, might be a constructive direction to consider ?
  - barfbagginus 2y ago
    In Marxist theory, the bourgeois is the class that owns property, and uses that property to extract wealth from workers. Their main concern is protecting the private property that allows them to maintain dominance of the system. It used to denote a middle class stratum between the peasants and the aristocracy, or even just city dwellers. However, I use it in the Marxist sense, to refer to the current capitalist leadership and ownership class, which emerged during the industrial revolution. Homeowners and small business owners are petit bourgeois - little bourgeois/middle class. This is different from the haute bourgeois - high bourgeois/upper class. During times of stability, the petit bourgeois want what the haute bourgeois want, and aspire to become haute bourgeois. During times of instability, the upper class tramples the middle class, turning them into an enemy. I think we're entering a time were petits no longer really expect the hautes to help them. And I think that's a good thing, since that makes petits more likely to help revolutionize!

rjzzleep 2y ago

> “We interviewed a 100 bananas and found that the ripe ones were yellow” I had to google to see if this was from somewhere else, but seems like no. Thank you for this wonderful comment. EDIT: one of the most toxic part of VC culture is that growth is measured by headcount growth.

gizmo 2y ago
Most startups can’t hang on to their explosive revenue/user growth without also growing headcount. There are plenty of bad VCs out there but there are also plenty of founders who postpone recruitment because it’s a drag.

kaliqt 2y ago

Agreed. I made a lot of mistakes hiring out my first set of employees, turns out that people are incredibly difficult to handle and manage, even when they are on a payroll.

catlikesshrimp 2y ago

"That poll is biased" according to Red Dacca and the hairy banana. (Those bananas do exist)

barfbagginus 2y ago

It seems like employing others without failing is the condition they find is linked to higher happiness and wealth, rather than just trying to employ. I'm okay with that insight. Employing others is riskier, but gives happiness and wealth advantages to the tiny 2% that succeed. A question I have: of the 2%, what fraction comes from money and privilege, what fraction comes from the middle class, and what fraction comes from the lower class? I think class matters here. I think we'd also find class has to do with employer success rate as well. Another Q: if and when we have a Queer Autonomous Communist Revolution, what happens to that bourgeois 2%? Gulag driven re-education, right? C'mon, Queer Autonomous Gulags! (/S, but not fully)

BlueTemplar 2y ago
That "bourgeois" is (or at least used to be) a synonym for city-dweller, and even today is still associated with even small business or even just home ownership, might be a constructive direction to consider ?
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  In Marxist theory, the bourgeois is the class that owns property, and uses that property to extract wealth from workers. Their main concern is protecting the private property that allows them to maintain dominance of the system. It used to denote a middle class stratum between the peasants and the aristocracy, or even just city dwellers. However, I use it in the Marxist sense, to refer to the current capitalist leadership and ownership class, which emerged during the industrial revolution. Homeowners and small business owners are petit bourgeois - little bourgeois/middle class. This is different from the haute bourgeois - high bourgeois/upper class. During times of stability, the petit bourgeois want what the haute bourgeois want, and aspire to become haute bourgeois. During times of instability, the upper class tramples the middle class, turning them into an enemy. I think we're entering a time were petits no longer really expect the hautes to help them. And I think that's a good thing, since that makes petits more likely to help revolutionize!