3 ms·
The classic fallacy is that everyone can be an entrepreneur. They cannot. A. Entrepreneurs need employees to scale B. If everyone was an Entrepreneur there
by ZenPro 12y ago
The classic fallacy is that everyone can be an entrepreneur.
They cannot.
A. Entrepreneurs need employees to scale
B. If everyone was an Entrepreneur there would be very few consumers for goods and services.
- keithpeter 12y agoEspecially if everyone was bootstrapping. Mildly provocative thought: what % of Ycombinator assisted companies have customers with 'real jobs' (by definition of OP, which I accept may be contested)?
- handzhiev 12y agoB doesn't make sense. Being an entrepreneur does not mean you don't need goods and services from others.
- ZenPro 12y agoIt makes perfect sense. You still need goods and services you have nowhere near the consumption habits or total required by individuals working in steady, paid employment. The majority of entrepreneurs have precious little time for broadcast media, socialising, reading for pleasure or other time-filling habit. Major purchasing decisions such as housing, vehicles and children are drastically affected and often delayed by entrepreneurs. Such purchases may even find themselves mortgaged if funds are tight. (Hopefully not the children...) Where would the purchasing power stem from in a world of bootstrapping entrepreneurs? I am struggling to find any rational reason why you think B does make sense... You can challenge the validity with data but claiming it is does not make sense is fallacious.