> 96% of startups fail
i saw the source for that figure in a business class. its based on small businesses don't file SEC forms after two years.
this includes because they were acquired.
@icedquinn @moffintosh always funny to see commies call the people managing resources "just moving around some numbers" when failing to properly do that is one of the bigger reasons why socialism always fails, and how commies managed to mismanage and fuck up an entire sea amongst other things. So close to understanding.
@Amikke @icedquinn
If they manage resources, they should be paid no more than the labour they put into it, not a cent more. Owning stuff isn't a job
@moffintosh @icedquinn their labour is worth around what they're paid because a market-based economy operates on the actual results of work and not some random person's judgement.
@icedquinn @moffintosh imo it comes back to wishful thinking and nor understanding the complexity of the world we live in and/or the human nature, usually due to wishful thinking.
there is no real perspective where usurist is respectable. you are allowing someone else to borrow your risk-taking permission (money) in exchange for the same thing you're offering. the usurist inputs nothing, but owns everything.
other jobs .. it's not really that simple. commies tend to be lifelong wagies butthurt that management makes more than stock boys. i keep talking to them on occasion to find smart ones--they just say dumb shit like "raise taxes," they don't actually have the wherewithal to figure out how to feed the school children for free.
i used to hate business a bit more than i do now until i came to that realization. the company takes the bigger share because they are offering employees a unique service: they regularize the wages, and access to work.
anyone who has done freelance work will know, intimately, the market doesn't pay you a weekly salary and doesn't give you jobs every day. your company does that. they regularize the irregular incomes and protect you from refunds and lawsuits and you still draw a paycheck even if the company made no money that week.
this is an abstract thing most people probably never think about, because most people don't do anything or aspire to anything other than wage.
similarly why so many people sign their work to publishers. a small percent of a larger pie (where i just write book and get paid) is more desirable as a writer than having to deal with print shops and retail agreements.
@icedquinn @moffintosh
>the usurist inputs nothing
the usurist inputs their risk judgement and the risk they'll lose their money. Because of the fact they're personally affected by the results and this ability belongs to people who were smart enough to earn it at best and not stupid enough to lose it all at worst, this results in miles better resource management than any half-baked gov official using their two brain cells to try to decide what people should be doing. They're a necessary evil.
The combination of risk and management effort warranties big pay for anyone to be willing to do it, and most of the people whining about not having the ability to do it wouldn't want to do it anyway. They just want to slave away for stable comfortable life, in a world where the people they're envious of slave away alongside them.
historical records tend to speak very poorly of the profession. it is universally hated, virtually every profession hates usury (and bankers writ large), and scientific inquiries have shown that they aren't even good at their one supposed specialty (making accurate predictions where to allocate capital.)
@icedquinn @moffintosh there is literally no better choice though. The way they work should be fixed/improved, especially the shitty state it's in in the USA, but throwing out the entire form of managing resources has the problem that what're you gonna replace it with?
The answers are always combinations of:
- same shit but we try to do it better this time
- let's leave the management of everything in the economy to politicians, what could go wrong?
- neither, we'll sort it out without the need for authorities and it'll work out (it won't)
> neither, we’ll sort it out without the need for authorities and it’ll work out (it won’t)
this actually does work to a certain population level. it stops working when you're drawing so many resources off the land that you have to resort to active management.
they regularize the wages, and access to work.
Not to any significan degree. Freelancing is viable only in some professions. Already 200 years ago artisans were getting outcompeted by factories, bankruoting them and forcing them to become workers
@Amikke @icedquinn It isn't, because what's happening there isn't just labour
@moffintosh @icedquinn again, your opinion on what is or isn't labour doesn't matter. Nor the opinion of the NEET loser who wrote the theory you're trying to use and hasn't worked legitimately in his life. Their work generates value which is returned as profit. Their rewards are proportional to value generated. That's all there is to it.
Nor the opinion of the NEET loser who wrote the theory you’re trying to use and hasn’t worked legitimately in his life.
Try again
https://blogs.dickinson.edu/digitalhistory/2017/12/14/marxs-early-journalism-career
Their work generates value which is returned as profit. Their rewards are proportional to value generated.
Value generated by who? Shifting numbers around doesn't generate value per se
