the question is how many of these are actual startups, and how many of these are "consulting" companies, that people started in order to get/keep a job
Even after you weed out all the consultants and what not, how many of these are actually sellable businesses? And how many are things like photo studios, etc?
Companies like most photo studios aren't really companies at all, they are just jobs for the founders. they can't grow beyond the work capacity of the individual. They have no real value beyond their assets.
Is it really a company if it's revenue goes to zero when the owner retires, or takes a vacation, what if they get hurt and are unable to work Does the company keep making money? If it makes money with out the owner doing all the work then it's a company if the owner MUST work to make it generate revenue then it's really just a job.
So you're basically saying that if the founder(s) have to do actual work in order to maintain profitability than it's not a company?
I should also point out that there are quite a few successful photography photography studios that not only have employees, but also pass their business down to successors, so they DO outlive their founders.
In the end, it's honest work for honest pay, which in my experience is not the case in IT, which is usually a waste of talent. I've worked in the IT industry for 17 years as a software developer, and most of what I've seen is that most of the developers in the industry make up for a complete lack of talent and skill with a lot of hackery and long hours.
Why does a business need to be sellable to be valuable? And why aren't photo studios valuable? Our company uses photo studios to photograph our products - they're definitely valuable to us and I see more competition in the space as a good thing (good photos are expensive!).
Professional photography is a lot like consulting. The differences are that you can't hid bad photography like you can hide bad code, and once you're established, you can charge higher rates than you can as a software consultant.
(I'm already able to charge a higher rate for photography than I am for software development, and I have 17 years in the industry, most of wasted because of the fact that most code is crap, and most management aren't intelligent enough to realize that hero developers are incompetent.)
The intention? Not everyone who is now "working for themselves" is trying to start a business. Take my house cleaner for instance, she would rather have a job and has no intention to grow her business or be in it long term.
19 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 56.8 ms ] threadI should also point out that there are quite a few successful photography photography studios that not only have employees, but also pass their business down to successors, so they DO outlive their founders.
In the end, it's honest work for honest pay, which in my experience is not the case in IT, which is usually a waste of talent. I've worked in the IT industry for 17 years as a software developer, and most of what I've seen is that most of the developers in the industry make up for a complete lack of talent and skill with a lot of hackery and long hours.
I've never said that all studios are like this. It just seems to be that most are.
(I'm already able to charge a higher rate for photography than I am for software development, and I have 17 years in the industry, most of wasted because of the fact that most code is crap, and most management aren't intelligent enough to realize that hero developers are incompetent.)
The other thing is, shouldn't we wait to see if these businesses are successful before we start saying it is a good thing for the economy?
I've always heard that the failure rate for new businesses was closer to 90%. (I don't have the sources to back that up, but neither does he.)