Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Small Business Obsession
Happy | 
United States KinglyFish 
Why the fuck do people care so much about small businesses? I've never seen any of these places pay more than a chain store for unskilled labor, in fact they usually pay the state minimum wage. If you're just a worker you'll 100% be better off with 3-4 national conglomerates in legitimate competition with each other and no small businesses.
2020-05-22 17:17
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
#1
 | 
United States B0b3rT 
To support the people not the corporations
2020-05-22 17:18
People should be focusing on what's best for them. If their small business does well I guarantee most small business owners won't give you a raise, they'll buy their family a vacation home. Just go where you're paid the best.
2020-05-22 18:22
#16
daps | 
United States wtcce4 
well there's a saying, people work for people, some wokers might get paid more at amazon than at your local greasy spoon diner but that doesn't mean they get treated with respect or given leeway with things like sick leave or family issues and that kind of shit
2020-05-22 18:49
Dude I've seen so many cases of small business owners not giving a shit if their employees need to go home for personal reasons, they need to finish their shifts or they're fired.
2020-05-22 18:56
#34
daps | 
United States wtcce4 
I mean I can really say otherwise since you didn't really give an example but I can assure you the overwhelming majority of small businesses, especially family owned ones are a lot more amiable than that, especially where I live, they can't afford to treat them like tools since a lot of low level/ minimum wage jobs are springing up quicker than people can fill them
2020-05-22 19:48
Isn't small businesses fighting for the minimum wage to not be increased? Why would that be the case if they're paying their employees well and treating them well? I think your area is just the exception to the rule. Costco and even Amazon Warehouse jobs pay way better than most small businesses.
2020-05-23 04:54
#45
daps | 
United States wtcce4 
well pretty much every business owner, either corporation or a mom & pop store is fighting against the wage increase, my point was that a lot of smaller businesses need to treat their workers like people because wages are so similar on lower levels, especially when extra benefits besides wage are factored in
2020-05-23 05:11
A lot of larger corporations aren't because they already pay their workers above min wage and they know it'll wipe out any existing competition from small businesses. Most small business owners during good times pay their workers min wage, then drive around in a BMW they probably shouldn't have bought. Of course relying on "community pride" to keep people going to their store which is priced higher than it should be.
2020-05-23 05:16
#50
daps | 
United States wtcce4 
tf are you talking about and where tf do you live? literally the only way small businesses can survive is through competition, go to literally any family/ locally owned store/ restaurant by me and i can guarantee it would be cheaper than 90% of chain shit you'd find elsewhere
2020-05-23 06:35
Dude I think this is just the case where you live. Since when was Walmart more expensive than local stores? Why would anyone shop at Walmart if their local store was cheaper? Chain stores have to be cheaper or no one would shop there ever.
2020-05-23 07:54
#106
 | 
Ukraine ReanuKeeves 
What's best for you doesn't mean it's best for the other one.
2020-05-23 11:10
The small business owners will do what's best for them too, why should you deny yourself the same?
2020-05-23 11:11
#112
 | 
Ukraine ReanuKeeves 
Because diversity of the market is the best and your baiting claim can be watered down to dictatorship of a few.
2020-05-23 11:19
"dictatorship of a few" I'm not saying this at all, if you have a new idea and want to start a business around it, then you should do it and supplant the current players in the market. What I'm saying is 100,000 generic lawn care businesses aren't efficient because their services aren't unique from each other or innovative.
2020-05-23 11:21
#117
 | 
Ukraine ReanuKeeves 
That's competiton and taking a risk, if it's not efficient it will regulate itself down.
2020-05-23 11:25
People love local businesses so they'll continue to shop at them even if they cost more and the product is inferior. It's not a legitimate competition based on who can offer a quality product for the lowest price. It's people subsidizing an inferior product based on personal feelings.
2020-05-23 13:48
#165
 | 
United States Trump2020KAG 
Inferior product???? Home depot sells a Dewalt drill for 19.99 Bobs local hardware store sells it for 22.99. Explain how that inferior product????
2020-05-23 14:22
I'll revise it to inferior product or costs more for literally no reason. It suits my argument either way.
2020-05-23 14:25
#171
 | 
United States Trump2020KAG 
Small business = 5 min drive , u walk in the owner knows ur name , smaller lines , less people Big box store = longer drive , tons of people , long lines , etc The small business is a convenient store. If a need a gallon of milk I will hit up the corner store not a super market If I need a screw driver I will hit up the local hardware store not run to Home Depot. It’s a convenient thing over value
2020-05-23 14:35
Well if you prefer convenience over cost go for it dude. Tons of people exclusively go to the small business because they know the owner and they want to support "local business".
2020-05-23 14:37
#71
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
So who are corporations? Robots? Aliens?
2020-05-23 10:03
+1
2020-05-24 12:34
Economy? Are you dumb? Or are you trolling
2020-05-22 18:24
Are you dumb dude? There'll be no GDP loss if those sales are taken by larger companies.
2020-05-22 18:24
LMFAO
2020-05-23 02:42
GDP just tracks an exchange of money. Eventually that money will be spent on a yacht instead of an obnoxious G-wagon. No difference in GDP though.
2020-05-23 04:56
Because small and mid sized businesses employ the majority of the workforce
2020-05-22 18:25
The thing is it'll be a lot more efficient if it's taken care of by 3-4 conglomerates competing with each other. They'll pick up most of those jobs if they have 100% market share, but some will be lost. Should some job loss stand in the way of progress?
2020-05-22 18:28
if it's more efficient they why don't they already control the whole market? SMEs are often startups and/or highly specialized companies.
2020-05-22 18:30
Dude there's no way start ups and high specialized companies employ such a large portion of the work force. A lot of small business are just generic stuff like lawn care or at most a small scale construction company. Or they run a grocery store that's priced slightly higher than the local chain store for no justifiable reason. Dude small businesses are being replaced as is. Companies like Amazon are growing rapidly.
2020-05-22 18:32
Being local can be a type of specialization. Not sure what your point is. It's just economics. If small businesses were all unprofitable they wouldn't exist. In capitalism you don't really need a "justifiable reason", the whole point is basically that the market balances itself out. Also large companies aren't always better. They tend to become inefficient/overly bureaucratic, poorly managed and lack innovation... Amazon used to be small and had to compete against larger retailers and tech companies.
2020-05-22 18:38
Amazon is a tech company pushing a new way to deliver products (or was new in the 90s). It's really not the same as Steve's lawn care business or Joe's grocery store. And dude small businesses are being replaced quickly. I don't think a nationwide, standardized, and cheap lawn care business would too bad. Sometimes in capitalism something isn't efficient just because it's there, it's that no one's challenged it yet.
2020-05-22 18:42
But look at how dominant Walmart was in the US. I bet 20 years ago you'd have laughed at me for claiming that some website that sells books online will be just as big (or bigger) as them. Also IBM and later Microsoft used to be far bigger tech companies but lost out to Google, Amazon... It really depends on the industry. E.g. small retail businesses will probably disappear over time but you will have small companies in other industries or indirectly related to it.
2020-05-22 18:50
I don't have a problem if you're doing something new like I said. But, why are you drawing a comparison between Amazon and Walmart and these generic, dime a dozen lawn care companies
2020-05-22 18:51
My point is that if you look at economic history it seems like big companies come and go. It's not like they are all getting bigger and bigger until there is just one (which would be bad). And lawn care companies aren't the only small businesses. Also, as I said, they might be specialized. Think of it as luxury. There are some people that are willing to pay someone to have that perfect garden with the perfect lawn. So it's just a service. Kind of like you can book your holidays online with a big company or you can go to some travel company where they organize everything for you but it costs extra if you want an individual trip.
2020-05-22 18:56
Lawn care isn't specialized in America bro, you'd be shocked how lazy Americans are about mowing their lawns lol. Small businesses as a whole employ too many people for the majority of their business to be specialty goods, it just doesn't make any sense.
2020-05-22 19:02
if they employee "too many people" then how can they exist? it's a free market economy.
2020-05-22 19:30
Just because it's a free market economy doesn't mean anything. Walmart could've existed in the 1800's, it's literally just an oversized store. But, instead most stores back then were localized. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's efficient.
2020-05-23 04:48
> Just because something exists doesn't mean it's efficient. yes it does. or are you saying we should have a planned economy / communism?
2020-05-23 11:50
Do you just call everything you don't like communism lol? ">Just because something exists doesn't mean it's efficient. yes it does" Imagine actually believing the market is perfectly efficient lmao. Things are displaced and change all the time because it is not perfect dude.
2020-05-23 13:38
Markets are not efficient
2020-05-23 08:14
they generally are
2020-05-23 11:49
Either it is, the decision of all actors is perfectly rational If markets were efficient, there would be no way for new business to operate successfully without an innovative idea, but it's clearly not true
2020-05-23 12:02
that's not true. they can simply specialize or change size. innovation isn't the only way to get a competitive advantage
2020-05-23 12:11
Being "specialized" or "change size" has no effect on whether they will provide a better product to certain targets The reason you think of "specialization" to be successful is because of a region of inefficiency from those with a more general target The fact that you can get a competitive advantage without innovation proves that markets are NOT efficient
2020-05-23 12:21
I don't think you know what efficient means in economics. Maybe read this Economic efficiency refers to the optimization of resources to best serve each person in that economic state. No set threshold determines the effectiveness of an economy, but indicators of economic efficiency include goods brought to market at the lowest possible cost and labor that provides the greatest possible output. Market efficiency describes how well prices integrate available information. Markets are thus said to be efficient when all information is already incorporated into prices, and so there is no way to "beat" the market since there are no undervalued or overvalued securities available. Market efficiency was described in 1970 by economist Eugene Fama, whose efficient market hypothesis (EMH) states that an investor can't outperform the market, and that market anomalies should not exist because they will immediately be arbitraged away. Operational efficiency measures how well profits are earned as a function of operating costs. The greater the operational efficiency, the more profitable a firm or investment is. This is because the entity is able to generate greater income or returns for the same or lower cost than an alternative. In financial markets, operational efficiency occurs when transaction costs and fees are reduced. just because something isn't based on innovation doesn't mean it's not efficient.
2020-05-23 12:38
That is exactly the definition I am referring to It seems you are completely not understanding my point, because you have argued for it twice now (on accident) IF it was efficient already, then you would need to go outside of optimization (ie innovation) Because it can be improved on, it is by definition inefficient
2020-05-23 12:43
is this bait? if someone opens a bakery then there is nothing innovative about it and it's certainly not inefficient if the business can operate
2020-05-23 13:01
That is the point The food industry certainly IS inefficient if you can improve the optimization to succeed with your bakery with no innovation You seem to be having a very hard time understanding that I am saying innovation is NOT optimizing efficiency Nor am I saying that a new business is inefficient, that would make no sense, but from your comment it seems that is you may have inferred that somehow
2020-05-23 13:15
companies entering and leaving the market is how market balance. if anything that shows that markets are efficient. have you ever taken any economic classes? also it doesn't have to be optimization either. a local bakery can exist and be efficient simply because people nearby value faster access to bread, e.g. they can walk there on a Sunday morning to get fresh bread. Or maybe you just don't understand that the economy is constantly changing. maybe a few years ago different people with different demands lived in the neighborhood, e.g. maybe gentrification happened and now it's all hipsters that want artisan bread from a local bakery.
2020-05-23 13:17
Improving user access is optimization, improving 'market balance' is optimization, constant change causes inefficiency (if you do not update) Again, every post you make is arguing for my position, making it appear you do not understand the argument If something was efficient, it would already be optimized, by the definition of efficiency #126
2020-05-23 13:20
no, you are just arguing against a strawman. no economist claims that business markets are instantaneously efficient. do you really think economists believe that bakeries magically pop up the moment people think about buying bread? None of what you say show that small business are a market inefficiency. again, business entering and leaving show that markets are efficient and adjust to change.
2020-05-23 13:27
#54 "markets are inefficient" #119 "they generally are" #135 " no economist claims that markets are instantaneously efficient" Okay, I guess you have agreed with me now "None of what you say show that small business are a market inefficiency" It seems you are the one beating a strawman. I never said that it small business are a market inefficiency. "again, business entering and leaving show that markets are efficient and adjust to change." It shows they are INEFFICIENT because there is room for optimization. Of course such acts improve efficiency, but the "state of being efficient" is one that is completely optimized, a "strong" state. If efficiency can be improved, inherently it is ~inefficient.
2020-05-23 13:32
yes, you are right economists believe in magic and when they say efficient they mean that small businesses instantly appear when people think about products. good point, you are a very smart person. also this really contributed a lot to the discussion about whether the existence of small business show that the economy is generally efficient. I think you should write a research paper about this, you'd probably be a famous economist. truly 400 IQ, you got me there.
2020-05-23 13:58
"economists believe in magic and when they say efficient they mean that small businesses instantly appear when people think about products" You have completely misconstrued something again, as I have never said anything similar to this I am simply correcting your ridiculous claim as in #120 that 'if something exists it is efficient'
2020-05-23 14:02
there is nothing ridiculous about the claim and you have provided no evidence against it. rather you used some silly strawman. but, again, I am sure you have all the evidence ready to prove all the economists wrong that small businesses only exist due to some market inefficiency. congratulations to your nobel prize
2020-05-23 14:10
"small businesses only exist due to some market inefficiency" Again, you are arguing against a claim I never made. To prove your claim false all that needs to be provided is one example of inefficiency that exists, of which there are plenty of examples. Would you agree that an employee exists who is paid but not working? If it is true your claim is proven false That is how ridiculous it is.... If you had worked one job in your life and had an iq over 70 you would know how inefficient economies are. For some reason you like to appeal that 'the economists all agree with me' yet cite nothing.
2020-05-23 15:07
lol you have no evidence because you know it doesn't exist. instead you are strawmaning
2020-05-23 15:13
Do you believe there exists a worker who is paid who does not provide work? I can 'provide evidence' for it but we both already know it exists. Nobody is that naive. I think you need to look up what 'strawman' means as well, it seems you do not know it.
2020-05-23 15:14
still no evidence, keep making strawmans
2020-05-23 15:15
You are avoiding the question? Do you believe it exists that a worker is paid but does not work or not?
2020-05-23 15:17
still strawmaning lol no evidence anyway, I can barely see the comments and won't respond to this pointless discussion anymore
2020-05-23 15:22
Is it efficient to pay people who don't work? QED
2020-05-23 15:24
#24
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
What you're not realizing here is that industries aren't stagnant nor permanent, and therefore not companies either. Your entire idea here is based on the premise that society and the economy are not going to evolve hugely in the coming decades. Small business owners, startups are what drive the economy forward.
2020-05-22 18:58
Dude why does everyone associate start ups with small businesses. The vast majority of small businesses aren't innovative start ups. If you really can't justify the existence of 100,000 generic lawn care businesses nationwide (I know I can't), then why even disagree with me?
2020-05-22 19:00
#31
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
I don't have to, the consumers do. The wonderful thing about the market is that if you're running an industry inefficiently then incentives are created to overrun it. Why do you think I have a small grocery store on my street when the streets next to it have one 7eleven each and one of the two largest supermarket chains each? If everyone on my street were better off going to 7eleven it would close down, and if it were profitable for 7eleven to buy it they would.
2020-05-22 19:12
Unless the small grocer is selling specialty goods, you aren't going to him out of a sense of local pride? Of course you are, there's no practical reason to choose him out a large, cheaper chain market. Unless he's selling a specialty good like I said.
2020-05-23 04:50
#70
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
They do, it's closer and I know them. It's the place I go to late on a tuesday night if I suddenly crave something. All that's specalization. Monetary factors is only a part of economics, we tend to value other things just as much.
2020-05-23 10:01
So you are going to him because you know him basically. Dude that kind of thing only exists in small towns. Society is getting more and more urbanized and most people don't know their local grocer. So they're gonna choose the cheap chain store.
2020-05-23 10:08
#75
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
No, I also gave you two other reasons. Even still, that argument does also apply to most of your small town lawn care businesses. There is more to economics than monetary values. I live in central Stockholm btw
2020-05-23 10:11
#73 People work long hours because there's an endless supply of pointless jobs and inefficient systems. Startups are fine, but Joe the generic grocer just adds to this inefficiency.
2020-05-23 10:28
#32
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
Since you've identified that the lawn industry is run inefficiently, then why don't do anything about it? If you could become Jeff Bezos of lawn care then that's an incentive I'd respond to.
2020-05-22 19:27
#128
 | 
Albania sporoloo 
+1 crying in internet gets nobody nowhere
2020-05-23 12:48
#168
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
I don't think he was crying. I was just trying to out point that people respond to incentives. If there was massive money to be made there then you can be sure someone would have done something about it already,
2020-05-23 14:26
#192
 | 
Albania sporoloo 
Yeah, I could have read your post more carefully. Coming from a crappy community has left it's mark and I haven't gotten rid of old habits yet. After reading this thread bit more it seems like there is actually conversation and plenty of good points, which I'm not too used to see. There might very well be plenty of money to be made in lawn industry, if it is as inefficient as implied, but that would also require either lots of capital, or something that really makes your company stand out in middle of lots of competition. Not sure how much profit there is to be made, unlike in drug business for example, as manufacturing is cheap af but prices can be brought really high. There is also reason to suspect, that some companies are hiring illegal immigrants way below avg rates, which screws up legit companies a bit. So gaining capital through ground maintenance might not be easy at all, as your rates should be able to compete with others. Not too attractive for most of the people who could be capable of making something big out of it, but someone who is really passionate about gardening could even try to go for it. Seems to me that lawn mowing industry in US is where it should be, even if it's not as efficient as it could be if we were robots. It's an job opportunity for people, whom are not too capable of more demanding tasks, and those who are not cutting their own grass will be taken care off. As for other small businesses, they serve their purpose as well. In current situation it could turn out to be quite dystopic scenario if everything was owned and done by big companies with administrations, that has no bounds to either income or greed. Maybe if there was some limit to earnings of private person, but not for company? It would not deny anyone from achieving a better life or prevent companies from expanding.
2020-05-23 15:40
#6
 | 
Europe jigglepeek 
small business owner here. you are stupid.
2020-05-22 18:26
Truth hurts? Unless you run a specialty store, a small business is inherently inefficient.
2020-05-22 18:28
#13
 | 
Europe jigglepeek 
i run a specialty store. small business arent inherently inefficient. ever heard of the word bureaucracy?
2020-05-22 18:46
Lmao dude. There's a reason larger companies like Amazon are able to undercut small businesses despite their bureaucracy. And I've explained in this thread that bureaucracy is being restructured and automated away eventually: hltv.org/forums/threads/2300228/jobs-aft..
2020-05-22 18:49
#19
 | 
Europe jigglepeek 
most things sold on amazon are from "small businesses" using amazon marketplace. do you even understand what you are talking about? 0/8.
2020-05-22 18:51
... Most brand name things on Amazon are made by large corporations dude. Barely anyone's making stuff and then selling it on Amazon on a small scale. If you're talking about distributors most of those guys do it as a side hustle, you can't really call every side hustle a "small business".
2020-05-22 18:54
#22
 | 
Europe jigglepeek 
0/8 you are utterly stupid :) have a nice day.
2020-05-22 18:56
Dude you're clueless. If you're not talking about distributors, and you really think random small businesses are making the majority of stuff on Amazon you're delusional.
2020-05-22 18:57
+1
2020-05-23 05:12
What kind of weird, specialty shit are you guys buying to the point where you think small businesses manufacture the majority of stuff on Amazon?
2020-05-23 05:18
He didn't say manufacture, he said sell
2020-05-23 15:23
Ok and I said distribution is usually handled by smaller operations in a comment.
2020-05-23 16:20
I bet you hired a small business to move the goalposts for you
2020-05-23 16:24
Nah dude I used the UPS.
2020-05-23 16:27
my whole country is basically being run by small businesses. you're clueless
2020-05-22 18:48
Just because something is in place now doesn't mean it's inefficient dude. Small business usually do okay because of a regional tradition of supporting local stores. Not because they're out competing a chain store.
2020-05-22 18:50
#27
 | 
Poland FitPolak 
In Poland micro and small businesses are generating over 50% of GDP, with medium included its almost 75%, so yes people should care about them.
2020-05-22 18:59
#18 It comes down to tradition. Your local grocery shop probably can't compete with a chain store, you just shop there because you know the owner or something.
2020-05-22 19:04
I work for a small business, they pay slightly above minimum wage starting out but I was supposed to get a raise but coronavirus struck.
2020-05-23 04:50
#40
 | 
United States WindyInu 
When you buy from a small business, you're not helping a CEO buy a 3rd holiday home. You are helping a little girl get dance lessons, a little boy get his team jersey, a mom and dad put food on the table.
2020-05-23 04:56
Dude a small town America, local mom and pop mindset isn't competitive. hltv.org/forums/threads/2300228/jobs-aft.. Conglomerates already offer lower prices, but after corporate restructuring and AI they'll be infinitely more efficient than a mom and pop.
2020-05-23 05:04
#43
 | 
United States WindyInu 
I'd much rather support families than help a CEO buy a 4th yacht, to each their own men))
2020-05-23 05:08
There'll be less jobs in the future for non-STEM workers because of automation. If you're the average person in the future and struggling to get by are you really gonna stop by at the local grocer which costs more?
2020-05-23 05:10
#56
 | 
United States WindyInu 
yes /closed
2020-05-23 08:15
How many local grocery stores exist nowadays outside of small towns? Not many right. Looks like most people don't agree with you even now.
2020-05-23 09:37
#63
 | 
United States WindyInu 
doesn't matter if they agree with me, doesnt change how i feel about it
2020-05-23 09:50
90% of people disagree with you. So all these mom and pop shops are gonna get shut down and replaced by same day shipping and warehouses. No jerseys. No dance lessons. It's sad, but it's better this way.
2020-05-23 09:52
#65
 | 
United States WindyInu 
TIL it's better if a few corporations control everything and allow no competition in a capitalist society, gg every economist ever
2020-05-23 09:52
The point is they can't compete. Amazon, for example, has lower prices and will be able to deliver everything to your house on the same day in a few years.
2020-05-23 09:55
#67
 | 
United States WindyInu 
hence why corporations shouldn't be allowed to reach such a size, I personally believe corporations shouldn't exist in the first place tbh, but that's many revolutions away (hopefully starting soon, since people are starting to realize capitalism is extremely unstable after corona)
2020-05-23 09:56
"I personally believe corporations shouldn't exist in the first place tbh" Who's gonna make your phone, computer, etc...? Dave's computer part shop? Chips are created on the molecular level, they're extremely complex. Why do you care so much about mom and pop shops? What have they done for you?
2020-05-23 09:59
#69
 | 
United States WindyInu 
I'm talking about the whole system being different, no businesses or corporations at all, everything run/created by the people for the people, like in a communist society
2020-05-23 10:00
I prefer capitalism with the fat cut off. No middle managers, minimal HR, relatively small board salaries, large R/D departments, etc... And a large part of the national budget goes towards science and technology R/D not taken care of by the private sector. Entire industries are run by 2-3 competing conglomerates with strict controls preventing them from working together. Communism doesn't work because why would someone learn how to create computer chips at a molecular level with minimal benefit. And mom and pop shops are inherently inefficient, so they shouldn't exist.
2020-05-23 10:05
#99
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
You'll only achieve low administration costs like that in mom n pop stores. As businesses grow they tend to waste a lot more resources. It's inevitable and why expanding companies often fail, because they no longer run efficiently. If mom n pop stores were inefficient they'd also go out of business. You're still making the mistake thinking economic efficiency is determined solely by monetary factors. If that were the case, why would anyone buy an apartment in Manhattan when they could get a much cheaper one in Queens? That's certainly monetarily inefficient yet people still do it. If money were all people cared out about you'd see a rise in demand for Queens apartments until you had an equilibrium price for all housing in the city of New York.
2020-05-23 11:01
Most people work in the city and like the shorter commute? Others do it for status. I'm perfectly aware value isn't entirely utilitarian. Larger companies tend to have more efficient supply chains and can manufacture and buy in bulk. Which is why Amazon can still easily undercut local businesses. Even with bureaucracy, large corporations are still more efficient. And if the bureaucracy is decreased, then the advantage between a conglomerate and a small business will be insurmountable.
2020-05-23 11:03
#118
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
Yes, Manhattan housing provides something the Queens counterpart doesn't. We've already acknowledged that the lawn and grocery store industries require specialization too. If the bureaucracy is decreased, then the advantage between a conglomerate and a small business will be insurmountable, sure, but it isn't. Believe me, Jeff Bezos is a productive guy. If he could somehow find a way to stop wasting billions of dollars he would. The more competition, the better, no matter the scale. True societal innovation is sparked on a much smaller basis either way. A few conglomerates won't work for the same reason socialism doesn't, no one plans the direction or specifics of economic progress. They are administrative and bureaucratic by definition.
2020-05-23 11:48
Dude I'm not saying anyone isn't allowed to compete with anyone. Small businesses can compete with larger corporations if they want I don't care. The problem I have is they keep out a chain grocery store to make sure Joe the grocer stays in business even though the quality is inferior and the prices are high. If a startup wants to out compete a large, bureaucratic corporation then they absolutely should. People just shouldn't show favoritism based on local pride, let the best win.
2020-05-23 13:55
#153
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
Dude are you Hawaiian or something? Otherwise you must have the most fucked up sleep schedule in existence.
2020-05-23 14:01
Yes for now I do. I have this thing where if my sleep schedule gets fucked up I go to sleep 2 hours later each day until I start sleeping at 9 pm. I have some time off to fix my sleep schedule so here we are for now.
2020-05-23 14:05
#163
stinx | 
Lithuania günT 
I can relate
2020-05-23 14:16
#85
 | 
United Kingdom Mattthematt 
Have you ever worked in a coprorate environment? If you had youd see that automation, I personally cant see it doing mucn ever really beyond basic tasks. Im an accountant and a few years ago my company rolled out an automated general ledger system to do most of our transactional stuff. Frankly its shit, it cocks up all the time so you spend more time fixing it. IT is really in its infancy corporate uptake has been slow and basic for the most part
2020-05-23 10:28
By 2050, basic accounting tasks are probably gonna replaced by artificial intelligence, and that's a very conservative estimate. Of course it's not gonna be perfect now, we're still in early days.
2020-05-23 10:29
#207
 | 
United Kingdom Mattthematt 
It’ll be very basic bookkeeping that gets automated, troubleshooting the system and reporting etc will stil have to be done by an accountant
2020-05-24 10:22
The automated systems you're using now aren't artificial intelligence. They're just hard coded systems to automated certain basic tasks. An AI can go well beyond that and do actual troubleshooting and can adapt to problems.
2020-05-24 22:38
cringe
2020-05-23 08:12
#55
 | 
United States WindyInu 
flag doesnt check out
2020-05-23 08:14
#72
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
This is why we love small business. And most importantly we are helping them put food on their childrens table
2020-05-23 10:04
The reason people still work long hours is because of inefficient enterprises such as a "small business" that just provides a generic service. Those people can just get another job and still put food on the table. #73
2020-05-23 10:39
#191
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
Sure they can. Why should they when they wanted to build something of their own? If you have something people want to patronize who are you to tell them no go do something else instead. And your ideology while interesting for sure does not value individual freedom enough to be supportable :/
2020-05-23 15:31
The thing is no one should be supporting an inferior product on the basis of them being local. People can build whatever business they want. But, are you really building something if people are coming to your business out of pity that a chain store is out competing you?
2020-05-23 16:37
#208
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
I mean if the market has a demand for local then local is good. And as you may see, we really like our local stores. We would rather give our money to the ol Jack and Jill from two blocks over with whose children our children play regularly, with whom we go to the same church and so one, in comparison to supporting some faceless corporation two oceans over
2020-05-24 12:32
#179
ZywOo | 
Europe vacban 
+1
2020-05-23 14:58
this person thinks that "legitimate competition" exists among billion dollar corporations... that's pretty hilarious have you ever taken an economics course beyond high school? major ""conglomerates"" already control their respective markets. they control the politicians and agencies that create policy for their markets. increasing their market share would just worsen these effects. competition does not exist as you learned in macroeconomics 101 tldr: kill all business owners *in minecraft*!
2020-05-23 05:28
#57
 | 
United States WindyInu 
+1
2020-05-23 08:15
#52
 | 
United States laiff 
reminds me of those doordash youtube ads with the celebrities talking about supporting small businesses 'oRder iN!'
2020-05-23 08:01
If autonomy is valued for psychological utility, SMEs as a greater portion of a market would provide more average autonomy for a society In self sacrifice, to spend money inefficiently for an SME product, if generalized, could offset the inefficiency to promote psychological utility over market efficiency
2020-05-23 08:40
In the long run this isn't worth it. Should we have preserved cottage industries because having big city factories would lead to less local autonomy? Autonomy will always be sacrificed over efficiency because 99% of people will choose to benefit themselves (buy a product with a lower price) over supporting the community.
2020-05-23 09:35
Whether it is "worth it" depends on certain genetic makeup for a society and the utility function Of course a hedonic agent would never choose to overpay, but many people would prefer that we have no technology at all and still live as tribes for optimizing psychological utility
2020-05-23 10:16
People long for the past because they don't know how good they have it now. Tribal life with no technology isn't perfect at all. Over generations it inevitably leads to inbreeding which is proven to decrease intelligence. And just catching the common cold can be extremely deadly without modern technology. Modern life is obviously preferable.
2020-05-23 10:19
Psychological rewards are optimized for our "initial state", so the most similar occurrence of it could be plausibly ~optimal There are many "benefits" to modern society for an individual to minimize suffering, but there are clearly many deficits to mental health
2020-05-23 10:22
Social isolation occurs because people are forced to work long hours in meaningless, redundant jobs. Read #73 If all the useless corporate jobs are cut out and small business, which as an aggregate total needlessly employ more people necessary are closed, then society as a whole can work less hours. We could easily be working 20 hour weeks, which would give us more time to focus on what we want.
2020-05-23 10:25
Having "free time" does not mean you will be fulfilled, rather not achieving biological imperatives results in mental health deficit It is more likely that working more would result in greater mental health, as a mental activity like hunting to survive, whether you really need to or not is not that important (dependent on genetics) Focusing on 'hobbies' is a similar cope, but without the 'idea' that you are doing it to survive
2020-05-23 10:30
Tons of people recognize their jobs are useless and redundant, so they don't derive any satisfaction from it. Hunting actually produces some tangible value for yourself, just filing some worthless paper work that doesn't need to be filed doesn't. Working meaningless jobs for long hours takes away spending time with family, which is pretty much the modern day equivalent of your tribe.
2020-05-23 10:32
Whether a 'job' is useless depends on whether the product is valued by you In a similar way, someone as described on #77 would think all modern jobs are useless, as they are not providing utility "Spending time with family" does not seem to be weighted very highly A modern 'tribe' is still the nation, genetic similarity being the most important factor to a similar experiential space Of course, it does not exist for an American, so I can understand why you think that
2020-05-23 10:40
"A modern 'tribe' is still the nation, genetic similarity being the most important factor to a similar experiential space" Japan and South Korea are extremely homogeneous, but I don't see them winning awards on happiness. So especially in a modern society, you're not gonna feel a sense of community purely on the basis of genetic similarity. Middle management doesn't produce anything though. They're merely bureaucracy,
2020-05-23 10:41
I think you have misunderstood how a 'tribe' is related to psychological utility, many individuals under a similar region of experience does not itself produce any psychological utility, it depends on fulfilling biological imperatives (which is dependent of genetics) If you talk to a manager, I think you will find they think managing is important, or maybe they don't Whether it really is or not is not what is important
2020-05-23 10:46
Whether it's actually important or not is of the utmost importance. If the job isn't useful, why should it exist? People's #1 biological imperative is having a family. Whether people prefer to start a family with people of their own race or another is really their own preference.
2020-05-23 10:48
Working (using your mental, physical abilities to acquire goods to survive) is a biological imperative Without such psychological rewards in nature people will die from not hunting Therefore you receive utility whether the work is important or not, similar to a hobby Family is clearly another one, but I'm not sure how you decided that it's "#1", as the weights depend heavily on genetics For example, it would be much more important for women, as they are less capable of surviving without it in nature
2020-05-23 10:53
I think you're fundamentally wrong on people deriving satisfaction from working soul crushing hours in a corporate job. I think most people would prefer to have shorter hours. In the eyes of most people, if you're working less hours but earning the same money, then the satisfaction from "achievement" is the exact same except you can spend less time at a corporate job.
2020-05-23 10:55
Whatever you "think" about it, people do derive utility from it, likely because of the similarity to a natural act that should be rewarded to improve survival Of course someone would say they would like to work less (influenced by naive hedonism), but people are not a good judge of what actually would benefit them, there is no way to know inherently Utility is not from the result but the process "the process is more important than the result"
2020-05-23 11:04
Of course people don't want to waste away and do nothing. But, don't people with passive income sources feel satisfaction from earning their money? As long as people are making a certain amount of money which they worked for, the amount of hours put into it earning it is a minimal concern.
2020-05-23 11:05
There seems to be very little satisfaction in earning money If you take the set of people with money without a process that would provide it, lottery winners, inheritance, plausibly actors, there are many examples of mental health deficit Money does not exist in nature, so it seems like there would be no reason to feel rewards for it's presence
2020-05-23 11:10
You're not understanding me. If you earned it in a legitimate way, not through luck like a lottery. You'll feel basically the same satisfaction whether you worked 20 hours that week or 40.
2020-05-23 11:11
Why would that be the case? A similar process 2x should provide more utility
2020-05-23 11:12
Why wouldn't it be? In fact I'd argue if you're making less per hour, your satisfaction will go down. People feel satisfaction through efficiently earning things. Which means fewer hours for maximum gain. This basic psychological concept is used in most video games.
2020-05-23 11:14
If satisfaction is derived from the process and not the result, 'how much money you earn' is a minimal, possibly non-existent (only with a reward similar to 'catching', dependent on genetics) part of the equation If you are engaging in a rewarding process, the psychological reward system won't just "stop working" after 20 hours, that makes no sense
2020-05-23 11:16
If you were playing a video game which just gave you a ton of money for no reason, would you feel satisfied. But, if you found a way to earn it efficiently, then you'd feel actually fulfilled. Btw if the process is boring and redundant, no one will take pride in it. Why would they?
2020-05-23 11:19
Again, you don't feel reward from 'getting money', there is no money in nature. If you 'get money for no reason', then there is no process, of course you won't get any reward. And 'take pride' in something also has seemingly no effect on the value of it, but if you aren't using mental and physical capacity, then yes, you will likely receive less utility. However, how much effort you put into your work is entirely up to you. In korean there is something called "seongsil", like no matter what you are doing, but the most effort into it.
2020-05-23 11:25
#61
 | 
Finland Homeless775 
people are so dumb bro why do we need jobs when we can just not work and starve to death bro
2020-05-23 09:40
Yeah bro let's just employ people in a less efficient system for no reason instead of switching to a more efficient system.
2020-05-23 09:44
I don't give a shit.
2020-05-23 10:13
Okay Arthur from Japan.
2020-05-23 10:22
#78
 | 
Reunion Mnam_do_pici 
Flag checks out
2020-05-23 10:19
How?
2020-05-23 10:21
#98
 | 
Reunion Mnam_do_pici 
na brain
2020-05-23 10:58
French brain.
2020-05-23 10:59
I think that you should combine small companies and create large companies,shares should be given to all stakeholders, so that money and labor are used more efficiently.But this does not benefit anyone because everyone wants to be their own boss.Thats simple They may actually be more rich this way.
2020-05-23 10:40
Acquiring all them would cost a lot of money and time. It's more efficient to just run them out of business, which is sadly what companies are doing these days.
2020-05-23 10:49
what you say will be with some exceptions. be patient a bit. If big companies are not cowardly, they are deleted from the market. I provided the formula for small companies to survive
2020-05-23 11:01
I run a photo studio for 6 years now and already made profit 2 years ago and it keeps growing every year
2020-05-23 11:21
That's fine dude, but do you at least acknowledge if a large conglomerate started competing with you it could offer lower prices with roughly the same quality?
2020-05-23 13:46
It's possible but I live in a quite small city ( Dresden ) so the competition is not high. For 2 years I was doing it basically for free just to get some people know about my place, I invested around 25k euro to get this place running.
2020-05-23 13:57
Tbh bro all I'm saying in this thread is people shouldn't show favoritism to local businesses on the basis that they're local. If your product is superior than people should come to you, all there is to it.
2020-05-23 13:59
The USA would have no auto industry by now if they followed your logic 👌
2020-05-23 16:46
Tbh if people stopped buying garbage American cars, then these companies would either close or be forced to produce more reliable vehicles. I could probably buy a '99 Toyota Camry with 150k miles on it and it'll probably still outlast some piece of shit 2020/2021 GMC vehicle. I've seen those old Camry's go for 250k-300k miles, the GMC is done after 80k if you're very lucky.
2020-05-23 16:55
I swear to god i will never understand the leftist thoughtprocess... Day 1 : "we gotta fight this evil corporations, they're just greedy and they dont care" Day 2 : "make them pay more tax, that'll teach them" Day 3 : "we should send all of these small business under" im not even gonna try...
2020-05-23 11:54
big businesses are exploitative, small ones are inefficient, that means all to the state!
2020-05-23 13:36
#139
2020-05-23 13:43
Dude I'm literally advocating for hyper efficient and ruthless capitalism. Do you just call everything you don't like leftism? Seems like it.
2020-05-23 13:40
First of all, conglomerates are more efficient than small business nominally, not adjusting per size, per size a smaller business will be much more efficient, SPECIALLY one that has a less operative hours per day policy. But your premise is infinitely flawed from the getgo, government shuting down small business isnt capitalism.... what??? that is statist fascism at its purest. Not to mention, in a fully deregulated open and untaxed market, small business are INEVITABLE, do you think every start off in experimental and brand new markets that havent been invented yet will go all out with millionaire investments??? you dont understand markets at all. And just to close out, i dont call anything i dislike leftism, i first dislike leftism, and then you embrace it and as a result i dislike you, not the other way around dont put the cart before the horse. ps: there is leftists that i like, some are even in this website.
2020-05-23 13:56
Where in the world do I say the government should shut down small businesses? That's completely ridiculous. #145 should clear up your misconceptions about my stance.
2020-05-23 13:58
Who is "they" ???
2020-05-23 13:59
If I understand you correctly, "they" are the locals. The locals who keep out the chain grocery store to keep an inferior local store in terms of price and quality in business.
2020-05-23 14:01
2 Things 1) Private individuals are free to do with their money as they please, if they decide to spend it on a local small business there is nothing inefficient nor shady about it. 2) Quality?? A conglomerate brings reliability, aint nothing writen about quality? a certain minimum amount of quality perhaps, very rarely elite level quality. A large private conglomerate usually has to focus on multitask and keeping efficiency up, a small business can dedicate 100% of their resources to 1 task, that's why you probably have been to a small local food business that has better burgers, meat, sandwitches and chicken than McDonnalds and BK. Have you even considered that the reason some people pick their local guy over the conglomerate might be because they are actually better satisfied by their products, not just a quasi-nationalistic agenda?
2020-05-23 14:16
You can do what you want man I don't care. The question I'm asking is it economically efficient to show arbitrary favoritism to local businesses. "Have you even considered that the reason some people pick their local guy over the conglomerate might be because they are actually better satisfied by their products" If you think so shop at the local grocer. Like I said go to whoever has the superior product, which is the true capitalistic way. Tons of people shop at local businesses just to support local business.
2020-05-23 14:21
Theres a lot more factors than just item and price when you shop for groceries. Time, distance, safety, etc. Most people who work average jobs will rather just go buy their groceries at the store around the corner than having to get on a car, spend gas, drive 10 minutes to a walmart, spend 10 minutes getting their things, spend 10 minutes on the line to pay and then drive back home 10 minutes again spending same amount of gas. Sure maybe some items could be a bit more expensive at the local small store (and some might be cheaper as well) but convenience is usually the biggest factor in the life of average Joe sixpack.
2020-05-23 14:31
Most American towns don't have a grocery store around the corner. Most of those corner stores are convenience stores. And either way if you prefer convenience over price and quality, then the closer store is offering the superior service that fits your needs. It's not like you're favoring based on the fact that it's "local".
2020-05-23 14:35
Finally.
2020-05-23 14:36
Finally what dude? That was my point all along. Don't favor stuff just because it's a "local business".
2020-05-23 14:40
"if you prefer convenience over price and quality, then the closer store is offering the superior service that fits your needs" This you didn't understand before we started talking, no matter what you say. And while i think its a waste of money to support inferior products that dont satisfy you just because they are in your area, i will always defend the right for individuals to do so. You dont know what capitalism is, you dont know what fascism is, you dont understand human interaction...but if you keep your mind open maybe you will one day.
2020-05-23 14:50
Lmao. All I'm doing is arguing people change their mindset. Local doesn't automatically equal good and chain doesn't automatically equal bad. But, if you're stubborn you can absolutely do what you want. If you wanna waste your money at Joe's grocery store, go ahead dude.
2020-05-23 16:39
BOOTLICKER O O T L I C K E R
2020-05-23 12:12
Lmao what?
2020-05-23 13:44
Give everyone equal chances to compete, whoever is best will get their market share. Just dont subsidize anyone and you're good to go, this will always be the most efficient way
2020-05-23 12:49
picking winners never works well, this goes from a town preventing walmart to save the small grocer (who is likely more expensive) to just assuming big corporations are always more efficient (then why haven't they they taken over the market yet) when some companies don't scale well or require local knowledge (construction, real estate) or are too specialized to grow into a huge conglomerate because their market is too small and expanding perhaps doesn't make sense
2020-05-23 13:21
The thing is I'm not picking winners, the people disagreeing with me are. "this goes from a town preventing walmart to save the small grocer (who is likely more expensive)" This is exactly what people do though. They subsidize a local business because they have a personal relationship with the owner, it has nothing to do with quality or price. If people stopped doing that, so many of these small businesses would go under.
2020-05-23 13:42
yeah but you have to accept that sometimes small businesses are more efficient
2020-05-23 14:10
In specialty goods? Maybe. For generic things like delivery or groceries, a chain is usually more efficient.
2020-05-23 14:11
yeah in some things there are, in some there aren't, but don't act like small enterprises have no place in a free market
2020-05-23 14:13
I never said that. All I'm saying is don't favor them over a chain just because you know the owner.
2020-05-23 14:14
Low skilled service like lawn-mowing which you mentioned can't scale because the profit margins are tiny. They can't deal with any bloat. Small businesses don't have to spend money on bureaucracy, logistics, marketing etc.. You can't sustain a big company in certain industries.
2020-05-23 14:16
And yet the margins are high enough to support the owner's family. Dude the actual reason lawn care in particular (at least in America) is so localized is because almost all of them employ lots of illegal immigrants and pay them well below the minimum wage. You can't do that on a large scale without being sued. To answer your argument, construction companies (even ones that specialize on smaller projects) operate on tiny margins yet aren't dominated by local businesses in many towns.
2020-05-23 14:24
Ofc it supports the owners family. Nobody in their right mind would operate a business like a charity. Actual reason lawn care is localized is because being small and local minimizes costs. You are right about the immigrants I give you that. You can actually make a decent profit in construction if you have a good reputation. Good construction engineers and workers are not easily replaceable.
2020-05-23 14:39
Dude no, construction has infamously low profit margins. Probably way worse than lawn care. And that money that goes would normally go to an owner couldn't just go to paying a regional manager and a management structure?
2020-05-23 14:40
I think you are overestimating how much small business owners make money. Or underestimating how much the added complexity in being bigger adds costs.
2020-05-23 14:48
I know some are wealthier some are poorer. It's just that I know smaller construction companies which employed almost exclusively illegal immigrants, and people act like they're some local small business supporting the community. The owner of one of these drove around in a Mercedes Benz G-Wagon and employed no one in the community, and people acted like he owned some local, community run business. The worship is just completely insane.
2020-05-23 16:24
#180
ZywOo | 
Europe vacban 
ENJOY THAT BOOT SIR!
2020-05-23 15:00
Lmao why do you and the other guy think I'm bootlicking?
2020-05-23 16:33
Because giving the power to the few instead to the many and by power I obviously mean wealth is never a good idea.
2020-05-23 15:07
The point of the thread is people should just support who offers them the best prices and work for whoever pays them the best. Right now there's some worship of local businesses. If that worship ends I predict business will be much more consolidated until a smaller competitor innovates and disrupts the market.
2020-05-23 16:31
How do you imagine a capitalistic society with only big corporations?
2020-05-23 15:22
#197 Maybe the thread wasn't clear, many people are misunderstanding me.
2020-05-23 16:31
I don't really get your point tbh. It's small companies that hold the best(small) prices to be able to compete or I don't understand what you mean by best prices.
2020-05-23 17:02
do you get better coffee from starbucks or small cafes? do you get better food from mcdonalds or small restaurants?
2020-05-23 16:40
Local restaurants if they're higher quality. I don't just assume they're superior because they're local.
2020-05-23 16:43
Sinners
1.45
Cyber Legacy
2.67
Gambit Youngsters
1.42
pro100
2.78
Bpro
1.64
BIG Academy
2.20
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.