Good comments, I think you're right that I might be mistaken -- but Wikipedia does seem to be having a problem getting the old donators to continue. Why is that?
ModestNeeds.org is an interesting site. I never saw it before and I'm definitely interested in reading more. I started a small AnCap "movement" about 6 months ago in order to dispel the thought that anarchists are evil to the poor or those in trouble. We haven't gone public with it, but we're about to add a website in 06 regarding some of the things we're doing (in order to gain more ancaps in the movement).
We do "little things" for people, every day. Yesterday I helped 3 different people change tires on the highway (I-294 in Chicagoland). I'm an expert wheel changer it seems, as I had all 3 parties on their way in under 15 minutes each. Just something nice to do when you're NOT in a rush to get somewhere. I handed them a "you were helped by an anarchocapitalist" card, too:) Hey, I'm not altruistic at all -- I like the feeling I get when I help someone.
The week before I tried to help old people at the gas station -- found the oldest people needing gas, offered to pump it for them, and kicked in an extra $5 to help them with the rising fuel prices. I helped about 15 people ro so, I'd estimate, and it made me feel good to help them where Social Security is failing them. I also exchanged e-mail addresses with about 6 of them (all were over 70 and still driving!).
I'm hoping to see more "help your neighbor" anarchist movements growing over the next year or so. Libertarians and anarchists seem to do more talking than actual doing. In my experience, the anarchocapitalists I've helped create over the past year were directly because I convinced them of the ideology by showing them that we can still help others without a financial profit incentive -- feeling good is still a profit.
My problem is that it is very hard for me to trust the charities to handle my money properly. I've always thought about how charities could detail their money coming in and their money going out, and I came up with a solution. I'm not sure if anyone already has used this solution, so I don't know if its new and unique or already something everyone (but me) knew.
First, every donation would get a receipt number (say 2006010112321.0005000). The receipt number would contain the amount donated at the end (US$50.00 in this case). The charity would post EVERY donation receipt number and a total of all donations.
This would allow every person who donated to confirm that their donation was actually listed on the site. If your donation didn't make it to the site, you know it was embezzled or laundered out of the charity. This is a good checks-and-balances solution to making sure the charity is disclosing all the money it receives.
A not-for-profit who wants my money should also display money going OUT and how it was spent -- you can easily scan and publish receipts for services and products purchased. In the end, I don't want to see huge salaries and wasted money on trips and events that are more vacations than charity work. For those, I'd rather pay a for-profit company that competes than an not-for-profit company that is really a for-profit company in disguise.
I don't know if I believe in the term "public interest." If the public has a need, there will always be commercial money for that need, in some way. Yet the initial market for Wikipedia was the F/OSS market, a customer base who doesn't seem to have money to spend. If Wikipedia switches to the commercial market, they'll lose the F/OSS market possibly, but is that a bad thing? Do the F/OSS advocates who sell out really care about their old crowd?
I was always very surprised at how much Wikipedia took in during fund raising drives -- I use Wiki on rare occasions but always felt I should throw them a few bucks.
The problem, from what I can tell, is that as more people contribute article text, they seem to feel they have less reason to contribute financially -- which may be true.
I like seeing how Wikis have become more neutral over time, and I think we do have a great need for an information store like Wikipedia, but I don't see how it can sustain itself in the long run (at least for free). They're facing the same dilemma that many not-for-profit information companies are: people seem to have less money today than they did a few years ago. My charitable contributions have gone UP this year, but I spend all my charity dollars locally where I can see them making a difference. I'm not certain if I want to give to Wiki without knowing how the money is used. I don't mind supporting dozens of servers and bandwidth fees, but I don't want to see the founder driving a Porsche.
Note that I'm not against profitable companies -- I just don't trust not-for-profits with my money. If Wiki became subscriber only, I'd definitely subscribe, but would the quality or quantity of articles drop if the user base dropped from closing it off? For sure.
Wikipedia, and every other freely available information store, will have to find news ways to generate income. I don't believe they'll add advertisements, but I don't see what other ways they can break even. Maybe offering pay-for-articles for vanity or for advertisement but mark it as such? Just like privately funded libraries were ways for the wealthy to gain immortality, maybe Wiki will offer the "bronze plaques" so the billionaires can get recognition for their "altruism."
The placebo effect does work! A friend of the family is a hypochondriac (I used to be a BAD one), and always has the same cold or disease as someone else. I told her that the trick to fending off hypochondria is to gently tap the underside of her chin 5 times slowly and the symptoms will go away.
Guess what? It worked. I just made it up but I told her I heard about it on a medical show. The power of the mind is amazing, but it has taught me how easily duped we humans are. I guess this means don't trust anyone until you know what their end desire is.
This is an interesting article, but it seems common for them to say that these unknown "problems" might all boil down to bad research -- and I believe that could likely be the answer for many. "Bad research" covers all science conundrums: either you misread the results, or previous bad research gave you an incorrect theory.
1 of my 3 businesses was closed partially due to sales tax inequities, but I can't go into details right now due to legal reasons.
It was our best year, yes -- the first 7 months were record setting, the last 5 months were the worst in history. Katrina, gas prices, and overall recessionary valleys lead us to make the choice to downsize and regroup for 2007.
I'm not pissed that we pay taxes and dotcoms don't -- I don't think anyone should. I would hate to see online purchases taxed. Taxes decrease purchases -- watch Chicago lose even more money after adding a 70 cent/pack cigarette tax today.
I don't want to deal with skimming the law, I just want to provide what the customer wants at a price that is reasonable to me, as well. This is no longer the case. Both my retail industries are conglomerating in order to overcome a very high cost of doing business (again, due to government regulations and restrictions). When my 9 suppliers turn into 3, I lose the power to purchase cheaply. Heck, even "free trade" Bush is killing me by keeping T-shirt and cotton tariffs high, but allowing some large retailers to work around it.
As for the item that we sell for a high margin, they're very cheap items -- $4 - $6 retail. Normally we sell thousands of them a month, but the dotcoms just give them away at a loss. Very competitive, and I cheer their business sense, but I just can't do it, and I can't give up a key element to paying my overhead and pay.
Sorry, I meant those numbers for my IT business, not my retail business. The poster was trolling about my pay rates -- minimum wage plus very high (up to 66%) project profit sharing -- in my IT business. My retail pay rates are much lower, but about double the national take-home average.
We're reviewing our retail businesses for 2007 -- we might decommission our big stores and open a large quantity of tiny shops where the manager is also a significant owner (30% or so), so that we can tie the pay to the market. Always things to research.
I've been in business since the age of 15 (13 actually, but I didn't consider it a business, more of a hobby that made money). Yes, I do own an IT business. I helped my wife started a skateboard/paintball business of which I own 40%. I helped my brother start a recording studio, of which I own 40%. I opened an outsourcing business in 2002, which I own 66% of. I started a business in Europe this year that manufactures tanning salon shields, of which I own 40%.
I can't put all my eggs in one basket -- the best way to run a business is to find a great team, and learn to build from there. I'm not a responsible worker, I'm a grand risk taker -- others who are good at doing the daily grind get VERY well compensated for their work, and I look to see how I can expand -- or contract -- in order to survive the years ahead.
All of my businesses had websites, but they were too expensive to update for very little income.
Aren't you the same fucktard who pays his employee's minimum wage anyway.
Yes. I pay minimum wage salaries, plus up to 66% profit from each project. My lowest paid employee works 15 hours a week and takes home about $65,000 annually (minimum wage plus profit sharing).
On top of that, I am the lowest paid of my entire staff (including bonuses, profit sharing and dividends). So don't think I am some rich bitch. I drive a 1996 Toyota Corolla with no power accessories.
I'm not sure I understand how you went out of business.
We didn't go out of business, we're making the choice to close our doors -- big difference. In every business, in every market, there comes a time when the old ways are obsolete. Ma and pa retail stores are pretty much antiquated, so I figured we'd best get out on top. One of my 3 stores closed up on its own (major cash flow problems and a very disloyal community), so I found my exit strategy and took it.
Also, since you so clearly identified the problem (and have great understanding of it) what would you propose a solution to be?
There is no solution. It is so convoluted, but in the end I have to blame government -- and I know I'll get flamed for saying that.
Look at it this way:
1. Our rent is outrageous -- almost $18-$25 per square foot. I fully blame this on the Fed's easy credit and a massive amount of "new" money entering the property market. There is no way my main store's rent should be $5000 per month -- but it is! This is in a town of 4000 people, mind you.
2. Our payroll is outrageous -- for every $1 I pay my employee, I have almost $1.50 to also pay to government and accountants (because of the tax laws). There's no way around it, especially since the warehouses who sell for the big dotcoms hire people either at minimum wage, or as contractors below minimum wage. I have friends who work at the big dotcoms in the warehouses and they're practically slaves.
3. We pay 7% to sales tax, plus the an additional 3.5% to accountants to handle the sales tax. One store files over 45 different forms a year for various government bodies. This puts us at a significant penalty over companies that don't have to pay this portion.
4. We pay a larger portion in shipping -- we don't move millions annually so we don't get the same discounts as the big guys.
But its ok! The dotcoms won because they were more efficient. Yes, my customers who lose me will lose great service and a very community oriented business, but if they weren't willing to pay the extra 15-20%, why should I take a big risk?
Retail is dead, except for the megacorps who have ways around the issues plaguing me. I recently found out 3 super stores in my neighboring town get a sales tax rebate -- they charge 7% to the consumer but get to keep over half of it. Yeah, that's fair.
I've been in business for 16+ years (a variety of businesses). Retail wasn't my thing -- my wife begged me for a store and then I got hooked. We do constant market analyses to stay ahead of the competition -- online and brick and mortar. The outlook for next year looks BAD. My political views might seem to some a little aggressive, but I forsee a bad recession starting, and the retailers will get slammed, in my opinion.
There's an idea I have that many people throw good money at bad problems -- I won't do that. I'll lose about $100,000 closing the stores, but that's better than losing 4 times as much if things go sour. This year was exceptional because we finally overcame some starting costs (build outs and the rest) that I paid out of my pocket. I do NOT see good things ahead in 2006, and I don't want to take that big of a risk.
I own 2 (and 1/2) retail stores in the Midwest US, and this will be our final year in retail.
Our inventory was better than or equal to more dotcoms. Our service was better (30 day DOA or defect replacement and lifetime labor). Our pricing was equal. Our hours were "better" since we were open 7 days a week.
What killed us? Sales tax. Our average sale in 2005 for about $230 (we sell paintball, skateboards and a ton of clothing). At 7%, we were consistently $16+ over per average sale than the dotcoms, even with instant acquisition.
2005 was our best year ever, so we're ending it at the top. Next year's outlook is bleak as many states want to raise sales tax and other fees. No thanks. In 2005 I paid more in sales tax than I did in payroll.
I'm not mad, actually -- the dotcoms are a great way to save money AND screw the state. I feel bad about my customers who loved our store, but I also know many bought online for the higher margin items that didn't need servicing (we were not competitive on those items as we had to price in future service and were always about 20% higher).
Local communities WILL suffer, though. Retail sales can be a big income base for the local community -- my mechanic performs almost 80% of his work for retail employees' cars. My dentist has almost 1/3rd of her patients working in retail. As retail suffers, these secondary markets will also suffer. But the positive is that the money we save in retail by shopping online should offer us more money to spend on other things.
It was a great 5 years, I did very well financially, and in the end, the state decided they didn't want me around -- otherwise they'd have ended the vile sales tax that is quickly ruining retail.
Since I've added "Add to Google" to my blog, I've seen the number of RSS users go up dramatically. We'll see if it lasts, but it seems Google will be one of the main ways users learn what RSS is.
My Google "custom homepage" offers blank feeds about 50% of the time, though, so I'm not sure if it is the best solution, but it is definitely a start.
I think having all this information at our finger tips can be a boon -- giving us more time to focus on discovery and research and development. I'm always amazed and what information bubbles to the top of Google searches (other than the obvious SEO attempts).
I was blessed with a terribly short memory from a very young age, but along with it came the ability to assimilate and aggregate seemingly different items together, and do so quickly. My bad memory led to VERY low grades but very high aptitude testing -- quite a conundrum. I took to BBSes and other forms of "instant variable information" quickly at a very young age, and when the Internet hit (mostly gopher at that time, from what I recall), I absorbed it immediately.
I don't think knowledge overload is necessarily a bad thing -- it is how you use the knowledge that allows us to make the "morality" consideration. It is the old "did the gun or the shooter kill?" debate, and one that I think may be one-sided when it comes to slashdot: many of us make our livings either by manipulating information for others, or by helping others get to that information.
I can think of many reasons why this information overload is positive, but I can also see how it can become a crutch for some. I have Google everywhere I go (WAP, SMS, HTML) and it is definitely a huge help in so many ways, but it also allows my already bad short term memory to not get the exercise it needs. While I feel I am much smarter at what I was always good at, I have probably become way dumber in what I wasn't strong in. Even the wife acknowledges my memory is worse now than it was 10 years ago (short term that is, my long term memory is very solid).
Some days I wonder if my memory problems might have been FROM an early introduction to the PC. When I was 4 I touched my first keyboard and quickly adjusted to using a keyboard over using a pencil (around 6 years). This is about 25 years ago. Is what I have more like the ADD that today's youths seems to all have, and do they have ADD because of the early introduction to knowledge overload? Do short attention spans possibly come from our 60-75hz gods?
It will be interesting to see who from the next generation holds true to the old information forms: pencil, paper, book, memory lessons.
I'm not saying that -- read my comment again. I'm saying that we shouldn't be setting permanent rules based on the opinions of people who don't know what is going on. Although that does seem to be the case in almost every rule or law made, now that I think about it.
One of my oldest friends is a professor of geology and geophysics at a University. Because most of what he has told me is off the record and unquotable, I can't give his name (I wish I could). He admits to me that geophysicists have no idea what is happening beneath the thinnest part of the earth's crust that we live on -- and that almost every theory they've created has been shut down by actual accounts of natural phenomena. I wish he'd go public with these thoughts, but I guess it would kill off his funding.
It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters. I know I always look for the best income for the least amount of work.
I study oil and gold extraction (I blog about gold mines, too) and I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong. I know that it is heretical to say that on slashdot (I was blasted about it earlier this morning on this very forum), but we as a society seem to have too much faith in scientific research finding facts that turn out to be just plain wrong.
What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true? Is oil possibly a renewable resource (meaning there is near unlimited amounts deeper within the earth waiting to bubble up)? Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade? How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?
I rarely thank AP writers for their research, but in this case I have to. I'm glad the spotlight is being shined on the fallacies that come out of the mouths of scientists looking for more research dollars (on the backs of the taxpayers). I believe we DO need to carry out research -- not publicly funded -- but I also think we need to evaluate how much of what they discover is really factual enough to base wars, regulations and restrictions on. I understand that science is constantly finding new theories to fix their old ones, and I have no problem with continued research -- just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.
I'm concerned about a government with a history of destroying basic rights with excessive laws trying to change those laws with more laws.
I've heard promises from politicians every time I open a paper or turn on the news -- and those promises never bear fruit. I'm no Austrialian, but I wonder if this law that will "give" you a right (rights aren't granted by law) is really all they say it is, or if it is just a shill for the copyright-supporting cartels in some way.
I guess only time will tell. I don't trust it and I don't believe it will help consumers in the long run, but here is one place I want to be proven wrong (with time!)
I think you are missing the OP's point entirely. You require everyone to be armed to the teeth just to protect themselves, throwing civilization back in the 1500s, and only because it's a system you feel comfortable with.
No, I'm doing the opposite. I have to arm myself to the teeth in Chicago because the law requires that I not be armed -- giving criminals an open door to rob and rape. In Chicago, I have ZERO right to arm myself in defense -- if I do, I am a criminal.
Get rid of gun regulations, and criminals will think twice about robbing me or raping my wife. They won't know who has weapons and who doesn't, and I would likely NOT arm myself.
One of my homes (my primary summer vacation home) has no weapons in it, as the local law has no mandate against arming yourself. I'm not sure if my neighbors are armed or not -- but we've never had a robbery, a theft or even a trespass, unlike my office in downtown Chicago that was robbed 3 times in 10 years.
I never said I didn't think there wasn't a market in home PCs -- it just isn't my market. I think the home PC market is one of the BEST ways for the average IT employee to become their own business owner -- start small at a low rate and grow beyond it. I actually have helped about 10 local "kids" start their own businesses this year (all over the country) by focusing on this tough market.
I completely agree with your comment, and I didn't intend to say that the home market is unprofitable. EVERY market is profitable for someone.
As for these customers "forcing" me, it was more of a joke comment. With every business comes a share of people you have to treat better than others.
The 'free market' has hurt and killed many innocent people. Fire codes, building codes, labor laws, securities laws, health codes, etc, etc, etc, have all been created due to failures of the free market, why should GM crops be any different?
Actually, I'm in the contracting and engineering business -- codes are used in order to control who builds in a given area, to compensate cronies who own businesses that sell code-meeting devices, to supplement the unions that publish some code regulation books, and to devise ways to tax those unfriendly to government.
Fire codes, building codes, etc, are better written by insurance companies in order to set a policy up. Insurance companies were given a way out of paying claims by these codes.
They will give you a very different perspective on the market that you trust so implicitly.
I'm not wealthy at all -- I invest my money in businesses that help my employees more than they help me (considering what I pay them versus what I get paid). I tithe 10% of my pretax dollars to my church -- where I watch my money get people off drugs, get single moms into paying jobs, and get children out of the streets and into mentorship programs. My money is working in front of my eyes, which can't be said for government theft of dollars via taxation.
The market that I so love brings opportunities to those who want them. The government that you so love brings sadness to those who are barred from taking advantage of opportunities stolen from them, and sadness to those who are taxed in order to support the powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
And I cannot stop laughing after that post.
That makes two of us now, heh.
Good comments, I think you're right that I might be mistaken -- but Wikipedia does seem to be having a problem getting the old donators to continue. Why is that?
:) Hey, I'm not altruistic at all -- I like the feeling I get when I help someone.
ModestNeeds.org is an interesting site. I never saw it before and I'm definitely interested in reading more. I started a small AnCap "movement" about 6 months ago in order to dispel the thought that anarchists are evil to the poor or those in trouble. We haven't gone public with it, but we're about to add a website in 06 regarding some of the things we're doing (in order to gain more ancaps in the movement).
We do "little things" for people, every day. Yesterday I helped 3 different people change tires on the highway (I-294 in Chicagoland). I'm an expert wheel changer it seems, as I had all 3 parties on their way in under 15 minutes each. Just something nice to do when you're NOT in a rush to get somewhere. I handed them a "you were helped by an anarchocapitalist" card, too
The week before I tried to help old people at the gas station -- found the oldest people needing gas, offered to pump it for them, and kicked in an extra $5 to help them with the rising fuel prices. I helped about 15 people ro so, I'd estimate, and it made me feel good to help them where Social Security is failing them. I also exchanged e-mail addresses with about 6 of them (all were over 70 and still driving!).
I'm hoping to see more "help your neighbor" anarchist movements growing over the next year or so. Libertarians and anarchists seem to do more talking than actual doing. In my experience, the anarchocapitalists I've helped create over the past year were directly because I convinced them of the ideology by showing them that we can still help others without a financial profit incentive -- feeling good is still a profit.
You're right on all accounts -- but how many dotcom geeks are left to spend money openly on F/OSS projects?
Maybe they don't need money, maybe they need a big hosting company to donate the servers and bandwidth freely in exchange for a tagline:
Wikipedia
Hostly freely by GoDaddy
Or something of the sort.
I've reviewed it.
My problem is that it is very hard for me to trust the charities to handle my money properly. I've always thought about how charities could detail their money coming in and their money going out, and I came up with a solution. I'm not sure if anyone already has used this solution, so I don't know if its new and unique or already something everyone (but me) knew.
First, every donation would get a receipt number (say 2006010112321.0005000). The receipt number would contain the amount donated at the end (US$50.00 in this case). The charity would post EVERY donation receipt number and a total of all donations.
This would allow every person who donated to confirm that their donation was actually listed on the site. If your donation didn't make it to the site, you know it was embezzled or laundered out of the charity. This is a good checks-and-balances solution to making sure the charity is disclosing all the money it receives.
A not-for-profit who wants my money should also display money going OUT and how it was spent -- you can easily scan and publish receipts for services and products purchased. In the end, I don't want to see huge salaries and wasted money on trips and events that are more vacations than charity work. For those, I'd rather pay a for-profit company that competes than an not-for-profit company that is really a for-profit company in disguise.
I don't know if I believe in the term "public interest." If the public has a need, there will always be commercial money for that need, in some way. Yet the initial market for Wikipedia was the F/OSS market, a customer base who doesn't seem to have money to spend. If Wikipedia switches to the commercial market, they'll lose the F/OSS market possibly, but is that a bad thing? Do the F/OSS advocates who sell out really care about their old crowd?
I was always very surprised at how much Wikipedia took in during fund raising drives -- I use Wiki on rare occasions but always felt I should throw them a few bucks.
The problem, from what I can tell, is that as more people contribute article text, they seem to feel they have less reason to contribute financially -- which may be true.
I like seeing how Wikis have become more neutral over time, and I think we do have a great need for an information store like Wikipedia, but I don't see how it can sustain itself in the long run (at least for free). They're facing the same dilemma that many not-for-profit information companies are: people seem to have less money today than they did a few years ago. My charitable contributions have gone UP this year, but I spend all my charity dollars locally where I can see them making a difference. I'm not certain if I want to give to Wiki without knowing how the money is used. I don't mind supporting dozens of servers and bandwidth fees, but I don't want to see the founder driving a Porsche.
Note that I'm not against profitable companies -- I just don't trust not-for-profits with my money. If Wiki became subscriber only, I'd definitely subscribe, but would the quality or quantity of articles drop if the user base dropped from closing it off? For sure.
Wikipedia, and every other freely available information store, will have to find news ways to generate income. I don't believe they'll add advertisements, but I don't see what other ways they can break even. Maybe offering pay-for-articles for vanity or for advertisement but mark it as such? Just like privately funded libraries were ways for the wealthy to gain immortality, maybe Wiki will offer the "bronze plaques" so the billionaires can get recognition for their "altruism."
I specifically made no mention of anything :)
Do I get +1 ThankGodHeShutUp now?
The placebo effect does work! A friend of the family is a hypochondriac (I used to be a BAD one), and always has the same cold or disease as someone else. I told her that the trick to fending off hypochondria is to gently tap the underside of her chin 5 times slowly and the symptoms will go away.
:)
Guess what? It worked. I just made it up but I told her I heard about it on a medical show. The power of the mind is amazing, but it has taught me how easily duped we humans are. I guess this means don't trust anyone until you know what their end desire is.
This is an interesting article, but it seems common for them to say that these unknown "problems" might all boil down to bad research -- and I believe that could likely be the answer for many. "Bad research" covers all science conundrums: either you misread the results, or previous bad research gave you an incorrect theory.
Problems solved
1 of my 3 businesses was closed partially due to sales tax inequities, but I can't go into details right now due to legal reasons.
It was our best year, yes -- the first 7 months were record setting, the last 5 months were the worst in history. Katrina, gas prices, and overall recessionary valleys lead us to make the choice to downsize and regroup for 2007.
I'm not pissed that we pay taxes and dotcoms don't -- I don't think anyone should. I would hate to see online purchases taxed. Taxes decrease purchases -- watch Chicago lose even more money after adding a 70 cent/pack cigarette tax today.
I don't want to deal with skimming the law, I just want to provide what the customer wants at a price that is reasonable to me, as well. This is no longer the case. Both my retail industries are conglomerating in order to overcome a very high cost of doing business (again, due to government regulations and restrictions). When my 9 suppliers turn into 3, I lose the power to purchase cheaply. Heck, even "free trade" Bush is killing me by keeping T-shirt and cotton tariffs high, but allowing some large retailers to work around it.
As for the item that we sell for a high margin, they're very cheap items -- $4 - $6 retail. Normally we sell thousands of them a month, but the dotcoms just give them away at a loss. Very competitive, and I cheer their business sense, but I just can't do it, and I can't give up a key element to paying my overhead and pay.
Sorry, I meant those numbers for my IT business, not my retail business. The poster was trolling about my pay rates -- minimum wage plus very high (up to 66%) project profit sharing -- in my IT business. My retail pay rates are much lower, but about double the national take-home average.
We're reviewing our retail businesses for 2007 -- we might decommission our big stores and open a large quantity of tiny shops where the manager is also a significant owner (30% or so), so that we can tie the pay to the market. Always things to research.
I've been in business since the age of 15 (13 actually, but I didn't consider it a business, more of a hobby that made money). Yes, I do own an IT business. I helped my wife started a skateboard/paintball business of which I own 40%. I helped my brother start a recording studio, of which I own 40%. I opened an outsourcing business in 2002, which I own 66% of. I started a business in Europe this year that manufactures tanning salon shields, of which I own 40%.
I can't put all my eggs in one basket -- the best way to run a business is to find a great team, and learn to build from there. I'm not a responsible worker, I'm a grand risk taker -- others who are good at doing the daily grind get VERY well compensated for their work, and I look to see how I can expand -- or contract -- in order to survive the years ahead.
All of my businesses had websites, but they were too expensive to update for very little income.
Aren't you the same fucktard who pays his employee's minimum wage anyway.
Yes. I pay minimum wage salaries, plus up to 66% profit from each project. My lowest paid employee works 15 hours a week and takes home about $65,000 annually (minimum wage plus profit sharing).
On top of that, I am the lowest paid of my entire staff (including bonuses, profit sharing and dividends). So don't think I am some rich bitch. I drive a 1996 Toyota Corolla with no power accessories.
I'm not sure I understand how you went out of business.
We didn't go out of business, we're making the choice to close our doors -- big difference. In every business, in every market, there comes a time when the old ways are obsolete. Ma and pa retail stores are pretty much antiquated, so I figured we'd best get out on top. One of my 3 stores closed up on its own (major cash flow problems and a very disloyal community), so I found my exit strategy and took it.
Also, since you so clearly identified the problem (and have great understanding of it) what would you propose a solution to be?
There is no solution. It is so convoluted, but in the end I have to blame government -- and I know I'll get flamed for saying that.
Look at it this way:
1. Our rent is outrageous -- almost $18-$25 per square foot. I fully blame this on the Fed's easy credit and a massive amount of "new" money entering the property market. There is no way my main store's rent should be $5000 per month -- but it is! This is in a town of 4000 people, mind you.
2. Our payroll is outrageous -- for every $1 I pay my employee, I have almost $1.50 to also pay to government and accountants (because of the tax laws). There's no way around it, especially since the warehouses who sell for the big dotcoms hire people either at minimum wage, or as contractors below minimum wage. I have friends who work at the big dotcoms in the warehouses and they're practically slaves.
3. We pay 7% to sales tax, plus the an additional 3.5% to accountants to handle the sales tax. One store files over 45 different forms a year for various government bodies. This puts us at a significant penalty over companies that don't have to pay this portion.
4. We pay a larger portion in shipping -- we don't move millions annually so we don't get the same discounts as the big guys.
But its ok! The dotcoms won because they were more efficient. Yes, my customers who lose me will lose great service and a very community oriented business, but if they weren't willing to pay the extra 15-20%, why should I take a big risk?
Retail is dead, except for the megacorps who have ways around the issues plaguing me. I recently found out 3 super stores in my neighboring town get a sales tax rebate -- they charge 7% to the consumer but get to keep over half of it. Yeah, that's fair.
I've been in business for 16+ years (a variety of businesses). Retail wasn't my thing -- my wife begged me for a store and then I got hooked. We do constant market analyses to stay ahead of the competition -- online and brick and mortar. The outlook for next year looks BAD. My political views might seem to some a little aggressive, but I forsee a bad recession starting, and the retailers will get slammed, in my opinion.
There's an idea I have that many people throw good money at bad problems -- I won't do that. I'll lose about $100,000 closing the stores, but that's better than losing 4 times as much if things go sour. This year was exceptional because we finally overcame some starting costs (build outs and the rest) that I paid out of my pocket. I do NOT see good things ahead in 2006, and I don't want to take that big of a risk.
I own 2 (and 1/2) retail stores in the Midwest US, and this will be our final year in retail.
Our inventory was better than or equal to more dotcoms. Our service was better (30 day DOA or defect replacement and lifetime labor). Our pricing was equal. Our hours were "better" since we were open 7 days a week.
What killed us? Sales tax. Our average sale in 2005 for about $230 (we sell paintball, skateboards and a ton of clothing). At 7%, we were consistently $16+ over per average sale than the dotcoms, even with instant acquisition.
2005 was our best year ever, so we're ending it at the top. Next year's outlook is bleak as many states want to raise sales tax and other fees. No thanks. In 2005 I paid more in sales tax than I did in payroll.
I'm not mad, actually -- the dotcoms are a great way to save money AND screw the state. I feel bad about my customers who loved our store, but I also know many bought online for the higher margin items that didn't need servicing (we were not competitive on those items as we had to price in future service and were always about 20% higher).
Local communities WILL suffer, though. Retail sales can be a big income base for the local community -- my mechanic performs almost 80% of his work for retail employees' cars. My dentist has almost 1/3rd of her patients working in retail. As retail suffers, these secondary markets will also suffer. But the positive is that the money we save in retail by shopping online should offer us more money to spend on other things.
It was a great 5 years, I did very well financially, and in the end, the state decided they didn't want me around -- otherwise they'd have ended the vile sales tax that is quickly ruining retail.
Happy New Year!
Since I've added "Add to Google" to my blog, I've seen the number of RSS users go up dramatically. We'll see if it lasts, but it seems Google will be one of the main ways users learn what RSS is.
My Google "custom homepage" offers blank feeds about 50% of the time, though, so I'm not sure if it is the best solution, but it is definitely a start.
What's with all the karma whoring today? No friends to party with?
;)
Considering my karma went from Excellent to Good today, I'm not karma whoring
Actually, the wifey is taking way too long getting dressed, my mail e-mail server is down all weekend for maintenance, and its snowing.
How about you?
Happy New Year, btw.
I think having all this information at our finger tips can be a boon -- giving us more time to focus on discovery and research and development. I'm always amazed and what information bubbles to the top of Google searches (other than the obvious SEO attempts).
I was blessed with a terribly short memory from a very young age, but along with it came the ability to assimilate and aggregate seemingly different items together, and do so quickly. My bad memory led to VERY low grades but very high aptitude testing -- quite a conundrum. I took to BBSes and other forms of "instant variable information" quickly at a very young age, and when the Internet hit (mostly gopher at that time, from what I recall), I absorbed it immediately.
I don't think knowledge overload is necessarily a bad thing -- it is how you use the knowledge that allows us to make the "morality" consideration. It is the old "did the gun or the shooter kill?" debate, and one that I think may be one-sided when it comes to slashdot: many of us make our livings either by manipulating information for others, or by helping others get to that information.
I can think of many reasons why this information overload is positive, but I can also see how it can become a crutch for some. I have Google everywhere I go (WAP, SMS, HTML) and it is definitely a huge help in so many ways, but it also allows my already bad short term memory to not get the exercise it needs. While I feel I am much smarter at what I was always good at, I have probably become way dumber in what I wasn't strong in. Even the wife acknowledges my memory is worse now than it was 10 years ago (short term that is, my long term memory is very solid).
Some days I wonder if my memory problems might have been FROM an early introduction to the PC. When I was 4 I touched my first keyboard and quickly adjusted to using a keyboard over using a pencil (around 6 years). This is about 25 years ago. Is what I have more like the ADD that today's youths seems to all have, and do they have ADD because of the early introduction to knowledge overload? Do short attention spans possibly come from our 60-75hz gods?
It will be interesting to see who from the next generation holds true to the old information forms: pencil, paper, book, memory lessons.
I'm not saying that -- read my comment again. I'm saying that we shouldn't be setting permanent rules based on the opinions of people who don't know what is going on. Although that does seem to be the case in almost every rule or law made, now that I think about it.
One of my oldest friends is a professor of geology and geophysics at a University. Because most of what he has told me is off the record and unquotable, I can't give his name (I wish I could). He admits to me that geophysicists have no idea what is happening beneath the thinnest part of the earth's crust that we live on -- and that almost every theory they've created has been shut down by actual accounts of natural phenomena. I wish he'd go public with these thoughts, but I guess it would kill off his funding.
It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters. I know I always look for the best income for the least amount of work.
I study oil and gold extraction (I blog about gold mines, too) and I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong. I know that it is heretical to say that on slashdot (I was blasted about it earlier this morning on this very forum), but we as a society seem to have too much faith in scientific research finding facts that turn out to be just plain wrong.
What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true? Is oil possibly a renewable resource (meaning there is near unlimited amounts deeper within the earth waiting to bubble up)? Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade? How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?
I rarely thank AP writers for their research, but in this case I have to. I'm glad the spotlight is being shined on the fallacies that come out of the mouths of scientists looking for more research dollars (on the backs of the taxpayers). I believe we DO need to carry out research -- not publicly funded -- but I also think we need to evaluate how much of what they discover is really factual enough to base wars, regulations and restrictions on. I understand that science is constantly finding new theories to fix their old ones, and I have no problem with continued research -- just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.
I'm concerned about a government with a history of destroying basic rights with excessive laws trying to change those laws with more laws.
I've heard promises from politicians every time I open a paper or turn on the news -- and those promises never bear fruit. I'm no Austrialian, but I wonder if this law that will "give" you a right (rights aren't granted by law) is really all they say it is, or if it is just a shill for the copyright-supporting cartels in some way.
I guess only time will tell. I don't trust it and I don't believe it will help consumers in the long run, but here is one place I want to be proven wrong (with time!)
I think you are missing the OP's point entirely. You require everyone to be armed to the teeth just to protect themselves, throwing civilization back in the 1500s, and only because it's a system you feel comfortable with.
No, I'm doing the opposite. I have to arm myself to the teeth in Chicago because the law requires that I not be armed -- giving criminals an open door to rob and rape. In Chicago, I have ZERO right to arm myself in defense -- if I do, I am a criminal.
Get rid of gun regulations, and criminals will think twice about robbing me or raping my wife. They won't know who has weapons and who doesn't, and I would likely NOT arm myself.
One of my homes (my primary summer vacation home) has no weapons in it, as the local law has no mandate against arming yourself. I'm not sure if my neighbors are armed or not -- but we've never had a robbery, a theft or even a trespass, unlike my office in downtown Chicago that was robbed 3 times in 10 years.
I never said I didn't think there wasn't a market in home PCs -- it just isn't my market. I think the home PC market is one of the BEST ways for the average IT employee to become their own business owner -- start small at a low rate and grow beyond it. I actually have helped about 10 local "kids" start their own businesses this year (all over the country) by focusing on this tough market.
I completely agree with your comment, and I didn't intend to say that the home market is unprofitable. EVERY market is profitable for someone.
As for these customers "forcing" me, it was more of a joke comment. With every business comes a share of people you have to treat better than others.
The 'free market' has hurt and killed many innocent people. Fire codes, building codes, labor laws, securities laws, health codes, etc, etc, etc, have all been created due to failures of the free market, why should GM crops be any different?
Actually, I'm in the contracting and engineering business -- codes are used in order to control who builds in a given area, to compensate cronies who own businesses that sell code-meeting devices, to supplement the unions that publish some code regulation books, and to devise ways to tax those unfriendly to government.
Fire codes, building codes, etc, are better written by insurance companies in order to set a policy up. Insurance companies were given a way out of paying claims by these codes.
They will give you a very different perspective on the market that you trust so implicitly.
I'm not wealthy at all -- I invest my money in businesses that help my employees more than they help me (considering what I pay them versus what I get paid). I tithe 10% of my pretax dollars to my church -- where I watch my money get people off drugs, get single moms into paying jobs, and get children out of the streets and into mentorship programs. My money is working in front of my eyes, which can't be said for government theft of dollars via taxation.
The market that I so love brings opportunities to those who want them. The government that you so love brings sadness to those who are barred from taking advantage of opportunities stolen from them, and sadness to those who are taxed in order to support the powerful.