Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
51–60 of 313 posts
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#52I'm not the biggest fan of this analogy. I find it reductionist to the point it loses it's meaning. Actually the whole human body is constantly growing, not just cancers. I'm am growing new skin cells as we speak, approximately every x3 weeks I shed old skin cells so need new ones. The problem with cancerous cells is that the body stops recycling them and so then they grow unchecked. Modern companies are more like sk…
In many cases, growth is evidence that you've solved a problem in a way people find compelling. Look at Signal. I think its growth is a really positive development.
However look at Apple. For a large part everyone in the US who wants an iPhone has one. Sure, there are some people who can't afford the high price but that seems to be a small portion. However because Apple wants to grow they are working on making their devices less repairable and implementing trade-in programs so that people upgrade more often (and they can destroy the old ones). Is this growth evidence that they solved a problem? It seems that the problem they are really solving here is raising the stock price. And I will argue that raising Apple's stock price doesn't really help the world at all.
I think the initial growth of the iPhone was a sign of a good product. However I think this demand for continual growth is harmful to society overall.
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#53There are 2 states in the forest: growing trees and rotting trees. Nothing in between. So this cancer analogy is a bit absurd. The same with business: business is growing or dying, I am not buying “we don’t want grow” argument.
Please look at this list of the oldest companies in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies They are still operating, but they didn't grow. Even trees in the forest don't grow indefinitely...
Their trunks keep getting wider.
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#54Ugh. This person is kinda suggesting that companies should have some noble higher purpose. Companies are entities for making money for investors and employees and maybe having fun doing it. The irony is this person is suggesting companies should be “changing the world” a la Silicon Valley TV show. The author probably had no idea.
Not necessarily. There's nothing inherently wrong with making money. What's wrong is never being satisfied no matter how much money you make. "Growth, where it no longer serves a purpose beyond the accumulation of more growth", "endless growth", "growth unchecked". The author doesn't say that growth itself is bad. If you're a sole proprietor, it's not necessarily bad to grow and hire employees. The question is, at what point do you stop prioritizing growth and start prioritizing other things in life — happiness, love, friendship, leisure, ethics, the environment, etc. At some point there are diminishing returns to accumulating more wealth, but there's a collective insanity that says no accumulation is too much. Society celebrates the ultra-wealthy, but to me the ultra-wealthy seem more like gluttons. Would you celebrate someone who eats constantly and weighs 500 pounds? That's not healthy.
Look at Warren Buffett. Dude doesn't even know what to do with all of his money. He only knows how to accumulate, he knows nothing else. He's pledged to give away most of his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation... which means he's delegating the spending of his wealth to someone else... after his death! Buffett literally has no idea how to spend the wealth he has accumulated. Doesn't that seem bizarre to you? Why does he keep accumulating?
Some people will claim that if you don't constantly strive for growth, then you're "complacent" and "lazy". But that's completely false, because financial wealth is only one aspect of life. If you only strive for financial growth, then you are one-dimensional; you're lazy and complacent about the non-financial aspects of your life.
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can assure you there are plenty of people growing well beyond their first 2 decades.
As far as I know we don't grow any new fat cells, it's just that the ones we do have get larger.
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#56There are 2 states in the forest: growing trees and rotting trees. Nothing in between. So this cancer analogy is a bit absurd. The same with business: business is growing or dying, I am not buying “we don’t want grow” argument.
Please look at this list of the oldest companies in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies They are still operating, but they didn't grow. Even trees in the forest don't grow indefinitely...
Like if a company operated for some time before it goes bust and some years later a different company continues the operation under the same name, but with different people, concepts, etc. would it still be regarded the same companies on that list? In certain cases continuing the tradition and a good name is worth big money and asien companies seem to have traditions around this concept.
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#57To push the metaphor a bit further isn't humanity itself a kind of cancer of the earth?
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#58The purpose of a company that makes widgets is to make widgets. Nothing more.
Some rent seekers realized that they could extract some of the wealth created by the company making widgets, and that they could manipulate various people involved in other enterprise to enhance and enforce their rent-seeking abilities. To that end, they have manipulated the various controls on the use of violence in our society such that they can not only continue to extra wealth from the labour of the widget-makers, but that the widget-makers are required to make more widgets and give up increasing portions of the wealth they create.
The cancer is not the company, whose purpose is not growth. The cancer is the rent seeker who sucks the life out of the company causing it to swell and fester and eventually autolyse.
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#59Do lifestyle businesses really have the negative connotation that I’ve been told they have? I’ve heard about this stigma of a lifestyle business numerous times, but everyone Ive ever actually talked to has said they sound lovely: you maintain a lot of control over your life and business, at the expense of perhaps more (unnecessary) money. I had thought for a long time that lifestyle businesses which weren’t optimizin…
My cynical hypothesis is that it's 50/50 of a good chunk of tech community feeling FOMO ("I want to get rich quick too!"), and VCs creating this perception. VCs need fresh young blood to push through the startup grinder.
That said, I haven't noticed much of this connotation here on HN (which is ironic, this being ex-Startup News, and a board attached to an VC company). For this I have another hypothesis: HN has a slightly different bias when the EU is awake, which is now.
Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can assure you there are plenty of people growing well beyond their first 2 decades.
As far as I know we don't grow any new fat cells, it's just that the ones we do have get larger.