vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
11 - You'll quickly find out that most people are also sort of winging it.  No one is an expert in everything.  Even medium to large sized businesses are doing some things poorly.  Or even completely idiotically.  Yet they've still succeeded.  Perfection in all things is not at all required.  12 - Everyone fails at some point and that is okay.  Most people never talk about the stuff that goes wrong because it projects an image that people find unfavorable.  They only talk about the successes because that's the positive aspects of it.
"It's also too big to fail. The idea of ""too big to fail"" just means that it would cause civil unrest. With banks, it would force the government to reimburse (and likely clip, for reach people) funds. With large companies with millions of employees, it would cause a sharp increase in national unemployment."
"I am asking because startups are super risky and 99% of the times you fail and lose the money. First of all, that 99% number is exaggerated. Only 96% of companies fail within ten years. But starting your own business is not a pure game of chance. It mostly depends on how good your business idea is and if you have the necessary skills and resources to succeed with it. Yes, there is luck involved, but a smart businessman can calculate the risks and possible rewards and then decide if a certain business idea is a good or a bad gamble. Also, a business failing does not necessarily mean that the business owner failed. A good business owner knows when to fold. A business might be profitable at first, but market circumstances might change at any time making it unprofitable. A smart business owner notices that early, liquidates the unprofitable business as quickly as possible and refocuses on their next business idea. Only those who can not let go of an unprofitable business or take too long to notice that it is failing are those who get dragged down with it. So should you have a ""startup fund""? Saving your disposable income is never a mistake. If you never end up starting a business, it will eventually serve you as a retirement fund. So yes, you should save a part of your money each month. But should you start a company with it? That depends on whether or not you have a business idea where you know you will succeed. How do you know that? When you answered yes to all of these questions, then you might want to consider it."
There are a lot of outside considerations for why the grocery would be failing.  What's her location relative to housing? Big chain stores? Small business competition?  Location can make or break a brick and mortar business.  (Do you mind pming a link to the site? There could be ways of increasing online sales.)
\*EDIT: As a further note on the ""volume"" you have to also add in the large number of *business ""ideas"" that spawn an LLC, but then went nowhere* companies (especially these days when starting an LLC in many states is simply filling out a form online and paying a filing fee) -- IOW the ""business"" may have had a temporary ""legal"" existence (name, probably a reserved domain name, maybe even a logo, etc.), but when it comes to reality -- actual investment in assets and conducting business operations (of any type) -- well, a lot of the ""horses"" never even make it past the gate... and that too skews the numbers in many studies. --- Note that here is another take on the point: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/27/do-9-out-of-10-new-businesses-fail-as-rand-paul-claims/ &gt;As far as we can tell, **there is no statistical basis for the assertion that nine out of 10 businesses fail.** It appears to be one of those nonsense facts that people repeat without thinking too clearly about it. Here are some basic questions to ask when assessing such a factoid: &gt;1. What’s the time frame? Two years, five years, 10 years? That can make a big difference. &gt;2. Does “fail” mean that it goes out of business because it was not financially viable? Or does that also include data about successful enterprises that merge with another company? &gt;3. Wouldn’t failure rates be different for some industries than others? Does it make sense to lump all businesses together? &gt;There have been a number of studies that have looked at this issue. This chart, from Web site designer smallbusinessplanned.com, summarizes the results of three different studies. Basically, after four years, 50 percent of the businesses are open. As time goes on, the success rate decreases, but it never gets to a failure rate of “nine out of 10.” &gt;[...]
And the truth of the matter is that the majority of entrepreneurs are rich only because they are lucky.  Strangely none of them are prepared to admit this either.  See if you throw enough mud at a wall, eventually some of it will stick. And if 20,000 people start a business, then most will fail, but some will succeed, and some will go through the roof.  The business acumen of the directors is sometimes capable of making a business MORE successful than it otherwise would be, but mostly, it's down to luck.
amen to that , too big too fail should have never even been pronounced.  But again, some people are at fault, if people went to credit unions instead of banks in drove, banks would be forced to change their way at some point. Even get smaller instead of bigger to better serve the community its in...not so long ago you , you could have a loan at a local bank for your small business, nowadays with no collateral, you get squat. there is no risk to the lenders, and they manage to still fuck up ~!
Successful people run into bad situations all the time.  Instead of giving up, they work around it and find a way to succeed anyway. You don't see how many failures a successful person actually had before succeeding, which is why you are attributing it to luck.  As an example, the South park guys were rejected 10 times before finally getting accepted.
While I agree that luck has something to do with it, most of the successful business owners also put in crazy long hours and submitted themselves to huge financial risk in order to get their businesses started.  I do not say this to mean there is no luck; there is always an element of luck. But you cannot get lucky if you aren't at the right place at the right time, and sometimes arriving at that place and trying to get lucky takes much more than people realize.  Edit: some people are interpreting this to say that only successful business owners work hard. This is not what I am saying.
Most penny stocks go to zero because most businesses fail.  You stated in your original post that you were wondering specifically about companies with no assets. These are exactly the kind that fail and go to zero.  There are many holes within the regulatory structure that allow for many accounting tricks in penny stock land. And even in areas that are adequately regulated, there will be few to no remedies for the optimistic penny stock shareholder speculator.
&gt;While I agree that luck has something to do with it, most of the successful business owners also put in crazy long hours and submitted themselves to huge financial risk in order to get their businesses started.  People with failed businesses also often put in crazy long hours and submit themselves to huge financial risk. That's what you have to do just to start a business. It doesn't predict success.
Everyone has failures. Failures are how we learn as humans. We literally have to fail over and over again in order to learn how to walk. Yes Steve Jobs had failures in business, and those failures ultimately led to him forever changing the world.  I don't know him personally, so I can't say how he was with other people or his family. However, I did read in Ed Catmull's book Creativity that he developed into a great leader with compassion for others as the years went on.  Other than that, I totally agree with you about what true leadership means.
"BTW -- you realize I'm the author, right?  And that I've launched not 1, but 2 successful web apps, right?  Just checking.  My whole point is this: ""From the investment aspect, roughly 1 in 10 companies that receive investments do not fail"" -- is that a cause or an effect? Why do so many ventures fail? They are allegedly started by smart, capable people and funded by people with ""experience."""
"In general, small cap stocks are exposed to more downside during recessions and when credit is tight, because it is more difficult for small companies to raise capital, and minor variations in cash flow have a bigger impact. Coming out of recessions or when credit is cheap, small companies generally perform better than larger companies. In the depths of recession, small companies with good cash flow are often great value investments, as analysts and institutional investors ""punish"" the entire class of smallcap companies."
"The trouble is that everybody is afraid of the consequences of letting ""too big to fail"" fail. I contend that it would be painful, but we would be better off in the long run if we let those with bad economic practices go out of business instead of rewarding them.  Edit: It is like the difference between having a necessary needle shot quickly and sharply painful or having it slowing inserted and pulled out multiple times which is the equivalent of what we are going through now."
"No. One of the key ideas behind a corporation is that an investor's liability is limited to the amount he invests, i.e. the amount of stock he buys. This is the primary reason why small businesses become corporations, even though one person owns 100% of the stock. Then if the business goes broke, he won't lose his house, retiretment fund, etc. He'll lose everything he had in the business, but at least there's a limit to it. (In some countries there are other ways to achieve the same results, like creating a ""limited liabililty company"", but that's another story.)"
"tl;dr:  Sears is failing because the CEO is running the company into the ground for personal profit.  There have been many, many articles written on the issue.  The CEO is having the stores sell their property, at a discount, to one of his other companies, then having the stores pay rent.  Except boutique stores actually pay more money than Sears does.  So whenever a store closes, his other company can rent the space out for almost double.  Oh, and he encouraged a corporate culture where the department heads use those screen protectors hospitals use to keep each other from spying on their laptops during meetings.  The way IT works, some departments actually contract out to a 3rd party rather than going through corporate, since it's cheaper.  Yes, departments individually have an IT budget, and are required to have their own ""Contract"" to use in house IT.  It's so bad that, many employees say they are explicitly barred from helping another department.  So, customers feel snubbed and end up balking because there's no one to help them, or to run the register.  That's the power of a bad CEO that the board refuses to fire."
"&gt;Most small business lawsuits are a result of either gross negligence on the business owners part (which would be justified) or terrible or misleading service (again justified). If you're going to do honest business, take responsibility for the work done, and do your due diligence to manage what goes on in your four walls, you'll be fine.   Either that or they are over very ""silly"" things that general liability insurance will handle -- stuff like slips/falls in front of your retail storefront, etc."
"Unless you have a good handle on what niches the startups of yesteryear were entering I think it is hard to get a handle on why there is a decline.  Is this a decline in the number of restaurants being started or is this a decline in the number of internet startups.  The reasons will depend on the character of the startups.  One trend I think is pretty common is the decline of the local market.  The internet and free shipping makes the internet the growth area for specialized commerce.  So many commerce niches are threatened it would take a real optimist to consider a start-up in a niche that is essentially being the local distributor for something people can get more cheaply on-line.    Then there is the idea that,  ""local"" doesn't mean the same thing as it did  even 30 years ago as people drive further to get the essentials at big box stores.  A declining main street of a small town, or a declining mall in the suburbs isn't an attractive place to be an entrepreneur.  On the other hand competing in the big box strip on the edge of town has its own challenge:  people are shopping at 80km/hr and you need a huge storefront  and/or a huge advertising budget even to get noticed.    If the decline is in the number of restaurant startups,  it might be that this is related to a decline in middleclass disposable income.   If it is a decline in internet startups,  perhaps it is just showing a maturing of the industry from a fast growth phase where all sorts of unfilled niches were open for the quick entrepreneur to a more mature market where the internet is consolidating with a few behemoths taking up all the oxygen."
&gt;  Would you agree that for most people in minimum wage jobs this is not a realistic option?  No, it's realistic to try, most new businesses do fail, but some don't. I'm not 100% on clear on why some new businesses succeed and some fail.
There's a bit of truth to that, except in reality when you ask for business loan the bank most definitely looks at the background of the owners (assuming it's a small business).  You might have some luck fooling investors as a way to get some capital, but that's doubtful as well if you have a history of starting companies that later fail.
I have had better experiences with accountants in smaller towns.  It seems they are used to working with small businesses and their reputation is very important to them.
I've consulted to a few companies before and I have to say the biggest problem I found among them was their inability to understand growth.  Now, most companies become ambitious and in a sense want to grow and increase their profits but are completely off in how to do it.  This can be seen from a manufacturing/sales/engineering perspective and administrative functions. The idea that always sticks in their minds is they have to add personal if they wish to grow, though that isn't always true.  As an external person with no set bias, you should be able to figure out a creative way to their problems (even if they haven't noticed them yet).   Another area I've come to see problems in is debt. I've seen successful companies held down by their insistance they run a cash only business to others that took on too much debt.  There is no easy solution to this, yet a gradual and conservative approach to this area can help them in the long-run.  On the same topic, I often think there are lots of inefficiencies in finances (and the support groups) that can be remedied in an easy manner.   Lastly, the biggest problem I've seen with every single small business is customer service.  As they grow, the lack of training is apparent and there is no common ground as to how employees should be portraying their company.    Good luck!
I think you need to study the history of industrialization.  First of all, these people arent losers. They work honestly, dont commit crime.  Second, minimum wage laws come out of the history of industrialization.  The only reason we have any middle class whatsoever is because of the labor movement. Ill allow you some time to look up, as an example, coal miners strikes, or *The Jungle* by Upton Sinclaire.   Second, please take an econ course above 201. Regulation, yes, brings more business if it is correcting a market failure.  A market failure is when the private market does not produce maximum social benefit. When MPB !=MSB that is a market failure. Pb being private benefit.  Then entire field of economics is dedicated to discovering proper methods to correct market failures,  since most industries have at least some failures, in the most efficient way possible to where MPB=MSB.  Yes, regulation can bring benefit to the economy.   One great and obvious example is the regulation of lemons. Without regulation, there would be no restriction against selling disfunctional products. With widespread sale of dysfunctional products, the economy would suffer as users demand lower prices even for perfectly good products, because they cannot know whether it is a lemon. This is just one example of a regulation against business benefiting the economy.   Once you have done educated yourself, Im happy to continue this discussion on a rational footing.
There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!
I would suggest they are not wasted because your premiums fund unemployment insurance, which is a net to prevent people from going under if they lose their jobs. Unemployment insurance is in many ways an incubator for success because it allows an entrepreneur to take more risk in starting a business because failure won't mean devastation. Perhaps that person who took the risk because of the ability to fail started the business that you now work for. Society works better (in my opinion) by keeping the bottom closer to the top.  Paying into the unemployment insurance fund indirectly provides you opportunity.
"You're right to be a bit ""afraid"" (for lack of a better term).  It's a guarantee that some crooked people will try to screw you, and running a business in virtually any industry is getting more and more competitive everyday.  But, if you're savvy enough to call people out on their B.S. and willing to compete, you can succeed with a solid business model.      The two main reasons people don't try and start a small business of their own all the time are 1) because they're too lazy or don't have the drive and 2) don't have the start up capital.  Believe me, I've met some fellow successful business owners that couldn't pass a freshman undergrad level business law course.    Don't get me wrong, there is always risk involved with a new venture.  But, if you're committed to learning how to streamline your service and operations, then market it effectively, you'd probably be okay.  The legal side of things will really play an extremely (likely negligible) small part in your day-to-day life once you've gotten them ironed out initially."
That's like saying corporations ruin the economy because they employ people that could otherwise start their own successful business.   Why didn't those people start a successful business? Why do people work for corporations?  Building infrastructure in poor countries adds to the resources that these people can tap into and also adds value to their community.
Get in touch with a reliable company if you are looking for a range of small business financing solutions. Such companies offer consolidation loans to help smaller businesses take care of their previous obligations and this way manage their finances better
Yeah, Target's failure was a special sort of scenario where they worked too quickly and made lots of important mistakes that ultimately doomed the venture.  Sears Canada's failure, on the other hand, seems to be a more traditional business failure.
To build off of this, they also generally have logistics and distribution in place already. When a smaller company makes a product that people can't get enough of, the small company has problems scaling up fast enough.  The big company has scale, the small company has the right product. Put them together, and 1+1=3
"Additionally, the original commenter I was responding to was making an argument that ""they don't make money therefore they're a failure"", which isn't a bad argument to make if you're talking about *revenue*.  Companies that make no revenue are generally considered to be failures, so in that context, he would be correct to say ""they're a failure because they make no money"", and you wouldn't really need any other points to back up your argument.  That being said, plenty of businesses, start-ups especially burn through more money than they make. The lack of profit doesn't necessarily make them a failure provided they are still generating revnue, which Tesla is, and a lot of it.  So, if you'd like to have a discussion about whether they're making *enough* *revenue*, or whether they're poorly re-investing the *revenue* they are making, and how those factors might determine whether or not they should be considered a failure, then I'd be happy to participate.  But if you're only interested in making replies that try to condecend to me because you're too quick to jump to conclusions about what I've written, then have at it I guess. Whatever floats your boat."
Slavery is a bad example considering everyone benefited from it. Cheap labor lowers the cost of living and improves living conditions for the majority.   I'm curious. What do you think about this angle? Let's say businesses like Romney's didn't exist. What happens when a family run business starts failing? Not because of market forces but because of poor management and lack of knowledge/ability? They would simply vanish along with all of the jobs that business provided. The debt would remain and burden the owners. Instead, jobs have the possibility to be saved, and the owner(s) can resolve debts and/or make money from the sale.
In some places government grants exist to provide safe places in communities.   Angel Investors, SCORE, there are many types of ways to get it done.   I will tell you that once you start a business you'll definitely have to drop the defeatist attitude. I heard from so many people that we would never make it, even family members, now we regularly have 50-100 people stop by on Friday or Saturday nights, we have all nighters every weekend, tournaments, and other gamer gatherings.   The small businesses that succeed are the ones that don't stop because it seems impossible. Most LAN type places that remain open offer more than just games to play. Tech repair, PC's, tablets, phones, ect.
Different stakeholders have different views of 'failure'. Maybe from Air Berlin's point of view it was a failure, but technically speaking it is not really possible to 'fail'. As long as all shares were purchased, which is a virtual guarantee since the investment banks who underwrite the IPO by and large must do to some extent, it will always be 'successful'. A decrease in value of shares immediately after IPO means that the investment bank who did the IPO for Air Berlin didn't match its IPO price with market expectations, causing shorts on the stock, and thus a decline. No failure per se.
&gt;While I agree that luck has something to do with it, most of the successful business owners also put in crazy long hours and submitted themselves to huge financial risk in order to get their businesses started.  So do many of the failures.  &gt;Edit: some people are interpreting this to say that only successful business owners work hard. This is not what I am saying.  ...any longer.
No. This is not true. Who are ""they"", how do you define ""failure"", and why would they get anything from you at all? Even without knowing all that, your understanding is wrong, because the ""LL"" in LLC stands for LIMITED liability. The whole point of forming LLC or Corporation is to limit your own personal liability. But mere incorporation or forming LLC doesn't necessarily mean your liability is limited. Your State law defines what you must do for that limited liability protection, and that includes proper ways to run your business. Again - talk to your lawyer and your tax adviser about what it means to you. I'm totally unfamiliar with everything related to taxes/companies/LLC/corporation etc Familiarize yourself. No-one is going to do it for you. Start reading, ask specific questions on specific issues, and get a proper legal and tax advice from licensed professionals."