That came as a surprise to me, too. I thought I’d have to convince customers to come to me instead of my corporate competitors. But no, within three months I had more people coming to me than I could handle, so I was able to reduce my advertising. And the customers I get are clearly happier, too.
I earn more while charging less, offering more comprehensive service than I ever would have been allowed to if working for some large company with shitty policies I’d have to abide.
Getting 5-star review after 5-star review should not be this easy. With almost every exchange I find myself thinking of ways to improve, but the customers are just utterly ecstatic to find someone who isn’t shafting them three times over every transaction.
As boomer as it sounds, people by and large still much prefer dealing with a real person they can talk to instead of a faceless corporation (even if the work is remote). The trust built from 1-to-1 interaction is hard to beat.
Under capitalism, it’s not enough for a person to be able to make a living providing a good or service to society. They need to be able to make enough to pay the people that do it for them, plus a profit for the owners. Without that profit, owners have no reason to make a corp to provide the good or service, so it doesn’t happen, or if it did happen, it gets sold to someone who thinks they can either turn it around or get more than they paid for it by liquidating everything.
But this means that there’s pretty much a whole economy available for people to provide those goods and services without giving a profit cut, meaning they can both undercut the for-profit corps doing it while making more than the corps would be willing to pay them.
Think about this any time you see something about a failing company, because it doesn’t mean you can’t make a living doing that thing, but just that you can’t make enough to cover loan costs (which can also be a big factor since business schools like to preach leveraging to the max) and still profit afterwards, after paying all of the workers.
I think we have shortage of options people actually like.
It’s not that people need more options, but the ones that are available are starting to exploit their monopolistic/duopolistic positions.
People hate it, but they don’t have any real way out. For something to supplant these big companies in a way where it actually served customer at volume, it would have to grow as big, without becoming as bad or getting aquired.
One of customers commented that a business he used before, that was very similar to mine, recently got purchased and merged into one of the sucky local giants.
That came as a surprise to me, too. I thought I’d have to convince customers to come to me instead of my corporate competitors. But no, within three months I had more people coming to me than I could handle, so I was able to reduce my advertising. And the customers I get are clearly happier, too.
I earn more while charging less, offering more comprehensive service than I ever would have been allowed to if working for some large company with shitty policies I’d have to abide.
Getting 5-star review after 5-star review should not be this easy. With almost every exchange I find myself thinking of ways to improve, but the customers are just utterly ecstatic to find someone who isn’t shafting them three times over every transaction.
As boomer as it sounds, people by and large still much prefer dealing with a real person they can talk to instead of a faceless corporation (even if the work is remote). The trust built from 1-to-1 interaction is hard to beat.
If there are a lot of customers, and a lot of unemployed people, and not enough jobs, do we have some kind of shortage of firms?
Under capitalism, it’s not enough for a person to be able to make a living providing a good or service to society. They need to be able to make enough to pay the people that do it for them, plus a profit for the owners. Without that profit, owners have no reason to make a corp to provide the good or service, so it doesn’t happen, or if it did happen, it gets sold to someone who thinks they can either turn it around or get more than they paid for it by liquidating everything.
But this means that there’s pretty much a whole economy available for people to provide those goods and services without giving a profit cut, meaning they can both undercut the for-profit corps doing it while making more than the corps would be willing to pay them.
Think about this any time you see something about a failing company, because it doesn’t mean you can’t make a living doing that thing, but just that you can’t make enough to cover loan costs (which can also be a big factor since business schools like to preach leveraging to the max) and still profit afterwards, after paying all of the workers.
I think we have shortage of options people actually like.
It’s not that people need more options, but the ones that are available are starting to exploit their monopolistic/duopolistic positions.
People hate it, but they don’t have any real way out. For something to supplant these big companies in a way where it actually served customer at volume, it would have to grow as big, without becoming as bad or getting aquired.
One of customers commented that a business he used before, that was very similar to mine, recently got purchased and merged into one of the sucky local giants.