You are not logged in.
Opened as to whether these are jobs here on earth or those of a far off future on Mars create by a business owner.
Something I think I've noticed is that messages in this topic seem to be written from the point of view of job holders. I don't recall seeing any messages written from the point of view of the job creator. That could simply be because I haven't read every message in the topic.
It is hard enough to secure and hold a job. But it seems to me it is MUCH more difficult to create an enterprise which can provide jobs.
A simplistic answer to the topic might be: We have poverty in America because we lack job creators. We have an ample supply of people who can hold jobs, if someone else has created a work flow that is simple to execute. In recent posts we hinted at the problem of the education system creating people who can hold jobs, but NOT people who can create jobs. It almost seems (to me at least) that job creators are successful DESPITE the education system, and not because of it.
Jobs go away when customers stop buying products. Is that the fault of the job creator? It certainly isn't the fault of the job holder.
Jobs go away when weather (such as floods or hurricanes or fires) destroys infrastructure that supports jobs.
Jobs come into existence when job creators are inspired with ideas about how work might be done to meet a need of a customer, or a group of customers, and then take all the risks necessary to achieve a sustained positive return for all the investment made. The wages paid to workers are paid from investor savings, and if the enterprise does not turn a profit, those savings are gone forever.
(th)
Offline
This not to be a political discussion...but rather how do we create.
Hoping that others will join in with regards to making a business for these jobs which we know will be needed.
These business owners are not always large to start and may never grow to corporate sizes to which make many more jobs available over larger areas of the world.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishachary … n-america/
https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation … st-3305521
Offline
For SpaceNut re #2 and all ...
Here is some good news about floating wind power. The prospects for new temporary and permanent jobs look favorable.
https://qz.com/1650433/hywind-scotland- … -business/
An interesting (to me at least) aspect of the report, is the positive feedback given to the oil drilling industry, which perfected the technology for floating platforms.
(th)
Offline
Still need to read link...
Which brings forward a duel purpose for creating the oil platforms....which creats jobs in many other supportive fields and industries...so long as the market for these do not become satuated by other vendors and the rate is held below demand the jobs will hold steady.
The same is holding true for the cargo industry for space as we add in more places for cargo needs to be delivered to...but the industry must be looking forward for the destination in order to keep up rather than waiting for the new destination asking for the service....
Offline
For SpaceNut re new topic ....
By pure coincidence, my news feed came up with an interview with Bill Gates that (I think) illustrates the kind of person needed to create jobs on the scale needed for Mars exploration. Elon Musk is certainly doing his part, but Bill Gates is a gold standard for my generation. Gates was not thinking about getting a job while in college. He was thinking about finding useful applications for the newly Intel invented microchips that were coming on the market. His focus on that challenge has led to literally millions of jobs around the world, both directly for people like me who supported systems, and for countless others who secured employment by using systems based upon his leadership.
My expectation is that there are a few people of that caliber growing up on Earth today, and hopefully several of them are living in the United States.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/22/bill- … -all-time/
Because of its association with the Mars Society, this forum might be lucky enough to help one or two of them along.
But for every one at that level, there surely are thousands of others who will be able to create 1000 person companies, and contribute significantly to the success of the Nation in decades ahead.
(th)
Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-06-23 08:01:35)
Offline
SpaceNut and tahanson43206,
It's impossible to discuss job creation without touching on politics and government. Governments have the power to regulate businesses and the jobs created by those businesses out of existence. Governments, politicians, and consumers have repeatedly created perverse economic incentives that ultimately brought about the demise of their jobs, all to satisfy their political and social agendas at the expense of the country as a whole. It's not the responsibility of any given job creator to ensure that everyone else employed by them, through their ingenuity and hard work, continues to remain employed into perpetuity. Those who wish to have jobs until natural retirement age play an active role in determining the fate of their jobs.
There's a certain segment of our population, actually the world writ large, who truly believes that they can simply impose their will on business to achieve whatever political or economic results they say they wish to achieve, and that somehow business is just supposed to cope with their impositions. In the real world, legitimate business doesn't work like that. The profit margins for the vast overwhelming majority of legitimate businesses are in the range of 5% to 10%. Every single business I've worked for had profit margins in that range. Any taxation or regulation that ate into profit above that level was simply passed on to the consumer or the business went out of business by being economically uncompetitive with other competitor businesses in other countries that didn't have the same capricious taxation policies.
In simple terms, you're not taxing businesses. You're taxing consumers who want or need the products and services that business produce. Try to imagine how that works when the consumer isn't also receiving an increased salary to match the increased taxation on the good they consume. Something has to give, and that something is always consumption. When the consumption gives way, job losses follow. After enough time or after enough taxation, it always works that way. Always. No exceptions, even in all actual implementations of communist, or "planned", economies. That's really just another way of saying you can't have every stupid little thing that someone who wants to spend someone else's money could ever ask for.
We can make everyone equally poor and stupid, which seems to be what the socialists and communists of this world want to accomplish, but the only way to lift everyone out of poverty is to allow the free market to work its magic and to simultaneously cease and desist nearly all of the arbitrary and capricious demands for money placed upon businesses for "free this/that/the other" or to "create jobs" where there is no opportunity to do so. If you think you have a better idea or way to do something, then convince other people to give their money to you through the free market, rather than using the power of government (state-sponsored theft at gunpoint) to hold business hostage to your demands for money.
Most of what I really see is, "I don't want to do the work required and think for myself" or "I don't know how" or "I might actually fail", when it comes to generation of business opportunities. And yes, tahanson43206, that is a direct result of the political activists cloistered within our non-educational system teaching their pupils to demand money from governments, rather than using their ingenuity and their own two hands to create something that the rest of the people think is worth spending their hard-earned money on.
Government is the antithesis of efficiency. No reasonable person should expect an organization beholden to everyone, no matter how dogmatic or accommodating, to be efficient in any way. Since our government has been overrun by dogmatic special interest groups, it's become the dictionary definition of inefficiency, and anathema to business, which values efficiency over all else. Business is the antithesis of accommodation. As such, no reasonable person should expect what must be an exceptionally efficient organization to accommodate every idea someone has to be worthy of investment, if only an infinite supply of money and other resources was available. Businesses operate in very constrained environments, even when government has no say in operations, which they most certainly do during every step of the business process. Dogma is the antithesis of reason. No reasonable person should expect someone driven by dogma to be particularly efficient or accommodating.
So, why is it that so many people hold such beliefs? I blame a complicit populace (and yes, I also count myself amongst the populace) who focus more on their dogma / ideology than they do in the practical applications that their beliefs may or may not have, as it relates to business and governance.
Successful businesses tend to be very tightly focused on core objectives, they measure their performance against those objectives, and they hire and fire whomever they need to, in order to achieve their objectives. That necessarily means that continued employment is predicated on value-add to the business in achieving their objectives.
Now that politics / governance / dogma have been dispensed with, how do we create jobs?
Principally, by identifying and then fulfilling unmet needs or desires.
If I wanted to start a business, it would be the business of making better aircraft.
How do I define "better"?:
1. Maximum efficiency in the transport of people and cargo from Point A to Point B.
2. All features necessary and useful for minimal risk transport, but no features not directed at that goal. To that end, there would be no "reinventing the wheel", so to speak. If there's something that works well enough that's already commercially available, then we're not going to "invent our own", just because we can.
3. The resultant aircraft is, minimally, economically competitive with existing products, if not significantly better than existing products.
So what's "the plan"?:
1. Use lighter and stronger materials that drastically reduce the weight of the airframe. The weight of the engines / fuel / payload simply must be accommodated for the aircraft to be useful, whereas the airframe remains the single heaviest "subsystem" on modern passenger aircraft. By weight, most airframes are still largely made of Aluminum. There are a variety of excellent reasons for using Aluminum alloys, but maximum efficiency is not one of them.
2. Use existing high-efficiency gas turbine engines until governments and/or private industry create the infrastructure to use better fuels. Recall that we're an aircraft manufacturer, not an engine technology development company. We use whatever engine technology industry provides and governments approve the use of, not what we wish we could have. Like it or not, gas turbine engines are still the best prime mover technology we have at the moment, thanks to the insane investment into batteries and the comparative lack of investment in fuel cells that could realistically supplant gas turbines in the near future. We'd keep a watchful eye on both technologies and look for novel ways to incorporate them into future airframe designs, such as a Jet-A fuel cell APU instead of another gas turbine, but would stick with existing / known quantity technology and infrastructure to minimize development costs.
3. Maximize the simplicity and redundancy of the flight controls and engines. This might mean heavier components for these particular subsystems, but that still comports well with the stated business objective of risk reduction. It's an example of "learning from the mistakes of others", if you will. Far too much time and money has already been expended in vain attempts to supplant human piloting skill with electronic gadgets or computer-controlled marvels of flight control systems that never fail, rather than on the airworthiness of the basic design paired with exceptionally skilled and well-trained pilots.
I'd much rather have a rock-solid aircraft with a great stick actuator at the controls than the best computer software design that human ingenuity can devise- which typically falls woefully short of a reliable system right after human ingenuity in software design fails. It's largely a function of mind-bogglingly complex systems of systems with millions or even billions of moving parts. The fact that the moving parts are electrical says nothing at all about their ability to fail in operation. Untold billions have been expended trying to supplant good decision making and training, and we're not substantially closer to reliable automation today than we were decades ago. We've simply learned a lot through trial and error, at the cost of many lives and billions of dollars lost. What's the point of spending so much time and effort to train people to look after the computers if the computers are supposed to be so much more reliable. News flash- they're not. That's precisely why you need experienced machine operators. How do you gain experience? By operating the machine... obviously.
Why wouldn't "the plan" actually work?:
In a word- "government". There are a plethora of regulations that mandate out-dated or inefficient technology use that doesn't comport with the goals of this would-be business. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not the aircraft would work as well or better than anything in the air today. The people demanding "better transportation technology" are grossly ignorant of what constitutes "better technology".
The people demanding increasing quantities of cup holders, rubber doo dads, special electronic systems that directly cause aviation accidents (MCAS), etc are not the people who should ever have any say in what goes into the design of an aircraft, let alone what constitutes a "good design", never mind a "better design". The skill and training of the pilot has primacy in this business' aircraft designs, not the quantity of electronic and plastic garbage included to try to override human error or to supplant reasonably good design with some gadget intended to overcome the failings of larger design problems. The only way to eliminate human error is to eliminate humans, negating any requirement for a better flying machine. For that reason alone, such a design would never come to fruition. Too much 3 pound universe dogma and not enough practical problem solving. It matters very little how much better the actual result would be.
Where does that leave us?:
All I can say is, enjoy the injuries from crap-tastic plastic overhead bins, hard-sided luggage, drink serving carts that were always an absurdly bad idea, seats that can cause the injuries they're supposed to inhibit, and aircraft that literally guzzle fuel because they're made from heavy metal.
I think we need more unsecured rolling metal objects the size and weight of a small safe (about 300 pounds), mere inches from dozens of passengers, something so bulky and heavy that nobody, let alone a petite young stewardess, would ever have any hope of controlling it, whilst the aircraft it's not secured to is zipping through potentially turbulent air at the speed of a bullet. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well... The people who design and regulate these things seem to think so or they wouldn't still exist. That's just a single example of inefficient thinking that has cost hundreds of millions of dollars in injuries and damages. It works acceptably well most of the time, but only just.
When you design something that absolutely must work in the worst case scenarios, that's how you should approach the design. The question that should be asked is, "If the worst case comes to fruition, how will this design impact the lives of the people relying upon it?" Will it increase the chances of survival of those relying upon it or, conversely, contribute to their demise?
Offline
Edit just hit post only to find kbd512 lengthy post....
There is lots more to the Gates story but lets go to others such as Apples Jobs that passed recently as well. I am sure that there are many more that have created big business for many to get jobs....Its also being at the right place at the right time as well for some and not eggheads of education but capable of much as they are leaders and not managers....
So what does it take?
Possibly vision, planning, sometimes cash but most of all something that others want and are in need of or planned decisions to provide a future product that others are not asking for just yet.
The ISS was started in the 80's but it took 30 years to start cargo deliveries when it could have started easily 20 years ago at least.
We are going to mars and yet there is no launcher capable to sling a sizeable payload of cargo to the lunar orbit or capable of landing.
Fast forward to mars trips we are going to be in an even greater need for that same capability to deliver quickly payloads of cargo...
So we have a need for cargo growth and in that cargo are the products whic have yet to be fully created for mans use as well that are in just the same business model of making a good judgement guess for the future as a business.
Now to go read the post....
Offline
The politics of taxation is never going away and in fact the US was formed due to not wanting to pay them....that is the error of creating goverment....something that we will not be able to do without in some form or another....
AS far as "poor and stupid, which seems to be what the socialists and communists" even they enslave the people for there stiffen...
Of course the welfare educated know how to bend the rules and to play the game for what you are calling "within our non-educational system teaching their pupils to demand money" are the entitlement wanters which should get nothing if they do not meet the rules and are caught breaking them. But none of that has to do with creating jobs or getting staff to work the jobs that the business creates.
I love this quote
Principally, by identifying and then fulfilling unmet needs or desires.
Well for some its not keeping up with the jones' and living simple complete lives..Never wanting for the latest in electronic technology, cars ect....
The wheel or flying are not the end all to everyone and not will it stop you from having a good life...what it does do is prohibit you from getting jobs that pay big bucks as they are not in the range of capability to get there. That leaves moving as the option or taking the hard stand to stay...
Offline
SpaceNut,
My references to governance policies (politics) / dogma / education was squarely directed at explaining why it is that there are not more "job creators" out there. The tax code that relates to taxation of business is many multiples of the Bible / Koran / War and Peace / etc. The government, in point of fact, has erected multiple obstacles which require significant amounts of time and money and expertise to circumnavigate, while the job creator must simultaneously run his or her business. I've been involved in a very small business for about 8 years, so I can personally attest to the impediment excessive regulation creates. The current levels of over-regulation, to meet the incessant demands of the welfare state, are counter-productive to job creation in a major way. Make of that whatever you wish.
So, yes, the excessive taxation and regulation to fund the welfare state very much affects job creation when more than half the money that the government demands from businesses, via the byzantine taxation and regulation structure, is largely squandered on endeavors that have seldom, if ever, subsequently created independent thinkers who use their government-supplied perks to enrich the lives of everyone around them. I wish such were not the case, but that requires teachers to teach personal responsibility mentality, rather than victim / oppressor mentality. Bringing in millions of more people, few of whom can even feed themselves because they do not even speak the language, doesn't improve our state of affairs. However, we've already committed to that mistake, thanks to the political machinations of both dominant political parties, so we're at where we're at, and we have to figure out how to climb up the hill from where we're at right now.
Inventing a better aircraft or a more productive way to make food, for example, is definitely not about "keeping up with the Jones'". It's about using human ingenuity to overcome basic human-related problems. Better and cheaper transportation would enhance the ability of everyone to move around or otherwise benefit from the goods and services generated from the ability to travel swiftly and freely, less expensively.
I don't care if you've never flown before in your life. You have still benefited greatly from air transportation. Kids in 3rd world countries who would have otherwise starved to death or died from disease have been saved through swift transport of food or evacuation from storms or out of medical necessity. Has everyone benefited equally, everywhere at all times? Of course not. There's always more to do. Always. That's part of the human condition. If lifting everyone out of poverty isn't happening fast enough to suit your belief system, then get busy rectifying that problem ASAP by starting your own business to add to the collective wealth of humanity.
The "LifeStraw" was a rinky-dink little invention, but it's saved who knows how many lives by providing clean drinking water. The person who started that business identified an unfulfilled need amongst campers, being a camper himself, and later used the enormous profits from the business to purchase and provide their product to families in 3rd world countries. It wasn't even revolutionary new technology, it just came in a really handy / small / lightweight package and did the job (filtered dirty water) as well as anything else out there. Sawyer Products thought they could, so they put their money where their mouth was, and then they did. If anyone here thinks they can one-up both of those companies, then pony up your own money and do better. You'll make a lot of money in the process and that money can do a lot of good for a lot of people, if that's how you choose to spend it.
Offline
Trump gave hugh tax breaks to the rich and its may be a surprise that in an open letter from a group of wealthy Americans who should be affected by a wealth tax.
Offline
SpaceNut,
Still helping the media spread the lie that they patted themselves on the back for telling to unsuspecting Americans?
Offline
For kbd512 ...
Thanks for several substantial contributions to this new initiative of SpaceNut's ...
SpaceNut and tahanson43206,
Successful businesses tend to be very tightly focused on core objectives, they measure their performance against those objectives, and they hire and fire whomever they need to, in order to achieve their objectives. That necessarily means that continued employment is predicated on value-add to the business in achieving their objectives.
Now that politics / governance / dogma have been dispensed with, how do we create jobs?
Principally, by identifying and then fulfilling unmet needs or desires.
If I wanted to start a business, it would be the business of making better aircraft.
The article about Bill Gates drew attention to his focus on the objectives he and his team set for themselves, to the extent that he did not take vacations during the early years, and made corresponding demands on his associates.
Elon Musk is reported to have shown similar dedication to solving the myriad problems/challenges of achieving the goals he set.
Starting a company is a young person's game, although I get the impression that age is less of a hindrance if the entrepreneur has success and experience to bring to bear.
I like the concept you have defined for a focus, and I accept the qualification "If I wanted to" ....
The home built airplane option might be a better fit for a person with your understanding of the heavy hand of governmental oversight. My understanding is that Burt Rutan started that way. My Uncle and his elder son undertook construction of one of the Rutan designs, and had a fuselage in the garage for several years, before giving up on it. They had a number of other interests and activities, including cars and motorcycles, so I am not surprised that they let the plane project lie fallow.
However, there is another option, if you are inspired at some point to invest some time in exploring the idea of designing a better plane.
There are NO planes on Mars. The atmosphere is so thin that flight of any kind is going to be challenging. The NASA experiment with a helicopter drone will provide a lot of "real world" data, and I'm confident they will share it, as they have with everything else they have discovered with taxpayer funding.
A design for a fixed wing aircraft for Mars might be eligible for consideration for funding at some point.
In any case, should you decide to look into it, the NewMars forum may be a good place to report issues you find as you proceed.
Not everyone is the forum is likely to find the project interesting, but I certainly would, and I get the impression there are a couple of folks here who would also.
(th)
Offline
tahanson43206,
The two small businessmen (0-10 employees in the supply chain software design / implementation case, ~350 employees in the case of the health care services business) that I know routinely work 80 hours a week, or more, they constantly worry about making payroll, paying their employees, securing contracts for new business opportunities, and navigating the regulatory / taxation environment. They pay everyone else first, then whatever is left over is either used to pay their own salary and also reinvested into growing the business. They do take a short vacation every year to recharge, but the rest of the time, it's "nose to the grindstone". It's not an easy life and their relationships with their significant others have been strained, and continue to be strained, by the day-to-day grind of running those businesses. I knew both of them on a personal as well as professional level, having been invited to their homes / parties and employed by their businesses. We still talk to each other every so often to report our current state of affairs and sometimes we even go out for a beer and our kids play with each other when we're in town.
So far as I'm concerned, both of those men are completely entitled to the fruits of their labor. They started with nothing, have failed and recovered multiple times, and built businesses that have generated many jobs and many tens of millions of tax dollars and untold hundreds of millions to billions in revenue for the companies they provide services for, over the years. The health care services company has prevented medical expense bankruptcies for a plethora of patients across the country. Neither has a college degree, despite the fact that they both attended college for a period of time. They're both highly intelligent, despite the apparent lack of education. Thus, their success has been more about learning from failure, applying what they do know, and never quitting.
The supply chain software businessman is a Canadian-born gentleman who still can't get his citizenship, despite the fact that he came to America legally, is married to an American that he has American kids with, has paid all of his taxes every single year he's been here, for nearly two decades now, and contributed greatly to the supply chain efficiency of multiple multi-billion dollar businesses. He can't secure citizenship, but some illegal alien who crossed the border without permission can? Screw that!
Offline
For kbd512 #13 ...
Thank you for introducing two business founders to the forum readership. From my perspective, it is helpful for those who complain about lack of jobs to note what it takes to create jobs in this country, and probably in others with similar economic systems.
However, the issue you added to the post deserves its own topic. You may be in a position to bring about a positive change for the gent who has not yet received citizenship. If you will create a topic for this situation, you will be able to report on your success in petitioning your government for resolution of what you perceive to be a problem.
I would start with basic questions you can pose to the gent ...
Has he ever applied for citizenship?
What was the official response?
Does the gent live in Texas?
Texas has a lot going for it right now ... Two Senators, and a LOT of congress persons ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U … from_Texas
On top of that, Texas is represented in the Cabinet by Rick Perry, who manages nuclear policy of the Nation.
(th)
Offline
During one of my unemployed spells over a 7 year period I did do a stint of subcontacting work, did another as self employed contracting and as mentioned the hours worked did top the level of excessive with after what was all said and done was a poverty earning....As for failing not really just not profitable enough for anything other than a hobby....
off topic....
As for the citizenship question that is most likely wrapped in politics, red tape paperwork not done or processed and failed areas not responsed to...So if the person has over extended the original visa that is another flag just as much as many times renewing it and just because you marry american does not give you a garantee either
Offline
For SpaceNut and anyone else who might be interested in the topic of business operation on Earth in 2019 ...
I ran across this link today, and discovered that it lists ship building contracts. Reviewing this list provides a sense of the size of global transportation activities planned for the years ahead. An example is a floating oil production facility and storage facility for Brazil, to go into service in 2022.
This is the scale of operations we humans can reasonably expect to see when Solar System commerce builds up over a century or two.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/modec-s … ras-467560
(th)
Offline
Direct Manufacturing Costs
Capital costs
Labor costs
Materials costs
Consumables
Scrap / yield losses
Factory costs
Global Assumptions
Discount rate, inflation rate
Tool lifetimes
Costs of energy, etc.
Other Costs
R&D costs, G&A, sales, marketing
Product warranty costs
Offline
For SpaceNut re #17 ...
Thanks for the list you provided ...
I'd like to add a couple of items which (I think) might fit into the list, perhaps as subheadings under your items ...
Cost of recruiting talent (advertising, trade shows, representatives visiting schools, etc)
Cost of appraising applicants (tests, human resources interviews, meal and accommodations)
Cost of audits (subset of cost of accounting department)
Cost of compliance staffing for overseas sales
Cost of customer relations staffing and activity tracking
Cost of Insurance (all kinds)
I'd be interested in seeing items other forum members can think of to add to SpaceNut's list.
The list of costs (original and extended) shows why we have so few job creators in the US (or on Earth for that matter).
In my opinion creating and operating a business which sustains itself is FAR more difficult than mere "rocket science".
Rocket Science is hard enough, for sure, but it is study of the immutable Laws of Nature, whereas creating and operating a business is dependent upon mastering the vagaries of human beings, individually and collectively.
Elon Musk is an example of a human being so gifted as to be able to do both Rocket Science and Business Operation, although I admit the goal of achieving positive cash flow remains elusive, while the Rocket Science has achieved measurable success.
Apparently Tesla has achieved profit in two successive quarters:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-p … ngs-2019-1
Apparently Amazon has achieved profitability:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/25/1851 … ts-revenue
SpaceX is a private company, so profitability can only be estimated by outsiders:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/1812 … -investors
(th)
Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-06-30 20:03:02)
Offline
Here are some additions to SpaceNut’s list of concerns for job creators.
This is another example of a job creator seeing a market need and moving to fill it.
The tasks needed to install and use this software may be added to the duties of existing employees in existing corporations, but there will certainly be jobs waiting for applications at beginning corporations, or rapidly growing ones.
By Steve Jones - SSC Editor
A new product released by a law firm is designed to help other organizations in a number of ways, based on the knowledge and experiences of the lawyers that have worked in privacy law and compliance for years. They spun off a software development company who built an application that assists with four areas that organizations struggle with: compliance with consumer requests, mapping information flow, generating policy documents, and training employees.
sqlservercentral.com
(th)
Offline
Here is something to remember when looking at this problem and solutions..total articled copied
How two college dropouts made $860 million fortune by age 23
They didn’t complete a single year of college, but Henrique Dubugras, 23, and Pedro Franceschi, 22, have already amassed a veteran’s share of Silicon Valley experience. Now they have the net worth to match.
They are the founders and top executives of Brex Inc. a fintech startup recently valued at $2.6 billion, with an unlikely origin story. Dubugras was just 14 when he built his first company, the maker of an online video game, and shut it down after getting notices for patent infringement. Soon after, he teamed up with Franceschi for another venture -- payment processor Pagar.me, which grew to 150 employees before they sold it in 2016. The pair then enrolled at Stanford University, but didn’t make through freshman year before dropping out to found Brex.
Brex, which launched its first product last year, has become a fintech darling, catapulting its founders into the ranks of the richest entrepreneurs -- on paper at least. Today their stakes in the company are worth an estimated $430 million each, according to an analysis by EquityZen, a marketplace for shares of tech firms that haven’t yet gone public.
The pair’s ascent is rapid even by Silicon Valley standards, where dropping out of Stanford to launch a startup is almost a cliché. Brex, founded two years ago, has become one of the fastest American companies ever to reach a multibillion-dollar valuation, joining the ranks of startups like Uber Technologies Inc. and scooter unicorns Lime and Bird Rides Inc.
In 2017, Brex was valued at $25 million, according to data from PitchBook. Its latest funding round pegged its valuation at more than $2 billion. The company’s key product is a credit card for startups and their employees that relies on real-time data, rather than traditional credit scores. One of the drivers of Brex’s towering valuation, its founders have said, is its potential to expand into other businesses.
The firm has also recently introduced credit cards for e-commerce and life-sciences companies. In addition to cards for startups, Brex has said it plans to cater to larger firms, offering cards with tailored rewards as well as expense management.
Brex declined to comment for this story. Dubugras had said previously that Brex’s new e-commerce business accounts for about one-third of its revenue.
Another fintech wunderkind, Max Levchin, who at 23 co-founded a company that would eventually become PayPal Holdings Inc., is an investor in Brex. So is Peter Thiel, also a PayPal co-founder, as well as the Kleiner Perkins Digital Growth Fund and Ribbit Capital.
Offline
I wonder how many people it employs?
These new 'tech' companies reach billion dollar valuations and employ dozens of people. The old 'tech' companies reached billion dollar valuations and employed *thousands* of people, both semi-skilled and skilled with decent wages. We need more old-style tech companies.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
For Terraformer re #21 ....
There are at least 25 job openings at Brex, according to this site:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/Brex-Jobs-E2040671.htm
To your larger observation .... This is a startup, so it's understandable that head count would be small.
However, I think your observation is interesting, and I think the answer might be: "It depends"
A company can generate far more "jobs" (ie, useful work opportunities) than it provides by direct employment.
One of the best recent examples is Microsoft, whose products created jobs for many millions of people around the world, although I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had a similar influence.
Another observation I would make is that the ratio of employees to value is also an indication of efficiency, which (in general) we would want to see increase over time.
It seems to me that the human race needs to foster "job creators" and NOT "job holders". We have an abundance of people who are capable of holding jobs, which have defined tasks and limited decision making requirements. What are needed are people who have the vision to see how "job holders" could be enlisted to achieve some collective objective which achieves profitability.
I don't understand what the Brex founders are doing, but I certainly get the impression it is considered immensely valuable to a lot of people. Whatever value they are bringing to society will (presumably) enable others to become more productive in their own right.
(th)
Offline
Credit card with no personal guarantee, instant approvals, higher limits, and modern payment terms. Powered by the Mastercard network with best-in-class fraud. Brex is rebuilding B2B financial products, starting with a corporate card for technology companies.
So they are selling branding of a credit card system for local companies....
Offline
For SpaceNut re #23 .... Thanks for expanding on the business a bit ... I would like to offer a small adjustment ... "selling" is done by sales people, as a rule. The developers of whatever Brex is in business to supply only needed to "sell" the concept to investors. The work of the founders was primarily in developing whatever the concept is, which (I am confident) would have involved a great deal of complex software. The investors would then have supplied funds to pay people to hold the "job" of sales person.
Some time back, GW Johnson mentioned having invented a method of cactus removal, and (as I recall) developing a small business around the method.
More importantly for this audience (perhaps) is that GW mentioned having obtained a patent on the method. Today, having a few minutes to spare, I asked the US Patent Office web site if an Inventor named Gary W Johnson had secured a patent for cactus removal. I received back a list of 29 patents issued to johnson-gary-w.
The cactus removal patent was in the list, of course, but I noticed a patent for a rocket related concept, and sure enough, it was the same guy.
I invite anyone who reads the forum to investigate the other 27 patents, to see if any of the others were issued to GW Johnson of the NewMars forum.
Please report back either way. I'm confident you will find the search to be at a minimum interesting, and potentially fascinating.
I used the Advanced search option, and entered the query: in/johnson-gary-w
My interest here is primarily in the subject of the topic SpaceNut has created.
It is MUCH harder to create jobs than to hold one, and I readily concede that many jobs created by job creators extract every last bit of capability the job holder is able to muster.
(th)
Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-07-03 11:30:29)
Offline
For SpaceNut .... developing topic a bit further .... Emotional Intelligence
My news feed came up with the article on Emotional Intelligence today. I read it through, and realized I had not thought about the issues raised in the context of business formation. Specifically, the author arrives at a suggestion that persons with high EQ may be better suited for roles as followers, in support of an entrepreneur (for example).
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the- … ket-newtab
Steve Jobs is reported to have been difficult to work for. That in itself does not shed any light on his EQ, but the impression I get is that persons with high EQ are less likely to be creative or inclined to take risks.
***
Earlier today, I ran across an opinion piece which suggested that, assuming income inequality is a problem for society, it might be better in the long run, for people creating new businesses to adjust the parameters of their business plans to shift toward paying workers a living wage, and away from concentrating on payout to stock holders.
Admittedly, most people who are thinking of starting a business are likely to be focused upon stockholder payout, but the author of the opinion piece was (I gather) trying to do his bit to try to improve life for the majority of people.
At present, in the US at least, we seem to have a business philosophy which pays workers as little as possible, and happily allows society as a whole to provide poverty benefits to workers. Some remarkably large companies appear to have this philosophy.
(th)
Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-07-03 13:57:11)
Offline