It's not necessarily a bad take. This isn't a "woke vs. profitable" argument, and woke doesn't even come into the picture here. Small businesses might actually want to stay small.
Yea, because if they get bigger they'll get crushed by EU regulations, bureaucracy and unions.
And when you don't have enough incoming orders you can't just fire employees. It's more "profitable" to lose out on orders than to hire more people to fulfil those orders. Because you can't just fire excess employees when the economy is in a slump. You're stuck paying them to do nothing.
Small businesses might actually want to stay small.
I know someone who runs a veterinary clinic. She says she's had multiple offers to sell her practice to a big corporation, but refuses because the quality of care would drastically decrease.
Good for her. Some small places unfortunately have to sell out just to stay afloat. Like the printing plant I work at. Though that wasn't all finances either, it was a family owned thing, where all the owners were retiring, but none of their kids had any aspirations to take over. So as it is, my own work has started to shift to a corporate-run environment.
I look at the size and complexity of everything as a parabolic curve. There is a point where everything is in balance and the institution is at its "best" size considering the quality of the goods or services it delivers, the experience of the employees, the customer service experience if it's constituents, etc.
Endless growth is neither sustainable nor desirable.
Big cities crow about how excited they are at increasing their population, but the increased tax base rarely supports the needed expansion of housing and infrastructure. We all have companies or products that we used to love and then everything turned to shit when they got bigger and dumped quality in pursuit of profit.
The sentiment is on point, although I disagree with the example. In general the EU is a regulatory hellscape, and I'm sure there's plenty of companies that would like to expand that are held back by their regulations. A luxury watchmaker is a poor example, because they have an entirely different business model, and a massive growth in output would simply devalue their brand.
One of the many problems with the Soviet Union was that they believed 'bigger' was better. So you had enterprises that went beyond the culminating point of efficiency, as you say, Magnitogorsk being probably one of the most notorious examples.
It's not necessarily a bad take. This isn't a "woke vs. profitable" argument, and woke doesn't even come into the picture here. Small businesses might actually want to stay small.
Yea, because if they get bigger they'll get crushed by EU regulations, bureaucracy and unions.
And when you don't have enough incoming orders you can't just fire employees. It's more "profitable" to lose out on orders than to hire more people to fulfil those orders. Because you can't just fire excess employees when the economy is in a slump. You're stuck paying them to do nothing.
I know someone who runs a veterinary clinic. She says she's had multiple offers to sell her practice to a big corporation, but refuses because the quality of care would drastically decrease.
Some people are in it for more than money.
Good for her. Some small places unfortunately have to sell out just to stay afloat. Like the printing plant I work at. Though that wasn't all finances either, it was a family owned thing, where all the owners were retiring, but none of their kids had any aspirations to take over. So as it is, my own work has started to shift to a corporate-run environment.
That's on the parents for raising retarded children.
I look at the size and complexity of everything as a parabolic curve. There is a point where everything is in balance and the institution is at its "best" size considering the quality of the goods or services it delivers, the experience of the employees, the customer service experience if it's constituents, etc.
Endless growth is neither sustainable nor desirable. Big cities crow about how excited they are at increasing their population, but the increased tax base rarely supports the needed expansion of housing and infrastructure. We all have companies or products that we used to love and then everything turned to shit when they got bigger and dumped quality in pursuit of profit.
The sentiment is on point, although I disagree with the example. In general the EU is a regulatory hellscape, and I'm sure there's plenty of companies that would like to expand that are held back by their regulations. A luxury watchmaker is a poor example, because they have an entirely different business model, and a massive growth in output would simply devalue their brand.
One of the many problems with the Soviet Union was that they believed 'bigger' was better. So you had enterprises that went beyond the culminating point of efficiency, as you say, Magnitogorsk being probably one of the most notorious examples.