Companies that started during the Depression

[Harold Mansfield]

One of my clients posted a great Facebook post today that I thought I'd share:

Did you know that General Food and Macy's both started in
1929? Westin Hotels, Neutrogena and Fisher Price began in 1930, Allstate
Insurance started in 1931 and Revlon, Nissan Motors and Ethan Allen all started
up in 1932? In fact, many of today’s Fortune
500 companies started in a recession. Here’s my message … if they ...can do it so
can you!
It's not a whole article, just a quick Facebook post.
Welcome to Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Triangle-Concierge-Inc/115863005133240)

But I did find a post from iMedia that talks a little more about currently successful companies that started during economic hard times:
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/20821.asp

[vangogh]

You know I think both Frederick and myself were saying the same things about advertising a year or two ago when all the current economic troubles were near their worst. I'm sure we weren't the only ones either. I can remember a thread where we were pretty much saying how many big companies first gained prominence during one economic downturn or another.

I've always thought people could make money no matter what the economies of the moment. Good and bad economies just have different rules for how to make money. Those who can put themselves in the right position no matter what the economy do well.

It's interesting how many of today's Fortune 500 companies got their start during the Great Depression. You can look to another of today's major companies, Google. Google's grew very quickly after the dot com bubble burst. They existed and were on their way just before, but much of their early success came during some bad economic times for the country.

[Spider]

One of the best bases for starting a business is to identify a problem and solve it. Well, there are likely to be more problems during recessionary times, and therefore more problems for new businesses to solve. That is to say, there are more opportunities during bad times than there are during good times.

[greenoak]

but less money floating around.....so it is harder...but still possible...
..i guess revlon started in the depression....everyone wanted to look good in lipstick...

[Harold Mansfield]

If there's one thing about economics I don't understand it's how in supposed hard times, people still find money to buy stuff.

A lot of people are complaining about the economy now, but HDTV's, iPods, iPads, and Droid phones are flying off of the shelves. During Cash for Clunkers (which was earlier in the year) cars were flying off of the lot and according to the Speaker of the House more private sector jobs were created this year than all 8 years of the previous administration.

I get new calls from people starting up businesses every week.

Sure I know it's bad for some people who aren't used to things being bad, but it's not horrible as a whole. OR do we place more value on material things than we used to? We all know people that don't have a pot to piss in, that somehow come up with the latest phone, or a new iPod. Hardly the attitude of Americans in the 1930's.
The 1930's...that was horrible.
Economic depression AND the Great Dust Bowl.

[Spider]

Desides the Great Depression, there have been other downturns of more recent years. Microsoft was started during such a downturn in the 1970s, along with Apple and a few others, I don't doubt.

[vangogh]

One of the best bases for starting a business is to identify a problem and solve it. Well, there are likely to be more problems during recessionary times, and therefore more problems for new businesses to solve. That is to say, there are more opportunities during bad times than there are during good times.

I agree completely.


If there's one thing about economics I don't understand it's how in supposed hard times, people still find money to buy stuff.

You have to remember that a bad economy is in general terms for everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone is affected the same way. Usually certain areas are more affected than others, depending on the industries at the heart of the downturn. Also for those people who had savings built up just before things got bad they may now have more wealth compared to those around them. In the end though, much like time, people have more than they appear to at first and they spend based on their priorities. Some people may buy an iPod, but had been planning on buying an iPod, an iPad, and a new Mac so while from the outside it looks like they had extra money to spend in reality they cut back significantly on what they were planning on spending.

I think a big part of doing well in business isn't just about doing well in the moment. It's about preparing for the future. I know some will say this time things are different and we may not come back like usual. Putting that debate aside for a moment and assuming the usual holds and this is just another one of the usual dips it would mean sometime in the not too distant future there will be an upturn where everyone has money again. There will be companies planning for that now and be in a great position to succeed when that economy happens. And then when things are good there will be companies preparing for the next downturn and putting themselves in position to succeed then as well.

[Harold Mansfield]

Gold is a good example. I know one person and have met others that buy Gold when the economy is good (and the price is low) and sell it when the economy is bad (when the price goes up).

[vangogh]

Exactly. There are always opportunities no matter what the economy. The rules change a little as far as what's a good opportunity, but there are ways to make money in any economy.

[KristineS]

I'm guessing that the companies that started during the Depression took a long term view as well. The people who ran things knew there would be ups and downs, and adjusted the company sails as necessary to weather those ups and downs. I think a lot of people now days are just looking for the quick buck and the big score. If you have the vision to see ahead and the willingness to stay the course, almost any company can weather a bad economic climate, but you have to be willing to endure some lean times to make that happen.

[huggytree]

you could, but why? .....most businesses fail in good times....why risk your $$ when the odds are even worse


im still seeing businesses go under...havent heard of anymore lay offs in a few months though

[billbenson]

Also, if people can't find work, they may try to do something on their own. Start consulting, contracting services, whatever and it turns into a business. There are a lot of skilled people out there that are out of work or making a fraction of what they are used to.

[vangogh]

most businesses fail in good times....why risk your $$ when the odds are even worse

Because the odds aren't worse. Things are just different. No matter when you start a business there is going to be risk involved. At any point in time owning a business there is risk involved. There are always pros and cons about the decisions we make and what to do with the money our businesses generate. There are always choices involving risks about how we should reinvest money in our businesses.

For example when things were at there worst about a year and a half to two years ago the stock market dropped significantly. That was a great time for anyone to buy. Apple's stock fell to about $100 a share. 18-20 months later it's at $300 a share. Had you invested you would have tripled your money. That same is true of plenty of other stocks. It's similar in other areas as well. If prices fell on advertising you could have gotten more advertising for your dollar and probably negotiated terms that would last beyond the downtime.

The odds aren't worse. It's simply that the opportunities are different.

[Harold Mansfield]

you could, but why? .....most businesses fail in good times....why risk your $$ when the odds are even worse
im still seeing businesses go under...havent heard of anymore lay offs in a few months though

Most start up businesses fail. Period. It's a crap shoot either way.
I started during tough times and most of my clients are start ups and they are all doing well or at least surviving through the start up stage.
It's not written in stone that you will be successful just because the economy is good.

Look back at the 90's and the 100's of tech start ups that had so much money invested in them. The amount of money they were spending was astronomical for companies that hadn't made a dime yet. Expensive office space. Leased luxury cars. BMW signing bonuses for new hires. Video games in the office...I mean when you look back at it, it was ridiculous. However, when you start during lean times, you learn how to be lean and efficient. I think there is something to be said for starting out on a shoe string budget and having to fight for every dollar as opposed to starting with million dollar investors and immediately shopping at the nicest stores.

[vangogh]

I can't seem to find the article now, but over the weekend I came across one suggesting that a down economic time was actually the best time to start a new business. I think the companies listed early in this thread are proof of that.

When the economy is bad it generally means start up costs are much less, advertising costs less, investors can spend less for the same equity in a company, etc.

There are plenty of advantages for businesses in a down economy.

[KristineS]

I've seen it when dealing with advertisers and trade show companies. They're hurting for dollars, so they're much more willing to go the extra mile, thrown in a freebie, or work out a payment deal. A lot of people aren't spending money, so those who are face less competition and get more for their advertising dollar.

[GoingLocal]

...When the economy is bad it generally means start up costs are much less, advertising costs less, investors can spend less for the same equity in a company, etc.

There are plenty of advantages for businesses in a down economy.

I fully agree! Aside from the cost of entry being lower, there are so many more perceived problems to help with. At the end of the day the only reason a business succeeds is because they have figured out a way to help someone or some business improve somehow.

When things are in high times, people get lazy and spend foolishly, sometimes with full and utter disregard or conscious. When things are in a bad state, people are looking harder for answers. Generally the reason for any downturn is because the market became saturated with too many greedy people scamming people and riding other people's coattails where the system couldn't handle it any more. So the economic reset is really just a process of removing the trash from the marketplace allowing the diamonds in the rough and meek honesty to shine through.

About 25% of the fortune 500 companies still in operation today were started either during or immediately after the great depression. The people who started these companies knew they had a value that was needed, and were not afraid to work hard using that value it to help out. That's all. I've heard from several different sources, and I fully agree, last year and the year or so to come, will be the best time to start a new business this century. The need is massive and there many holes begging to be filled by people with integrity and passion.

[Harold Mansfield]

Also when times are great, people have a tendency to open businesses that would only work in good economic times. If you remember the .com era, when it was booming with start ups, many of those companies were repetitive of already started companies, or things that only make since when people are spending money.

A doggy bakery in New York was probably a good idea 5 years ago, but would you open it today? I guess it would depend on what area you opened it in and how well that area was doing. If you opened it in what was an up and coming area 5 years ago..such as when there was a 45 day waiting list to buy a home..any home in Vegas, then it was a good idea, but 5 years later with 50 percent of those high priced new homes in foreclosure...I'm sure that neighborhood doggy bakery is hurting, if not closed.

[Spider]

I think the notion that most businesses fail, and 50 percent of startup businesses fail in their first year - and other supposed "facts" are inaccurate or just plain wrong.

Henry Ford started two companies before starting Ford Motor Company. Did those other two fail? Well, they closed but Ford made enough from each to start the next so that when he created the Ford Motor Company in 1903 he had enough money to build a pretty big engineering complex. Two failures? I don't think so.

Is it a failure if, having started a company, the owner restructures and dissolves the previous business? Is it a failure if a company ceases doing business because it merges with another? Is it a failure if a shopowner closes the shop and moves to another location? Is it a failure if, having started a company, the owner decides he wants to do something else?

That's the beauty of being an entrepreneur - you can start a business, end a business, sell it, merge it, take on partners, fire partners, change the business name or just go and do something else. Business closure does not equate with failure, in my opinion.

Starting a business is no more risky than starting a new job, in good times or bad. At least, if you are the boss, you get to decide whether you continue work there or not. I think starting a business is far less risky than starting a new job.

[vangogh]

there are so many more perceived problems to help with

That's a great point. You're right that businesses ultimately exist to help people solve problems and there are often more problems to solve during down economic times. I guarantee in 10 years we'll be looking at the next big super company that got it's start in the last couple or next couple of years.


Henry Ford started two companies before starting Ford Motor Company. Did those other two fail? Well, they closed but Ford made enough from each to start the next so that when he created the Ford Motor Company in 1903 he had enough money to build a pretty big engineering complex. Two failures? I don't think so.

I understand what you're saying, but if we're talking statistics of startups both of those first two businesses did fail. Ford himself didn't fail and he used his experience and what money he earned from those earlier two businesses to build the 3rd one. Still those first two businesses failed. I don't think the facts are wrong at all. I think what's incorrect is the conclusions we often draw from those facts. The only time you truly fail is when you don't learn from your mistakes. Ford learned from his mistakes in those first two business. Those two businesses failed. Ford himself didn't.

[Spider]

...Ford learned from his mistakes in those first two business. Those two businesses failed. Ford himself didn't.Ah, but one of those companies - the Henry Ford Company - was recreated as the Cadillac Motor Company. Hardly a failure, I think.

I think you are correct linguistically-speaking, VG. Still, when I see the word 'failed' in business, I take it to mean collapse, bankruptcy, insolvency. I think that is the generally accepted meaning placed on the word in business terms. When people speak of "Most small businesses fail in their first year," they mean become insolvent and cease doing business. They don't mean restructure and become successful in another form. Nor do they mean closed down because the owner got bored and used his money to do something else.

[vangogh]

I do understand what you were saying and I also agree with you. Failure is thrown around sometimes in ways where it's not appropriate. For the statistics I think those early companies failed, though maybe I'll have to rethink the Cadillac. Where the statistics are concerned it doesn't bother me how they determine failure, since I think the numbers provide some useful information. For one it says many people get it wrong the first time out, which I took as something positive. It was something I could point to when my own first business didn't do well and realize it wasn't just me. That helped me find the energy to recreate things into a business that has outlasted the statistic.

[Spider]

On the other hand (I should have been an attorney!) - don't you think that "statistics" like 70 percent of businesses fail in the the first two years - would discourage a lot of people from attempting their own business - thus confining so many people to a life of drudgery and an old-age full of regret?

[vangogh]

It might. I certainly won't argue that. It didn't for me. I saw it as a challenge and and encouragement after my first business didn't work as planned. I also felt very good when my second business was still in existence after a year.

But I think you're right that it might discourage many. However if a statistic like that discourages someone from starting it's possible they weren't all that set on the effort required to start a business. I think most people are naturally optimistic when starting a new business and the typical response would be to think you won't be that statistic. Those who let the statistic talk them out of starting may not have honestly been ready for the work involved.

[Spider]

That's true, too. Which only goes to prove you can make numbers do anything you want them to do!

[Harold Mansfield]

On the other hand (I should have been an attorney!) - don't you think that "statistics" like 70 percent of businesses fail in the the first two years - would discourage a lot of people from attempting their own business - thus confining so many people to a life of drudgery and an old-age full of regret?

Depends on the person. Some people start a business with false hopes of instant success and sitting on a beach with a laptop, like some kind of credit card commercial. However, the realistic entrepreneurs go in knowing that the odds are stacked against them and have a desire to go forward and beat the odds because they have a passion or drive to be successful or at least give it a go.

People that are discouraged by those type of statistics are not risk takers anyway. To be an entrepreneur, you have to be a risk taker.

[KristineS]

I think you have to look at statistics and probabilities as reminders to be prepared. Do your homework and figure out what made things go wrong for others and then make a plan to avoid what you can avoid and mitigate the risk where you can. Be aware, but optimistic.

You can throw around any sort of statistic you want but how you react to it is what really matters.

[vangogh]

Which only goes to prove you can make numbers do anything you want them to do!

Statistics tell the truth, but not the whole truth.

[Spider]

But what I'm trying to get at, Harold, is that I think these are false statistics, probably invented (or at least distorted) by people with something to sell - "Buy my Success Plan CD set and beat the odds." I don't think the odds are stacked against success in business. I think one has just as much chance of success in business as anyone does in a J.O.B. Both require knowledge and skill and a certain tenacity. There are millions of small businesses - one person businesses, mostly - that struggle along barely making it, just as many as there are employed drudges barely keeping their jobs. And the odds of becoming a Jack Welch (who started in the mailroom at GE) are pretty slim, too.

The drudges probably existed in Henry Ford's day, too. From what I can make of the story, Henry Ford wasn't much of a businessman, but he was a damn fine engineer and came to the attention of manager- and money-types who backed him.

I think we should encourage people to start their own businesses, not discourage them with false statistics. I would rather encourage someone to get a job in a particular industry that interests them, learn as much as they can, save as much as they can, with the intention of starting their own business in that industry when they are ready. Then we don't have to worry about what the overall economy is like when they are ready to start.

[cbscreative]

This has certainly been an interesting discussion even though I've stayed quiet so far. Spider makes some interesting point about statistics that I've long known to be true. Not all failures are truly failures, but if the business ends up ceasing to exist, it gets thrown into the failure statistic. Vangogh's comment that stats don't tell the whole story is very true. Even with all that factored in, most businesses still fail, it's just not really quite as bad as the stats seem to indicate.

Spider also made mention that a job is just as risky as a business. I totally agree! Maybe you don't risk invest of money, but you risk investment of time, energy, and work. All the while, some boss is controlling your destiny and deciding whether you will stay employed or not. At least with a business, you're the only one who can terminate your position.

With the economy struggling so much, the best place to be is running your own business...unless you're not qualified or at least willing to learn.

[vangogh]

This might just be semantics, but I think all those statistics are about x percent of new businesses aren't in business after a year. I don't know that they specifically say the business fails or is a failure. That's likely how they're interpreted, but I think the data itself is accurate. If we report that 50 percent of new businesses aren't in business after a year it makes no judgement about failure and it includes businesses where the owner simply got bored, etc.

To me those statistics were meant to let me know that starting a business isn't easy. You don't simply declare yourself in business and everything works out. I realize it just might be me, but I never saw those numbers and became discouraged.

The statistics simply are. It's what we do with them that's important.

[Spider]

That is very true. Facts are facts. Why, though, do we consider starting a business difficult and never menton the difficulty of starting a career. We never compare the difficulty of starting a business with the difficulty involved in getting a job.

Starting a business is way easier than starting a career or getting a job. Keeping the business running is more difficult, but keeping a career running and keeping a job requires some skill and effort, too. We never seem to cosider that. (We = the people, reporters, journalists, writers, educators....)

It is accepted that one is entitled to a job but one is not entitled to own a business. If there are too many people without a job, society (in the form of their elected governments) make some collective effort to create jobs for the unemployed, but no-one ever thinks of creating small businesses for those that don't have one - the idea is a bit bizarre!

Perhaps this is part of a benign conspiracy - big businesses need workers. If too many workers decide to start their own business, there won't be enough workers for the big businesses, so we must surrepticiously get people to believe that starting a business is too difficult so they will remain available to be employees when big business needs them.

[cbscreative]

Unfortunately, Frederick, you're more right than you might realize ^^. The entire structure of both public schools and even college is to train people for jobs.

Between 2001-2006 I was taking university classes. Since I started this company about a year after enrolling in school, I became keenly reminded of how slanted the education really was. Ironically, it was even a "business school" so they specialized in business...supposedly. I had to filter a lot of garbage to not develop that job mentality mindset.

If you think the education system isn't biased, look at how much they rely on corporations for both funding and to supply jobs for graduates. Big businesses determine what kind of workforce they need and coach the education system to provide it. I'm not saying that is some kind of evil conspiracy, but it is a reality.

It actually starts with the earliest school experience. They tell you when you need to be there, ring bells so you know when you need to be to your next class, when you get recess, when you take lunch, etc. By the time we leave school, we are ideally conditioned to accept that in the workplace.

I find your comment about being entitled to a job interesting. I agree that we are conditioned to think that is true. We live in a society where we're trained to believe in entitlements. Relying on those entitlements gives the provider of them a lot of power over you. The reality is, we're not entitled to anything in life, and those who realize that stand to become the most liberated. It is also a necessary realization for success.

[vangogh]

We never compare the difficulty of starting a business with the difficulty involved in getting a job.

Because we're a small business forum devoted to people owning small businesses. I know you meant this in a more general sense though. The thing is I used to hear all the time about the difficulty in getting and holding a job and building a career. I think that talk is out there a lot. Look how many books there are in the business section about writing resumes and cover letters and advancing your career in general.

However I don't think starting/running a business is easier than finding/holding a job. With a job one key component is taken care for you, that of having work to do. That's the main part new businesses struggle with. Where will our clients/customers come from. You don't worry about that as an employee. With a job you show up you get paid. There's security there that doesn't exist in having your own business.

What I think owning a business offers is more reward. I think there is definitely a greater effort in starting a business as there is working for someone else, but the rewards for doing so are so worth that extra effort.

[Spider]

Unfortunately, Frederick, you're more right than you might realize ^^. The entire structure of both public schools and even college is to train people for jobs...I claim to be a history buff, Steve. Organized education (schools and schoolrooms) began as the industrial revolution got underway. Before then, children worked on the land and learned all they needed to know from their fellow adult workers. For the industrial revolution, people really did have to be trained to keep time, be punctual, respond to bells and whistles (we still use the term 'bells and whistles' to denote advanced technology!) and have a subordinate mentaility. And, of course, this education was provided by the big businesses and factories. Government provided education came much later.



...If you think the education system isn't biased, look at how much they rely on corporations for both funding and to supply jobs for graduates. Big businesses determine what kind of workforce they need and coach the education system to provide it...As I said, this is nothing new - it is how organized education came about. Nothing sinister, as you say.



...I find your comment about being entitled to a job interesting. I agree that we are conditioned to think that is true. We live in a society where we're trained to believe in entitlements. Relying on those entitlements gives the provider of them a lot of power over you. The reality is, we're not entitled to anything in life, and those who realize that stand to become the most liberated. It is also a necessary realization for success.You must not be aware that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established by the United Nations and ratified by the nations of the UN, includes Article 23: 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. I think you will find that is consistent with American law, which includes quite a few other legal entitlements or "rights." In fact, the law gives us the right to life, itself!


The right to work is the concept that people have a human right to work, and may not be prevented from doing so. The right to work is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law through its inclusion in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where the right to work emphasizes economic, social and cultural development.

In truth, there is a great deal to which we are truly entitled. But I agree with you, this entitlement attitude is carried too far by many people, and they are the ones that find life more difficult.

[Spider]

...There's security there that doesn't exist in having your own business...I always smile when I hear this argument. As an employee, you are at the mercy of another person for your "security" - You are secure until you get fired, which, of course, is no security at all. As a business owner, you cannot be fired - that is security. When you work for yourself, you will always have a job.

[Patrysha]

Starting a business is way easier than starting a career or getting a job. Keeping the business running is more difficult, but keeping a career running and keeping a job requires some skill and effort, too. We never seem to cosider that. (We = the people, reporters, journalists, writers, educators....)


I found this to be a very interesting statement. I guess because I have one foot in each sphere at the moment with a part time job and my business. I don't see how getting a job is harder than starting a business. My husband is currently looking for a job, and I am running my business, so I'm seeing the effort side by side...and I'm not seeing that the finding the job part is harder...

The problems I see with the education I blame on the hippies. Much as I appreciate what that generation brought in other areas, what they brought to the education system has pretty much resulted in absolute chaos. The move away from streaming and towards differentiated instruction within classrooms with children of varied skills and abilities puts even more stress on a system that was already crumbling. Instead of looking at the long term, school boards jump on the latest trend without much foresight (the whole saga between phonics and whole language is the first example that comes to mind) and certainly little thought of the consequences when the theory proves to be incorrect.

[Spider]

I found this to be a very interesting statement. I guess because I have one foot in each sphere at the moment with a part time job and my business. I don't see how getting a job is harder than starting a business. My husband is currently looking for a job, and I am running my business, so I'm seeing the effort side by side...and I'm not seeing that the finding the job part is harder....That is because you are not comparing like with like. I said STARTING a business is easier than STARTING a career and easier than GETTING a job. You can walk down to your county courthouse, step into the country clerk's office and fill out a form, pay $15 (or whatever minimal sum it is) for an Assumed Name record (DBA) - that'll take all of five minutes - and Bingo! You have started a business. Compare that with 4 years of college for starting a career, or pounding the pavements, writing re'sume's, covering letters, scouring the newspaper vacancy ads, etc. to find a job. Yes, I think starting a business is definitely easier.

Now RUNNING a business - that's different. Let's compare running and building a business compared to working and developing a career and working and developing a job. Running and building a business means advertising and promotion and doing what people hire you to do. Working and developing a career means self -promotion, continuing education, doing what you're told and maybe a little brown-nosing! Working and developing a job, same as building a career with less emphasis on continuing ed and more brown-nosing. It's more debatable. but I think running and growing a business is easier.

Is that a better explanation?

[Patrysha]

Now RUNNING a business - that's different. Let's compare running and building a business compared to working and developing a career and working and developing a job. Running and building a business means advertising and promotion and doing what people hire you to do. Working and developing a career means self -promotion, continuing education, doing what you're told and maybe a little brown-nosing! Working and developing a job, same as building a career with less emphasis on continuing ed and more brown-nosing. It's more debatable. but I think running and growing a business is easier.

Is that a better explanation?

Maybe. I dunno, I've had a job or a business and sometimes both since I was 13. So it's never really been an either/or thing for me. One's not harder than the other just different. Of course, I am only comparing jobs to business ventures...I've never had what one would call a career and I have only one semester of University, so my path through things has always been a little bit different.

In my experience doing a job is the easiest...A job doesn't define you. You show up on time, do your job and get paid. It's simple. And the rest of your time is free to do whatever your heart desires that is within your budget. Of course, the budget is typically smaller than those who have a career and it's not going to change much if you don't have something going on the side. That being said it is possible to love a job like this. But it's anything but hard. Easy to get, easy to do...and easy to get raises :-)

Now a career is another beast entirely and I don't for the life of me see what anyone could want in a career...if I'm going to put that much effort into something, I want to be the boss. I tried to have a career in radio sales, but I wanted to choke somebody on a nearly daily basis...so that really colours my perceptions.

[cbscreative]

You must not be aware that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established by the United Nations and ratified by the nations of the UN, includes Article 23: 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. I think you will find that is consistent with American law, which includes quite a few other legal entitlements or "rights." In fact, the law gives us the right to life, itself!


The right to work is the concept that people have a human right to work, and may not be prevented from doing so. The right to work is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law through its inclusion in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where the right to work emphasizes economic, social and cultural development.

In truth, there is a great deal to which we are truly entitled. But I agree with you, this entitlement attitude is carried too far by many people, and they are the ones that find life more difficult.

I'm glad you clarified, because I think you got my point just fine. Yes, man's laws provide entitlements, but natural laws are not so kind. Natural law dictates that if you don't work, you don't eat. Those who approach business like life owes them something are in for a rude awakening. With a job, you can be shielded from natural laws except for the fact that these days, some of that shielding is giving way to real life. In business, only government handouts can supersede the laws of nature. Without man or gov't stepping in, nature knows no entitlements.

Most of the recent posts have reinforced this. That's why a business is easy to start but harder to run, and a job is harder to get but easier to keep. I wouldn't want to change the laws that protect workers because that would cause problems like we've seen in the past. But as you indicated, the idea of entitlements often gets taken too far to mean that life owes something to each person that really isn't true.

[billbenson]

You must not be aware that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established by the United Nations and ratified by the nations of the UN, includes Article 23: 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. I think you will find that is consistent with American law, which includes quite a few other legal entitlements or "rights." In fact, the law gives us the right to life, itself!

But does the right to work give us the right to pay or a particular salary?

[Spider]

The problem with rights is, they always create an obligation on someone else. Now, that's not too onerous when the right to life creates the oblgatiion not to go around killing people. But, if one has a right to work, someone has an obligation to make a job available. That is onerous.

Bringing this back to the subject - Companies that started during the Depression - in economically dire times, obligations of this nature are less able to be fulfilled and "nature's laws" (as you put it, Steve) come into play, and people who might have expected someone to provide them with a job find they really do need to eat and realise the only option they have is to start a business.

[Spider]

...But does the right to work give us the right to pay or a particular salary?...Article 23: 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

I would think "just and favourable conditions" also means getting paid for the work one does. Being expected to work without pay does not seem to me to be a just or favorable condition. This is further reinforced by "protection against unemployment."

[vangogh]

I'd say staring a business is even easier than you described since you don't actually need to fill out the DBA. All you have to do is declare you yourself that you're starting a business and you just started a business. Same thing for a career. Declare the career you're starting and you just started it. The only one that takes any real effort is finding a job, which is also much easier than people make it out to be. There are business (fast food for example) that are alway looking to hire. The difficulty is in finding a job you want or are willing to keep.

I think the 50 percent (or whatever the number) of business that don't survive their first year is a good one. I think the only people it truly discourages are those that weren't ready to put in the effort to run a business. Anyone willing to put in the work isn't going to be stopped by a statistic, one which equally declares success and failure by the way.

A better comparison than which is easier to start might be comparing how many people are still in the same job a year later. From experience I can only point to 3 jobs where I lasted more than a year and one was an on again off again job I worked while in college. I don't think I ever actually worked a full year straight in that one, but I did work there and only there for a few years.

As far as the security thing it's true you aren't going to be fired from your business, but that's not where the security lies. It's irrelevant whether or not you fire yourself if you aren't bringing money into a business. The security is that you are guaranteed a paycheck working a job (assuming the company doesn't go under). If you show up you get paid. You can show up every day at your business and put in twice the usual 40 hour work week and make nothing.

Both working for someone else and working for yourself have pros and cons and different levels of security. I'll tell anyone that I think the rewards of owning your own business and being responsible for everything that comes with it far exceed and downside. Still starting a new business isn't something you should enter into lightly. There is most likely going to be a lack of financial security early on until and unless you can get the business going. With a job you might worry about getting fired at some point. With starting a new business you worry about where next week's money will come from. There's more short term security in the former.

[cbscreative]

The problem with rights is, they always create an obligation on someone else.

I think that statement sums it up very well.

[vangogh]

That's not always true. We have the right to free speech. Where does that put an obligation on someone? The right to work also doesn't put obligations on others. It's not a right to a job. It's a right to work, which means no one should be allowed to prevent us from starting a business. With jobs it means we shouldn't be excluded from one because of race or religion, etc. That's not an obligation to hire someone. It's more about treating people fairly based on what they can do for your business not something like the color of their skin or the religion they practice.

[KristineS]

As far as the security thing it's true you aren't going to be fired from your business, but that's not where the security lies. It's irrelevant whether or not you fire yourself if you aren't bringing money into a business. The security is that you are guaranteed a paycheck working a job (assuming the company doesn't go under). If you show up you get paid. You can show up every day at your business and put in twice the usual 40 hour work week and make nothing.

Both working for someone else and working for yourself have pros and cons and different levels of security. I'll tell anyone that I think the rewards of owning your own business and being responsible for everything that comes with it far exceed and downside. Still starting a new business isn't something you should enter into lightly. There is most likely going to be a lack of financial security early on until and unless you can get the business going. With a job you might worry about getting fired at some point. With starting a new business you worry about where next week's money will come from. There's more short term security in the former.

You summed this up very well. As one of the few people here, I think, who does not currently own my own business, I've been trying to come up with a way to say what you just said. Well done!

[cbscreative]

That's not always true. We have the right to free speech. Where does that put an obligation on someone? The right to work also doesn't put obligations on others. It's not a right to a job. It's a right to work, which means no one should be allowed to prevent us from starting a business. With jobs it means we shouldn't be excluded from one because of race or religion, etc. That's not an obligation to hire someone. It's more about treating people fairly based on what they can do for your business not something like the color of their skin or the religion they practice.

I guess the operative word is always, which means I see your point and wouldn't argue with it. I kind of doubt Spider really meant always, but in principle his statement is true as long as it's not taken to extremes. An example of the way I interpreted the statement would be smoking. Sure, you should have the right to smoke if you want to, but when your right to smoke infringes on my right to breathe clean air, then we have a problem.

In the context, the right to work does open up potential obligations. Do gov't agencies and large corporations make every hiring decision based on the qualifications of the individual, or are there laws giving "rights" that require them to meet certain obligations? I don't recommend answering that, I'm only demonstrating an obligation created by rights to counter balance your point, and nothing more.

[Spider]

That's not always true. We have the right to free speech. Where does that put an obligation on someone? The right to work also doesn't put obligations on others. It's not a right to a job. It's a right to work, which means no one should be allowed to prevent us from starting a business. With jobs it means we shouldn't be excluded from one because of race or religion, etc. That's not an obligation to hire someone. It's more about treating people fairly based on what they can do for your business not something like the color of their skin or the religion they practice.What Steve CBS said, but to play along -

"--- the right to free speech. Where does that put an obligation on someone?" - The right to free speech is only that the government shall not restrict it. The government is obligated by the consititution to not prevent you from expressing your opinion and speaking freely. We do not have the right to free speach on this forum - you do not have the right to free speech in my living room - and I do not have the right to free speech in a crowded theater. Why? Because that would create an unreasonable obligation on others to tolerate the intolerable.

"... It's not a right to a job. It's a right to work ..." - You word your objection very well, but there is still an obligation imposed. Your right to do work imposes an obligation on me to not do anythng to prevent you from doing work, be that getting a job or starting your own business or mowing your lawn. Of course, it is unreasonable for me to try to prevent you working - that's why you have the right to work, but your right still obligates me to not do anything to prevent it.

As you said, it's "...about treating people fairly based on what they can do for your business not something like the color of their skin or the religion they practice." Exactly. Your right to be treated fairly obliges me to treat you fairly. Such obligations as being discussed here are reasonable for a civil society, and I am not condemning them. I am just noting that they are still obligations, some even carrying the force of law.

[vangogh]

"... It's not a right to a job. It's a right to work ..." - You word your objection very well, but there is still an obligation imposed. Your right to do work imposes an obligation on me to not do anythng to prevent you from doing work

Sorry but that's not an obligation to you.


An obligation is a requirement to take some course of action

To take some course of action. The positive, not the negative. Whether I have the right to work or not changes nothing for you. You're not obligated to take any action in either case. What you're describing as obligation is not obligation. It's not an obligation to not do something. It's an obligation to do something.

[Spider]

Okay, Mr.Webster ;-) ..... Does what I described have another word, then? If the law, for example, requires me to not do something, am I not obligated to not do what the law prohibits? What word should I use, instead?

[vangogh]

Does what I described have another word, then?

I knew you were going to ask me that. :)

Actually no I can't think of another word. I was trying when I wrote my last post and nothing came to me. I also spent a few minutes on limited searching and couldn't find anything either. In my searching though I did notice that all definitions of obligation implied you were obligated to do something and there were no definitions saying an obligation could exist for not doing something so I'm not sure you'll find a definition to back up your point either.

Part of why I posted what I did was because I thought it could make an interesting philosophical discussion. I'm not sure either of us is going to find the one definition that proves either of our points, though admittedly my searching was very limited so perhaps the definitive answer is out there.

Here's a definition I found at dictionary.refernence.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obligation). It seems fairly representative of many definitions I've found.


Obligation (-noun) something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.

I think your argument stems from the last part about resulting from custom, law, etc. So if a law is set that we have some right it obliges everyone to else to abide by that law, which in the case of a right means not doing anything to take that right away.

I would argue that the not doing anything to take that right away doesn't come as a result of the custom, law, etc. Take for example the right to life. I think (and hope) we'd all agree that everyone has a right to life. That's doesn't to me create an obligation not to kill people. Certainly killing people is wrong, but I don't think it's the law that makes it wrong. Law or not I don't think most people would go around killing each other, because it's pretty self-evident to most people that you shouldn't be killing others.

At the same time while there are laws against killing others people do kill each other and aren't always punished for it. I don't mean people who get off for killing someone, but people who kill in a way that doesn't violate the law (say in war or self-defense).

Here's another definition that probably favors your argument Same source as above. This one specifically relates to the law.


an agreement enforceable by law, originally applied to promises under seal.

To me though rights, at least inalienable rights, are those that don't really need laws to become evident. The laws exist for those few who ignore the self-evident part. Again with the right to life I think most of us don't need laws to keep us from killing each other, but some few sadly do. I know I've never made an agreement with anyone to not kill that person and yet I have no intention of ever killing anyone. Since I didn't make an agreement the definition above would seem not to apply since an agreement is a central part of the definition.

And again while I have no plans or intention on killing another person it stems not from obligation, but because I think we all have a right to life and that taking away that right is wrong. At the same time had I been drafted into the armed forces during wartime I would have killed and if someone were threatening myself, my family, my friends, etc and the only way to prevent harm coming to them was to kill the person threatening the harm I wouldn't have an objection to killing that threatening person nor would I feel any obligation not to do so.

I'm not sure any of the above proves anything in regards to rights and obligations, but hopefully it's the start of an interesting discussion.

[Spider]

I also found that definitions are generally about being obliged to do something. I did find "something one is bound to do or forbear."

My thesaurus, aside from all the action synonyms, included -- constraint. That's about not doing something.

While I accept that most of the definitions include actions, I rest on the logic that if one can be obliged to do something , one can be equally obliged not to do something. The meaning of the word, 'obligation' is about the force of duty not on the action of duty. One can be duty-bound not to report a family member to the police for some infraction, for example.

[greenoak]

i figure the stores that make it thru the last couple of years will emerge stronger when things get better.... and if a store starts up in hard times and survive they will be stronger with better policies etc.......

[vangogh]

Frederick I was thinking constraint or even requirement as words, but I'm not sure either really fits. Something inside me still says an obligation is something you have to do and not something you have to not do, but I don't think we're going to find absolute proof one way or the other.

My thought about the rights/obligations connection is that it implies one person's rights exist because another person honors an obligation. I don't think that's how a right works or should work. The idea to me behind our rights is they exists by virtue of our being human beings or simply being part of the universe and don't require anyone to do or not do anything.

When someone tries to stand in the way of another person's rights I see that as a crime and not the failure to meet an obligation.

Of course there are times when two rights would seem to come in conflict. Take the smoking issue Steve brought up earlier. If we assume that a person has a right to smoke as well as be free from smoke then there will be certain instances those two rights come into conflict. If both people are in a private location like one of their homes, the issue is easily decided in favor of the person who owns the property. When it's on public grounds it can be murkier and we now have laws to say where people can and can't smoke.

In this instance I think the non-smoker's rights outweigh the smoker's rights, because the non-smoker's rights don't really infringe on the smoker's rights. They don't say a smoker can't smoke, just that they have to smoke somewhere else, whereas is a smoker smokes in proximity to a non-smoker it does infringe upon the non-smoker's right to be smoke free.

However I don't really think there's any kind of inalienable right to smoke or not smoke. Both would have to fall under some other right. The idea though is that when right's come in conflict there's a priority of importance. The right to life say being more important than the right to free speech, hence no shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater or using speech to incite a riot.

[Spider]

My 'proof' is that we are not opting for one or the other, I am allowing for both - obligation can be an action and a non-action - action is not a defining aspect. Definitions include both, as we have seen. True, there is a preponderance of words on one side but that doesn't totally nullify the other side. If you look at the dictionary, you will find far more words denoting unhappiness or particular types of unhappiness, than there are words denoting happiness. That is just because people are more inclined to want to describe their unhappiness than to describe their happiness. It in no way points to the amount of happiness and unhappiness in the world. Fulfilling an obligation does, more often than not, require some action, but that need not eliminate all obligations that call for inaction. It's not either/or.

We have rights as humans, not because we are human but because, as humans, we have learned to speak and ponder these esoteric subjects. Do animals have rights? I think they do and would condemn anyone who purposely tortures an animal. But tell that to an eagle who has rabbit for lunch! Tearing a rabbit limb from limb while it's still alive would be a severe breach of animal rights if done by a human but "nature" if done by an eagle.

Human rights (and animal rights for that matter) only exist because we say they exist. They don't exist as a concept of the Universe. In so creating those rights for our own enjoyment of life, we also create obligations. I don't see that one can exist without the other.