you are correct. The premise adds no actual numbers. However, since the number of failed businesses is so high, I stand by my conclusion that a large number of jobs are lost. The original article made no statements about actual numbers of jobs and yet we accept that the jobs created are valid. I deserve the same leeway. The article states that all other groups of businesses are net job losers. So if we accept the article as fact, it also supports my conclusion. The preponderance of evidence presented here supports my conclusion, if we are going strictly by the information available to this debate. And if the people who lose one job move on to the next startup, they get counted twice or maybe many more times, although only one job is really created. Your statement supports my conclusion. Thank you+Chad LaFarge
Welcome....This is not "my" discussion. I think that whether they are small or "large" small businesses, they still contribute to a net loss of jobs when considered over their statistical average "life". The article would want you to believe that starting up a new company adds quality jobs to the economy. My only reason for drawing my conclusion was to question the quality of those jobs. All the evidence presented in this thread, including the article and the assertions of all parties point toward poor quality jobs being created in the first year of the average company's existence.
Ind for the record, I believe that most small businesses are of the 1-20 employee type. that is why the article suggests forming a million of them a year.
Yes, I do not make an airtight case. However, I think my conclusion is as good as the premise and the statement in the article allow it to be. Both the premise and the article come from seemingly credible sources.