The article is absurd and not even supported by its own data!
The fact is startups and small businesses have always been a small fraction of the economy both by employment and contribution to GDP. When I say "always" I actually mean the modern economy of the last 75 years at least. I was very surprised when I learned this but the data go back at least to the end of WWII, which is far back as I looked. Pre-depression there was still a lot of small / disorganized (unincorporated) business and a lot of agricultural employment.
The large companies are the large employers; next are "small businesses" which are franchises (e.g. a lot of people are employed selling MacDonalds hamburgers who aren't technically employees of the MacDonalds company).
There article even points out that new businesses account for only a tiny percentage of jobs; they compare company creation to the 1980s but don't account for company failure. And how many of those companies grew significantly? The vast majority of operating companies formed in the US, and I suspect most countries, are small businesses (shops, restaurants etc).
> The vast majority of operating companies formed in the US, and I suspect most countries, are small businesses (shops, restaurants etc)
My understanding is most of these are retail (think mom-and-pop shops), construction, and professional services (think solo-practicing doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc).
The fact that I can join Google instead of incorporating Muzz's Software Consulting Services should be a good thing, not a bad thing.
I am not sure I understand your comment. The article claimed that the change in the number of startups had a materially bad impact on the economy. I claim that small business and startups, collectively, have only a small impact on the economy -- and that the article's data didn't support its conjecture.
Of course Google, Apple, GE, Exxon (Standard Oil) and Boeing were all startups at some point, so without startups you don't have an economy, but the breakout in terms of affecting employment is in the large companies. So yes, google hiring is good for you and is believed by many to be good for the economy in general.
The fact is startups and small businesses have always been a small fraction of the economy both by employment and contribution to GDP. When I say "always" I actually mean the modern economy of the last 75 years at least. I was very surprised when I learned this but the data go back at least to the end of WWII, which is far back as I looked. Pre-depression there was still a lot of small / disorganized (unincorporated) business and a lot of agricultural employment.
The large companies are the large employers; next are "small businesses" which are franchises (e.g. a lot of people are employed selling MacDonalds hamburgers who aren't technically employees of the MacDonalds company).
There article even points out that new businesses account for only a tiny percentage of jobs; they compare company creation to the 1980s but don't account for company failure. And how many of those companies grew significantly? The vast majority of operating companies formed in the US, and I suspect most countries, are small businesses (shops, restaurants etc).