> You end up working for shitty Fortune 500 company, work on useless/mindless shit, grind for 8 hrs, collect paycheck, eat, sleep, and repeat.
I used to think like this but what if it isn't the case? Maybe the market is making the right decisions after all? Maybe contributing a tiny amount to a successful business really is worth more to society than contributing a huge amount to a project with barely any customers, and that's why we get paid more working for large companies?
(Not suggesting OP's projects have barely any customers, I am more talking about my own forays into small business.)
I'm obviously biased as a small business owner, but I think that logic assumes that the market is perfectly efficient, when it obviously isn't. Large companies have massive advantages in so many dimensions.
As a simple example, imagine that I built a site for buying ebooks that's better in every way than Amazon. I pay authors more, readers pay less, the ebooks are compatible with every device, and it's easier for both authors and readers to use my site than Amazon. I still probably couldn't survive against Amazon because they'd tell their authors that if they sell with me, they can't sell on Amazon.[0] They have such a market dominance that authors would lose money by using my platform, even if it's a demonstrably better product in every way with better pricing.
But it goes beyond that. Big businesses have all these other huge advantages so that they can succeed not because they're offering the most value but because they have a pre-existing advantageous market position:
- It's a small percentage of their costs to hire attorneys to look for tax loopholes
- They can manage the overhead of abusing the H1B visa system to hire workers at below-market rates
- They can sue people and get sued and still have 98% of their employees not paying attention to any lawsuits
- They can afford to sell things at a loss just to choke out smaller competitors
Look at trillion dollar industries where 95% of money goes to just 2-3 companies. The iOS/Android duopoly, the Visa/Mastercard duopoly. Do they control the market because they're just so great at offering value? Or does their market position and terrible government policy prevent anyone from competing with them effectively and offering consumers better choices?
I used to think like this but what if it isn't the case? Maybe the market is making the right decisions after all? Maybe contributing a tiny amount to a successful business really is worth more to society than contributing a huge amount to a project with barely any customers, and that's why we get paid more working for large companies?
(Not suggesting OP's projects have barely any customers, I am more talking about my own forays into small business.)