Hacker News Reader

Comment by dhh | Hacker News Reader

I'm on board with the term "lifestyle business" if we make it imply "very profitable business that continues to grow revenues without adding additional cost". I would think that's the nirvana description of any business, though.

"Which is more risky? 1 person earning $10m a year, or 10 people earning $1m each a year within the same company?", that simply doesn't compute. If all those 10 guys are making their $1 million each from selling web ads where as the 1 guy is making his $10 million selling subscription software, I know who I'd want to place my money with right now.

View on HN

I'd place mine firmly with the web ads ;)

I agree @ keep costs low, but I still think the definition of a lifestyle business is one that isn't growing in terms of the business.

If you liken it to a house rental. You could have the best house in the world, and be able to rent it out for $5m a year. That'd give you a great lifestyle, but even if you can manage to rent it out for $6m the next year, that's not business growth. business growth would be renting out 2 properties, 3, etc etc. Reinvesting the profit into the business in order to provide sustainable long term growth.

>> "I would think that's the nirvana description of any business, though."

So I'd disagree with this. Not every business wants profits over future growth.

I know you're not just trolling, because you contribute many insightful comments on HN, but I just don't see why you are so focused on headcount as the measure of business growth.

The low marginal cost of additional customers in a subscription software business makes your argument an apples-to-oranges comparison. You might need to hire additional staff to manage and maintain a growing portfolio of rental properties, but with subscription software you only have to improve your CRM tools and development processes to maintain a growing customer base with near-constant headcount. If better CRM tools happens to be what you are selling anyway, there's a pretty obvious multiplier for growing profits with very low headcount growth.

>> "but I just don't see why you are so focused on headcount as the measure of business growth."

Because that's the commonly held definition of "Not a lifestyle business" :/

Come on. If you disagree, comment. Don't just blindly downmod. I'm not even saying one is good, one is bad. I'm explaining the commonly held definition of 'lifestyle business'.

This is probably happening because the same point of fact is being repeated multiple times and you seem to be skipping over the point.

As a rephrase of the statement I was originally going to put:

Why do you not seem to believe that headcount is merely a side-effect of business growth?

So your hypothesis is:

  * Company grows profits
  * Company decides to spend profit on head count
  * Profit goes down

Why do you believe that's the case? Any hard data?

I'd say it's more usually

  * Company makes profit
  * Company invests in more people
  * Profits rise, company grows.

Well I think we've identified the point in which our opinions diverge.

1. Company makes profit. 2. Company invests in more people. 3. Profits rise, company grows.

Step 2 is not a prerequisite for step 3.

And what you state is my hypothesis is not what I'm saying either.

How about this: 1 - Company makes profit. 2 - Company figures out how to grow profits, regardless of increase or decrease of headcount. 3 - Profits rise.

What, do you work in HR or something? (jk)

>> "What, do you work in HR or something? (jk)"

Heh no. I'm a single founder with a 'lifestyle business', making money off it currently. But I plan to grow the business (head count+diversify) when I can.

I hate to pile on here,but... I think the parallax here is that axod may be equating headcount with income diversification. i.e. More people mean your company must be expanding its interests or avenues. Income diversification, and the headcount increase usually (necessarily?) associated with it is probably a better metric for the "Lifestyle" moniker.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com