Home Wealth Project
Extensive Research On How To Build Wealth From The Comfort Of Your Own Home.
Extensive Research On How To Build Wealth From The Comfort Of Your Own Home.
Jan 9th
Bank of America recently made headlines about cutting credit lines of some of its small business customers. An article in the Los Angeles Times quoted two small-business owners (and alluded to some others) that had their lines of credit cut off by Bank of America.

Meanwhile, Bank of America officials denied that their action pertaining to small businesses is widespread. Instead, they claim that it impacts “a very, very, very small percentage” of its small business customers, according to bank spokesperson Jefferson George, as quoted in a Huffington Post article. And they still have 3.5 million non-mortgage loans to small businesses on the books.
While Bank of America said it notified the borrowers who were affected by the call on their lines of credit far in advance, some borrowers who were interviewed said they received no such notification. Those Bank of America small-business customers claimed they were caught by surprise, and unable to pay off the loans or find replacements as quickly as Bank of America was demanding.
But I wondered, is this shades of 2009 all over again, where we can expect to hear tales of small business lending woe everywhere we turn? Are we going to see an across-the-board pullback by lending institutions even deeper than we’ve experienced in the past few years? Or is this an issue specific to Bank of America? Let’s take a look at some additional information.
MultiFunding’s Small Business Bank Report Card shows that small business loans held by banks were reduced by $4.84 billion in Q3 of 2011. The loans that Bank of America called in equaled 8.5% of that alone.
While Bank of America had the largest reduction of small business debt in Q3, loans are still available, experts say, but it all depends on where you look for financing.
Says Ami Kassar, founder and CEO of MultiFunding, smaller community banks are still very much viable options for small business owners looking for financing. ”There are plenty of community banks aggressively building their small business loan portfolios across the country,” he notes.
Others also emphasize sources other than big banks for small-business loans. Rohit Arora, CEO of Biz2Credit, reports that his company is not seeing an across-the-board pullback on lending. He notes, ”Biz2Credit is seeing an increased confidence among small business owners and an increased interest among small to mid size banks along with alternative lenders to lend more aggressively to businesses.”
In other words, Bank of America’s action doesn’t mean credit is completely drying up. But credit is still tighter than other times historically. You may have to be more creative than ever in where you look for funding. Look to your local community banks. Look to mid-size regional banks. Examine alternative small-business financing options as pointed out in an article here on Small Business Trends last month. In addition to traditional banks, consider approaching:
Money Questions Photo via Shutterstock
Bank of America Severing Some Small Business Credit Lines: Sign of Things to Come?
View full post on Small Business News, Tips, Advice – Small Business Trends
Oct 18th
President Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill hit a roadblock as Senate Republicans led the vote against the measure. The proposal would enact a 50 percent payroll tax cut, create an “infrastructure bank” to fund construction projects, and fund job-training initiatives for returning veterans. While some elements of the bill are agreeable to Republicans, many of them take exception to the plan to levy a 5.6 percent surtax on incomes of $1 million or more.
The President has made job creation a priority, as well he should. The economy has been stagnant for most of his term, and unemployment is higher now than in January 2009, when Mr. Obama took office. He knows well that small businesses are the drivers of job creation and that if they are not successful there will be little growth in the economy.
If nothing else, the sheer process of elimination forces his hand. At a time when the electorate is demanding smaller government and reduced spending, there is little chance of creating large numbers of public sector jobs. Corporations have weathered the recession by becoming leaner and meaner. They increased productivity and then were rewarded with strong profits. Large companies are doing more with less, so don’t look for corporate America to make lots of new hires. That leaves small companies as the remaining option for job creation.
Historically, this has always been the case. America is an entrepreneurial country and will continue to be so. We don’t know who will replace Steve Jobs as the country’s “Innovator-in-Chief,” but someone — perhaps in a garage in California or at a home office in New York — is today laying the groundwork for the next great American company.
Technology makes it easier to start a company than ever before. There is no shortage of people wanting to work, and believe it or not, there are financial institutions wanting to lend. While big banks are rejecting more than 90 percent of small business loan requests, increasingly, local banks and alternative lenders, such as credit unions and microlenders, are filling the void. These institutions are more than four times as likely to approve small business loan requests as big banks are.
It may very well be that the next Google, Starbucks or Apple will be funded by an SBA loan from a local bank, a credit union, or a microlender such as ACCION, which offers business loans up to $50,000 to empower business owners with access to working capital and financial education.
Small business development is the most likely route to economic growth. The President and many economists are banking on it.
Image from Annette Shaff/Shutterstock
With the Passing of Steve Jobs, America Longs for the Next Innovator-in-Chief
View full post on Small Business News, Tips, Advice – Small Business Trends
Sep 30th
An ancient piece of common wisdom says the poor get poorer and the rich get richer (in fact it’s as ancient as the Bible). We’ve all experienced this in small ways in our daily lives in the form of bank fees if our account falls below a certain minimum amount, or in the higher interest rates we pay on a loan given the fact that we don’t have a yacht to put up as collateral. But lately it seems like this proverb has shifted to “the poor get poorer and holy crap don’t tax the rich — who else is going to generously provide menial minimum-wage jobs to the poor?!”
In case it doesn’t go without saying, being poor is really super awful in ways most people fail to think about. Well, “most people” might be stretching it, since statistically speaking, the percentage of Americans living in poverty is at its highest point in more than a decade, not to mention that the poverty line is $22,350 for a family of four. Try supporting just yourself on that and see how not poor you feel. So for the sake of re-affirming the obvious, let’s dive into the actual reasons why the poor stay poor in America.

As a starting point, it’s prudent to examine the basic truth behind this proverb: do the poor really stay poor as the rich get richer? As its known in economics, “per-capita income convergence” is both well-studied and frustratingly inconclusive. A good way to think about how this question is studied in economics is to ask the why did the per-capita income of Asian countries (speaking generally) converge to the level of first-world Japan in the 80s and 90s while Mexico still struggles to raise its standard of living, despite residing next door to the largest economy on Earth? Now imagine we’re asking the same question about the North and South sides of Chicago, or Whites and Blacks in America.
The short answer is that the proverb is wrong, per-capita incomes do, in fact, converge given time — which isn’t at all surprising if you were awake for the 20th century. There are two important caveats to this answer, though. The first is that while the rate at which incomes converge can be as fast as 25% per year, they can also be as low as 1% (i.e. the poor will stop being poor sometime around the year 3000). This rate depends primarily on the similarity of conditions in the two groups being observed — the more they have in common, the more easily the poorer group is able to take part in the larger group’s wealth. The second caveat is that buried in these economic analyses are several assumptions about government policy, the development of human capital and the legal system. Without these (often very vague) assumptions, per-capita incomes actually do not converge.
So where does this leave us in the question of whether the poor get poorer and the rich get richer? Absent proper government intervention and legal protections, it looks like the proverb is true. And, examining the shocking growth in income inequality in the United States, it seems reasonable to infer that America is keeping the poor poor and the rich rich through simple inaction.

Before the inevitable debate over what has caused rising income inequality in the US over the preceding decades, it’s important to be aware of the fact that it’s as much of a reflection of the bifurcation in labor growth as any systemic inequalities. The post-manufacturing economy in America has unfortunately created most of its jobs in either astronomically high-paying positions, or pitiably low-paying positions.
For the past 30 years, you either became a lawyer or a short-order chef. Without any middle-class manufacturing jobs that paid a livable wage while requiring minimal education, millions of Americans slipped into minimum-wage-or-slightly-above positions. Not only did this deprive them of the added income, but it also slashed benefits such as health insurance, retirement & pensions, and continued education which indirectly contributed tens of thousands of dollars to households’ bottom line.
The big question that rarely gets asked on either side of the ideological spectrum here is: if the economy is still growing, why aren’t conditions improving for everyone? Though the high-powered lawyers are capturing a disproportionate slice of that economic growth, it’s not like they aren’t spending that money. Couldn’t the newly disenfranchised middle class respond by growing into industries that capture all that trickling down? Well remember the thing where income convergence depends on the proper development of human capital? What that’s basically saying is that the high-earners may pour their money into yachts and houses in the Hamptons, but the poor machinist trying to change jobs has no way to pay for, much less time to attend, mansion-building classes at the local community college without some sort of aid. And the government has responded by…uh…

At a time when America’s work force desperately needs a way to respond quickly and intelligently to a fast-moving high-tech economy, higher education has become more financially inaccessible than ever. On average, there is no good in the economy growing faster in price than higher education (it’s even beating out healthcare). When wage growth itself is barely keeping pace with inflation when the costs of higher education are consistently outpacing it, you have a recipe for a persistently poor, under-educated and under-employed workforce.
So what could be done to address this? Well in comparative first world countries (such as Canada), the cost of higher education is growing at a much slower pace, barely beating inflation year-to-year. The main difference here is Canada heavily subsidizes students seeking higher education, possibly accounting for the vastly different cost structure. Of course this isn’t an answer to how to fix higher education in the United States, that’s a vastly different and heated debate. But if you want to know why the wages of almost everyone outside of the top quartile aren’t rising, it’s part of the answer.

To preface, let’s keep in mind that being born uneducated and living in an environment where knowledge of the formal economy, and how to prosper financially therein is sparse to non-existent, is not an individual’s fault. We’re not blaming the victim here, but in understanding the machinations of how poverty persists so virulently, it’s worth nothing that the impoverished do some really stupid things to perpetuate their situation.
The list is long and sounds like Ronald Reagan’s wet dream, but is nonetheless true:
• Only 30% of those making less than $25,000 a year think they can accumulate $500,000 through saving and investing
• As much as 45% think the most likely way to do this is winning the lottery
• On average they say they can’t afford health insurance or investing in a 401k, and yet spend as much as $4,000-$6,000 a year on lottery tickets and cigarettes (which, by the way, would net over a million dollars by retirement in a decent 401k)
What should be done about this is pretty obvious. Funding a physics Ph.D. is one thing, but basic personal finance education should be an easy and incredibly cost-effective solution. The problem is, it’s not just poverty and a lack of education that create persistently poor underclasses, it’s also how persistent poverty creates a self-perpetuating cycle within the impoverished classes themselves, and a resistance to education that has little to no relevance in an area that operates primarily outside the bounds of the formal economy.

When it comes to affordable access to reproductive healthcare, America lags behind many other developed countries. To be clear, no judgment whatsoever is being passed here on the morality of abortion, birth control, sex education or reproductive care in general. But if we’re going to talk about what keeps the poor poor, it’s impossible to ignore the facts:
1. Unplanned pregnancies among the impoverished are on the rise, and an 18-year, several hundred thousand dollar commitment is going to be a tremendous financial burden no matter which way you slice it, limiting a parent’s (or parents’) access to higher education, better job prospects, or increased income of any kind
2. The health cost incurred by even a mild STI (not to mention something more serious, like HIV) is likewise a large financial burden
3. People are simply not going to stop fucking
While this somewhat also falls under the category of “things that impoverished, uneducated people do that perpetuates their situation” it is also similar to basic personal finance knowledge in that a little bit of education, as well as affordable access to birth control, reproductive healthcare, sex education and, yes, abortion would seriously diminish this financial burden on the already impoverished, to the tune of at least $11 billion per year in direct medical costs alone. And before someone talks about women having babies just to collect more welfare, just shut up. Maybe if the average number of recipient children was above 1.8 per household and falling, there might be a point there, but for now just shut up.

Credit is the lifeblood of any first-world economy, and it’s something that most Americans take even the simplest forms of for granted, be it a credit card, a high credit score, or a credit score at all. For most Americans living in impoverished neighborhoods, there are three possible options for financing: pawn shops, payday loan stores or banks that are likely to charge rates that even Shylock would consider usurious. When you’re consistently paying in excess of 20% higher interest rates than the average consumer, it’s incredibly difficult to get ahead, to put it mildly. And making these outlandish payments makes it difficult, if not impossible to establish good credit — especially because many of those living in poverty rarely have enough money on hand to afford the fees associated with a checking account. This forces most of those living in poverty to deal strictly in cash, which prevents them from establishing any credit to begin with (which is often worse than having bad credit).
This is especially important because credit is virtually the only way to make those big investments that generally allow people to make a jump in income class. Even upper-middle-class families need loans to attend college, pay for medical expenses, purchase a house, purchase a car to get to work, or even something as simple as using a credit card to cover a sudden, critical expense. Not to mention small business loans or similar cash infusions that fuel local economies. But because it can’t all be doom and gloom, the good news is that since 1977 the government has actually required banks to service low-income neighborhoods, with some success in extending affordable credit. In fact some of the fastest-growing investment sectors for banks are low-income areas. However, the act is in bad need of some updating.

If you’re under the age of 25, it’s likely that the most expensive product you’ve ever purchased is a car. And by “most expensive”, we’re probably talking an easy 10-15 times the next most expensive thing. If you didn’t need a car, that’s easily a couple hundred extra dollars in your pocket each week after fuel, insurance, registration, and repairs. Now imagine you’re at the poverty line with two kids and you make roughly $430 a week before taxes and the bus starts to become a much more appealing option. Unfortunately in America, unless you live in a small handful of large metropolitan areas, you absolutely need a car to get around.
While some of this isn’t anyone’s fault since America isn’t really as geographically concentrated as, say, Seoul, we have a long history of not giving a shit about properly funding public transit, while throwing billions upon billions at building the public infrastructure necessary to support our $50,000 odes to American independence. On top of this, mass transit, especially rail, is significantly more cost-effective in the long run than building or maintaining more roads. As if you needed any more reasons why the poor tend to stay poor, imagine everyone has a “Being an American” tax of at least $1500 annually no matter their income, and if they didn’t pay it the IRS bolts them to the ground, preventing them from going to work.

Wading into a partisan debate about this issue would be pointless. Whether the private industry could meet the healthcare needs of Americans or whether the government needs to intervene is irrelevant to the facts at hand, which are:
1. A record more than 50 million Americans don’t have any health insurance; the vast majority of these are, unsurprisingly, low-income.
2. Many of those who have insurance don’t have very good insurance that will cover their bills to the extent that serious illness won’t become incredibly onerous
3. A sudden serious health condition or a chronic health condition can be financially ruinous, in fact more than 60% of bankruptcies in 2009 were the result of sudden healthcare expenses.
Unlike higher education, which is the only service that has outpaced the cost growth in healthcare, people never “choose” to incur sudden large medical expenses. And even if in the rare event a low-income family can actually pay down their hospital bills, they have no additional skills to show for it.
While the poor are often covered by Medicaid, it’s a common misconception that poverty is the only requirement. In short, it varies significantly from state-to-state, by age and disability status. But for your average, reasonably healthy low income person, you basically have to prove that you don’t have assets or savings that could be liquidated to cover your medical costs (to reiterate, this is a national generalization of a program that varies significantly across the country). An illustrative example can demonstrate why it can be so insanely difficult to emerge from poverty in America:
So say you’re a conscientious impoverished family of four that has diligently paid off your meager house and saved a small amount of money by tightening the belt for decades–fostering a dream of emerging from poverty even though income-wise you’re not even close. If suddenly you have tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills (or you know, like two nights in the hospital), say goodbye to literally everything you own.

The informal economy refers to all of those things that happen under the economic radar, ranging from drug deals to, yes, the cash you pay your baby sitter. A more technical definition is it’s all economic activity that isn’t recorded or taxed by the government. Participation in the informal economy, unsurprisingly, is particularly high in impoverished communities for several reasons. One is that it’s untaxable, meaning that much more money is able to be squeezed out of it. Another is that it circumvents the barriers to entry of the formal economy such as credit, education, or a lack of a criminal record, to name a few. But one of the most salient is that it allows the sale of high-margin goods (read: drugs), something those living in low-income communities would otherwise almost never have the ability to do.
The problem is, the minimum sentencing guidelines instituted during the “War on Drugs”, are pretty much universally viewed as being absolutely insane by everyone but scared housewives and Ronald Reagan’s corpse. It’s not that everyone is weeping over those poor drug dealers; it’s that sentencing someone to a minimum of 5 years for 5 grams of crack cocaine is completely ineffective in fighting the sale of crack cocaine, and actually increases that person’s likelihood of recidivism. To get an idea of how big of a problem this is, more than 20% of prisoners in America are non-violent drug offenders, and America currently beats out every other country on Earth for total prison population. This includes China, you know, that brutally repressive regime with four times our population.

I know we all just wish we could put this behind us, move on from the sins of the past, and enter a happy, harmonious color-blind society. But the truth is, it’s insane to talk about poverty in American and not talk about the fact that, oh I don’t know, the average net worth of a White person is 20 goddamn times that of your average Black person. The painful truth is that when you’re talking about populations that stay poor in America, you’re talking about minorities.
The discussion of why minorities are so systemically impoverished could fill volumes of history, sociology, and economics texts for decades. To boil it down to its (insanely simplified) essential details: due to extreme historical discrimination and segregation, the majority of minorities were forced into ghettos and then cut off from the formal economy. In the interim they, by necessity, developed a unique economy, culture, and social norms. Now remember point number 11 above? Areas of different per-capita income tend to converge faster depending on how similar they are, which is basically a proxy for how easily they can interact with the larger, wealthier economy. Now walk to the south side of Chicago, the South Bronx, or pretty much anywhere in Detroit and think about how easily those neighborhoods would integrate with an upper-middle-class suburb. Now ask yourself how long it would take to integrate these two societies given that they were violently divided for centuries. Now get depressed. Now stop worrying because at least you aren’t stupid enough to think that:

View full post on Business Pundit
Sep 21st
Last month I blogged here on about the progress of Startup America, a public-private partnership the White House launched in January to help Americans who are seeking to start businesses. My post focused on the progress that the public-sector side of Startup America has made. Now, let’s look at what going on with the private-sector component, the Startup America Partnership, which is an independent alliance of entrepreneurs, corporations, universities, foundations and business leaders.
Last week the Startup America Partnership’s CEO Scott Case (co-founder of Priceline.com) announced a new online platform and $330 million worth of product and service commitments to assist startup companies. Case told Reuters that the offerings are the result of listening to what startups nationwide want and need to succeed and create jobs, and that the web platform has been beta tested by several hundred companies.
So far, 14 providers including D&B and Dell Inc. are offering free products and services to small businesses that register on the site. Case told Reuters the goal is to register more than 100,000 small businesses by the first quarter of 2012.
Visit the Startup America Partnership site and you’ll be asked which of four categories you fall into—idea, startup, ramp up (growth) or speed up (rapid growth). Click on each category to filter the resource partners best suited to help at your stage of growth.
Small businesses that register will be able to access resources in five categories: capital, customers, talent, services and expertise. As the number of registered companies grows, investors will also be able to use the platform to find companies they might be interested in funding.
The Startup America Partnership site is easy to navigate. And bringing private-sector resources to bear on supporting entrepreneurship is a smart way to go, as we all know many entrepreneurs prefer not to rely on the government for help growing their businesses.
Now the only ingredient Startup America needs is you. To paraphrase a famous saying, it takes a village to start a small business. The Startup America Partnership site includes lists of events as well as opportunities to share your startup story, tell others about events of interest and alert others about resources they might be interested in. Check it out and get involved—even if you’re long past the startup stage, your advice and ideas can help others get going.
Startup America Partnership: It Takes a Village to Start a Business
View full post on Small Business News, Tips, Advice – Small Business Trends
Sep 3rd
Labor Day is less about labor and more about leisure, according to a recent survey by Adecco USA. Fifty-nine percent of respondents think of Labor Day as an end to summer, while only 22% equate the holiday with workers’ rights. The majority of those who are working will be doing it at home – in the form of house work or working in the yard. Only 20% reported going into work on Labor Day.
The infographic below explores how Americans spend Labor Day.
click the image to expand the graphic
All data for the graphic was provided by Adecco USA – Labor Day Survey
Use The HTML Below To Embed This Graphic
View full post on Business Pundit
Aug 24th
Back in January, President Obama announced the launch of Startup America, a national campaign to help “knock down barriers in the path of men and women in every corner of this country hoping to take a chance, follow a dream, and start a business.”
The initiative focuses on five areas (listed below) and included the launch of the Startup America Partnership, an independent alliance of entrepreneurs, corporations, universities, foundations and other leaders working to fuel innovative, high-growth startups.
Eight months in, how is Startup America faring? The Administration recently released a progress report. Here’s a closer look at some highlights for each of the five areas of focus.
1. Unlocking Access to Capital
2. Connecting Mentors
3. Reducing Barriers
4. Accelerating Innovation
5. Unleashing Market Opportunities
The Administration believes health-care reform; the Recovery Act’s $80 billion investment in clean energy research, development and deployment; and the Race to the Top initiative and $650M Investing in Innovation (i3) Program will create new opportunities for small businesses in health-care information technology, clean energy, and educational technologies and services.
There are many more aspects to Startup America. You can visit the Startup America site to find out about specific initiatives and how well they’re progressing. What do you think of these initiatives? Will they have any effect on your business?
Startup America: How’s It Doing?
View full post on Small Business News, Tips, Advice – Small Business Trends
Apr 6th
Everyone can put their own angle on what makes a job the top paid. On the one hand, there is absolute salary. The jobs that fit into that list though are not of interest to the average person who’s trying to pick a career. So any list of the top paid jobs in America that’s going to be of interest need to show jobs that are both high paying and accessible to someone who gets a college education and works hard.
The following list of the highest paying jobs in America was put together by the site SuperScholar and does a pretty good job of identifying realistic high paying job goals.
Air traffic controller
Airline pilot/co-pilot, or flight engineer
Manager
General or operations manager
Chief Executive Officer (CEO
Computer hardware engineer
Computer or information scientist
Nuclear engineer
Petroleum (oil, natural gas) engineer
Sales manager
Financial manager
Judge, magistrate judge, and magistrate
Lawyer
Public relations manager
Marketing manager
Orthodontist
Oral and maxillofacial surgeon
Anesthesiologist
Surgeon
Astronomer
Engineering manager
Physicist
Natural sciences manager
Political scientist
Industrial or organizational psychologist
If you’re looking for a more comprehensive list (minus the detailed job descriptions) check out BusinessPundit’s own list of the 50 Highest Paying Jobs which breaks careers down into several categories and lists the top paid jobs in each category.
View full post on Business Pundit
Mar 16th

Image: Lisa Yarost/Flickr
The American economy is in flux, to put it mildly. Especially if you compile individual conditions, like high unemployment and food-stamp usage, into a bigger picture. That’s just what we attempt to do with the 10 graphs in this post.
We’re All Unemployed
Chart source: Calculated Risk.
If you need any more proof that we’re in a big, fat recession, the unemployment numbers above should do the trick. 43.9% of unemployed people counted as long-term unemployed as of February 2011, meaning they’d been without work, but looking, for 27 weeks or more, according to the BLS. That translates to 6 million people. 8.3 million people are working part-time jobs because that’s all the work they can get.
One million people count as “discouraged workers,” people who have looked for jobs but, due to lack of opportunities, have given up their search. Note that the government doesn’t apply these people to the unemployment rate, because people who aren’t looking for jobs, no matter the reason, don’t count. Our true employment rate is probably closer to 11% of the population than the official 9%. These “missing workers” mean that the labor force participation rate is around 64%.
Here’s a BLS chart on the labor force participation rate:
A Record Number of People are on Food Stamps
Chart source: Zero Hedge, 44.1 million people were receiving an average of $134/month in food stamps in December 2010.
The government initially created the food stamp program in 1939 as a way to help unemployed people eat. Now, most of a century and one full circle later, everybody’s unemployed again–and food stamps are hot.
“Food stamps” are more of a food card now: If your income is below the federal poverty line, or hovering at it, you can get a debit card with a $100+/month, government-paid food allowance. In 2009, 20,000 new people a day were getting them, a record not seen since the Great Depression.
With even supposedly high-falutin’ Orange County and Forsyth County residents clamoring for stamps, government-subsidized grocery shopping has gone mainstream. Roughly 50% of Americans receive food stamps at some point before they hit the age of 20, according to Washington University research cited in this New York Times article. More than one-fifth of the people living in Washington, D.C. and Mississippi use food stamps, according to Democracy Now.
Our Child Poverty Rates Are High
Chart source: Child Poverty League
Poor kids are more likely to be unhealthy. Thanks to the ‘paradox of hunger and obesity,’ they’re also more likely to be poor. With expensive medical care, that poor health only feeds poverty and debt, creating a vicious circle.
Here are some more jarring child poverty statistics, from the National Center for Children in Poverty:
* Children comprise 25% of the US population, but 36% of impoverished people.
* 41% of all children (25.4 million) live in low-income families.
* 46% of toddlers (5.9 million) live in low-income families.
America is in Serious Debt
The Wikimedia Commons chart above shows countries’ foreign reserves minus their external debt. The charts below show how sharply our debt has increased during recent years.
Can you imagine the interest that comes with that debt? To cover it, we either need to print more money (a la QE1, 2 and 3) and/or increase taxes. In a sense, inflation is an “invisible tax,” too. When everything gets more expensive because of said interest payment management systems, we foresake spending money on other things. In a consumer spending-driven economy like ours, this makes me wonder how we’re going to pull off economic improvement at all.
We Heart Consumer Debt
Chart source: Zero Hedge
We, the indebted citizens of this indebted country, are taking on reams of individual debt to support the consumer spending that props up our indebted nation. Cashing out on refinances and home equity lines of credit fueled this problem in the noughties. More recently, consumers have been closing credit card accounts and saving money, mostly to fortify themselves in the face of steady unemployment and inflation, and also because it’s harder to get a loan from the bank or a HELOC. You might think this would hurt consumer spending, but the truth is that in an economy with as uneven a distribution of wealth as ours, the people on top who hold most of the money can actually bolster consumer spending more than the shrinking pool of middle-class savers.
We Don’t Perceive Inequality
Chart source uncertain, but it was featured in both Mother Jones and the Washington Post.
Americans have always been an optimistic bunch. But does the deluded belief that a thin crust of people at the apex of the wealth pyramid don’t actually hold most of the country’s wealth, that it’s more evenly distributed than that, count as optimism? Or is it more of a foam pad to keep us from realizing that our country is actually a plutocracy?
If you’ve ever wondered why everyone around you seems to be downwardly mobile, but Wall Street keeps going up, the chart below might explain it.

(Chart source: Business Insider)
View full post on Business Pundit
Feb 1st

Image: Upstate NYer/Wikimedia
How can the government support entrepreneurship? There’s no easy answer to this question. People have written books on the topic for years, but it’s anyone’s guess as to who is right.
The Obama administration’s latest effort to foster an innovative economy is called Startup America. It aims to increase opportunities for entrepreneurs through increased availability of funds, mentorship, education, and support systems.
I wanted to review how effective the program might be in more depth, so I consulted the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Global Report’s 2010 survey. Researchers surveyed more than 175,000 people in 59 countries to reach the bolded conclusions below. I pitted those conclusions against Startup America to see how our program measures up:
“In the US and Western Europe, people become entrepreneurs because ‘they recognize
an opportunity that can improve or maintain their incomes or increase their independence.’”
In the US, we’re lucky in that we culturally revere entrepreneurs. So how, and through what organizations, can we encourage even more people to be entrepreneurs? I can’t see a public campaign by the government itself working that well–picturing cheesy pro-entrepreneurshup ads and pamphlets nobody reads–but extending more grants to non- and for-profits that do encourage entrepreneurship might help accomplish this task.
Startup America grade: C
The program doesn’t address such entrepreneur PR directly, but does put juice into programs geared at encouraging entrepreneurship.
“Nordic countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland) showed especially high proportions of opportunity motives. A…desire to improve incomes or increase independence…(plotted) against “rule of law” (extent people have confidence in, and abide by the rules of society) shows that th(e entrepreneurial) motive increases with greater rule of law.”
This doesn’t translate into the need for more law as much as people having faith in the rule of law. Translation: A transparent, non-corrupt government (or at least a government that is not perceived as being corrupt) make people feel better about entrepreneurship. In this sense, the government cleaning up its act will actually benefit entrepreneurship.
Startup America grade: F
Nobody in the program is addressing this connection.
“(T)here are more entrepreneurs in the 25–34 age group than any other age range.”
Encourage and teach entrepreneurship in schools.
Startup America grade: A
Startup America has at least five programs, some with nonprofits, some with companies, that will encourage grade school and college entrepreneurship. Many are regional in nature; it would be nice to see more far-reaching national programs.
“Financial issues (unprofitable businesses or problems obtaining financing) weigh most
heavily in business exits.”
Many business go sour because the market drives them out, but the government could play a part in making access to financing easier for viable businesses going through hard times.
Startup America grade: N/A (yet)
“The Treasury will host a conference March 2011 to explore access to capital for small and entrepreneurial businesses,” according to the Startup America fact sheet.
* The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a 100-percent exclusion from tax for capital gains realized on the sale of certain small business stock held for more than five years.
It’s something, but the extent of this part of the program will be unclear until the Treasury releases more details.
“Entrepreneurship does not impact an economy simply through higher numbers of entrepreneurs. It is important to consider quality measures, like growth, innovation and internationalization.”
According to this blog post by Phil McKinney, small businesses file more patents per worker, and those patents are of higher quality than in large organizations.
Startup America grade: B
They’re making obtaining patents faster:
The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is…(giving) innovators more control over the application processing and support a more efficient market for innovation. Under this initiative, applicants would be able to request prioritized examination (Track I), obtain processing under the current procedure (Track II), or request a delay lasting up to 30 months (Track III). Entrepreneurs who are seeking capital, or accelerated market penetration, may benefit from the prioritized examination offered by the Track I option. In contrast, those entrepreneurs working to commercialize more embryonic ideas may prefer the extended timeframe associated with Track III. Another benefit to entrepreneurs will be shorter overall examination queues.
But they don’t address patents for small businesses in particular.
“Economies need to enable people to start businesses when it is necessary, but they also need to encourage those attracted by opportunity to venture into entrepreneurship, even when they have other work options.”
Again, getting people more comfortable with the idea of entrepreneurship at a younger age, eg. through education, would help encourage new ventures. Teaching entrepreneurship at a continuing education level, making mentorship more accessible, and making other resources available for budding entrepreneurs would also help. One study found that “rates of entrepreneurship are higher in organizations where a greater number of coworkers are former entrepreneurs,” according to this Harvard Business Review article. Connecting former entrepreneurs with would-be entrepreneurs is key to promoting the discipline. This indicates that programs devoted to connecting entrepreneurs would foster an innovative culture.
Startup America grade: A-
Here’s the laundry list of mentorship-related programs, both public and through public-private initiatives:
* The SBA, Department of Energy and Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) are funding four business accelerators that will “provide intensive mentorship from seasoned entrepreneurs to a selection of the most promising new companies previously funded by DOE and ARPA-E.
* The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will establish two of the first integrated business accelerators focused solely on helping our Veterans launch and sustain their own businesses.
* IBM will invest $150 million in coaching, mentoring, and educating entrepreneurs, especially software developers.
* HP is investing more than $4 million in 2011 in HP Learning Initiative for Entrepreneurs (HP LIFE), a global program launched in 2007 that uses educational and technology outreach aimed at helping entrepreneurs and small business owners create and grow commercial opportunities.
* As part of Facebook’s ongoing commitment to encourage entrepreneurs, the company will launch Startup Days, a new series of 12 to 15 events around the country designed to provide entrepreneurs with access to expertise, resources and engineers to help accelerate their businesses.
* TechStars, which invests in seed companies, is adding incubators in 20 cities.
The government is also soliciting feedback from existing entrepreneurs and holding roundtables and workgroups.
The program is on the right track, but something more aggressive might yield more dramatic results.
“Entrepreneurship needs both dynamism and stability. Dynamism occurs through the creation of new businesses and the exit of non-viable ones. Stability comes from providing new businesses with the best chance to test and reach their potential.”
How can a government foster that chance? With access to capital, resources and support.
Startup America grade: B
* The Small Business Administration is also launching a private sector investment matching program, in which they’ll match up to $2 billion of private capital with secured bonds. $1 billion will go to “funds that invest growth capital in companies located in underserved communities” and “emerging sectors” like clean energy. $1 billion will go to early stage seed funds.
* Intel will invest $200 million in new companies (it invests in new companies anyway through Intel Capital).
* The Treasury Department is discussing this issue, and will release more details in coming weeks.
“Entrepreneurship in a society should contain a variety of business phases and types, led by different types of entrepreneurs, including women and underrepresented age groups.”
Startup America grade: A-
The government is doing this with programs for veteran entrepreneurs, but not for other groups. Companies like Wal-Mart are also supporting the effort with programs for women and minority entrepreneurs. I think we’re on the right track in this category, but could use more effort.
“An entrepreneurial mindset is not just for entrepreneurs. It must include a variety of stakeholders that are willing to support and cooperate with these dynamic efforts. In addition, non-entrepreneurs with entrepreneurial mindsets may indirectly stimulate others to start businesses. This indicates the value of broader societal acceptance of entrepreneurship.”
Startup America grade: A
The program features interagency, public-private, and NGO partnerships. There’s lots of cooperation here.
Summary: Based on the global entrepreneurial policy standards put forth by the GEM, Startup America is right on track in many ways, and lacking in a few others. Like many government policies, it’s a mixed bag.
View full post on Business Pundit
Oct 25th
We like to call ourselves the richest country in the world, but the 2010 Legatum Prosperity Index has different ideas. The Prosperity Index factors in both money and citizen wellbeing in its rankings. It “finds that the most prosperous nations in the world are not necessarily those that have only a high GDP, but are those that also have happy, healthy, and free citizens.”
Healthy? No wonder America’s at #10. Here are this years Prosperity Index Top 10, from Time:
1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Finland
4. Australia
5. New Zealand
6. Sweden
7. Canada
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. United States
View full post on Business Pundit