Instigator / Pro
0
1354
rating
66
debates
18.18%
won
Topic

No such thing as being in business for yourself and being your own boss.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Economics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1
1776
rating
404
debates
67.45%
won
Description
~ 1,031 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

This thing about being your own boss, Sounds nice but is completely phony.

Being in business for yourself, You are not.
Do you know who you are in business for?

The customers own your business.
They dictate the business and ultimately have all power to shut it down.

All under their control.

So if you want to go into business for yourself, Don't get excited to be a CEO.

You can be a CEO, PRESIDENT OR OWNER going into bankruptcy.

Anyone thinks the contrary, Welcome.

Any questions about the topic or requests, Please comment or send a message.

Round 1
Pro
This thing about being your own boss, sounds nice but is completely phony.

Being in business for yourself, you are not.

Do you know who you are in business for?

The customers own your business.

They dictate the business and ultimately have all power to shut it down.

All under their control.

So if you want to go into business for yourself, Don't get excited to be a CEO.

You can be a CEO, PRESIDENT OR OWNER going into bankruptcy.

That's because you are not the boss of revenue. I decide whether or not to spend my money in an establishment. If I don't spend enough of it in it,it goes out of business.
Con
Pro's case suffers from false equivalence overall, that is the primary logical fallacy and what my countercase shall focus upon.

Pro believes that if you are in business in a way that benefits others, this negates you being in business for yourself. Furthermore, Pro believes that since businesses rely on customers, that there is no such thing as one being the boss of one's own business. The linkage is completely nonexistent, I fail to even see a slight case being made.

Let me be clear here:

  • Con agrees with Pro that customers/clients fund and benefit from a business.
  • Con agrees that the boss is not the only person benefitting from a business and that being one's own boss does not negate demand vs supply economic laws.
  • Con asserts that being one's own boss is real, regardless of others benefitting from the business' activities and goods/services being provided.
Definition of boss
 (Entry 1 of 6)
1: a person who exercises control or authority : union bosses a mafia boss specifically one who directs or supervises workersasking your boss for a raise
2politics one who controls votes in a party organization or dictates appointments or legislative measures : standing up to the party) bosses

According to the definition of 'boss' one does not even need to own their own business to be their own boss. An interesting countercase to Pro's entire thesis would be a monk or nun who is free of economic demand and supply, living a self-sufficient life.

This monk would be fulfilling the unreasonable conditions that Pro sets out for one being one's own boss and would be, along with the fellow monastery residents, a self-customer benefitting from the agriculture and such.

Yarchen Gar, officially known as Yaqing Orgyan, is a Buddhist monastery that is made up almost entirely of nuns.

Living in rudimentary conditions, they are devoted to following the faith and entering a life of sacrament.

Established in 1985 by Lama Rinpoche, Yarchen Gar is located in Baiyu county in the Garze Tibetan autonomous prefecture. It is 4,000 metres above sea level – not easy to reach, but home to over 10,000 devotees and one of the largest congregation of Buddhist monks and nuns in the world.

The followers live in tough conditions to prove their devotion to the teachings of Lama Rinpoche, who stressed the enlightenment of meditation, hardship and atonement.

On a well-worn footpath that circles a hill nearby, the nuns and monks “kowtow”, a form of prayer in which the disciple kneels and touches the ground with their forehead every two steps.

Latrines hang over the banks of the river and downstream, the water is collected for personal sanitation, washing clothes and food preparation, making the likelihood of typhoid a real threat.

However, Pro is likely to point out that 'god' is their boss which is why it is important that we understand that to be one's own boss does not require one to have absolutely nobody else benefitting from them nor with power over them.

Pro is incorrect to insinuate that to be one's own boss requires absolute power and authority, this is simply not the case especially in the case of a business.

All that is required is to meet the definition.

  1. a person who exercises control or authority
  2. one who controls votes in a party organization or dictates appointments or legislative measures

In fact, it would be very peculiar if one could be their own boss and not be able to go into bankruptcy, since the agency and authority should enable them to have full brunt of risks going wrong.
Round 2
Pro
"Definition of boss
 (Entry 1 of 6)
1: a person who exercises control or authority : union bosses a mafia boss specifically one who directs or supervises workersasking your boss for a raise"

Does the customer exercise control or authority over the "boss's" , "owner's" business?

Can a so called boss authorize a pay raise without consumer input?

See I'm just expanding the observation scale. Sure in a small scale just looking at the one who's called the owner, we look at as such and even as the inventor of the business.

The "business owner" saw a need so he didn't really invent it alone, did he? 
It's starts with me, the consumer that broadcasts a demand. The employer who's really second in command supplies me. But I decide when and how much I want to spend on the product the company is selling.

So what does this do? Dictate the hours of operation for the best traffic times. It controls prices via the demand and don't forget to be competitive. Now you have to set yourself aside from everybody else who's after the same market.

Us consumers set the market value ultimately. When enough of us don't do business with you, the so called boss can't dictate not to shut down. The consumer will decide that with their dollar.

What do you think happens? What do you think the prospective individual does going into business? As they say in business for themselves. They have to research the market . The person has to answer to that. That's what they build their business around. It's around that, around the location where the traffic is that is crucial for business.

We can just go on and on about what it takes to make a prosperous business. Believe it, the person is in business for you , myself , the consumer. Those that are in that niche.

Con
Us consumers set the market value ultimately. When enough of us don't do business with you, the so called boss can't dictate not to shut down. The consumer will decide that with their dollar.
Not quite. See, even the customers are slaves to a concept known as demand vs supply, they only get power to drive down the price when the supply is higher than the demand while the providers have power to drive the prices up (and ought to) when the demand is higher than the supply.

Nobody escapes the rules of economics. Nobody has to. You do not need to be god in order to be a boss within reality, you do not need to control the entire economy in order to be a business owner and your own boss. You can have demand and supply laws to obey and be your own boss despite it. You can be a boss who has to dress in a suit to go to work because that's the dress code and execute the authority you have and choose which specific suit, tie and shirt you wear.

The debate isn't about being somebody totally free of it all, if you want that just look to a homeless person or unemployed person. You are not discussing 'freedom' you are discussing the power to execute authority over a business' executive decisions and there really is a person who is their own boss at the top of it, particularly in a smaller business. 
Round 3
Pro
"Not quite. See, even the customers are slaves to a concept known as demand vs supply, they only get power to drive down the price when the supply is higher than the demand while the providers have power to drive the prices up (and ought to) when the demand is higher than the supply."

Let me ask, if a company has little to no customers daily due to high prices and that company is not competing, what will happen to that business?
When the business is slow, it means there's a lack of customers. The business has to lower its prices due to the customer. The business will go out of business due to the customer. That's why there are promotions and coupon programs to remain competitive as possible.
The subject is about the so called business owner. Being a slave to money is that other debate I have. I do agree with you that there is enslavement to money. That's my position in the other debate.

"Nobody escapes the rules of economics. Nobody has to. You do not need to be god in order to be a boss within reality, you do not need to control the entire economy in order to be a business owner and your own boss. "

When you say boss right here, what tier of authority is being referenced?
Is the customer the next tier over the shopkeeper?
Like I said, the employer/"owner" is actually second in command.
Look at it this way. It's the dollar, economics like you say to follow the end all be all when it comes to any "profitable" business. Just follow the profits.
When you say I don't need to control the whole economy , are you conceding that there is control over who you're calling the business owner?
Well I agree . All I'm saying is that the title doesn't carry the amount of "be all, end all" generally people think. Like the puffed up image that these individuals don't answer to any other being the so called owners .

"You can have demand and supply laws to obey and be your own boss despite it. You can be a boss who has to dress in a suit to go to work because that's the dress code and execute the authority you have and choose which specific suit, tie and shirt you wear."

Here it is again with rankings. Don't blur them . Let's distinguish who ultimately controls a profitable business. I can decide and control what color paint goes on the wall. The customer can ultimately decide whether the doors stay open and see those walls. The customer volume is small to none at certain times of the day.
The store, merchant , will base the hours of operation on that. That's why there's also a change in hours around holiday times. There's extended hours for some places for holiday shopping and bargains .

"The debate isn't about being somebody totally free of it all,"

Right, it's about the so called business owner having the consumers being the actual owner or authority over the business. No money, no business.

"You are not discussing 'freedom' you are discussing the power to execute authority over a business' executive decisions and there really is a person who is their own boss at the top of it, particularly in a smaller business. "

Allow some expansion here with what was said about the power to make authoritative decisions. Which can only be made in an open running business.

Let's recap the details. Who you call a business owner can dictate to their employees. They can design, decorate the place , however, whatever. But they are only allowed to do all of that in a continuing , functioning business.

How am I the boss at the top of it and I can't control ultimately the business to stay open? I didn't see any disagreement about market value and traffic volume or control there of.






Con
Being a boss in a business requires you to respect the fact that if nobody demands what you supply at the quality, in the way and/or at the price you provide it... you will go bankrupt.

No single customer can stop all customers demanding what you provide as you provide it, generally speaking.
Round 4
Pro
"Being a boss in a business requires you to respect the fact that if nobody demands what you supply at the quality, in the way and/or at the price you provide it... you will go bankrupt."

Amen. Therefore the legitimate proprietors over the " boss's " business. See the "boss" is not answering to himself like people try to make it out to be. The prices,  the time the place of business opens up is all decided by the boss over him. Just like the employer over the employee.

"No single customer can stop all customers demanding what you provide as you provide it, generally speaking."

Right, it's the traffic flow as a single unit. When that traffic is gone, it's a wrap. The consumer or the market traffic is that next tier of command , that "say so " over the business.

Con
Just so you are aware, it is sexist to say 'to himself' as an assumed gender-based response to one being one's own boss.

A boss of a business is the boss whether they are the boss of a business that fails or not.

That's been my consistent position from Round 1 to now. A boss needn't be god of all reality and economics to claim their position as being valid.