Un-Employment vs. Self-Employment

Recession has its downsides but the worst element of a recession is unemployment. The sluggish economy forces companies to cut back on their biggest costs: PEOPLE a.k.a Human Resources. A steady source of income is vital for the survival of many households. Losing a job can really be devastating and even traumatic. There are very few who will have the help of their previous employers to assist them in finding a new job. Many will be on their own and very depressed. This will be high time for employment and recruitment agencies, but even they will have their limitations as jobs will be scare.

So in a situation like this, what should one do?

Well how about hiring yourself?

History has revealed that a significant number of people who are laid off turn to thinking about doing what they had always wanted to do .Now that they have the chance and some free time they will try to set up something of their own, which was not possible during a steady job. Another positive factor is that many of them succeed and in future become employers’ themselves…rather then employee.

An excerpt taken from this article says:

“If history is any guide, Carl Schramm, the head of the Kauffman Foundation, a non-profit organization that promotes entrepreneurial activity, points out that start-ups tend to flourish in the year that follows a sharp downturn. Rather than head back to another corporate bureaucracy, some of those made redundant will take a shot at being their own boss.”

If we want to learn anything from history, then we should learn that “when the going gets tough…The tough get going!!” So sit back and think about what you like to do best and turn it into a successful business. I did!

Good Luck!


2 Comment(s)

  1. Self employment is an interesting challenge. It needs a vision, focus, commitment and perseverance, fueled by a burning desire to succeed. What does success look like, what do you need to overcome, what personal skills do you need, what do you need to give up, what resources you need, what and who will support you and what time-frame you want to work in. Above all how resilient will you be; how do you face failure. Be clear on these and you give yourself a great chance to succeed.

    Aamer | Jan 10, 2009 | Reply

  2. http://dealbreaker.com/2007/05/the-unsurprising-failure-of-et.php#comments

    The funny thing is that Carl Schramm is “too big to fail.” He has invented risk-free entrepreneurship by hijacking a $2.5 billion foundation which does not fund innovators nor entrepreneurs (whom/which Mr. Kauffman expressly left the money for), but which increases the sizes of university administrations, funds sycophantic, socialist bloggers who laud Schramm’s insipid writings, while furthering Schramm’s fruitless campaign for a Nobel Prize for socializing entreprnuership and growing government/foundational/MBA/economist bureaucracies to oversee and manage it. While the Fed nationalized the banks, Schramm nationalized the college band on univeristy campuses, giving millions to the state officials overseeing and managing “entreprnuership,” and a couple thousand dollars to bands in business plan competitions.

    The Kauffman Foundation has become a vanity press for Schrammenomics, complete with Web 2.0 technologies which empower an army of sycophantic policy-wonk bloggers which Scramm funds with millions upon millions–the very antithesis and opposite of true entreprneurship. For Schramm is a jealous god, and there shall be none others before him; and that is why he never cites Hayek, nor Mises in his book with the juvenile title: GOOD CAPITALISM, BAD CAPITALISM. Nor does he cite Ayn Rand. One can see that Schramm is hoping to replace the works of Nobel Laureate eocnomists and bestselling authors with his dumbed-down, socialistic views of entrepreneurship, which must be managed by Schramm on a dead-man’s dime.

    Would Schramm have made it on his own as an entrepreneur? The WSJ article states that he founded a Merchant Bank and a Health Care Service. But it gives names for neither. Why is this? And if they were so successful, why does he need Kauffman’s resources to promote and peddle his lackluster books and socialistic philosophies as the eocnomy crumbles because of “too big to fail,” domineering socialists such as himself?

    Check out Deal Breaker and the Kansas City Business Journal:

    “It is interesting that Dealbreaker references Carl Shram of the Kauffman Foundation as an authority on ethics. Those of us who live in the Kansas City region know that Carl Schram and been a controversial figure since he was appointed to his post a number of years ago. Board members have resigned in protest of his leadership style and strategic choices. His controversial leadership led to the Missouri Attorney General reviewing the Kauffman Foundation for not staying true to the intent of Ewing Kauffman. The purpose of this review was stated as:

    “In light of the public allegations of a departure from Mr. Kauffman’s intent, lack of appropriate oversight by the Board of Directors, and certain instances of conflicts of interest. ” (http://www.ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2004/kauffmanreport030404.htm#conclusion)

    See also this editorial from the Kansas City Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2003/09/15/editorial1.html)

    Ewing Kauffman was famous as an ethical leader. Carl Schramm is not.

    gloria | Apr 11, 2009 | Reply

Post a Comment