Of course they're not going to cough up $300k/yr in cash - that would be a bad use of money even if it were possible.
So they have to give you partial ownership.
How much?
"Oh, but it's my baby!" cries Bob.
He wants to part with only 10-15% of the business - maybe 25-30% if you come on with some capital.
You will then fight tooth and nail for a reasonable valuation and a sufficient share so that your time and money are not devalued.
Suppose you put no capital in.
You're busting your ass doing 90% of the day to day work so that a CEO can spend more time with his family, chill on the beach, and "conceptualize" the next big move in a field you know more about. Probably not a recipe for job satisfaction.
Suppose you agree to buy your way in. The company happens to need some cash - call it $150k.
Increasing ownership by 15% for 150k means the company valuation is $1M. That's OK at 100k/yr, but what if it's netting 50k/yr? You're not getting a bargain, and you're taking on risk.
Even if you don't think investing at 5% earnings yield is terrible, how long is it going to take you to get ahead on this vs. working for yourself?
What's that 10% ownership stake that you get in return for working worth? Well, 1st year, 100k - you would be down 200k instantly.
Suppose in 5 years you build that #biz up from making $50k/yr to making $500k/yr.
Success!
Well, not really. You can't sell your ownership easily and your 10% from working gets $50k/yr, which is only worth $500k at a 10% cap rate.
The 5 years you spent were worth $1.5M. You're at -1M on this!
It does look somewhat better if you own 25% of what is now a $5M company. Your share is worth $1.25M, meaning you're still down 250k on your labor alone, or 400k when your 150k cash is included.
So you can 10x company net profit and still not make enough for it to be worth your time over a 5 year period.
What if you take a much bigger share?
At 50% your ownership would be worth 2.5M, ahead of the 1.5M the 5 years were worth.
The thing is, entrepreneurs are not trying to give up 50% ownership of their small businesses. Especially if it's not Bob but Alice and Bob, each reduced to 25% when you take 50.
Even then, that 50% only works out if you successfully 10X the company. 4X it and you're in the red.
You are gambling on all these little pieces lining up and working together.
Don't get me wrong - as an entrepreneur you should love a challenge!
But as an investor?
There are much easier and less risky plays. You could sit on the beach 5 years and still double your money.
The @eigenrobot threadwar about a Chinese girl in Germany saying she's German and Americans who are 1/32 German are not is dumb.
Almost everyone is making comments that make sense to them but they have different ideas of "German."
1. The OP
If you're Chinese and grew up in Germany then when you encounter other Chinese they're consistently going to react with "wow, you're really European!"
So of course, relative to the baseline of an ethnic Han growing up in Shanghai, she thinks "I'm German."
2. The angry respondent
"Magic dirt isn't real" was his shorthand.
If you've read any Evola you know his theory is that race is not mere genetics and it is not simply culture either but some ineluctable property that persists beyond the sterile scientific analysis of the two.
Lichtenstein was extremely responsive to the needs of international corporations and presumably would have been eager to have a world reserve currency if it were not running on Swiss francs. But it had no capacity to do so.
"This is silly," you might say. "Lichtenstein is a tiny microstate, not even in the running!"
Ok. Apply this to someone bigger.
Did 1970s China have the capacity to function as administrator of a world reserve currency, in the manner described above?
It always intrigues me when people who have discovered that modernity is bad still use "feudal" pejoratively. That is how complete the modernist brainwashing is.
Nope. This is a combination of propaganda and the known psychological effect where the more time you spend on something the more confident you are about it, even when your actual skill level doesn't change.
Teaching as a skill is CAPPED by your social skills.
Most people have ABYSMAL social skills and #mindset: their fundamental approach is geared towards passing as "normal."
Consequently, most teachers, having low social skill, cannot achieve high levels of teaching skill.
To some extent they do improve over time, but I'm not sure that this improvement beats the average. A 50 year old has more social skill than a 15 year old, and this is not limited to teachers.
What they gain is confidence, and confidence helps, but it is not the same as skill.
Romney would have garnered a lot more respect if, when called out on the depredations of Bain Capital, he had hit back with stories of Mormons getting slaughtered and chased out of places, and said that he wanted to take back everything.
Obviously money can't make the dead come out of their graves.
But that sentiment is respectable and universally relatable.
We live in a weird inversion world where those who climb up to power are doubly expected to be nice and not make waves -
"This new way of making more money than I touch in a year is definitely wrong somehow. I did my 5 minutes of research and it looks like it uses electricity? So it's definitely bad for the environment. Now that I found a reason to reject it I can go back to doing what I'm doing."
"Isn't it too convenient how everything you're not into or that would require you to put in effort or get outside your comfort zone is found by you to be morally suspect somehow?"
"Hm. Well, I'm just a good person. I have good instincts!"