Hacker News Reader

Comment by zerkten | Hacker News Reader

It's a useful concept when used appropriately. There is nuance that you are missing.

When used it's a description that the business owners provide based on how they run their business, then it's OK. When you use it to describe someone else's business it's often considered a slur (unless they've previously shared this with you and you know that fact.)

Many smaller companies are not actually lifestyle businesses although that term is thrown around here. The owners may be part-time because they actually operate a group of companies, grow niche companies to sell outside of the VC world, etc. They are indistinguishable from lifestyle businesses, but the owners are looking to do a lot more than sustain a level of income.

View on HN

> When you use it to describe someone else's business it's often considered a slur

I see.

I find it a bit unsettling that in some cultures stating that a business has priorities other than profit at all costs is considered a slur.

I'm not sure it's specific to a limited set of cultures. I think there would be fairly broad cultural support for it being considered diminutive. Besides, the core of the problem is that it's only valid when that business owner describes itself as a lifestyle business.

I can say that, while competition is part of every capitalist society, at least in my region of Brazil the search for work-life balance is something few entrepreneurs would be ashamed of.

The German Mittelstand is a more positive version of this.

It is literally "Middle Class"

They want to stop at the 'M' part in SME.

You nailed it. It can be either a neutral term or a slur depending on the context, as the above comment says. But I dislike it mostly for the reason you mentioned. It implies that the only really alpha, desirable businesses are those that make a bajillion dollars for VCs and don't have much benefit to customers or the general public.

Yeah, that is awful. And it's a shame that such a useful concept got a negative connotation.

If you are using "lifestyle business" to mean "a business has priorities other than profit at all costs", you are using it incorrectly. A lifestyle business is one where the owners have set a target business size and profit level, and do not try to grow past this; some owners even actively inhibit growth to keep the business from getting too large. The purpose of the business is to give its owners a fixed cash flow.

A company whose owners are working to grow the business consistently and organically is not a lifestyle business; it is also not pursuing "profit at all costs". Most privately-held businesses fall into this category.

As to "lifestyle business" being a slur, it is unfortunate that members of the growth-obsessed communities use it as such. They don't see a business with a fixed target size as serious. Incidentally, many also think the same about the organic growth case I mentioned. I ignore them, and most other things from VC startup culture.

Yes, of course. As you said, there is certainly a spectrum between "profit at all costs" and "fixed growth" or similar constraints. That is easy to visualize.

I find it interesting and even inspiring that some economies allow entrepreneurs to make this kind of choice. That is not my reality at all. In South-America, we grab every chance we get and don't let go. There is much less opportunity.

> A lifestyle business is one where the owners have set a target business size and profit level, and do not try to grow past this; some owners even actively inhibit growth to keep the business from getting too large.

I think this is too far narrow a definition of "lifestyle business". The better definition is simply a business that fits the founder's intent and lifestyle.

I know several founders that started from nothing, built their company to turn a sizable profit and resisted big VC money.

It's demeaning and inaccurate to call them "lifestyle businesses", they made a calculated decision. Roughly, they took a chance with self-financing, and maybe a ~40% chance bet on making a good living, versus taking the VC money and having 3% on becoming unbelievably wealthy.

Given a 40% chance of making several million and a 3% chance of making billions, it's pretty reasonable for folks to take the higher probability, even if the statistical expected value is better with the VCs. These aren't people who "gave up", often, they made the smarter decisions.

People who are looking for VC funding for their business consider it a slur, because VCs will use it as a reason not to fund.

To give an analogy: “family car” is a good way of describing a safe car that fits a lot of passengers. But if you set up your SUV for rock-crawling and somebody calls it “a nice family car” you might consider it a slur.

Yes, I get the analogy. But the actual case to which it refers has much broader implications.

Sort of, but don't read too much into it.

Well, it ascribes an intent that may not be there. Why do you assume that the business is actively limiting growth, as opposed to trying but failing to grow? It's like calling something a pet project. You can say that about your own project, but if somebody else calls it a pet project, it could rightly be construed as demeaning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com