The thing about ARR numbers is that in most cases they didn't really recur, especially for an 8-month-old company. Also, I don't really care about these numbers anymore unless they share how much they spent on marketing.
IMHO at least some spending on AI are FOMO driven. Companies think how they can adopt AI faster than competitors in a fear being left behind and loose the race. They don’t yet know if ROI of AI adoption is above zero. Even if adopting AI is the only right decision some of AI users may go out of business having overspend on AI and either way AI customer base will decrease.
Germany doesn’t compete in cheap manufacturing, they compete in highly precise manufacturing. There are bunch of things that are only manufactured in Germany. You don’t hear those companies that much because they are not public but they are well known by the people who work in specific industries. When you combine them, they are way bigger than the German companies you hear everyday which are laying off people or closing factories.
For some reason, every time Europe is mentioned, there is always a comment about how Europe is struggling but when you look at the quality of life, happiness or life expectancy, all those numbers are higher than the US. People should stop obsessing with GDP.
> There are bunch of things that are only manufactured in Germany. You don’t hear those companies that much because they are not public but they are well known by the people who work in specific industries.
There is small town of 35,000 inhabitants around the corner from where I live. It produces 50% of the world's surgical equipment, from a base of around 600 companies.
There are good reasons why "made in Germany" is not as dead as some people want us to believe.
A common talking point is that the number of people working in engineering is decreasing over time. The implication is that "we are making less", but the real story is that "we are making things more efficiently".
A case in point is agriculture in Australia, where a crop farm might be as big as a thousand acres, whereas its common in SEA for a family to have just one or two acres. The huge scale is enabled by multi-million dollar tractors, drones, huge irrigation systems, etc...
Google says that the average farm size in Australia is 10,000 acres. I didn't think they were significantly smaller than the farms in Saskatchewan Canada which average 2,000 acres.
1000 acres i too small to be economic as a wheat producer in Saskatchewan, Canada. I suspect it's the same in Australia. Definitely cannot support multi-million dollar tractors or combine harvesters.
The rule of thumb in Saskatchewan is about 10,000 acres per employee. There are lots of farms with less than 10,000 acres, but they generally don't have employees.
1000 acres - for crop, typically located in our hot and dry areas - is a hobby farm. 1000 acres in the wetter and greener areas running dairy cattle could be more commercial (but I lack experience there). The people I know running commercial farms are 10,000+ hectares.
What pulls up the average would be our cattle stations (ranches for the Americans) if they count as farms. These are huge - eg. Big ones 2-6 million acres.
I know many of these companies and I have even been invited to some of them.
I am not some American desperate to insult Europeans. I am a German, I work in the German industry, my livelihood depends on this economy.
>When you combine them, they are way bigger than the German companies you hear everyday which are laying off people or closing factories.
This plainly is not true. Even the "small champions" are struggling, because they are mostly suppliers to the large companies. A very significant part of the "Mittelstand" exists as specialized suppliers to the German car, Aerospace and Railway companies. If those are struggling, then the suppliers feel the pain just as much.
I am not German, but I live in Germany and things can be debated in detail and from various viewpoints. Things are rarely black and white.
But I am getting kind of tired of the canned half informed opinions like "outrageous energy prices" usually although not always followed by "closing cheap nuclear will do that for you". Energy like natural gas is still elevated compared to 2021 but it's nowhere near outrageous anymore. Electricity as an end consumer I can now get cheaper than in e.g. France, and they just announced dirt cheap industry prices etc. So things can be complex, what was the case in 2023 might not be in 2025. Things change but it takes too much effort to question if what was true two years ago is still really true, so we are stuck with these lazy views.
I did not even mention energy prices in my post. But it is a basic truth that high energy prices reduce the competitiveness of industry.
>and they just announced dirt cheap industry prices
Any person who thinks that this is any more than a figleaf lacks basic economic understanding. Where does the German government get money? From German industry. The industry price is a tax break.
But you are also right, just continuously talking about the price of energy is another way to avoid talking about the structural issues. Lack of cost competitiveness does not just come from differences in the price of electricity.
The hard truth is that the Chinese are very good at manufacturing. Even for high quality products. For decades they have only gotten better and have taken over more and more industries, they did this by being cheaper and better, while also innovating. The future of the German industry depends on rising to that challenge and actually being able to stay better than the Chinese.
If you work somewhere in German industry, a phrase you are going to hear is "so haben wir das immer schon gemacht" (this is the way we have always done this) and you will find an institutional unwillingness, from the management down to the staff, to engage in radical change, to try new things and to embrace new technologies. This protects German industry from fads, which quickly fade, but it also means that it is always at risk of drastically falling behind when it comes to genuinely superior ways of working.
You didn't mention it, but it was mentioned somewhere else and is a typical response. My main point is that these things are complex and can't really be reduced to a simple sentence. As for the electricity itself, most countries have cheap electricity because of subsidies. The issue with German "high" electricity price was never that it was truly high, it was that the actual cost was on the actual bill. This is typically not true.
I don't work in the industry, but I agree with this assessment. I don't want to reduce all Germans to a stereotype, but I agree there is just a lot of inertia and being successful because it used to be successful. Like e.g. Intel, and it will eventually run out. The whole Europe reminds of the tired part in that wired vs tired meme. People live a good life, which is good, but it makes them want to strive to preserve that. So no wonder they trust their fortunes to someone like Friedrich Merz, a bean counter, whose biggest accomplishment in life was that he submitted a tax report on a "Bierdeckel". That's not the way to go forward.
One of the last worldwide relevant things coming out of Germany was the Energiewende, yet many people outright reject it because it interferes with their comfort and the way it used to be done. But in reality either by luck or genius, completely nailed it and was the first in creating a completely new world. But then nothing.
The Energiewende was a total failure and a complete disaster for Germany. People often make this discussions about renewables vs. fossil energy sources, but this is totally misleading.
The Energiewende was completely mismanaged and if you have any inclination towards renewables you should hate the German government for it. Here are the mistakes:
- The German government only subsidized renewable production, by guaranteeing a fixed price. This means that energy storage was completely neglected, leading to very high fluctuations in energy price. German industry had to adapt, by only operating under certain wind/sun conditions.
- They sold out their key renewable energy manufacturing to China. One would think that it would be prudent to keep solar panel production in Germany at all cost, when you are betting your future on it. But apparently nobody was concerned to sell it out to China. The same goes for letting Windturbine manufacturers go bankrupt.
- Prematurely shutting down nuclear. The loss of the nuclear plants meant that on-demand energy generation became more difficult. Further increasing problems with energy prices during periods of darkness and little sun.
I am not against Germany relying on renewables. To be honest I think it is a good thing for multiple reasons, among them is also the fact, that it gives Germany further autonomy from importing fossil fuels from either the US or Russia. But the way this transition was performed was a total failure. The people responsible either lacked basic understanding or willfully ignored them. Attributing recent economic hardship to the Energiewende is true to some part, but the real cause is a persistent failure of politics.
The Energiewende is a total success on a global scale, a beacon of hope for the entire world, something Germans can be proud of. They did something, told the entire world "this is the way" and the entire world followed. Nuclear energy and whether it was retired prematurely or not is nothing more than a wet fart, a banal point of contention, a premature optimization and thus root of all evil. Big problems were solved, and in a few years nobody will remember minor decisions. Energy storage being neglected didn't change anything because as we see now it's now accelerating because there is so much free electricity. Solar panels can still be made outside of China, that they are being built there is a consequence of living in a market economy, and they are just better at it currently. I thought gaining these efficiencies was the point of a free market. But again, there is no real secret knowledge in making them, so if need be they can be made domestically. Whether by chance or planned, Germany hit the nail squarely on the head.
> you are going to hear is "so haben wir das immer schon gemacht" (this is the way we have always done this) and you will find an institutional unwillingness, from the management down to the staff, to engage in radical change,
And, besides this, Germans _love_ bureaucracy. Processes always get more complicated (any "improvment" is an addition to the existing process)
There is not a single German I have ever met with enjoyed bureaucracy. The government just loves micromanagement and the population has to interact with that.
In companies bureaucracies exist so that managers can evade the responsibility of making decisions and employees can evade doing anything but sitting in boring meetings. Nobody wants this.
How does someone get money to pay income or sales tax with? Exactly, from his job, what are the high paying jobs in Germany? Exactly, the German industry.
The German industry has been a decade long wealth generator. For the citizens of Germany and the government.
certain people want the rest of the world to become like china and india, top down sweatshops so they can squeeze just a little more dollar out of people
No, GDP is a necessary but not sufficient condition for lavish government services. Yes, there are ways to juice GDP figures without actually having a functioning economy that can support lavish government services, but if your GDP is flat or declining, there's no way you'll be able to continue affording lavish government services.
You can make debt, as many governments have been doing until now...
And debt (spending) ironically will increase the GDP.
If a company keeps on producing goods and doesn't sell them? That increases also the GDP. ( as long as they don't throw them away )
If a government makes debt to buy weapons and increase the army? Look at the Russian +4% GDP just because of that. However, how sustainable is that? The GDP doesn't care at all about that.
The GDP doesn't provide the full picture of how a country is doing economically, but it's good to have a first overview to later do a deep dive into, but so are other "tools".
It's an old tool created 100 years ago, and we keep on using it although the world has changed drastically since then.
Even those companies are struggling nowadays with quality of goods made in China improving extremely fast.
> For some reason, every time Europe is mentioned, there is always a comment about how Europe is struggling but when you look at the quality of life, happiness or life expectancy, all those numbers are higher than the US.
But quality of life in Europe is decreasing fast. Pension is becoming unsustainable. Govts are going bankrupt. Infrastructure is collapsing. People correctly see that Europe as a whole will fall behind in some years unless things change
They might not be "going bankrupt" in the sense that they're imminently going to default on their debts, but debts have reached unprecedented levels[1], and show no signs of stopping. If you know someone who's racking up serious amounts of debt on sports gambling or whatever, it's safe to characterize that as "going bankrupt", even if you think they'll be able to make the minimum payments on their credit cards for the next few months.
>Volkswagen payed 4.5 billion in dividends in 2024
German industry also provides millions of high paying jobs to German citizens. In the last decades a career in any of these companies meant guaranteed financial stability to each of the employees.
The "downside" of having good paying, high quality, stable jobs is the existence of billionaires. The narcissistic complaint that billionaires should not exist, when their existence is just the direct consequence of having a functioning economy is so absurd. What matters is whether these companies are good for the population, which they are.
By the way, guess where a significant part of that 4.5 billion went? And not just as taxes.
Completely false. The jobs have not changed at all, the companies have no actual ability to do so. Especially not Volkswagen.
Americans hear "layoffs" and think it means people getting fired and walked out of buildings 30 minutes later. The reality of layoffs at Volkswagen is that people in their late 50s and 60s were asked whether they wanted to retire early. Staff were offered up to hundreds of thousands of Euros to voluntarily leave.
> The "downside" of having good paying, high quality, stable jobs is the existence of billionaires.
This correlation doesn’t exist.
Billionaires also exist where people have low paid, low quality jobs.
Often the billionaires are also shareholders of those companies.
So while they paid billions in dividends they also said the job guarantees are gone because 5 billions are missing.
It weren’t the workers who botched the development of new series but neither the management nor the shareholders feel the consequences.
And it isn’t only VW. Also BMW and Mercedes.
Right wing parties often complain about social security payments as unearned income, what are dividends and why do the shareholders pay less taxes on that income as the workers who actually build the products?
Billionaires are a symptom of a skewed economy where one side gets more and more of the wealth while the middle class is told it’s because of the lower class, unemployed and refugees
> who would actually trust China in any way shape or form as an alternative?
Most of the Asian countries (except South Korea, Japan and Taiwan) and African countries. They’re already getting tons of investments and loans from China.
As opposed to China, who will probably invade pretty much every Asian country, and the only big unknown is the order. Western China is annexed. Nepal is Annexed. Hong Kong is annexed. Mongolia is 100% under Chinese control. Northwest Pakistan is 95% under Chinese control. Parts of Russia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and other countries are under Chinese control to a greater or lesser extent, and all those countries have zero hopes of defending against China, and sure as hell can't count on anyone's support. Certainly not their neighbors, or the gulf states, and not the US. The South China sea (including Phillippine, Japanese, Taiwanese territory) is under Chinese control. And the countries' only hope for maintaining independence is the US.
China is an empire. It cannot survive except through expansion so betting it will expand is like betting a person will breathe tomorrow.
Accepting Chinese currency is like France buying Nazi bonds in 1939 (which France and most European countries did, btw). It seems like, in fact it is, the height of stupidity, but it's amazing what a little bit of promised money can make people do.
This is figuratively, and potentially literally, paying for the bullets that will end up lodged in your skull, because the shooter promises 10% return. Which of course, these states will gladly do.
Meanwhile, buying the U.S. dollar is investing in the continued pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere (Drill, baby, drill) and quite possibly the end of humanity as we know it.
It's also notable that China is pretty much the only game in town for sustainable, renewable energy, so we have a choice between the U.S. (extinction) and China (survival?).
Hong Kong was taken over by the British after the opium wars. It never belonged to the British in the first place.
> As opposed to China, who will probably invade pretty much every Asian country, and the only big unknown is the order.
As opposed to the various US government who have overthrown countless foreign governments when those failed to align themselves with the US interests.
The US has destabilized the entire middle east and created an unprecedented wave of refuges coming from Libya and other neighboring countries and left Europe alone to deal with it.
The US has in the last 30 years invaded multiple countries under false pretenses, taken them over and when nothing worked and the writing was on the wall, left in a hurry again leaving someone else to clean up the mess left behind.
> The South China sea (including Philippines, Japanese, Taiwanese territory) is under Chinese control. And the countries' only hope for maintaining independence is the US.
The US is only helping to contain China in this part of the world because it is in its best interest to do so. The day this changes, the US will leave and these countries will have to fend for themselves once again.
This is certainly not done out of the goodness of the heart of the US. It's about protecting trades routes that are vital to US interest and that is about it.
> Accepting Chinese currency is like France buying Nazi bonds in 1939 (which France and most European countries did, btw). It seems like, in fact it is, the height of stupidity, but it's amazing what a little bit of promised money can make people do.
Since you are mentioning WW2, let's not forget that the US was happy to let much of Europe fall into the hands of the Germans and let Japan continue expanding it's empire until the point where Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Who knows what would have happened if the US was never attacked?
My point is this one, China, just like the US likes to increase/maintain it's influence in the world. Both countries used/ will use any means necessary to achieve their goals whether its through warfare or diplomacy.
Is China better than the US, probably not, but let's not pretend one second that the US is not using a double standard when it comes to the world order. Rules for thee not for me and all that.
The India that gained independence is India + Pakistan + Bangladesh + some rounding errors.
The independence of India was immediately followed by a sectarian war between muslims and hindus in India (started by muslims) which by a number of measures was bigger than WW2. Gandhi immediately turned into the commander-in-chief in this war, a war where millions died, and Gandhi came out on top.
After which Pakistan, now independent, started another war with yet again millions of dead, against "East-Pakistan", to prevent their independence, now known as Bangladesh. This war was a continuation of the partition wars in many ways.
Pakistan is not far from starting another of these wars, by the way, against "Balochistan", the south west of Pakistan.
The list of atrocities and political influence by the US is just as long if not longer. A country under the US sphere of influence is independent only for as long as its interests don't conflict with US interests. Before Trump the US might have continued pretending that its empire is somehow better than a Chinese one, but he threw that mask into the trash and set it on fire.
Sorry but it just isn't. INDIVIDUAL things the CCP does today dwarf the sum total of the atrocities the US committed over it's entire lifetime. The situation in Xinjang has more victims yearly than every event in the US since it's founding, and it's not even close to the only mass-atrocity the CCP is engaged in. Tibet. Mongolia. Chinese religious movements.
Ah you're a communist idealist who "won't go into details" (and you'll probably refuse to discuss why almost every attempt at communism ended in a massacring dictatorship ...)
The US supported genocide in Gaza alone is much worse than anything done in Xinjiang. The genocide of native Americans, the bloody coups and corporate abuse in south America, the wars of the middle east with their millions of victims, the war crimes in Vietnam, the bombing of Japan and who knows how many more horrors that the US has been involved in. Do you honestly believe those things combined have less victims than Xinjiang?
Not that your other claims aren't equally ridiculous, but sorry, no. Pretty much everything, in China or elsewhere, is worse than Gaza.
Gaza, claimed victims (hamas numbers, rounded up): 65'000 dead. (note that these numbers are ridiculous: for example, did you know, Israel did not kill a single hamas member? Zero. Not a single one)
Gaza, claimed victims, IDF numbers: 13'000 dead (a little under half claimed to be hamas members. >80% are fighting age men)
(and let's not forget the other difference: in the victims of Hamas, >85% are civilians. And that's assuming that everyone, on duty or on holiday, working even indirectly for the military counts as a soldier, including locksmiths and cleaning staff, otherwise it's easily over 90%)
So let's say it's somewhere between those two numbers. But every conflict in the area is bigger than the biggest numbers in Gaza, easily.
Syria, right next door, death toll: 656'000 dead.
Sudan, not that far from Gaza, with hamas' parent organisation the perpetrators: 300'000 dead.
Lebanon (note: conflict started by the PA, against Christians), death toll: at least 150'000 dead.
IS/Daesh (note: conflict started by Palestinians), death toll: 306'000.
Xinjang: 1.2 million imprisoned, 10% dead, per year, according to UN. Obviously that would make it more than double the claimed Gaza death toll PER YEAR (so that would make it 4x as big during the Gaza conflict, except it's been going on for far longer than the Gaza war). As for official figues: https://id.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/sgdt/202206/t20220622_10...
Like Philippines that are almost at war with China? Or India that have regular skirmishes with them? Who exactly in Asia? Is Shri Lanka important for world economy?
Why do you think that Europe has to race with the US in number of startups? Shouldn’t we focus on the quality of life instead?
The rich people in the US have lower life expectancy than the poor people in Europe. People in Europe are also happier than the ones in the US. What those startups will bring?
> Why do you think that Europe has to race with the US in number of startups? Shouldn’t we focus on the quality of life instead?
For one thing I'm interested in quality of life for my kids, not only mine. The world is a big race: those who refuse to run become irrelevant and disappear.
One, a search isn’t a source. Two, the medical source in your results [1] doesn’t support your hypothesis:
“Survival among the participants in the top wealth quartiles in northern and western Europe and southern Europe appeared to be higher than that among the wealthiest Americans. Survival in the wealthiest U.S. quartile appeared to be similar to that in the poorest quartile in northern and western Europe.”
The wealthiest 25% of Americans have mortality similar to the poorest 25% in Northern and Western Europe. And the wealthiest 25% of Europeans as a whole outlive the wealthiest 25% of Americans.
The richest Americans, where I mean top 1 to 5%, on the other hand, match with the richest Europeans because of course we do, we’re accessing the same global pool of health services. But there is zero evidence rich Americans are outlived by poor Europeans, even if we restrict ourselves to its wealth West and North.
Followed here from your link on one of my other comments. Would you not agree that the bottom 95% of Americans have poor mortality versus most Europeans, based on this data? Comparing rich Americans to rich Europeans is not very compelling (as you mention); comparing most Americans to most Europeans (by wealth) is. The rich will do well regardless of where they are, as they are internationally mobile for the purposes of consuming healthcare services. Therefore, we should not be including them for comparison of majority outcomes.
> Would you not agree that the bottom 95% of Americans have poor mortality versus most Europeans, based on this data?
Compared with EU Europeans, yes. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that similarly-wealthy Europeans are healthier than their American counterparts.
> we should not be including them for comparison of majority outcomes
OP made a statement about the rich in America doing worse than the poor in Europe.
>Consent-O-Matic is a browser extension that recognizes CMP (Consent Management Provider) pop-ups that have become ubiquitous on the web and automatically fills them out based on your preferences – even if you meet a dark pattern design.
Many people attempt to apply the American mindset to the European market, then act surprised when it doesn't work. This is yet another example.
European culture operates differently, and the startup model doesn't translate seamlessly to this continent for a variety of reasons. I've explored this in depth on my blog, with a particular focus on Germany: https://mertbulan.com/2025/02/24/we-dont-need-startups-we-ne...
This feels like an orthogonal point. The OP make a very specific comparison to his travel company and Airbnb, and how people ignored them or even belittled them but adored Airbnb despite being very similar companies.
Europeans use Airbnb. Trying to to say he was trying to "apply the American mindset to the European market" as a bad thing doesn't really hold water here when the American product literally won.
Yes, the kind of companies historically started in Europe are very culturally different to startups. The point being made is that really for no good reason, Europe does not culturally support the existence of startups and is often actively hostile towards them.
The solution being "just don't do startups in Europe" is like, ok sure I guess you can do that, but it doesn't actually address the problem that was presented: cultural incompatibility and unwillingness to change.
Another part of the American mindset. Not all the companies are trying to win here in Europe. Some believe that companies can co-exist. They can serve different groups of people. Not all of them are pushing for getting more market share or jumping into different industries like Airbnb is doing now.
That's a strangely naive and idealistic view of Europe.
Companies are trying to win in Europe and competition is as fierce as anywhere. What "some" do is a moot point. You'll always find "some" people/companies behaving in a certain way wherever you go.
Call me crazy but i don't think european media should hype up an airbnb-like company, just because it has the capability to make money does not mean its good for the world or should exist. We do not need a european amazon, we need to move away from companies like that full stop.
Ironically, you're trying to apply a German mindset to the entire European market. That doesn't really work either.
In the sense that Mittelstand is more than just SMEs, I don't think it ever really existed here. There's no cultural fascination with being a middle business or having a family-owned business. A similar word ("middenstand") was used a lot, but it referred to shops only. In American TLA-speak: SMEs with a D2C model. The term "middenstand" died a slow death in the last 25 years. It's rarely used nowadays.
Good riddance too. The whole term reaks of limited social mobility. In Dutch "stand" has a much stronger feudal vibe than "klasse".
In the audio/music production space Germany has Ableton, Bitwig, Steinberg, Native Instruments, u-he, and quite a few others. All following the Mittelstand model as far as I know.
Notwithstanding all the physical audio equipment manufacturers in Germany, there are loads of them producing quite high quality gear.
Sorry, but it's a typical German detached from reality attitude. We are going to find some magical niches that no one else will dare to touch allowing us to live quietly in a village and print money just like that (not a lot of money of course, we don't want to be TOO unrealistic, just enough for a comfortable life).
Not going to work in an innovative digital economy. We can see how resilient Mittelstand is by the current wave of bankruptcies and the general state of economy.
As far startups go it has much less to do with culture or hype but with the fact that Europe even with the single market has far more localized and ring fenced markets than the US.
So you end up with smaller overall markets with a well dug in established competition.
Entropy tends to increase over time (or, so I heard). The cultural analogue of that would be that all cultures--given the prevalence of internet, and on top of that, the US being one of the "loudest"--will either become or approach that of the US. And it'll bring along everything that's good and bad. That means, decadence, greed, gluttony, enshittification, are unavoidable, however unlikely and alien they seem at present time. In less generous terms, the sick tend to infect the healthy, more than the latter can heal the former.
Swiss gov?/quagos(driven by the Gallic element)? do unbeatable job hyping their wares internationally? Might be best hypsters in their weight class "government of <10million". (German SMEs do not need the international market as much)
For further comparison direct sales incurred by US press is insignificant internationally next to Hollywood,and one can argue the CIA does more-better commerce hype than DoC itself
Interesting article, but I think it's not contradicting to the OP post. What is a "successful specialized high-quality mid size company"? It's formerly a successful startup, just aiming not to cover as wide audience as possible, but a narrow market. And not aiming to go public or sell out, but retain private ownership and vision of the founders. Think Ebay store vs Valve (Steam) store.
The problem is that to become a mittelstand, company must survive early growth phase, and the OP tweet correctly notices that such possibility is severely hampered both by EU and USA media. To continue my example - "we have Valve at home"(c) i.e. for example EU has CDPR with it's GoodOldGames (GoG) store. Yeah, it also went a bit wide in past years, but not because of lack of trying to be specialized. And they still retain that specialization mostly. But they are far far away from the Steam, and I now suspect the marketing playing a key part in it.
tl;dr - authors message "Germany should focus on developing the Digital-Mittelstand" is wrong. It is wrongly formulated. It's like saying "country should focus on developing successful companies". Yeah, no shit Sherlock, but before that every successful company must somehow be created and grow.
Or, alternatively, we can replace every Mittelstand word in the incentives part of the article and all of the sentences would be true:
STARTUP, however, can leverage remote work to further reduce costs. Employees could live in small towns, enjoy lower living expenses, and maintain a high quality of life thanks to Germany’s good transportation infrastructure. Remote work also translates into lower personnel costs, typically the largest expense for any startup. By tapping into these advantages, STARTUP could achieve both profitability and sustainability without compromising employee well-being.
If you’re already sold on the STARTUP concept, let’s explore the potential products they can create. There’s a wide range of possibilities: (a list of typical software industries)
Rather than pouring large grants into startups with the hope of generating returns for shareholders, the German government should consider introducing tailored incentives to foster the development of STARTUP.
Salary Grants - (applicable to startups? of course)
I work 32 hours per week and I can't imagine myself working 40 hours per week anymore. I should have reduced earlier. Together with starting to work at 8AM, I have so much time in the afternoon for myself.
reply