I would say so, yeah. If you only have 10 people, I'd say it's still kinda risky. Your company could disappear very quickly.

As I say, I'd rate plentyOfFish as a lifestyle business. It's not a derogatory term in any way shape or form. Just means that instead of growing the company (Headcount, diversifying, etc), they are maintaining their own lifestyle.

No way. 10 people creating a 100M business isn't at risk of disappearing. 10 people creating a 1M business might be.

The issue is profits, not headcount.

I don't see why that would be the case. Profit doesn't really mean anything unless it's sustainable (Apart from providing a lifestyle). To be sustainable, it's worth diversifying, and that means increasing head count.

Measuring a company in terms of profit is really short term. How about the long term lasting effect of the company?

I think that headcount is a (n often) necessary evil in growing a business, but keeping everything else equal and increasing headcount alone actually makes your business less likely to be long-run great, IMO.

Paying additional salaries and benefits and taking on additional management and coordination overhead are all losses/drags on the business, unless the added body brings in far more money than they cost.

Yes, you often need them, but successful large companies often have a lot of people because they have a lot of revenue and profit, rather than having a lot of revenue and profit because they have a lot of people.

I think you're talking about exceptions rather than the rule.

>> "unless the added body brings in far more money than they cost."

Basic common sense. I never said hiring people who cost more than they produce was a good idea. Obviously it's not.