代寫作業：為什麼要股利創業者

代寫作業：為什麼要股利創業者
如今，鼓勵企業家是一項領先的業務。這篇由Scott Shane撰寫的論文試圖呈現一個完全不同的觀點。他的論文的標題是吸引讀者的第一個線索，因為矛盾總是在市場上有一個熱點。這是這篇文章的第一個強烈的特點，往往會讓人讀它。我在本文中發現的下一個好特性是顯式部分，突出了內容中討論的問題。他們很理性，也很容易讓人產生共鳴。這五個問題組織了這篇論文的整個主題，並為讀者接下來要做的準備。第三和第五項陳述最吸引我，作者說他將解釋好的初創企業與壞的初創企業的特點，以及是什麼讓他得出一個結論，放棄了鼓勵創業者的政策(Bernstein, 2002) 。本文最好的地方在於作者提出的創業失敗的原因。這是迄今為止最吸引人的部分。他解釋失敗原因的方式值得讚賞。沒有工作，更確切地說，沒有經驗的人傾向於為自己創造機會。

代寫作業：為什麼要股利創業者
他們缺乏經驗和對商業的理解，這使得他們浪費了政府和其他公司提供的激勵和放鬆。在下一節中，作者將繼續駁斥與創業有關的創造就業神話。他引用了美國的統計數據。 ，以支持他的論點。我喜歡他用連續的辯論方式來傳達他的信息。正如他在前面關於新業務的不可持續性的部分中所解釋的，他在本節中更進一步。新企業確實創造了就業機會，但它們存活的時間不長，導致同等數量的失業人口。他再次引用了一項關於大型企業和新企業僱員的比較研究。值得讚揚的部分還涉及國際趨勢。作者包括來自瑞典的統計數字。年齡在兩歲或以上的公司僅創造了1.7%的就業崗位，而年齡在10歲以上的公司創造了74.5%的就業崗位。此外，新公司創造的淨就業機會不值得一提，因為它們中很少能存活很長時間(Noorderhaven et al.， 2004)。

代寫作業：為什麼要股利創業者

Encouraging Entrepreneurs is a leading business these days. This paper by Scott Shane intends to present a completely different point of view. The title of his paper is the first catch line to attract readers, as contradictions always have a hot spot in market. This is the first strong feature of this paper that tends one to read it. The next good feature I find in this paper is the explicit section highlighting the issues discussed in the content. They are very rational and relatable. These five issues organized the entire subject of this paper and prepare the mind of a reader what is coming next. The third and the fifth statement appeals me the most, where the author says he will explain the characteristics of good start-ups versus bad start-ups and what makes him come to a conclusion to discard the policy of encouraging entrepreneurs specifically(Bernstein, 2002). The best of this paper is the argument that the author presents on why the start-ups fail. This is the most enthralling section so far. The way he explains the reasons for failure is worth appreciating. People with no job and more precisely no experience tend towards creating opportunities for themselves.

代寫作業：為什麼要股利創業者
Their lack of experience and understanding of business makes them waste the incentives and relaxations provided by government and other firms.The author continues to impress in the next section of countering the job creation Myth associated with Entrepreneurship. He quotes statistics from the U.S Bureau of Labour statistics to support his argument. I like his style of conveying his message in continuation style of argument. As he explained in earlier section about unsustainability associated with new business, he takes it further in this section. New businesses do create employment opportunities but they don’t survive for long, leaving equal number of unemployed people. He again quotes a comparative study about people hired by huge businesses and those by new ones. The commendable part is referring to international trends as well. The author includes statistics from Sweden. The companies who were two or more years old created only 1.7 per cent of jobs while companies older than ten years create 74.5 per cent jobs. Moreover the net jobs created by new firms are not worth mentioning as rare of them survive for long (Noorderhaven et al., 2004).