Here is the apparent reason:
You said, "The reality is that o/o is NOT likely to do better than leased onto a single carrier".
Oh, well, excuse me. Clearly that's a statement which warrants attacking me and calling me names. You are so right. I can't believe I missed that. Doh! My sincerest apology.
Why is your statement not misleading and irresponsible but Eddie's is.
We're circling now. You
really do have a tough time with "responsible" and "irresponsible", don't you? Or is it just a reading comprehension problem? It's not misleading because I haven't seen any credible evidence that shows people are "more likely" to do better running for multiple carriers than they are running for a single carrier, and I've done considerable research on the subject, more than enough to confidently make the statement. And it's not irresponsible because my advice isn't very likely to cause someone to fail out of ignorance due to a lack of information, while Eddie's is. If people take my advice they will take a closer look at it if they are interested, but if people take Eddie's advice as given they will go into uneducated and unprepared and will likely fail, as most do when they entering anything unprepared. If they think they are "more likely" to do very well, or better, with multiple carriers, they are likely to dismiss the single carrier model as being a viable option because they already know going in they aren't as likely to do as well with it, because Eddie just told them so.
That is what I asked you to prove! But YOU say the other has to be proved first. Bull! As we know, neither can be proved. I set you up for it.
Yes, you asked me to prove a negative, which cannot be proven, as you just noted. So yes, you set me up for that. Very clever, I must say. You got me good. Boy do I feel like a doofus. Well done.
Once again, as you have agreed to. The data on industry wide basis does not exist. Therefore, neither claim can be made. Is there any part of this statement you don't understand?
Yes, there is a part of that statement I don't understand. Two parts, actually. One, that I agreed that data on an industry-wide basis does not exist. I didn't agree with that at all. What I agreed to was that
me, you, or anyone else doesn't know how many there are doing the independent contractor multi-carrier model in a cargo van or Sprinter, nor all of their income levels in the expediting industry. That's not really the same thing as agreeing that industry-wide data doesn't exist, because it does exist. Even you have admitted to collecting data yourself. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you are I are not the only two expediters to have talked with drivers who have done both the single and multi-carrier models, dispatchers and operations managers at carriers and brokers, and others both involved in multi and single carrier models, and that you haven't limited yourself to just small segments of the industry or to data sample sizes so small as to be meaningless.
Apparently, you think conclusions and decisions can be made if, and
only if, you have on hand 100% of
all the possible data, and anything less than a full and complete 100% sample data size is a non-viable amount of data, and is therefore meaningless from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever. That's one of the big things I don't understand about your statement above. Eddie made his statement based on 4 expediters that he knows who are doing very well. Frankly, a data set of 4 is a really, really small sample size.
Any statement made one way or another is strictly the opinion of the one making it. Does not make it irresponsible tho. It's just an opinion.
Just because it's an opinion doesn't make it a responsible one, either. But in this case it was opinion stated as fact, and given as advice. If the opinion is offered as advice and it contains incorrect or missing important information, then it's irresponsible, regardless of the subject matter.
As I have said earlier, YOUR opinion is no more or less important than the next guy.
I've never said otherwise. In fact, I've said on multiple occasions that no one should take my advice or opinions at face value about anything, and instead they should do their own research.
You are not the messiah you like to think you are. Again, that is only in your head.
Actually, I don't think I'm the Messiah. Clearly, that's in
your head, not mine.
Running for multiple carriers is no more of a risk than running for a single carrier.
Yet we have evidence right here on EO to the contrary. But even if all carriers of all sizes regardless of experience in the business carried precisely the same risk, the math dictates that the risk would necessarily increase with each additional carrier added to the mix. There's no way that it can't, unless every carrier has zero risk. But every carrier has some risk, and that risk becomes multiplied with every carrier beyond one.
Is it more work? Probably. If set up properly, it can be just as safe as a single carrier in terms of payment.
Oh, so it has to be set up properly. A qualifier that wasn't mentioned in the "likely" statement above. Seems to me that qualifies as a missing piece of important information. So the statement becomes 'you are more likely to do very well (or better) if you do this, or that, and this and that.' You just got finished saying running for multiple carriers is no more of a risk than running for a single carrier, and yet you've also just said that it has to be set up properly, which implicitly means there is an additional risk. The two statements contradict each other.
I can't recall any other business in our society with only one receivable. Sounds like an employee mentality to me without the benefits.
Every load is a different receivable, whether you run for a single carrier, multiple carriers, or you have your own authority and broker your own loads. The only difference is how you do your factoring and with whom, and how you obtain your loads. There are plenty of businesses with single receivables. There are businesses created solely to serve a single customer. But in any event, a contract lease in trucking is hardly an employee mentality without the benefits. Whether it's single or multiple carriers, each load is a separate load contract, and comes with the same responsibility.
Like all business, there is risk involved. The key is to limit it. If you have 3 good customers and something happens to one, you still got two and cash flow.
If you only got one customer, and something happens. Your screwed. Your accounts receivables end up getting charged off and your out of business.
All true. Which is why you want to monitor your customer or customers closely, regardless of the number you have. It's certainly easier to monitor one than three, though, I would think.
I don't recall ever attacking you. I do recall you attacking me about 3 years ago. I let it ride and ignore you for the little arrogant *** that you are. I'm not going to waste my time on looking it up. You can.
I'm glad you're not going to waste your time looking it up, because it would indeed be wasted time, seeing as how you have a very bad or a very selective memory. You don't like me for some reason, and that's fine. There's nothing I can do about that. At least you're keeping things classy and professional. That's what I've always liked most about you.
