Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Billionaires Build

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#31

Post by bob33212 »

Traster wrote: post #28

For a clearly smart guy it's so frustrating to see PG bring in a topic like the Billionaires being exploitative, and then taking such a thoroughly blinkered view. It's a massive blind spot that PG fails to address is that it's the exact same sense of mission that he sees in start ups that creates the permission structure to exploit people. It's not that people set out to exploit people and as a result they become bil…

Right, Bezos didn't set out to bankrupt as many small businesses as he could. He started with providing a wider range of books to people over the internet. For the person who wanted a specific book and was only able to get it on Amazon this is a "good" thing. For the local bookstore who is now bankrupt that is a "bad" thing.

I've come to the conclusion that to be a CEO you have to wear these blinders and have faith that overall your company is a positive good for the world. That means that when you have a low performing employee you have to fire him even though you know that it may cause terrible consequences for him and his family.

Re: Billionaires Build

#32

Post by ojnabieoot »

stopachka wrote: post #20

From experience, this rings very, very true. For many, this is a hard pill to swallow. Here's one way to judge it more objectively. Replace "billionaire", with something more neutral: "pro basketball player", "amazing musician", "prolific writer". The arguments tend to make a lot of sense in other categories, but our natural inclination rebels on Billionaire. This is a great sign that something is off

A big problem here is that the children of a musical prodigy aren’t necessarily musically talented, and the children of amazing athletes aren’t necessarily amazing athletes.

But the children of billionaires are (almost) all obscenely wealthy.

Re: Billionaires Build

#33

Post by buu700 »

tines wrote: post #23

> The crucial feature of the initial market is that it exist. Should "exist" be replaced with "exists" in this sentence? If you wanted to use "exist" I think you'd have to use a helper verb like "should [exist]". Is there a name for the grammatical feature where someone omits the "should" and uses the conjugation that would go with it?

There's nothing grammatically wrong with that. It's a standard subjunctive clause.

Re: Billionaires Build

#34

Post by CPLX »

Traster wrote: post #28

For a clearly smart guy it's so frustrating to see PG bring in a topic like the Billionaires being exploitative, and then taking such a thoroughly blinkered view. It's a massive blind spot that PG fails to address is that it's the exact same sense of mission that he sees in start ups that creates the permission structure to exploit people. It's not that people set out to exploit people and as a result they become bil…

> It's just a bizarre primary school understanding or morality where there's a group of "Good" people and "Bad" people.

I think it's even more simple than that. It's a failure to realize that everyone is the plucky hero doing things with good intentions in their story about themselves, and that others don't see him as he sees himself.

So despite there being a world where the society is becoming increasingly unequal, where the average American struggles to feel financial security and those born without access to education or the right geography (or, perhaps, who just aren't as bright or ambitious) are merciless casualties of a "meritocracy" that excludes them, PG feels like he can't be the bad guy because he can't pinpoint any specific situation where he did something "wrong".

His only fault, perhaps, is being a massive beneficiary of a system that is profoundly and deeply unfair and getting more that way every day, and he's not able to see that as something he's at fault for.

So I have some sense of empathy and understanding for his perspective. But I think he would benefit greatly from really trying to dig into understanding what it might be like not to share his perspective and vantage point, as well as to do a better job understanding how different the world is for people now than it was in the early 1980's when he began his professional life.

Re: Billionaires Build

#35

Post by stopachka »

ojnabieoot wrote: post #32
stopachka wrote: post #20

From experience, this rings very, very true. For many, this is a hard pill to swallow. Here's one way to judge it more objectively. Replace "billionaire", with something more neutral: "pro basketball player", "amazing musician", "prolific writer". The arguments tend to make a lot of sense in other categories, but our natural inclination rebels on Billionaire. This is a great sign that something is off

A big problem here is that the children of a musical prodigy aren’t necessarily musically talented, and the children of amazing athletes aren’t necessarily amazing athletes. But the children of billionaires are (almost) all obscenely wealthy.

I think these are all more similar than you think:

Consider - the children of musical prodigies are likely to be more musical then average. The children of billionaires are likely to be more entrepreneurial than average - both are likely to be wealthy - neither are likely to be as prolific — I.e a child making an even more successful business, or being a better musician - over a few generations, both are likely to revert to the mean. In some countries this is not true of the wealthy, but in America this is particularly true

Re: Billionaires Build

#36

Post by Loughla »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #26
Swizec wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pg has fallen out of touch. The world is very different for the young ones. I’m not old but my tech career started back around 2007. It was very different. Back then tech was exciting and new. We were changing the world. Now we have changed the world. Mobile is king, web is emperor. We’ve won. Tech is to 2020 what finance was to 1980. And VCs are seen as the big baddies. People don’t join this industry for the love o…

Die a hero or live long enough to become the villain right?

I've never fully understood that saying. Failure to stay relevant and understand the world as it is without your blinders on doesn't make you the victim of time. That's a choice you've made.

It's simple to lose touch. You did what the youth are doing a decade ago; hell, you're still in the game, albeit in a much different role. The world shifts around you, but you are so rich and powerful that people in your personal circle either don't see it themselves because of their wealth and power, or would NEVER point out your shortcomings because they need access to your wealth and power.

In other words, assigning that statement - die a hero or live long enough to become the villain - says, to me, that he hasn't actually done anything wrong. That it's not his fault, he's just been around so long that tastes have changed. He's the victim, is what I read there.

I would argue, though, that it is his fault. He's out of touch with the world as it is for people just starting out, AND he's made the mistake of believing his view is the view, right and proper.

No idea what all that means in this context, but there it is, I guess.

Re: Billionaires Build

#37

Post by SQueeeeeL »

bob33212 wrote: post #31
Traster wrote: post #28

For a clearly smart guy it's so frustrating to see PG bring in a topic like the Billionaires being exploitative, and then taking such a thoroughly blinkered view. It's a massive blind spot that PG fails to address is that it's the exact same sense of mission that he sees in start ups that creates the permission structure to exploit people. It's not that people set out to exploit people and as a result they become bil…

Right, Bezos didn't set out to bankrupt as many small businesses as he could. He started with providing a wider range of books to people over the internet. For the person who wanted a specific book and was only able to get it on Amazon this is a "good" thing. For the local bookstore who is now bankrupt that is a "bad" thing. I've come to the conclusion that to be a CEO you have to wear these blinders and have faith t…

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Re: Billionaires Build

#38

Post by MattGaiser »

bob33212 wrote: post #31
Traster wrote: post #28

For a clearly smart guy it's so frustrating to see PG bring in a topic like the Billionaires being exploitative, and then taking such a thoroughly blinkered view. It's a massive blind spot that PG fails to address is that it's the exact same sense of mission that he sees in start ups that creates the permission structure to exploit people. It's not that people set out to exploit people and as a result they become bil…

Right, Bezos didn't set out to bankrupt as many small businesses as he could. He started with providing a wider range of books to people over the internet. For the person who wanted a specific book and was only able to get it on Amazon this is a "good" thing. For the local bookstore who is now bankrupt that is a "bad" thing. I've come to the conclusion that to be a CEO you have to wear these blinders and have faith t…

Small businesses are dying because of small business refusal to use technology. They would rather grumble about how "millennials won't pick up the phone anymore" to order things.

In the case of small bookstores, they think it is enough to toss books on the shelf and wait for people to come browsing. Well, I can now browse from bed.

Re: Billionaires Build

#39

Post by mellavora »

an_opabinia wrote: post #12
damnencryption wrote: post #10

PG was cheering lambda school's free 4 weeks developer intern trial a while ago. If he doesn't think that is exploitative, maybe huge difference in morality. Airbnb spamming forums early on, sketchy marketing techniques, avoiding commercial regulations that hotel has to go through for good reasons and displacing genuine local rent seekers is not exploitative then maybe the bar is high enough for YC. Should the founde…

Airbnb feels like a very bad example. It’s rich people renting out their homes to other rich people. You’re saying that’s more exploitative than rich people renting out those same homes to poor people? How do you think that really pans out?

My brother works for HUD. They have many examples of people (ab)using Airbnb to operate as slumlords; a type of exploitation which is outlawed. The corporation Airbnb has historically not been cooperative in assisting the HUD in this process.

So no, it is not just rich people renting to rich people. In many cases it is rich people using the platform to avoid regulations which prohibit exploitative renting to poor people.

And the corporation which enables this actively hinders investigations. Because Airbnb is also getting a cut of these rents.

Re: Billionaires Build

#40

Post by stopachka »

travisjungroth wrote: post #30
stopachka wrote: post #20

From experience, this rings very, very true. For many, this is a hard pill to swallow. Here's one way to judge it more objectively. Replace "billionaire", with something more neutral: "pro basketball player", "amazing musician", "prolific writer". The arguments tend to make a lot of sense in other categories, but our natural inclination rebels on Billionaire. This is a great sign that something is off

All three are of your examples are wildly different in that they’re top-tier individual contributors. Of course you can become a prolific writer without exploiting anyone. A more fair comparison would be something like politician.

I think billionaires are much closer to what I mentioned than to politicians. You can tell this by the fact that most billionaires have engineering degrees or were tinkerers.

One defining quality is that billionaires need to scale work that often involves management. In this case consider prolific basketball coaches, or generals in war.

The reason I shy away from including politicians, is because their m.o is starkly different: it’s all about status.

Post reply on HN