Live data from Hacker News

Billionaires Build

paulgraham.com

81–90 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#81
post #76
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…

California legislators made this kind of argument earlier this year as they tried to force Uber to reclassify their drivers as employees. California voters rejected that. Uber drivers themselves overwhelmingly wanted to keep their contractor status. Maybe they don't consider themselves exploited?

There is some speculation (I haven't seen where the data for this preference for contractor status comes from other than "drivers surveyed") that the high preference is influenced by dark patterns in the ride-sharing apps, where the drivers are presented with in-app notifications very frequently until they indicate support.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/22/uber-pr...

I'm sure many would not consider themselves exploited and prefer to be contractors, but I'm personally skeptical that the breakdowns of this opinion are as reported by the companies.

Re: Billionaires Build

#82

One mistake pg makes here is assuming that to be an exploitative billionaire you have to be good at exploiting people or have personal manipulative qualities. You don’t. Owning a large company in a capitalist system is inherently exploitative. Simply owning a large company and taking surplus value from a large number of people is exploitation.

Hypothetical question: I have little money but I write an amazing book and it sells to millions. Each books takes, say, $5 to print, and yet I sell it for $15. Therefore I end up wealthy from this endeavor. Did I exploit the people who chose to buy my book? The people who printed it?

Did you personally sell millions of books on your own? Probably you used some service like amazon in order to sell those books and fulfil the orders, in this hypothetical, in which case the lefty argument would be that you are indirectly profiting from the exploitation of both amazon's workers and the employees of the printing company.

Re: Billionaires Build

#83
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say this is a straw man. Every billionaire being exploitative/criminal is a real political position among the American Left, see e.g. this tweet [0] by Robert Reich. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, so not some extremist weirdo. [0] https://twitter.com/rbreich/status/1193526297647108097

I think Robert Reich is more left of center than the current political party since the 90s, in an increasingly polarizing nation. Here's the quote: There are basically 5 ways to accumulate a billion dollars in America: 1) Profiting from a monopoly 2) Insider-trading 3) Political payoffs 4) Fraud 5) Inheritance

To disprove this, one must simply enumerate the 2000 or so billionaires and determine how they each made their money; then categorize them and see if a significant percentage (say, 5%? 10%) do not fit these five criteria.

Re: Billionaires Build

#84
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very simplified, many small book stores take online or email orders. That doesn't magically put them in the same position as Amazon & co.

Would you also argue that these small bookstores “delight their users”? If so, why aren’t they making money? If not, do you think that maybe that might be the problem?

The way that amazon has delighted their users, for a long time, was to heavily grow by reinvesting all their money into both expansion and subsidizing their infrastructure. That is simply not a path a small shop can take because they don't have investors. Nor do they it want to. Nor should they have to.

Re: Billionaires Build

#85
Some of the most successful YC companies are: Stripe, Airbnb, Cruise, DoorDash, Coinbase, Instacart, Dropbox, Gusto, Reddit, and Gitlab.

I guess DoorDash and Instacart are accused of participating in the exploitative gig economy. Airbnb is accused of circumventing hotel laws (is that exploitation?)

The other 7 on my list are pretty okay though, right?

Re: Billionaires Build

#86

Can someone pin point what is objectively wrong or out of touch with this article? Genuinely asking because the past three+ posts from pg have been met with negativity saying pg is a wealthy Londoner who doesn’t understand the prole struggle.

He starts his entire essay with a faulty premise, that in order to be a billionaire you have to be exploitative, and then goes on to argue why Y Combinator doesn't look for exploitative people so therefore this must not be true. Look, not even 'prole defenders' agree with this. You don't have to be exploitative to be a billionaire, it's simply a byproduct. There are only several thousand billionaires on earth and you…

People have already minced words over "exploitation" and where to exactly draw the boundary between acceptable/tolerable and not. It strikes me personally as flimsy reasoning to harp on his writings.

If you're going to build a business and you hope to make money, you're going to have to EXPLOIT inefficiencies in markets, competitors, customers, processes, conventional modes of thinking, and so on. Doesn't matter if the business is making you a dollar or a million or a billion.

And also, this whole "scandal involving workers or consumers". YC's portfolio has plenty of companies who are making a killing with revenue who haven't had to do this.

Patrick Collison is a regular poster on here. Go ahead and tell him he's exploiting people and he's scandalous with workers and consumers. I'd like to see someone go to one of the successful YC alumni and say directly at them half the shit you people spout out into the nether.

As I have mentioned in a comment to the throwaway account in this thread - I sincerely think a lot of commenters on here either have no experience or no ambition in starting a business, never mind getting a healthy revenue stream. Hell, I wonder what the percentage here is who got as far to having to talk to clients.

Re: Billionaires Build

#87
post #76
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…

California legislators made this kind of argument earlier this year as they tried to force Uber to reclassify their drivers as employees. California voters rejected that. Uber drivers themselves overwhelmingly wanted to keep their contractor status. Maybe they don't consider themselves exploited?

Or maybe Uber et al outspending their opponents on political advertising by hundreds of millions of dollars had something to do with it? Not to mention constant advertising for free in their apps. They had the “no on prop 22” people hopelessly outgunned.

Even the idea that Uber drivers themselves wanted to keep their contractor status is questionable given that they collected those statistics via polls in the driver app. There is/was legitimate concern that Uber et al would collect that info and retaliate. There is no recourse for this on the workers’ behalf because they don’t have a union! This is a TEXTBOOK example of why gig workers need to be given the right to collectively bargain. Now, thanks to prop 22, overturning its provisions needs a 7/8 majority in the state legislature. Aka, not gonna happen, and that’s by the design of some really cynical lawyers.

More generally, the prop 22 campaign is an indictment of the referendum process, and how easily it can be abused in the absence of sensible campaign finance laws.

Re: Billionaires Build

#88
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…

Maybe the more precise words are, where do the economic gains the company is concentrating into the hands of ownership come from? Where do you draw the line for how much rent is too much?

Taxi drivers have always been undocumented and much poorer than the people they were driving. Uber didn’t change that, and nobody needs permission to boss a poor person around - go to a restaurant, send your kids to school, shop, you will be bossing poor people around. The remedy is immigration and labor law reform, that is something Uber actively worked against - and won! They care because the economic gain they are concentrating comes from people driving below minimum wage because they lack documents or work authorization.

It had nothing to do with lures or whatever, everyone knows what the deal was. Cars could require no maintenance and people would still be screwed. Uber shut down its self driving car unit and none of that shit mattered. Nobody is out there designing cars that are cheaper, we already have $1,000 used cars, in fact all the effort pours into cars that are way more expensive. Uber blew a lot of money on incentives as long as Lyft does and vice versa, and people just drive for both and none of that shit mattered.

The difference I’m trying to illuminate here is, a permanent subclass of undocumented worker is enshrined in the law. The difference between a W2 and 1099 employee is enshrined in the law. Uber spent a fortune maintaining the status quo, not creating a new one, they did not write those laws.

Personally, I believe, like those guys in the 2006 Borat movie who wish they owned slaves, that people like this status quo, and that Uber could have spent 1/10th the money campaigning for Prop 22 and it still would have passed. People like cheap shit. They enshrine the divide in the law. Bernie Sanders was assailed by the NYTimes for his most divisive opinion, that if people are willing to work below minimum wage they will get the job, and that the government has enshrined that arrangement through immigration law - you’re just not seeing how deeply vested the average person is, not just Travis Kalanick is, in an exploitative status quo.

Meanwhile we type this all out on iPhones. Would you rather they cost 5x as much? I don’t know, if phones cost so much more, if you could ban the exploitation of Chinese labor for real, 50% of the ultra high paying jobs of HN readers would cease to exist overnight. It would be like a pandemic hit software, instead of just Main Street.

This shit is complicated, you can certainly point out that billionaires are bad people, but we all benefit from exploiting someone somewhere, and the road to justice will often visit the people who promote it. And maybe that’s why you and I aren’t out there protesting but those other people are.

Re: Billionaires Build

#89
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

" dying because of small business refusal to use technology" This is a little glib. There's nothing most of these small business can do.

They haven't tried anything. Every business being beaten by Amazon seems to have just decided to lie down and die.

Even big businesses facing Amazon have done very little to compete.

Re: Billionaires Build

#90
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Amazon didn't kill small businesses. We killed them by using Amazon. And I'm glad to have participated. I much prefer Amazon passing the savings of time and money to me rather than some small business owner. The small businesses I was forced to use previously were inefficient, slow, overcharging, had terrible customer service, exploited employees, etc. As an example: we killed tons of movie rental businesses by switc…

this is mistaken: you need multiple small businesses because competition trumps everything. competition results in lower prices, better customer service. to amazon, though they've excellent customer support or used - you're just another customer.

The small businesses you say were exploitative is because they were the only shot in town. i.e in a monopolistic position.

multiple small businesses result in a robust economy. if one goes bust there's plenty to keep providing a similar service. MSB's enable other auxiliary business look at Japan | German's economy for an example - mutliple suppliers etc. more employment. Guess the jobs the masses work at amazon - drivers, warehouse workers.

What amazon, provides could've been easily provided by a standardized api connecting different small merchants. some industries already do this - a flower shop needs roses, it can easily contact another flower shop to get roses to it's customers. everyone wins.

netflix yeah was a net positive. it's content so end of day, it was going to be aggregated in Ben Thompson's terms.

Uber is good for me as a consumer. But is it good for the driver, for the environment. if the US had robust public transportation, Uber wouldn't be necessary.

Post reply on HN