Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
paulgraham.com
Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#2Or maybe give people time to live before they decide to participate in "the economy". Not everything is jobs. Actually I would argue that hiring is, or should be soon, obsolete because of a gradual change on mindset that clarifies what jobs really are, schemes. There's no reason to dedicate most of your waking life working on selling products where the end product is just maintaining frivolous life styles. And if having to pay for basic things like a roof and food is the factor here, then there are bigger issues at the root level.
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#3And "Microsoft is dead". And Paul Graham is a lucky blogger who just happens to have a brand and contacts.
Exactly one of these 3 is true.
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#4I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. This makes them arrogant and unwilling to listen to advice from older people who are smarter but not financially successful.
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#5Shorter PG: hiring is hard due to market informational inefficiencies, acqui-hiring is the future!
> What's an especially productive 22 year old to do? One thing you can do is go over the heads of organizations, directly to the users. Any company that hires you is, economically, acting as a proxy for the customer. The rate at which they value you (though they may not consciously realize it) is an attempt to guess your value to the user. But there's a way to appeal their judgement. If you want, you can opt to be valued directly by users, by starting your own company.
I wasn't expecting Paul Graham to recite orthodox Marxism. This paragraph is only missing the word "exploited", because he's effectively saying that young good workers are undervalued because a large employer makes more money from them than they are paid.
> Buying larval startups solves that problem for them: the acquirer doesn't pay till the developers have proven themselves. Acquirers are protected on the downside, but still get most of the upside.
The downside of this is of course that the "downside" flows to the not-chosen workers. It's effectively like doing a trial shift, except instead of just a day you have to spend six months on building a business. And during that time, how do you fund your food and rent?
> The math is brutal. While perhaps 9 out of 10 startups fail, the one that succeeds will pay the founders more than 10 times what they would have made in an ordinary job.
So .. what happens to everyone else?
Sure, I like the message that young people should go out in the world, try things, be imaginative, and try to find an employer that will value their skills. And that it's easier than ever to disintermediate the economy. But it needs to come with a recognition of how that's actually funded on the day to day level, and which people are and aren't going to be able to succeed in that environment.
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#6I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. This makes them arrogant and unwilling to listen to advice from older people who are smarter but not financially successful.
I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail.
You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business by then. They're exceptions rather than the rule, certainly, but that's exactly who investors should be looking for.
The only thing investors need to remember is that age isn't an indication of anything very interesting. People will have amazing ideas and the drive to execute them at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 80...
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#7Hiring is alive and well, and thinks Paul Graham is obsolete...
"Investing in people" wasn't even a new idea in 2005. It's totally obvious once you get over post-enlightment drivel like individuality and innate rights, and focus on what's real: people are matter, matter can be owned, ownership can be fractional, (...Ayn Rand died for our sins...)
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#8I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. This makes them arrogant and unwilling to listen to advice from older people who are smarter but not financially successful.
[deleted]
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#9Shorter PG: hiring is hard due to market informational inefficiencies, acqui-hiring is the future! > What's an especially productive 22 year old to do? One thing you can do is go over the heads of organizations, directly to the users. Any company that hires you is, economically, acting as a proxy for the customer. The rate at which they value you (though they may not consciously realize it) is an attempt to guess you…
> I wasn't expecting Paul Graham to recite orthodox Marxism. This paragraph is only missing the word "exploited", because he's effectively saying that young good workers are undervalued because a large employer makes more money from them than they are paid.
No, the point was that at a big company you get paid the average value of the work your and your peers does, while when you work for yourself you get paid the value you yourself does. This means that for strong performers going alone is better, and for weak performers going to a company is better. Nothing exploitative here, just natural consequences of scale and imperfect productivity measures.
Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)
#10Or maybe give people time to live before they decide to participate in "the economy". Not everything is jobs. Actually I would argue that hiring is, or should be soon, obsolete because of a gradual change on mindset that clarifies what jobs really are, schemes. There's no reason to dedicate most of your waking life working on selling products where the end product is just maintaining frivolous life styles. And if hav…
To a certain extent i agree with your statement. But if young people dont’ explore and develop skills early then they will lose later in life. Instead of “living” they should probably explore wether art or tech or construction or whatever is more suitable for them personally. Then once they have a career they cam travel and live as they have the skills to support that life. If you look at instagram then you will see how many live their lives and have no skill then they complain about why they camt pay bills.