Billionaires Build • Hacker News Board

Re: Billionaires Build

#261

Post by pontifier » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

"And not just new, but uncertain. If it were certain that the need existed and that you could satisfy it, that certainty would be reflected in large and rapidly growing revenues, and you wouldn't be seeking seed funding."

I take issue with this. I'm quite certain of the things I work on, but have not been able to execute due to lack of funds.

This lack of execution means no revenue.

No revenue means I'm struggling to fund things myself because I know how valuable the equity I'd have to give away would be worth.

The best, and most confident founders aren't going to be in a rush to trade equity for ANYTHING, EVEN if the revenue isn't there yet.

Re: Billionaires Build

#262

Post by IanCal » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #216

daralthus wrote: post #174

Not sure what to make of this. Billionaire companies != seed funded startups. The exploitation really kicks into gear after you have 5000 employees and there are many inflection points of power differentials until then. Each not as a big deal, but slowly eroding some rights the farther and lower you go.

I think the point is that entrepreneurial endeavors are not a zero sum game. Politicians and people sometimes act like billionaires are hoarding a big slice of pie selfishly for themselves, but the reality is they made the pie bigger by adding value to the world. By the definition of how markets work they had to have added more value then they got compensated. This is how it works with idealized new products. With hi…

Those can both be true.

If I provide enough value to buy a thousand lifetimes worth of food and sit in my castle with it while people outside my moat starve - am I not selfishly hoarding that food?

Re: Billionaires Build

#263

Post by dcolkitt » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

Lendal wrote: post #238

dcolkitt wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence is indisputable that workers at large firms have substantially higher productivity than small firms.[1] Big business also pays its workers substantially higher wages. If your model of big business is that it's a tool for exploiting workers, you'd expect the opposite of this dynamic. Instead the economics is pretty clear that most large firms create synergies that empower individual workers to produce muc…

The question though is why shouldn't those workers receive a larger share of their own productivity gains? As we work harder, we should receive more. But since the mid-1970's workers have received only a fraction of their own productivity gains. Most of that value is being sucked upward. It wasn't always this way.

Average worker compensation has nearly doubled in the past 20 years.[1] Almost exactly in line with aggregate productivity levels.[2]

What I'm guessing you're referring to is median household income. Which is a quite different number than mean worker income. The former has stagnated relative to the latter primarily because a massive number of prime-aged workers, in particular young men, have dropped out of the labor pool.[3]

Why that's happened is an entire question all on its own. But one thing is clear, the reason for it certainly can't be big businesses exploiting labor, because by definition the unemployed aren't working for anybody at all.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/243846/total-compensatio... [2] https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/below-trend-the-us-pro... [3] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/labor-force-pa...

Re: Billionaires Build

#264

Post by petra » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #89

jariel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

I think some tried some things. Barnes and Nobles did some. The results weren't successful, and that was pretty discouraging to other book store owners.

As book store owner, I really think it's an irrational decision to invest heavily in fighting Amazon. You're chances of success are pretty slim.

As for big businesses ? Well, there's Walmart, Target.

In the end, the e-commerce industry is a place where most of the market share would be controlled by a few large companies. That was clear from the beginning.

Re: Billionaires Build

#265

Post by ardy42 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

willyg123 wrote: post #236

ardy42 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your startup makes your investors billions, you are probably becoming a billionaire in the process or pretty close. Most startups fail, though.

> Most startups fail, though. So do most batters in Major League Baseball.

> So do most batters in Major League Baseball.

VC is the batter, though. They're interviewing people to be their balls.

Re: Billionaires Build

#266

Post by dnautics » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

drewrv wrote: post #235

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this: The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more…

it's not a weak straw man. There are people who say this:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/aoc-accuses-...

Re: Billionaires Build

#267

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

drewrv wrote: post #235

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this: The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more…

[deleted]

Re: Billionaires Build

#268

Post by tasuki » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

hh3k0 wrote: post #246

austinpena wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t believe that if someone makes billions they should be able to pass it on to their children?

> You don’t believe that if someone makes billions they should be able to pass it on to their children? I believe no individual has ever _earned_ a billion USD. If it were up to me, people like Jeff Bezos would have everything to their name seized by the state. It should be used for the benefit of the many -- and not a selected few. He'll be compensated with a trophy, though: "Congratulations, you won capitalism. Con…

> people like Jeff Bezos would have everything to their name seized by the state.

...everything? Also what does "people like Jeff Bezos" mean? Bald ones?

Re: Billionaires Build

#269

Post by simonebrunozzi » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

yetanothermonk wrote: post #162

dang wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt the same way but pg has since changed the title from "What You Can Learn from How to Ace a YC Interview" to "Billionaires Build" so he obviously wants to emphasize that aspect.

Thanks for the heads up. The old title was also clickbaity but this new title is even more so. I wonder if even HN comment reactions are more towards the title vs the content.

I don't find it clickbaity. Let me explain.

To me, clickbait means that I'm luring you into reading an article by using a catchy title, but the content of the article doesn't exactly match what I expected; or that I use human psychology to trick you into opening a new web page (e.g. "you will never guess what happened next").

I instead find the title refreshingly nice and simple, and reading the article fully matched my expectations. Great "marketing" (the ability to pick a catchy title is good marketing) shouldn't be confused with being clickbaity.

Re: Billionaires Build

#270

Post by 2Xheadpalm » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

Those billionaire nerds may have been brilliant builders and may even started out with 'good' motivations but with their new found wealth and power, they are no longer the same people once they are inaugurated into the B. club. - 'Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely'.