5 ms·

I think it's a healthy discussion to be had. Yes, the vast majority of problems startups aim to solve are really "first world problems". All those "help us cha

by Kurtz79 10y ago

I think it's a healthy discussion to be had. Yes, the vast majority of problems startups aim to solve are really "first world problems". All those "help us changing the world" snippets you find even in job offers here in HN, are naïve in the best case, and insulting in the worst. On the other hand, it's unfair to expect them to take the role of "society's saviors": many of the real problems should be the domain of governments and policy. Expecting for-profit, private companies to solve those it's a huge cop-out and unrealistic. (EDIT) More context: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/solving-all-the-wrong-problems.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/solving-all...

thatfrenchguy 10y ago
"many of the real problems should be the domain of governments and policy" I think one of the issues illustrated in the article comes from the fact that Silicon Valley companies, in the name of "innovation", often say that their innovations are apolitical, which is never the case. When Uber becomes the fare-setter for drivers and the government let them push their drivers below min wage, it is a political process.
misiogames 10y ago
I'll say not even solve first world problem, just provide a technically enhanced "solution" to problems? that affect very little number of people.
mobiuscog 10y ago
For a long time now, entrepreneurs have been solving the 'convenience' problem, as they have found that it what makes them the most money. It's not about solving important 'problems' for most - it's about how they can make the most money, and that is usually by providing more convenience to people. This is, of course, how business works in a capitalist society - the issue is that the problems they solve are often marketed as being the most important, whereas they're just selling a dream. I'm sure they would solve the major problems if they could and there was sufficient money in it - look at how the drugs companies operate - but this is (and has always been) about money. Amazon are running their competition for better robot picking - are they also running competitions for how to help people whose jobs are replaced by robots ? Silicon Valley has a single role - to make (more) money for those people investing into it. That's all. There's little to no philanthropy, and when there is it's generally from people who are already far wealthier than is required to live (an excessively comfortable) life.
- rvense 10y ago
  Seems obvious, really. The people who have the money to pay others to solve problems for them are likely to have already had all their basic problems taken care of. Tangentially reminds me of Dave Rossum, founder of synthesizer company E-mu systems, who jokes that the problem with building a business on selling to musicians is that your customers are always broke.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Halfway through your comment I thought of the analogy to drug companies, which solve problems like impotence rather than Ebola because the people with impotence have lots of money and the people with Ebola don't. Worse than even solving the so called first-world-problems, they invest a fair amount of time on "evergreening" which is basically fraud or at the very, very best rent-seeking. Yet, you then used them as an example of an industry solving the big problems.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Do you find such reductionism to be actually useful outside of self-congratulations for posting politically correct rhetoric? Or, although I doubt it, do you actually believe that's an accurate and intellectually honest summary?
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      I keep meaning to start a blog that catalogues the many random and bizarre things that are accused of being "politically correct" on HN, but it's the first time it's actually happened directly to me. Which bit of my comment is politically correct? Or, assuming you're using it in the modern meaning of "something I don't like", I'm still not sure what bit of my comment you didn't like. Yes, to re-iterate, I think the incentives of drug manufacturers are tilted in many ways including a) towards drugs that serve wealthy customers, b) towards drugs that will be taken every day for the rest of their lives, c) towards drugs that can be protected by patents. I further think that some of the behaviours in the industry tend towards the unethical, e.g. evergreening a patent-free drug and then using the well catalogued failures of modern science to "prove" that it's better than the patented drug by leaving any negative findings in the file drawer and only publishing the positive ones, and then doing things like withdrawing the older drug from sale and bribing doctors to use the newer drugs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening Quote: "Almost all nations including the United States now have anti-evergreening legislation as part of their public health policy"
venomsnake 10y ago
-Why do you rob banks? -Because that's where the money is The people with third world problems just don't have the money to pay the SF rent of a SV developer.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Perhaps addressing that birth lottery inequality ought be discussed.
Avshalom 10y ago
Well there's two things: It's not unfair to expect people shouting about changing the world (implication: for the better) to be working on things that change the world (for the better). While certainly not all of them, and maybe not even a majority, there are a lot of loud voices of pro-capitalist boosters who absolutely expect that for-profit, private companies to be the only way to solve real problems and save society.

by Kurtz79 10y ago

thatfrenchguy 10y ago

"many of the real problems should be the domain of governments and policy" I think one of the issues illustrated in the article comes from the fact that Silicon Valley companies, in the name of "innovation", often say that their innovations are apolitical, which is never the case. When Uber becomes the fare-setter for drivers and the government let them push their drivers below min wage, it is a political process.

misiogames 10y ago

I'll say not even solve first world problem, just provide a technically enhanced "solution" to problems? that affect very little number of people.

mobiuscog 10y ago

For a long time now, entrepreneurs have been solving the 'convenience' problem, as they have found that it what makes them the most money. It's not about solving important 'problems' for most - it's about how they can make the most money, and that is usually by providing more convenience to people. This is, of course, how business works in a capitalist society - the issue is that the problems they solve are often marketed as being the most important, whereas they're just selling a dream. I'm sure they would solve the major problems if they could and there was sufficient money in it - look at how the drugs companies operate - but this is (and has always been) about money. Amazon are running their competition for better robot picking - are they also running competitions for how to help people whose jobs are replaced by robots ? Silicon Valley has a single role - to make (more) money for those people investing into it. That's all. There's little to no philanthropy, and when there is it's generally from people who are already far wealthier than is required to live (an excessively comfortable) life.

rvense 10y ago
Seems obvious, really. The people who have the money to pay others to solve problems for them are likely to have already had all their basic problems taken care of. Tangentially reminds me of Dave Rossum, founder of synthesizer company E-mu systems, who jokes that the problem with building a business on selling to musicians is that your customers are always broke.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Halfway through your comment I thought of the analogy to drug companies, which solve problems like impotence rather than Ebola because the people with impotence have lots of money and the people with Ebola don't. Worse than even solving the so called first-world-problems, they invest a fair amount of time on "evergreening" which is basically fraud or at the very, very best rent-seeking. Yet, you then used them as an example of an industry solving the big problems.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Do you find such reductionism to be actually useful outside of self-congratulations for posting politically correct rhetoric? Or, although I doubt it, do you actually believe that's an accurate and intellectually honest summary?
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    I keep meaning to start a blog that catalogues the many random and bizarre things that are accused of being "politically correct" on HN, but it's the first time it's actually happened directly to me. Which bit of my comment is politically correct? Or, assuming you're using it in the modern meaning of "something I don't like", I'm still not sure what bit of my comment you didn't like. Yes, to re-iterate, I think the incentives of drug manufacturers are tilted in many ways including a) towards drugs that serve wealthy customers, b) towards drugs that will be taken every day for the rest of their lives, c) towards drugs that can be protected by patents. I further think that some of the behaviours in the industry tend towards the unethical, e.g. evergreening a patent-free drug and then using the well catalogued failures of modern science to "prove" that it's better than the patented drug by leaving any negative findings in the file drawer and only publishing the positive ones, and then doing things like withdrawing the older drug from sale and bribing doctors to use the newer drugs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening Quote: "Almost all nations including the United States now have anti-evergreening legislation as part of their public health policy"

venomsnake 10y ago

-Why do you rob banks? -Because that's where the money is The people with third world problems just don't have the money to pay the SF rent of a SV developer.

dredmorbius 10y ago
Perhaps addressing that birth lottery inequality ought be discussed.

Avshalom 10y ago

Well there's two things: It's not unfair to expect people shouting about changing the world (implication: for the better) to be working on things that change the world (for the better). While certainly not all of them, and maybe not even a majority, there are a lot of loud voices of pro-capitalist boosters who absolutely expect that for-profit, private companies to be the only way to solve real problems and save society.