4 ms·

^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. I'm reminded of @pmarca's advice for st

^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. I'm reminded of @pmarca's advice for startup founders who want to meet VCs: > The best way to develop contacts with VCs, in my opinion, is to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > If you can't get hired by a venture-backed startup right now, work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > And if you can't get hired by a well-regarded large tech company, go get a bachelor's or master's degree at a major research university from which well-regarded large tech companies regularly recruit, then work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > I sound like I'm joking, but I'm completely serious -- this is the path taken by many venture-backed entrepreneurs I know. – http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part3.html http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part3.html

taneq 10y ago
> ^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. The weird thing is how someone who does this is lauded for it, but if it's a family rather than an individual that compounds earlier wins, suddenly it's 'wealth inequality' and terribly unfair.
- mvp 10y ago
  Maybe because most virtues make sense from an individual perspective rather than a group.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Because it demotivates people. The thing about capitalism, which I feel is not widely understood, it's that as a participant, you're meant to compete, but you're not meant to win. The need for money to sustain your lifestyle is what drives people to productive work; competition is what drives companies to optimize. But the moment someone wins - a person becomes rich, a company becomes a monopoly - they actually become a problem. At best, they're no longer working and optimizing. At worst, they can disrupt lives of a lot of people. The promise of great wealth is phony by design.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    You are supposed to win, but then adjust your goals, i.e. aim higher. This is a different thing.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      No; in designing a robust system, you can't rely on what people are "supposed to do" out of their own initiative. As it is on the market, the moment you win and the external incentives pushing you to "aim higher" disappear, you become a wildcard - i.e. a problem.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > out of their own initiative aiming higher is human nature. The system is based on this evolutionary fact (sometimes called 'greed', or self-interest), not on directing human behaviour. The market is also based on mutual self-interest. There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals.
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        > There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals. There are - living in a market economy requires nontrivial amount of work just to maintain what you have. Both individuals and companies have to work to balance out their operational (living) expenses; moreover, in case of companies, competition forces you to "aim higher" because not doing so will make your profit fall with time. When you "win" in the market game, those incentives diminish or disappear completely.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > living in a market economy requires nontrivial amount of work just to maintain what you have This is not external, but natural. Humans need a constant supply of food/energy, food spoils etc. Tell me what kind of economy works otherwise. I'm also talking more about life goals e.g. getting a better job, as opposed to working at all. > competition forces you to "aim higher" because not doing so will make your profit fall with time. This is dependant on a lot of things. There are plenty businesses that have survived being less than innovative. But I'd argue whether being competitive counts as "aiming higher"; competition doesn't always grow, sometimes there is constant competition, and innovation is part of business.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Kantian categorical imperative: if everyone does the former, we all win. If everyone does the latter, we stagnate.

taneq 10y ago

> ^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. The weird thing is how someone who does this is lauded for it, but if it's a family rather than an individual that compounds earlier wins, suddenly it's 'wealth inequality' and terribly unfair.

mvp 10y ago
Maybe because most virtues make sense from an individual perspective rather than a group.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Because it demotivates people. The thing about capitalism, which I feel is not widely understood, it's that as a participant, you're meant to compete, but you're not meant to win. The need for money to sustain your lifestyle is what drives people to productive work; competition is what drives companies to optimize. But the moment someone wins - a person becomes rich, a company becomes a monopoly - they actually become a problem. At best, they're no longer working and optimizing. At worst, they can disrupt lives of a lot of people. The promise of great wealth is phony by design.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  You are supposed to win, but then adjust your goals, i.e. aim higher. This is a different thing.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    No; in designing a robust system, you can't rely on what people are "supposed to do" out of their own initiative. As it is on the market, the moment you win and the external incentives pushing you to "aim higher" disappear, you become a wildcard - i.e. a problem.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > out of their own initiative aiming higher is human nature. The system is based on this evolutionary fact (sometimes called 'greed', or self-interest), not on directing human behaviour. The market is also based on mutual self-interest. There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        > There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals. There are - living in a market economy requires nontrivial amount of work just to maintain what you have. Both individuals and companies have to work to balance out their operational (living) expenses; moreover, in case of companies, competition forces you to "aim higher" because not doing so will make your profit fall with time. When you "win" in the market game, those incentives diminish or disappear completely.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > living in a market economy requires nontrivial amount of work just to maintain what you have This is not external, but natural. Humans need a constant supply of food/energy, food spoils etc. Tell me what kind of economy works otherwise. I'm also talking more about life goals e.g. getting a better job, as opposed to working at all. > competition forces you to "aim higher" because not doing so will make your profit fall with time. This is dependant on a lot of things. There are plenty businesses that have survived being less than innovative. But I'd argue whether being competitive counts as "aiming higher"; competition doesn't always grow, sometimes there is constant competition, and innovation is part of business.
mcguire 10y ago
Kantian categorical imperative: if everyone does the former, we all win. If everyone does the latter, we stagnate.