6 ms·

Just read all the top line comments here. Interesting that no one had mentioned the one thing that has probably done the most to "better our chances as species

Just read all the top line comments here. Interesting that no one had mentioned the one thing that has probably done the most to "better our chances as species" in the last few hundred years, and has helped hundreds of millions in India and China get out of backbreaking poverty and accumulate some wealth. And that is... Work hard, accumulate skills, and become better at your normal job. Even if you're not writing open source software to help local governments in third world countries have free elections and fight malaria or donating 50% of your salary, you're creating value and "bettering our species" just by doing something that someone is willing to pay you for. In fact, that's how most of the world's wealth is created. Not saying you shouldn't volunteer or donate your salary (I personally try to donate a decent chunk of my salary to givedirectly) but -- unless you're a nigerian hacker or malware developer or something -- just because you're getting paid or working on something that isn't an absolute necessity doesn't mean you aren't doing social good. Just something to think about.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
It's a good one, but the caveat is stronger than you mention. Just because someone wants to pay you for something, doesn't mean it's good to society. Some things are unambiguously socially harmful - cigarette industry, gambling industry - but there are also many things that are harmful by perpetuating waste of resources and man hours. Be wary of zero-sum games, where your effort goes mostly to cancel out the effort of others. Some areas of adtech come to mind, for example. So in short: use judgement. There's a lot of social good to be done in mundane jobs - but just because someone is willing to pay for something, doesn't mean it should be done.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
I think Bill Gates is an interesting data point here. For a lot of his life he was reviled by many, and yet in the past 15 years he has used his wealth to do great good.
- peacetreefrog 9y ago
  Agree that he's done a ton of good with his charitable giving, but point is that he bettered humanity (probably even more than his charity) even before that with Windows (giving the masses an easier way to interact with computers, allowing individuals and companies to create other valuable things in turn), the whole software not hardware paradigm (led to rapid development in terms of the type of programs and functionality people had access to), and Microsoft Office (Excel and Word == a ton of social value). Obviously he wasn't personally responsible for all that, and also became a multi billionaire in the process (and is giving most of it away, kudos) but even if he kept it all, that's all benefiting humanity and creating social good.
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    I think 'bettering humanity with Windows' is open for debate. Some would argue that Windows, and the security problems it brought to the Internet, was the enabler for the single largest source of income for criminal enterprise outside of the drug trade. Now it is much more nuanced than that, network based criminal activity has existed since the invention of the telegraph, but I would be willing to wager even on a per capita basis of Windows, Mac, UNIX, and 'other' users of the network, it stands out. That said, those days are largely behind us (caveat Wannacry and poor update policies) and I consider properly patched operating systems from all of the major vendors to be credibly defended from exploitation. I reason to that point of view by using the price offered for 'zero days' as an indicator of the challenge of finding them.
    - simplicitea 9y ago
      | poor update policies which ones? forcing them or not forcing them?
      - ChuckMcM 9y ago
        In the wannacry event the policy of not applying updates was contributory to its spread. So 'not forcing them' being the less good choice.
      - 9y ago
tryitnow 9y ago
I couldn't disagree more. There's a lot of jobs that add little to no value. In a fictional efficient market economy that conforms to neoclassical assumptions, sure, every job is value adding. But does anyone believe that that is the world we live in? It's comforting to think that just going to work and doing your job is actually contributing to something, but I just don't see how that can be generally true and definitely not universally true. Even if we just measured contribution in purely capitalist terms, e.g. shareholder value, I don't think your claim is true. I think there have been several studies showing that the average company destroys shareholder value on net. It's likely that a lot of employees in such companies are also destroying shareholder value. And this is just shareholder value - to say nothing of the value destroyed for other stakeholders. Yes, it is possible to lead your life in such a way that even if you work very hard, you're still a net drain on humanity. Sorry, but we have to think much harder about how we can create a net positive contribution. We need to go beyond high school guidance counselor nostrums like "work hard! study hard!" and really struggle with the issue of how we can contribute.
- streblo 9y ago
  > We need to go beyond high school guidance counselor nostrums like "work hard! study hard!" and really struggle with the issue of how we can contribute. I think your argument is just as reductive as the parent comment. If we're going to come up with a definition of 'value' that actually helps people make good decisions about how to spend their time, then its too simplistic to say 'all jobs create some value', but it's also too simplistic to say 'the average job is destroying value'. I honestly think the reason most people don't try to do more good in the world is because it's just really hard and complicated to tell what's good/valuable and what's not.
- peacetreefrog 9y ago
  "It's comforting to think that just going to work and doing your job is actually contributing to something, but I just don't see how that can be generally true..." I can't imagine how it would NOT be true. Say you buy something from the store. Presumably you're getting more value from it than it costs, if you weren't, you wouldn't buy it. Same with a company. If an employee provides more value than their salary, it makes sense to hire them. Otherwise it doesn't. Sure it's not perfect and wages are sticky and people skate by etc, but you have to be pretty cynical to think most people aren't providing net value at their jobs. Maybe we have a different definition of "contributing to something." Also: "...there have been several studies showing that the average company destroys shareholder value on net." Maybe I'm misunderstanding something or this is a typo, but how could this be true? Shareholder value isn't an abstract concept like love or blue, it's the number of shares in a co*their price. The SP 500 is not negative.
imjustsaying 9y ago
The obsession with doing visible social good comes from a certain part of society, reinforced by academic advisors and admissions criteria as a requirement for advancing into the next academic tier. Nevermind that by merely participating in a marketplace as a service provider or consumer you're providing a social benefit; that benefit's just not as easy to understand and doesn't get you any vanity points. But if you're on a mission trip carrying a third world orphan in a microloan-built vaccination tent while on the phone with companies asking for food donations, you're just the most selfless person ever - clearly such charity is just an innate part of who you are.
- peacetreefrog 9y ago
  Well said. I'm certainly in favor of people being free to decide how they want to spend their time and money, but I think you could make the argument that a lot of these visible social good activities, e.g. starting a the upteenth and one non-profit to provide clean water in third world countries, could very well be doing less "social good" and wasting more resources than someone donating their salary or even engaging in regular marketplace activity.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    You could make that argument, and indeed many are. For instance, the effective altruism movement is all about evaluating that argument. The real question isn't if, but when participating in the market is an effective way of helping. Similarly, a good question is the one OP is asking - are there effective ways of helping directly with tech skills, and if so, what are they.
- simplicitea 9y ago
  If you took a few minutes to consider that I may be a completely different person than the one you're conjuring up, you might have something more useful to say.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Not everyone here has grown up in US academic culture. I for one have formed my desires of helping others long before I noticed anyone rewards that in any system (not to mention that my country's education system doesn't put much focus on volunteering for social causes). Also, spending time on understanding the benefits coming from participation in a marketplace leads one to conclude that the market doesn't address all human needs promptly enough, and is not itself beyond creating many great problems.
simplicitea 9y ago
The goal is a 'normal job' which encourages me to learn through it's end impact. Further the goal is to take skills learned through developing for impact rather than profit and build something to draw enough of a salary on which has a disproportionate impact compared to it's cost. I want to be the driving factor, not be payed by or pay the driving factor.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Please don't get discouraged by some of the negative comments here. You're not the only one searching for high-impact ways of helping out with the skills one has. I strongly believe opportunities like that exist, even if they're hard to identify. I also believe there's work to be done in making those opportunities easier to find. Feel free to e-mail me if you ever want to talk about this further (address in profile).
chongli 9y ago
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?" Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions. Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen. But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen." It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
justforFranz 9y ago
"that's how most of the world's wealth is created" Most of that wealth simply goes to the top 1% and stays stuck there.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Be that as it may, enough of the wealth remains with the 99% to make parent's point valid (with caveats applied).
unclesaamm 9y ago
This is the most neoliberal thing I've ever read. No, doing nothing will not make the world a better place. And no, our mindless slide into capitalism-in-all-things is not actually good for most people. For one, see the Clinton Foundation's disastrous neoliberalization of Haiti (touted as a success because it "raised people out of poverty"): http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-found... In fact, by working for a typical VC-fueled tech company, you're probably helping a few very rich people extract rent more efficiently from a greater number of people. Your best bet for social impact is to do the exact opposite -- get involved in left politics, find ways to show solidarity with people who are being hurt by the Uber-ization and Airbnb-ization of the world, and use your tech skills to counter those effects.
- 3131s 9y ago
  Exactly. > you're creating value and "bettering our species" just by doing something that someone is willing to pay you for ^^^ The thought process that lets HNers sleep at night.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Sounds like half-reading Adam Smith but OK
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Please expand.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Well it's true that simply participating in the market helps to create value, viz the famous quote about it ot being from the good will of the butcher and baker that we enjoy our meal, but from their acting in their own self-interest. But Smith also mulls the need for regulation (due to market participants' habit of rigging markets to suit producers over consumers) and the downsides of pursuing pure efficiency (eg after praising the gains that come from the division of labor at a pin factory, he goes on to point out that getting people to do the same job over and over all day isn't good for them over the long term). Smith was a very thoughtful economist but people have a bad habit of cherry-picking his work to suit their own needs while ignoring the bits that would constrain them.
uhtred 9y ago
Surely it depends on where someone spends the money they earn doing their job? If I earn a good salary but I buy nothing but fast food or the cheapest (factory farmed) meat, cheap clothes made in sweatshops, expensive gadgets from companies that exploit workers, own 3 gas guzzling cars, have 5 children, vote for politicians who enjoy waging war on on other countries, how am I making the world better?
azernik 9y ago
To take this to a less absolutist neoliberal place - find a for-profit job where you are actually creating value. A service that saves low-income people money when they use it, that helps small (like, actually small) businesses become profitable, etc.
steven_noble 9y ago
Sometimes yes -- sometimes no. Yes, if you're creating better entertainment, but furniture, better toys, better gadgets, and people are willing to pay for them, you have made the world better. But people are also willing to pay for weapons, for software that helps them to violate the privacy of others, for financial products that promise much and deliver little, for products that have addictive properties from sugar to gambling to everything else. So, yes, just building things that other people want and getting rich in the process CAN be a good thing to do. But it is not AUTOMATICALLY a good thing to do.
jugularkill 9y ago
iugiug
JamesBarney 9y ago
Norman Borlaug(Saved a billion lives) had a net worth far less than Martin Shkreli(poached a billion dollars from the sick). So I would be very surprised if compensation is directly tied to societal value.
afpx 9y ago
The fact that this is the 'top' comment made me stop reading anything further. Wow - decadence.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

It's a good one, but the caveat is stronger than you mention. Just because someone wants to pay you for something, doesn't mean it's good to society. Some things are unambiguously socially harmful - cigarette industry, gambling industry - but there are also many things that are harmful by perpetuating waste of resources and man hours. Be wary of zero-sum games, where your effort goes mostly to cancel out the effort of others. Some areas of adtech come to mind, for example. So in short: use judgement. There's a lot of social good to be done in mundane jobs - but just because someone is willing to pay for something, doesn't mean it should be done.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

I think Bill Gates is an interesting data point here. For a lot of his life he was reviled by many, and yet in the past 15 years he has used his wealth to do great good.

peacetreefrog 9y ago
Agree that he's done a ton of good with his charitable giving, but point is that he bettered humanity (probably even more than his charity) even before that with Windows (giving the masses an easier way to interact with computers, allowing individuals and companies to create other valuable things in turn), the whole software not hardware paradigm (led to rapid development in terms of the type of programs and functionality people had access to), and Microsoft Office (Excel and Word == a ton of social value). Obviously he wasn't personally responsible for all that, and also became a multi billionaire in the process (and is giving most of it away, kudos) but even if he kept it all, that's all benefiting humanity and creating social good.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  I think 'bettering humanity with Windows' is open for debate. Some would argue that Windows, and the security problems it brought to the Internet, was the enabler for the single largest source of income for criminal enterprise outside of the drug trade. Now it is much more nuanced than that, network based criminal activity has existed since the invention of the telegraph, but I would be willing to wager even on a per capita basis of Windows, Mac, UNIX, and 'other' users of the network, it stands out. That said, those days are largely behind us (caveat Wannacry and poor update policies) and I consider properly patched operating systems from all of the major vendors to be credibly defended from exploitation. I reason to that point of view by using the price offered for 'zero days' as an indicator of the challenge of finding them.
  - simplicitea 9y ago
    | poor update policies which ones? forcing them or not forcing them?
    - ChuckMcM 9y ago
      In the wannacry event the policy of not applying updates was contributory to its spread. So 'not forcing them' being the less good choice.
    - 9y ago

tryitnow 9y ago

I couldn't disagree more. There's a lot of jobs that add little to no value. In a fictional efficient market economy that conforms to neoclassical assumptions, sure, every job is value adding. But does anyone believe that that is the world we live in? It's comforting to think that just going to work and doing your job is actually contributing to something, but I just don't see how that can be generally true and definitely not universally true. Even if we just measured contribution in purely capitalist terms, e.g. shareholder value, I don't think your claim is true. I think there have been several studies showing that the average company destroys shareholder value on net. It's likely that a lot of employees in such companies are also destroying shareholder value. And this is just shareholder value - to say nothing of the value destroyed for other stakeholders. Yes, it is possible to lead your life in such a way that even if you work very hard, you're still a net drain on humanity. Sorry, but we have to think much harder about how we can create a net positive contribution. We need to go beyond high school guidance counselor nostrums like "work hard! study hard!" and really struggle with the issue of how we can contribute.

streblo 9y ago
> We need to go beyond high school guidance counselor nostrums like "work hard! study hard!" and really struggle with the issue of how we can contribute. I think your argument is just as reductive as the parent comment. If we're going to come up with a definition of 'value' that actually helps people make good decisions about how to spend their time, then its too simplistic to say 'all jobs create some value', but it's also too simplistic to say 'the average job is destroying value'. I honestly think the reason most people don't try to do more good in the world is because it's just really hard and complicated to tell what's good/valuable and what's not.
peacetreefrog 9y ago
"It's comforting to think that just going to work and doing your job is actually contributing to something, but I just don't see how that can be generally true..." I can't imagine how it would NOT be true. Say you buy something from the store. Presumably you're getting more value from it than it costs, if you weren't, you wouldn't buy it. Same with a company. If an employee provides more value than their salary, it makes sense to hire them. Otherwise it doesn't. Sure it's not perfect and wages are sticky and people skate by etc, but you have to be pretty cynical to think most people aren't providing net value at their jobs. Maybe we have a different definition of "contributing to something." Also: "...there have been several studies showing that the average company destroys shareholder value on net." Maybe I'm misunderstanding something or this is a typo, but how could this be true? Shareholder value isn't an abstract concept like love or blue, it's the number of shares in a co*their price. The SP 500 is not negative.

imjustsaying 9y ago

The obsession with doing visible social good comes from a certain part of society, reinforced by academic advisors and admissions criteria as a requirement for advancing into the next academic tier. Nevermind that by merely participating in a marketplace as a service provider or consumer you're providing a social benefit; that benefit's just not as easy to understand and doesn't get you any vanity points. But if you're on a mission trip carrying a third world orphan in a microloan-built vaccination tent while on the phone with companies asking for food donations, you're just the most selfless person ever - clearly such charity is just an innate part of who you are.

peacetreefrog 9y ago
Well said. I'm certainly in favor of people being free to decide how they want to spend their time and money, but I think you could make the argument that a lot of these visible social good activities, e.g. starting a the upteenth and one non-profit to provide clean water in third world countries, could very well be doing less "social good" and wasting more resources than someone donating their salary or even engaging in regular marketplace activity.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  You could make that argument, and indeed many are. For instance, the effective altruism movement is all about evaluating that argument. The real question isn't if, but when participating in the market is an effective way of helping. Similarly, a good question is the one OP is asking - are there effective ways of helping directly with tech skills, and if so, what are they.
simplicitea 9y ago
If you took a few minutes to consider that I may be a completely different person than the one you're conjuring up, you might have something more useful to say.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Not everyone here has grown up in US academic culture. I for one have formed my desires of helping others long before I noticed anyone rewards that in any system (not to mention that my country's education system doesn't put much focus on volunteering for social causes). Also, spending time on understanding the benefits coming from participation in a marketplace leads one to conclude that the market doesn't address all human needs promptly enough, and is not itself beyond creating many great problems.

simplicitea 9y ago

The goal is a 'normal job' which encourages me to learn through it's end impact. Further the goal is to take skills learned through developing for impact rather than profit and build something to draw enough of a salary on which has a disproportionate impact compared to it's cost. I want to be the driving factor, not be payed by or pay the driving factor.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Please don't get discouraged by some of the negative comments here. You're not the only one searching for high-impact ways of helping out with the skills one has. I strongly believe opportunities like that exist, even if they're hard to identify. I also believe there's work to be done in making those opportunities easier to find. Feel free to e-mail me if you ever want to talk about this further (address in profile).

chongli 9y ago

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?" Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions. Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen. But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen." It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

justforFranz 9y ago

"that's how most of the world's wealth is created" Most of that wealth simply goes to the top 1% and stays stuck there.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Be that as it may, enough of the wealth remains with the 99% to make parent's point valid (with caveats applied).

unclesaamm 9y ago

This is the most neoliberal thing I've ever read. No, doing nothing will not make the world a better place. And no, our mindless slide into capitalism-in-all-things is not actually good for most people. For one, see the Clinton Foundation's disastrous neoliberalization of Haiti (touted as a success because it "raised people out of poverty"): http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-found... In fact, by working for a typical VC-fueled tech company, you're probably helping a few very rich people extract rent more efficiently from a greater number of people. Your best bet for social impact is to do the exact opposite -- get involved in left politics, find ways to show solidarity with people who are being hurt by the Uber-ization and Airbnb-ization of the world, and use your tech skills to counter those effects.

3131s 9y ago
Exactly. > you're creating value and "bettering our species" just by doing something that someone is willing to pay you for ^^^ The thought process that lets HNers sleep at night.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Sounds like half-reading Adam Smith but OK

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Please expand.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Well it's true that simply participating in the market helps to create value, viz the famous quote about it ot being from the good will of the butcher and baker that we enjoy our meal, but from their acting in their own self-interest. But Smith also mulls the need for regulation (due to market participants' habit of rigging markets to suit producers over consumers) and the downsides of pursuing pure efficiency (eg after praising the gains that come from the division of labor at a pin factory, he goes on to point out that getting people to do the same job over and over all day isn't good for them over the long term). Smith was a very thoughtful economist but people have a bad habit of cherry-picking his work to suit their own needs while ignoring the bits that would constrain them.

uhtred 9y ago

Surely it depends on where someone spends the money they earn doing their job? If I earn a good salary but I buy nothing but fast food or the cheapest (factory farmed) meat, cheap clothes made in sweatshops, expensive gadgets from companies that exploit workers, own 3 gas guzzling cars, have 5 children, vote for politicians who enjoy waging war on on other countries, how am I making the world better?

azernik 9y ago

To take this to a less absolutist neoliberal place - find a for-profit job where you are actually creating value. A service that saves low-income people money when they use it, that helps small (like, actually small) businesses become profitable, etc.

steven_noble 9y ago

Sometimes yes -- sometimes no. Yes, if you're creating better entertainment, but furniture, better toys, better gadgets, and people are willing to pay for them, you have made the world better. But people are also willing to pay for weapons, for software that helps them to violate the privacy of others, for financial products that promise much and deliver little, for products that have addictive properties from sugar to gambling to everything else. So, yes, just building things that other people want and getting rich in the process CAN be a good thing to do. But it is not AUTOMATICALLY a good thing to do.

jugularkill 9y ago

iugiug

JamesBarney 9y ago

Norman Borlaug(Saved a billion lives) had a net worth far less than Martin Shkreli(poached a billion dollars from the sick). So I would be very surprised if compensation is directly tied to societal value.

afpx 9y ago

The fact that this is the 'top' comment made me stop reading anything further. Wow - decadence.