3 ms·

>Every gain labor has ever made has been taken. what about the part where a single person can now add enough utility to the world and capture the entirety of s

>Every gain labor has ever made has been taken. what about the part where a single person can now add enough utility to the world and capture the entirety of sales and ownership of it without needing to own anything? 1. Isn't that a gain? 2. Who has taken it? Or doesn't it count as "labor" anymore if you work for yourself? Isn't owning your own work in full, the ultimate triumph of the proletariat? Piketty has nothing to say on this subject but I'm curious if after "two decades of reading about labor history" and given your participation here on HN (a forum of YCombinator, which enables anyone to become an entrepreneur) you have anything to say about whether this is a genuine gain. I also see you're C-level at upsolve.org - which helps low-income Americans. Isn't the fact that in my estimation at least 80% of those Americans could theoretically learn to code within 6 months (for the remaining 20% it may be too difficult) and with minimal (or no) financial backing capture some part of some output on the Internet, a source of victory for labor? If any of those "low-income Americans" build a web startup without funding (through perseverance and learning) then are they now 'evil', and taking from someone else? Who are they taking from in that case? I am sure you agree that wealth is not a zero-sum gain, and I am sure you see it is difficult to apply theories of exploitation of the working class, to one-person startups. What do you think about the movement toward a knowledge economy, and a lowering of the barriers to creating value and startups? I am particularly interested in this because I did not receive satisfying answers from experts in this field. Thanks for any thoughts. (Genuinely interested.)

kevmo 9y ago
> Isn't the fact that in my estimation at least 80% of those Americans could theoretically learn to code within 6 months (for the remaining 20% it may be too difficult) and with minimal (or no) financial backing capture some part of some output on the Internet, a source of victory for labor? I have strong opinions about this. I worked at Hack Reactor the first year it was open and started the subreddit reddit.com/r/LearnJavaScript, so I have a lot of experience with helping people go from 0 to employed software engineer. Your estimations and assumptions are pretty flawed here, IMHO. Here's why: 1) 80% of Americans can't learn to code, unless you start training them at a relatively young age. Older people are not good at learning (they _can_ be taught to learn better, but that is separate problem). 2) Even if 80% could, 6 months is not enough time without full-time investment therein. 3) How many Americans can spend 6 months coding full-time for no pay? The majority of Americans don't even have $1,000 in the bank. This is out of their reach. 4) Even if you had 6 months full-time, you'd need to be on a pretty directed schedule, probably set by some sort of mentor. This costs money. None of this is to say that we couldn't create conditions, via government policies, to foster conditions more suited for enabling the sort of labor mobility you describe. I actually think that is what these unionized workers are doing via higher wages and more structured time off. They have taken more for themselves and thus expanded their range of opportunities. > If any of those "low-income Americans" build a web startup without funding (through perseverance and learning) then are they now 'evil', and taking from someone else? Who are they taking from in that case? Not many people can build a company. Like, it is fun to act like everyone in America is a potential entrepreneur, but, in reality, the vast majority of people don't want to start a startup. Period. Let's not deny these people a full stake in society and the economy just because they don't want to go for the jugular.
- logicallee 9y ago
  Thanks for the reply! It sounds like you have a lot of experience with teaching people to code well enough to become employees, as coders. And that it's really hard and many will not succeed. Is this a correct reading on my part? But this is a much higher standard than being able to put a web site up. It's the difference between learning accounting well enough to do accounting for someone - and learning Excel well enough to add your own business's costs up. The former has much higher requirements. So what I was really asking for is your perspective about someone starting an online business by themselves. Without learning any skill well enough to work as an employee for someone else, doing the same thing. Basically I think that you summarize the difference here: >Not many people can build a company. Like, it is fun to act like everyone in America is a potential entrepreneur, I consider that point of view kind of patronizing. I think that yes, everyone (100% of people) can build a company. And, everyone in America is a potential entrepreneur. That's my perspective. So, what is interesting is that you attack the premise, but have nothing to say about what happens to people who successfully "go for the jugular". For example, I asked if they are "bad" people if they make a successful online business; if they are then "taking" from someone. You don't answer, but essentially say it is a silly question. Maybe so, but that reply does not offer a moral perspective on entrepreneurship.
  - kevmo 9y ago
    > It sounds like you have a lot of experience with teaching people to code well enough to become employees, as coders. And that it's really hard and many will not succeed. Is this a correct reading on my part? I have a decent amount of experience. I actually think something like 90% of Americans could figure out how to code if they really wanted to. If we taught it in schools starting at age ~5, we could probably get to that number. It's not just that it's hard, it is that it costs money to learn to code. The cost is directly proportional to age. > I consider that point of view kind of patronizing. I realized it sounded patronizing when I wrote it, but I didn't want to get distracted explaining why I didn't feel patronizing when I wrote it, so I will explain here: I agree that virtually 100% of people build a company. But you have to want to. My point was: The overwhelming majority of people don't actually want to. So I think any discussion of policies needs to take that fact into consideration. I'm not going to try to make policy based on the world I wish I lived in rather than the world I actually live in. I'm not going to punish people for not wanting to be entrepreneurs. The world needs its worker bees. Honor the working bee. > have nothing to say about what happens to people who successfully "go for the jugular". For example, I asked if they are "bad" people if they make a successful online business; if they are then "taking" from someone. You don't answer, but essentially say it is a silly question. I also honor entrepreneurship (I am ~5 startups in myself). I do not believe wealth is a zero-sum game. Of course you are not a bad person if you build a successful business. Morality is about how you conduct yourself in the pursuit of success and what you do with the power you acquire.

kevmo 9y ago

> Isn't the fact that in my estimation at least 80% of those Americans could theoretically learn to code within 6 months (for the remaining 20% it may be too difficult) and with minimal (or no) financial backing capture some part of some output on the Internet, a source of victory for labor? I have strong opinions about this. I worked at Hack Reactor the first year it was open and started the subreddit reddit.com/r/LearnJavaScript, so I have a lot of experience with helping people go from 0 to employed software engineer. Your estimations and assumptions are pretty flawed here, IMHO. Here's why: 1) 80% of Americans can't learn to code, unless you start training them at a relatively young age. Older people are not good at learning (they _can_ be taught to learn better, but that is separate problem). 2) Even if 80% could, 6 months is not enough time without full-time investment therein. 3) How many Americans can spend 6 months coding full-time for no pay? The majority of Americans don't even have $1,000 in the bank. This is out of their reach. 4) Even if you had 6 months full-time, you'd need to be on a pretty directed schedule, probably set by some sort of mentor. This costs money. None of this is to say that we couldn't create conditions, via government policies, to foster conditions more suited for enabling the sort of labor mobility you describe. I actually think that is what these unionized workers are doing via higher wages and more structured time off. They have taken more for themselves and thus expanded their range of opportunities. > If any of those "low-income Americans" build a web startup without funding (through perseverance and learning) then are they now 'evil', and taking from someone else? Who are they taking from in that case? Not many people can build a company. Like, it is fun to act like everyone in America is a potential entrepreneur, but, in reality, the vast majority of people don't want to start a startup. Period. Let's not deny these people a full stake in society and the economy just because they don't want to go for the jugular.

logicallee 9y ago
Thanks for the reply! It sounds like you have a lot of experience with teaching people to code well enough to become employees, as coders. And that it's really hard and many will not succeed. Is this a correct reading on my part? But this is a much higher standard than being able to put a web site up. It's the difference between learning accounting well enough to do accounting for someone - and learning Excel well enough to add your own business's costs up. The former has much higher requirements. So what I was really asking for is your perspective about someone starting an online business by themselves. Without learning any skill well enough to work as an employee for someone else, doing the same thing. Basically I think that you summarize the difference here: >Not many people can build a company. Like, it is fun to act like everyone in America is a potential entrepreneur, I consider that point of view kind of patronizing. I think that yes, everyone (100% of people) can build a company. And, everyone in America is a potential entrepreneur. That's my perspective. So, what is interesting is that you attack the premise, but have nothing to say about what happens to people who successfully "go for the jugular". For example, I asked if they are "bad" people if they make a successful online business; if they are then "taking" from someone. You don't answer, but essentially say it is a silly question. Maybe so, but that reply does not offer a moral perspective on entrepreneurship.
- kevmo 9y ago
  > It sounds like you have a lot of experience with teaching people to code well enough to become employees, as coders. And that it's really hard and many will not succeed. Is this a correct reading on my part? I have a decent amount of experience. I actually think something like 90% of Americans could figure out how to code if they really wanted to. If we taught it in schools starting at age ~5, we could probably get to that number. It's not just that it's hard, it is that it costs money to learn to code. The cost is directly proportional to age. > I consider that point of view kind of patronizing. I realized it sounded patronizing when I wrote it, but I didn't want to get distracted explaining why I didn't feel patronizing when I wrote it, so I will explain here: I agree that virtually 100% of people build a company. But you have to want to. My point was: The overwhelming majority of people don't actually want to. So I think any discussion of policies needs to take that fact into consideration. I'm not going to try to make policy based on the world I wish I lived in rather than the world I actually live in. I'm not going to punish people for not wanting to be entrepreneurs. The world needs its worker bees. Honor the working bee. > have nothing to say about what happens to people who successfully "go for the jugular". For example, I asked if they are "bad" people if they make a successful online business; if they are then "taking" from someone. You don't answer, but essentially say it is a silly question. I also honor entrepreneurship (I am ~5 startups in myself). I do not believe wealth is a zero-sum game. Of course you are not a bad person if you build a successful business. Morality is about how you conduct yourself in the pursuit of success and what you do with the power you acquire.