3 ms·

Too bad there isn't money to be made "disrupting" poverty.

chasing 8y ago
It's worse than that. Many powerful forces in this country will kick in to gear to make sure you get hurt for even trying.
- angel_j 8y ago
  It's worse than THAT. If you're not creating poverty and strife, you're doing venture capitalism wrong.
  - wand3r 8y ago
    How did you draw that conclusion? It is debatable whether VC creates net jobs and distributes value creation broadly enough but clearly VC isn’t the weapon you make it out to be. Marc Andreesen makes a strong defense of this point in a few talks about innovation/disruption but even if you don’t think VC is an ideal model the companies must be adding value to survive and both employees and non—shareholders capture that value. Social Capital is an example of a fund that appears to be making money and doing great things; you can lose money being terrible and make money doing good.
    - angel_j 8y ago
      Practically all woke criticism of capitalism says that it would be impossible without wealth and income disparity and untold "externalized" ecological costs (including human ecologies, such as those that result i.e. people who can't rise out of poverty in the richest country). Those things are havok. Meanwhile, everybody likes to ride high on the idea that they are making the world a better place, with capitalism; but this requires one to consciously, one might says, conspicuously, ignore what it takes for the things they take for granted to be produced, the shoes, phones and "sharing economy". To answer your question, Venture Capitalism is capitalism, so that's the conclusion.
johndevor 8y ago
Try building a business and hiring a person in poverty.
- angel_j 8y ago
  I am a person in poverty.
thaumasiotes 8y ago
Wal-Mart is one of the most successful businesses of all time. What would "disrupting" poverty be, if not enabling the poor to afford things they couldn't before?
- maym86 8y ago
  It would be better if they paid people well and treated them with dignity. You could argue that Walmart created more poverty by crushing wages and benefits of it's employees and forcing them to work long hours just to earn enough to live. Disrupting poverty would be to offer employees a living wage and benefits for a 40 hour work week.
- topspin 8y ago
  > Wal-Mart is one of the most successful businesses of all time. Why? I'll offer a reason; unlike many of their competitors they've deftly avoided unionization. I offer no proof that this is the reason, and you offer no reason at all. Only "they're successful so they're right." What do you hope to achieve with this simple minded assertion? > What would "disrupting" poverty be, if not enabling the poor to afford things they couldn't before? Walmart isn't magical; equivalent goods are not an order of magnitude lower in price then elsewhere, and the benefit of the small difference in cost applies only to consumer goods Walmart sells; not housing, utilities, vehicles, taxes, healthcare, etc. These represent a vastly greater burden than the marginal savings obtained shopping at Walmart. At best Walmart is minor mitigation. This sophistry appears in every discussion of poverty, welfare, etc.
  - dang 8y ago
    > Only "they're successful so they're right." You have some good points, but please don't use quotes to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not. That's an internet trope that makes it hard to continue serious conversation. Attributing it to them explicitly as a "simple minded assertion" is even worse, and also breaks the site rule which asks you to "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's worse than that. Many powerful forces in this country will kick in to gear to make sure you get hurt for even trying.

angel_j 8y ago
It's worse than THAT. If you're not creating poverty and strife, you're doing venture capitalism wrong.
- wand3r 8y ago
  How did you draw that conclusion? It is debatable whether VC creates net jobs and distributes value creation broadly enough but clearly VC isn’t the weapon you make it out to be. Marc Andreesen makes a strong defense of this point in a few talks about innovation/disruption but even if you don’t think VC is an ideal model the companies must be adding value to survive and both employees and non—shareholders capture that value. Social Capital is an example of a fund that appears to be making money and doing great things; you can lose money being terrible and make money doing good.
  - angel_j 8y ago
    Practically all woke criticism of capitalism says that it would be impossible without wealth and income disparity and untold "externalized" ecological costs (including human ecologies, such as those that result i.e. people who can't rise out of poverty in the richest country). Those things are havok. Meanwhile, everybody likes to ride high on the idea that they are making the world a better place, with capitalism; but this requires one to consciously, one might says, conspicuously, ignore what it takes for the things they take for granted to be produced, the shoes, phones and "sharing economy". To answer your question, Venture Capitalism is capitalism, so that's the conclusion.

johndevor 8y ago

Try building a business and hiring a person in poverty.

angel_j 8y ago
I am a person in poverty.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

Wal-Mart is one of the most successful businesses of all time. What would "disrupting" poverty be, if not enabling the poor to afford things they couldn't before?

maym86 8y ago
It would be better if they paid people well and treated them with dignity. You could argue that Walmart created more poverty by crushing wages and benefits of it's employees and forcing them to work long hours just to earn enough to live. Disrupting poverty would be to offer employees a living wage and benefits for a 40 hour work week.
topspin 8y ago
> Wal-Mart is one of the most successful businesses of all time. Why? I'll offer a reason; unlike many of their competitors they've deftly avoided unionization. I offer no proof that this is the reason, and you offer no reason at all. Only "they're successful so they're right." What do you hope to achieve with this simple minded assertion? > What would "disrupting" poverty be, if not enabling the poor to afford things they couldn't before? Walmart isn't magical; equivalent goods are not an order of magnitude lower in price then elsewhere, and the benefit of the small difference in cost applies only to consumer goods Walmart sells; not housing, utilities, vehicles, taxes, healthcare, etc. These represent a vastly greater burden than the marginal savings obtained shopping at Walmart. At best Walmart is minor mitigation. This sophistry appears in every discussion of poverty, welfare, etc.
- dang 8y ago
  > Only "they're successful so they're right." You have some good points, but please don't use quotes to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not. That's an internet trope that makes it hard to continue serious conversation. Attributing it to them explicitly as a "simple minded assertion" is even worse, and also breaks the site rule which asks you to "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html