6 ms·

You forgot to mention millions of dollars of value created for other people.

friedman23 8y ago
A lumber jack cuts down a tree and sells the wood for $500 to a high end furniture maker. This furniture maker then produces an armoire that he sells to a rich person for $7000. Was that lumber jack exploited because he only made $500 from the wood?
- whateveracct 8y ago
  Uh huh and who are these artisans multiplying value (not just selling but literally adding value) of software systems by 14x?
  - friedman23 8y ago
    The business creates value by organizing thousands of software developers together, giving them PMs and EMs to manage them, using data analysts to determine the success or failure of a product launch, and having a legal team to navigate regulatory hurdles. The business also takes on risk for paying software developers to develop products which may not be successful.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Code doesn’t make a business. Go look at the millions of failed startups and side projects that software developers have created and failed with. You need more than the ability to just create software systems. Code is a commodity.
  - nightski 8y ago
    Any business whose business is not that of software.
  - bch 8y ago
    I think PG said[0] it well: Suppose you own a beat-up old car. Instead of sitting on your butt next summer, you could spend the time restoring your car to pristine condition. In doing so you create wealth. The world is-- and you specifically are-- one pristine old car the richer. And not just in some metaphorical way. If you sell your car, you'll get more for it. In restoring your old car you have made yourself richer. You haven't made anyone else poorer. So there is obviously not a fixed pie. And in fact, when you look at it this way, you wonder why anyone would think there was. [0] http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      I'm guessing Paul Graham has never restored a beat up car to pristine condition. Your pristine condition car that will fetch you less than the new parts you put in when you sell it at what the market will pay for it. Restoring beat up cars to new state is a losing game unless someone pays you to do the work, except for some rare collectibles, which I am assuming are not your personal beat up car. And even then chances are just about even that you'll end up losing money on it. It's fun to do, you'll learn lots but please do not think you will make money this way, especially not if you put any value on your time.
      - grkvlt 8y ago
        As with all car analogies, this is NOT about cars - it's telling a story about wealth creation...
        ngcc_hk 8y ago
        But if it does not work he should have a better example. Still remember the paper about the externality of bee farm and apple farm. Obvious issue of apple not paid the bee farm but no such issue - all paid and in fact have contract what kind of bees etc. A bad economic example is bad example.
        ambicapter 8y ago
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > Uh huh and who are these artisans multiplying value (not just selling but literally adding value) of software systems by 14x? Selling is adding value. If you make something great and nobody uses it, how is that different than never making it in the first place? It would have no effect on the world and nobody would be better off because it exists. Software adds value to the users and the users need to find out about it and be convinced to purchase it in order to realize that value. That's the case for any category of product.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    The ones finding the customers. The ones staffing the help desk and providing support to users. The ones writing good user documentation or making how-to videos about using the software.
  - ajcodez 8y ago
    Illustrators and designers who make marketing pages.
- justwalt 8y ago
  Hmm, I interpreted what he said as referring to the improved quality of life for the people who use the products/services that the programmer worked on. I'm not sure which interpretation is correct.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Not necessarily, but I don't think anyone (even Marxists) are arguing that she is.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  You could argue it both ways. I've always just thought the point is so void. Compared to what? And someone might propose an alternative system as if to say "well it's better if we do it this way" and you could argue it both ways that they were exploited under the new system too. The fundamental problem is you need to eat. No matter what political or economic institutions exist, or if any even exist at all, as long as you are alive you are never absolved from having to eat food. For the vast majority of people this means you have to do some form of work. In the base case it means you are a hunter-gatherer and need to forage. This takes all your time and I'm not sure how enjoyable it is either. Imagine just how ridiculously magical the notion of financial independence through passive income combined with a market where you can procure all the necessities of life would be to a human being living at the turn of the Neolithic Revolution ~14,000 years ago. It just blows my mind. And people want to throw around words like "exploited". Woe is me.
- wrycoder 8y ago
  $50 is closer.
ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Maybe. Or maybe you got paid a salary and benefits for years by a business that then failed and took all of the owner’s investment and opportunity cost with it. The point is, if you think that it’s just so easy and starting a business means you get to reap the benefits of someone else’s hard work, then go for it. Why doesn’t everyone do that?
- rabidrat 8y ago
  Large amounts of debt (student loans) and lack of access to capital. I have several friends who have started their own business, which turns out to be "consulting to pay the bills and trying to balance the remaining 20% of time towards new-product development and finding more consulting clients". They are all but doomed from the start because the leftover scraps of time between consulting gigs is not sufficient to really create a viable product or business. If they could raise a half million and give it a serious go, their chances would increase substantially. Of course it's not a sure thing, but a) neither is it with most of the startups that raise a seed round, and b) failure without seed money doesn't mean "aw shucks, it didn't work out, I'll try again in a couple years", it means their personal finances and credit have been decimated and now they can spend the next N years clawing their way back to zero (remember the student loans they still have).
guntars 8y ago
If you create an app that makes some annoying task take half the time, you can potentially save literal lifetimes of frustration for your users. The value created for the founders is a small fraction of the value created for the users.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Conversely, if you create an app and optimize it so that users spend way too much time in it relative to what they need, you'll probably rake in lots of money, but you'll also be responsible for much more value being destroyed for your users.
  - est31 8y ago
    Related: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7764218/Google-Pac-Man-doodle-cost-economy-120-million.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7764218/Google...
  - eloff 8y ago
    Basically everyone who works for Facebook. Think of the time it takes away from society and what that time is worth. Compare that with the pittance in advertising income they earn off it. That's more inefficient than a thief who steals jewellery and sells it for a tenth of its value. I don't think the small benefits from Facebook come close to the tremendous harm it does to society. I closed my Facebook account years ago and have never missed it. I'm a lot richer (literally and figuratively) for not having wasted a thousand more hours on it.
    - GrzegorzWidla 8y ago
      I get that Facebook is a solid target to pick for such a rant but frankly it's a tool like any other. Blaming Facebook for potential productivity loses due to its addictive nature is like blaming hammer maker for all deaths it caused. My dad doesn't have Facebook but he definitely spends his spare time watching TV or sports that can be considered just as wasteful.
tnr23 8y ago
In the software space your statement might be true in some cases. You're still far above the median, if you really create real value in the millions for others.
avip 8y ago
Or burnt.

A lumber jack cuts down a tree and sells the wood for $500 to a high end furniture maker. This furniture maker then produces an armoire that he sells to a rich person for $7000. Was that lumber jack exploited because he only made $500 from the wood?

whateveracct 8y ago
Uh huh and who are these artisans multiplying value (not just selling but literally adding value) of software systems by 14x?
- friedman23 8y ago
  The business creates value by organizing thousands of software developers together, giving them PMs and EMs to manage them, using data analysts to determine the success or failure of a product launch, and having a legal team to navigate regulatory hurdles. The business also takes on risk for paying software developers to develop products which may not be successful.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Code doesn’t make a business. Go look at the millions of failed startups and side projects that software developers have created and failed with. You need more than the ability to just create software systems. Code is a commodity.
- nightski 8y ago
  Any business whose business is not that of software.
- bch 8y ago
  I think PG said[0] it well: Suppose you own a beat-up old car. Instead of sitting on your butt next summer, you could spend the time restoring your car to pristine condition. In doing so you create wealth. The world is-- and you specifically are-- one pristine old car the richer. And not just in some metaphorical way. If you sell your car, you'll get more for it. In restoring your old car you have made yourself richer. You haven't made anyone else poorer. So there is obviously not a fixed pie. And in fact, when you look at it this way, you wonder why anyone would think there was. [0] http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    I'm guessing Paul Graham has never restored a beat up car to pristine condition. Your pristine condition car that will fetch you less than the new parts you put in when you sell it at what the market will pay for it. Restoring beat up cars to new state is a losing game unless someone pays you to do the work, except for some rare collectibles, which I am assuming are not your personal beat up car. And even then chances are just about even that you'll end up losing money on it. It's fun to do, you'll learn lots but please do not think you will make money this way, especially not if you put any value on your time.
    - grkvlt 8y ago
      As with all car analogies, this is NOT about cars - it's telling a story about wealth creation...
      - ngcc_hk 8y ago
        But if it does not work he should have a better example. Still remember the paper about the externality of bee farm and apple farm. Obvious issue of apple not paid the bee farm but no such issue - all paid and in fact have contract what kind of bees etc. A bad economic example is bad example.
        ambicapter 8y ago
- twblalock 8y ago
  > Uh huh and who are these artisans multiplying value (not just selling but literally adding value) of software systems by 14x? Selling is adding value. If you make something great and nobody uses it, how is that different than never making it in the first place? It would have no effect on the world and nobody would be better off because it exists. Software adds value to the users and the users need to find out about it and be convinced to purchase it in order to realize that value. That's the case for any category of product.
- ams6110 8y ago
  The ones finding the customers. The ones staffing the help desk and providing support to users. The ones writing good user documentation or making how-to videos about using the software.
- ajcodez 8y ago
  Illustrators and designers who make marketing pages.
justwalt 8y ago
Hmm, I interpreted what he said as referring to the improved quality of life for the people who use the products/services that the programmer worked on. I'm not sure which interpretation is correct.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
claudiawerner 8y ago
Not necessarily, but I don't think anyone (even Marxists) are arguing that she is.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
You could argue it both ways. I've always just thought the point is so void. Compared to what? And someone might propose an alternative system as if to say "well it's better if we do it this way" and you could argue it both ways that they were exploited under the new system too. The fundamental problem is you need to eat. No matter what political or economic institutions exist, or if any even exist at all, as long as you are alive you are never absolved from having to eat food. For the vast majority of people this means you have to do some form of work. In the base case it means you are a hunter-gatherer and need to forage. This takes all your time and I'm not sure how enjoyable it is either. Imagine just how ridiculously magical the notion of financial independence through passive income combined with a market where you can procure all the necessities of life would be to a human being living at the turn of the Neolithic Revolution ~14,000 years ago. It just blows my mind. And people want to throw around words like "exploited". Woe is me.
wrycoder 8y ago
$50 is closer.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago

Maybe. Or maybe you got paid a salary and benefits for years by a business that then failed and took all of the owner’s investment and opportunity cost with it. The point is, if you think that it’s just so easy and starting a business means you get to reap the benefits of someone else’s hard work, then go for it. Why doesn’t everyone do that?

rabidrat 8y ago
Large amounts of debt (student loans) and lack of access to capital. I have several friends who have started their own business, which turns out to be "consulting to pay the bills and trying to balance the remaining 20% of time towards new-product development and finding more consulting clients". They are all but doomed from the start because the leftover scraps of time between consulting gigs is not sufficient to really create a viable product or business. If they could raise a half million and give it a serious go, their chances would increase substantially. Of course it's not a sure thing, but a) neither is it with most of the startups that raise a seed round, and b) failure without seed money doesn't mean "aw shucks, it didn't work out, I'll try again in a couple years", it means their personal finances and credit have been decimated and now they can spend the next N years clawing their way back to zero (remember the student loans they still have).

guntars 8y ago

If you create an app that makes some annoying task take half the time, you can potentially save literal lifetimes of frustration for your users. The value created for the founders is a small fraction of the value created for the users.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Conversely, if you create an app and optimize it so that users spend way too much time in it relative to what they need, you'll probably rake in lots of money, but you'll also be responsible for much more value being destroyed for your users.
- est31 8y ago
  Related: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7764218/Google-Pac-Man-doodle-cost-economy-120-million.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7764218/Google...
- eloff 8y ago
  Basically everyone who works for Facebook. Think of the time it takes away from society and what that time is worth. Compare that with the pittance in advertising income they earn off it. That's more inefficient than a thief who steals jewellery and sells it for a tenth of its value. I don't think the small benefits from Facebook come close to the tremendous harm it does to society. I closed my Facebook account years ago and have never missed it. I'm a lot richer (literally and figuratively) for not having wasted a thousand more hours on it.
  - GrzegorzWidla 8y ago
    I get that Facebook is a solid target to pick for such a rant but frankly it's a tool like any other. Blaming Facebook for potential productivity loses due to its addictive nature is like blaming hammer maker for all deaths it caused. My dad doesn't have Facebook but he definitely spends his spare time watching TV or sports that can be considered just as wasteful.

tnr23 8y ago

In the software space your statement might be true in some cases. You're still far above the median, if you really create real value in the millions for others.

avip 8y ago

Or burnt.