5 ms·

Let's say I buy a box of doughnuts and go down to the street corner and sell them. For each doughnut I sell, somebody gives me money and I give them a tasty tr

Let's say I buy a box of doughnuts and go down to the street corner and sell them. For each doughnut I sell, somebody gives me money and I give them a tasty treat. They are happier because of our exchange, if only for a short while, and I know that I have "done some good" for that hungry person. Now I could just as easily stay home and try to invent the uber-nut, a killer replacement for doughnuts that costs half as much as lasts twice as long. A treat that will change the snacking world as we know it! I can build a factory to make uber-nuts, I can design complicated equipment, I can go on the web and talk about how earth-shattering uber-nut is going to be. But none of that sells any uber-nuts. It's just me spinning out an imaginary architecture and vision of world domination and using my skills to construct this fake world where it all is going to happen. For every guy who makes an uber-nut and changes the world, there are thousands of failed attempts. For all of those attempts, most of them result in making the world no better at all. It's a long, bitter experience. As opposed to the guy who actually buys the doughnuts and goes and sells them, where he knows he is doing some small amount of good in the world. For every 20 or so guys just looking to make a difference, any difference, only one of them makes it happen. Those are some amazing numbers, and you'd be a smart person to take some time and think about them. What folks are saying is simple: Go make a difference. Right now. Some little, _real_ difference. Sell a doughnut. Find a small niche and improve people's lives in it. Because even if you do one tiny, unimaginative, boring thing that only helps one person in some really small way? You've actually done something. As opposed to imagining you are creating the next earth-shattering invention and then flaming out. Because even if you created the uber-nut that changes snacking as we know it? You're going to do that by making a box of uber-nuts and going down to that street corner and making one person happy at a time. You roll out huge changes by picking one small niche at a time. It's the same difference. The key question here is how much self-bullshitting you want to do versus how many doughnuts you want to sell.

taphangum 16y ago
"The key question here is how much self-bullshitting you want to do versus how many doughnuts you want to sell." <- This. One of the best comments i've read on HN. What you just said knocks it out of the ballpark. The thing that is wrong with the lifestyle business though is that at some point the founders intend on stopping their value creation beyond what they need to survive. It's inherently selfish while the startup is inherently (mostly unintentionally) unselfish. That's what, i think, the OP was trying to say with his post.
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  I have almost never met a "lifestyle business founder" who fits this description: "The thing that is wrong with the lifestyle business though is that at some point the founders intend on stopping their value creation beyond what they need to survive." And I run in circles with lots and lots and lots of people who have the "lifestyle business" label applied to them. As a slur. Including me! Everyone I interact with -- whether they make software or write ebooks on how to market and launch products -- cares about their customers, and their total impact on the world. "Lifestyle business" is used against any business which does not seem suitably ambitious for the labeler's prejudice du jour -- whether that means they don't want to revolutionize banking, take funding, or they don't want to grow big and go public or get bought. "Lifestyle business" is just nasty, petty shorthand for "I'm serious and YOU'RE NOT, because you don't look like me." We're not talking people who resell white label "nutritional supplements" or sailor shirts, here. I, for instance, create tools and educational material. My software, Freckle, that Alex Payne [who wrote the essay] slammed so nastily, explains right on the front page how it creates value: http://letsfreckle.com/ http://letsfreckle.com/ -- it helps thousands of people every day run their businesses, & earn more money, with less pain and more joy. On top of that, I teach JavaScript programming in a way that reaches people who otherwise have trouble learning, and I teach entrepreneurship. But Alex singled me out for criticism because he deems my efforts inadequate by his standards. The whole point of Alex's original essay is that helping 1,000 customers isn't enough for "the world." And he thinks it's wrong to prioritize your own personal happiness if you have the unbelievably rare gifts of being able to program effectively or design nice things. He actually told me in a tweet that he was disappointed in me, because in his eyes I should be doing something so much "bigger." That I was wasting my talent. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. And pompous beyond belief! Now, all that said, I ask you: Even if somebody was just selling white label vitamins or sailor shirts, where do you get off thinking you have the right to tell them that they aren't allowed to make themselves happy? To pursue their own goals in life? Why do you think that they owe you? So I don't fit the "lifestyle business" description as you put it, but I'm damned sure that nobody is going to tell me that the way I live my life isn't good enough for them. Remove the plank from your own eye first.
- nhangen 16y ago
  Are you sure you want to claim that startups are unselfish? And furthermore, what is wrong with being selfish? Selfish can make the world better as a byproduct.
apike 16y ago
This is a good analogy, but it misses the very important bonus that a profitable doughnut vendor is also in a good place to fund the development of the uber-nut.
- webwright 16y ago
  This part of the argument feels strange to me. The average self employed person works more hours and makes less money than their employed counterparts. Building a business that covers a mortgage is one thing. Building one that throws off enough cash and spare time to disrupt an industry seems like an order of magnitude harder. As PG said in the one of the other threads-- empirically, we just don't see this happening very much at all.
tlrobinson 16y ago
Some people are happy being an employee. Some people are happy starting a business just big enough to support themselves. Some people want to "swing for the fences" and make a fortune and/or change the world. Just because the majority of those swinging for the fences fail doesn't mean it's not an worthwhile choice. If only 1 out of 20 of those people do make a difference, but the difference is 20x more than 20 small businesses combined, then that group is net ahead in difference-making. All are valid paths in life. It's simply a matter of choosing the best option for yourself based on your risk profile and ambitions.
- davidw 16y ago
  > All are valid paths in life. It's simply a matter of choosing the best option for yourself based on your risk profile and ambitions. Unfortunately, something reasonable and uncontroversial like that doesn't get people to link to your blog. Furthermore, the whole thing is not a zero-sum game: it's not like every person who decides to go for the VC/big route is someone "taken away" from a happy life with a small business (maybe they'd be bored by that), or that people doing small businesses are making the world poorer by not aiming for the stars (maybe they're not able to or interested).
  - achompas 16y ago
    The idea that Payne is looking for hits is ridiculous. He's managing a company with tons of media coverage--one blog post won't change a thing for BankSimple.

taphangum 16y ago

"The key question here is how much self-bullshitting you want to do versus how many doughnuts you want to sell." <- This. One of the best comments i've read on HN. What you just said knocks it out of the ballpark. The thing that is wrong with the lifestyle business though is that at some point the founders intend on stopping their value creation beyond what they need to survive. It's inherently selfish while the startup is inherently (mostly unintentionally) unselfish. That's what, i think, the OP was trying to say with his post.

ahoyhere 16y ago
I have almost never met a "lifestyle business founder" who fits this description: "The thing that is wrong with the lifestyle business though is that at some point the founders intend on stopping their value creation beyond what they need to survive." And I run in circles with lots and lots and lots of people who have the "lifestyle business" label applied to them. As a slur. Including me! Everyone I interact with -- whether they make software or write ebooks on how to market and launch products -- cares about their customers, and their total impact on the world. "Lifestyle business" is used against any business which does not seem suitably ambitious for the labeler's prejudice du jour -- whether that means they don't want to revolutionize banking, take funding, or they don't want to grow big and go public or get bought. "Lifestyle business" is just nasty, petty shorthand for "I'm serious and YOU'RE NOT, because you don't look like me." We're not talking people who resell white label "nutritional supplements" or sailor shirts, here. I, for instance, create tools and educational material. My software, Freckle, that Alex Payne [who wrote the essay] slammed so nastily, explains right on the front page how it creates value: http://letsfreckle.com/ http://letsfreckle.com/ -- it helps thousands of people every day run their businesses, & earn more money, with less pain and more joy. On top of that, I teach JavaScript programming in a way that reaches people who otherwise have trouble learning, and I teach entrepreneurship. But Alex singled me out for criticism because he deems my efforts inadequate by his standards. The whole point of Alex's original essay is that helping 1,000 customers isn't enough for "the world." And he thinks it's wrong to prioritize your own personal happiness if you have the unbelievably rare gifts of being able to program effectively or design nice things. He actually told me in a tweet that he was disappointed in me, because in his eyes I should be doing something so much "bigger." That I was wasting my talent. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. And pompous beyond belief! Now, all that said, I ask you: Even if somebody was just selling white label vitamins or sailor shirts, where do you get off thinking you have the right to tell them that they aren't allowed to make themselves happy? To pursue their own goals in life? Why do you think that they owe you? So I don't fit the "lifestyle business" description as you put it, but I'm damned sure that nobody is going to tell me that the way I live my life isn't good enough for them. Remove the plank from your own eye first.
nhangen 16y ago
Are you sure you want to claim that startups are unselfish? And furthermore, what is wrong with being selfish? Selfish can make the world better as a byproduct.

apike 16y ago

This is a good analogy, but it misses the very important bonus that a profitable doughnut vendor is also in a good place to fund the development of the uber-nut.

webwright 16y ago
This part of the argument feels strange to me. The average self employed person works more hours and makes less money than their employed counterparts. Building a business that covers a mortgage is one thing. Building one that throws off enough cash and spare time to disrupt an industry seems like an order of magnitude harder. As PG said in the one of the other threads-- empirically, we just don't see this happening very much at all.

tlrobinson 16y ago

Some people are happy being an employee. Some people are happy starting a business just big enough to support themselves. Some people want to "swing for the fences" and make a fortune and/or change the world. Just because the majority of those swinging for the fences fail doesn't mean it's not an worthwhile choice. If only 1 out of 20 of those people do make a difference, but the difference is 20x more than 20 small businesses combined, then that group is net ahead in difference-making. All are valid paths in life. It's simply a matter of choosing the best option for yourself based on your risk profile and ambitions.

davidw 16y ago
> All are valid paths in life. It's simply a matter of choosing the best option for yourself based on your risk profile and ambitions. Unfortunately, something reasonable and uncontroversial like that doesn't get people to link to your blog. Furthermore, the whole thing is not a zero-sum game: it's not like every person who decides to go for the VC/big route is someone "taken away" from a happy life with a small business (maybe they'd be bored by that), or that people doing small businesses are making the world poorer by not aiming for the stars (maybe they're not able to or interested).
- achompas 16y ago
  The idea that Payne is looking for hits is ridiculous. He's managing a company with tons of media coverage--one blog post won't change a thing for BankSimple.