3 ms·

Eliminating "poor" as an adjective for humans. If we must commercialise it, more people with money = more customers.. Apple, Amazon, etc.. there's billions of

by corobo 6y ago

Eliminating "poor" as an adjective for humans. If we must commercialise it, more people with money = more customers.. Apple, Amazon, etc.. there's billions of potential iPhone and Alexa users out there long term if you set something up to help them now. What, you don't think you'll be around long enough?

giantg2 6y ago
This is an extremely complex topic that would likely require political and societal reforms. I'm curious why you are suprised there aren't more more people working on this?
- corobo 6y ago
  We're on a site for a VC right? Big risks for massive rewards. The biggest risk is compassion. The reward a dedicated however many people you help as customers later. If an AppleHelps scheme set me on a path out of poverty I would never even think the word Android. Companies are the only entities with the clout and long term justification to get those reforms started on. e: version 1 of this comment was very snarky, sorry. I took your comment as quite dismissive and responded emotionally.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I see what you are saying. I guess I just don't know what those companies could do to pull those people out of poverty, especially at the macroeconomic level. It would likely be easier for them (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc) to join forces and lobby the government to provide people in poverty with smartphones, or at least provide grants similar to rural internet grants today. What do you envision for an "AppleHelps" program?
    - jph 6y ago
      Specific measurable actionable relevant timely (SMART) steps that Apple/iOS and Google/Android could do to help poorer people: 1. Improve device sharing. One example: a family can have one phone with individual accounts for each member. 2. Permit better repairs. One example: the company can state that it's legal for a user to replace an old phone battery. 3. Accelerate free knowledge. One example: preinstall Wikipedia and similar free libre open source software (FLOSS).
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Wouldn't #1 and #2 potentially reduce their profits, especially if there's nothing limiting it to the poor? #3 sounds good.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
gremlinsinc 6y ago
I'm wanting to work on this. Think build multiple companies for services people already use/need competitors to existing products but they're owned by the community. People still pay for the service, but they earn shares for their loyalty to a product and get dividends from those shares. Marriage of socialism and capitalism essentially. Marketplaces still exist, but union/co-ops thrive and make businesses more about building products/tools people want not for profit motives as much as to make society better / stronger as a whole. If everyone could afford 4 year colleges and science degrees and didn't grow up in poverty how much faster could we as a society get to the stars? Fix global warming? Instead millions are lying in bed, covers over their head, depressed that next week they will be homeless or worse. If the didn't have to worry about money, they could do something productive, drop the depression or work on fixing that, and live happier more fulfilling lives. As a freelancer, I bounce back and forth in this situation. Doing good, to depression/sour grapes when clients are sparce. So, part of my wanting to do this is self-serving essentially fix this for myself as well as others. We could buy up hospitals, medical companies, etc... takeover 80% of the medical industry. Start our own medicare 4 all (who are in our union: workers, consumers/loyalists, adopted (need our help, but can't afford to consume)). We could lower costs, offer hospital boards like 300k salaries take it or leave it, and offer doctors/nurses the position instead. We could do single-payer negotiations with drug companies, etc... If anyone wants to work w/ me on this... email me: patrickwcurl - gmail Trying to put a team together. Co-op style.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 93po 6y ago
  Just wanted to say I like this sentiment but find it hard to imagine revolutionizing entire industries without a minimum of billions of dollars of altruistic funding. And billionaires aren't well known for wanting to weaken capitalism

by corobo 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

This is an extremely complex topic that would likely require political and societal reforms. I'm curious why you are suprised there aren't more more people working on this?

corobo 6y ago
We're on a site for a VC right? Big risks for massive rewards. The biggest risk is compassion. The reward a dedicated however many people you help as customers later. If an AppleHelps scheme set me on a path out of poverty I would never even think the word Android. Companies are the only entities with the clout and long term justification to get those reforms started on. e: version 1 of this comment was very snarky, sorry. I took your comment as quite dismissive and responded emotionally.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I see what you are saying. I guess I just don't know what those companies could do to pull those people out of poverty, especially at the macroeconomic level. It would likely be easier for them (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc) to join forces and lobby the government to provide people in poverty with smartphones, or at least provide grants similar to rural internet grants today. What do you envision for an "AppleHelps" program?
  - jph 6y ago
    Specific measurable actionable relevant timely (SMART) steps that Apple/iOS and Google/Android could do to help poorer people: 1. Improve device sharing. One example: a family can have one phone with individual accounts for each member. 2. Permit better repairs. One example: the company can state that it's legal for a user to replace an old phone battery. 3. Accelerate free knowledge. One example: preinstall Wikipedia and similar free libre open source software (FLOSS).
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Wouldn't #1 and #2 potentially reduce their profits, especially if there's nothing limiting it to the poor? #3 sounds good.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

gremlinsinc 6y ago

I'm wanting to work on this. Think build multiple companies for services people already use/need competitors to existing products but they're owned by the community. People still pay for the service, but they earn shares for their loyalty to a product and get dividends from those shares. Marriage of socialism and capitalism essentially. Marketplaces still exist, but union/co-ops thrive and make businesses more about building products/tools people want not for profit motives as much as to make society better / stronger as a whole. If everyone could afford 4 year colleges and science degrees and didn't grow up in poverty how much faster could we as a society get to the stars? Fix global warming? Instead millions are lying in bed, covers over their head, depressed that next week they will be homeless or worse. If the didn't have to worry about money, they could do something productive, drop the depression or work on fixing that, and live happier more fulfilling lives. As a freelancer, I bounce back and forth in this situation. Doing good, to depression/sour grapes when clients are sparce. So, part of my wanting to do this is self-serving essentially fix this for myself as well as others. We could buy up hospitals, medical companies, etc... takeover 80% of the medical industry. Start our own medicare 4 all (who are in our union: workers, consumers/loyalists, adopted (need our help, but can't afford to consume)). We could lower costs, offer hospital boards like 300k salaries take it or leave it, and offer doctors/nurses the position instead. We could do single-payer negotiations with drug companies, etc... If anyone wants to work w/ me on this... email me: patrickwcurl - gmail Trying to put a team together. Co-op style.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
93po 6y ago
Just wanted to say I like this sentiment but find it hard to imagine revolutionizing entire industries without a minimum of billions of dollars of altruistic funding. And billionaires aren't well known for wanting to weaken capitalism