5 ms·

> • Money is overrated. Truly new things rarely need an abundance of money. If that was so, billionaires would have a monopoly on inventing new things, and they

> • Money is overrated. Truly new things rarely need an abundance of money. If that was so, billionaires would have a monopoly on inventing new things, and they don’t. Instead almost all breakthroughs are made by those who lack money, because they are forced to rely on their passion, persistence and ingenuity to figure out new ways. Being poor is an advantage in innovation. Uh, no. Being poor is a huge waste of time and energy.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
I think by being poor he means having enough money to live, but not so much that all your wants are immediately met by throwing your money at them.
nine_k 5y ago
You are missing the point, it seems. Being poor (but not debilitatingly starving) is an advantage for innovation. You have a lot of incentive to get the heck out of your miserable position, and you cannot fix the problem with just paying more, you have to incessantly invent and try new things. Of course this is not necessarily good for your well-being, longevity, mental and physical health, prospects of your children and even chances to have any, etc. I see this not as an advice to become poor, but as a solace to those who are already poor but whose mind is still inventive.
- tgv 5y ago
  Now I understand why so much of the modern technology was invented in rural India.
- modo_mario 5y ago
  Being restricted when it comes to money is what might make me look into building my own pick and place machine because i don't want to dish out so many thousands of euros on a hobby project. Who knows where that will lead me. When i was poor i wouldn't even think of it because i wouldn't be able to because it still costs money and lots of time. As someone else said a lot of inventors of the past were wealthy because they had both the time and money to spend on innovating. Innovation out of necessity is a thing but i'd say it's rarer nowadays.
WalterBright 5y ago
An awful lot of inventors and scientists, at least before 1900, were wealthy because they had the time to play around with things. Other inventors and scientists would get patronage from wealthy people. Or they'd get backing from business interests. Today this patronage often comes in the form of grants by the wealthy to universities for research.
kwdc 5y ago
Being poor is also very expensive. One dollar spent or earnt for a poor person is disproportionally more expensive than that for a rich person.
vishnugupta 5y ago
> Truly new things rarely need an abundance of money. Based on my experience this holds true for organisations. Time and again I've seen a well run startup lose its bearing with the avalanche of new funding and the expectation of hockey-stick growth that comes along with it. Money in this case proves to be counter-productive as everyone starts saying "let's-throw-money" to solve problems. Not only does it not solve the problem but it also starts attracting people who are disproportionately motivated by money. And once an org gets infiltrated by such people it's a sharp downhill from there. > Instead almost all breakthroughs are made by those who lack money,.... Being poor is an advantage in innovation. This is anecdotally true (again w.r.t. organisations). At a startup I worked for, we would come up with creative ways to scale up systems and honestly prioritise customers request. With the advent of funding that was replaced by "launch every darn feature now", "don't bother scaling up just buy more machine". Constraints bring out lasting innovations.
csomar 5y ago
Since he compared to Billionaires, I think he means poor in resources (as you have no abundance); but probably someone who has enough resources not to worry about a meal or housing.
hinkley 5y ago
My extended family is a mix of people across the middle class. As a boy we were hit by a recession and my parents slipped into Pretend Middle Class status. Much of my material lessons in both “being poor is expensive” and the value if Good Tools traces to watching my father struggle to have a working set of lawn care tools. I have a particularly vivid memory of watching him buy the second from the bottom string trimmer three times in seven years, while I tried to talk him into spending $25 more on a sturdier looking one. The damned things kept breaking. Every child eventually sees their parents as a human being with flaws, and for me that reached its apex in the lawn care aisle at Sears. I’m big on doing without until you can do it right. A couple good knives or pans that you clean and pamper until you can afford a whole set. My own solution to the lawn problem was a hand powered edger (basically telescopic shears) and reducing edges wherever I can. String trimmers are bullshit anyway. Construct better beds instead.
nwah1 5y ago
The way I heard it that makes sense is that to be optimally productive you need to be "hungry" in the sense of wanting more and not being complacent. But you don't want to be starving, generally. For the same reason, some say the worst addiction is a steady paycheck precisely because it makes you complacent. These sayings are probably half-motivational with only a kernel of truth. If you are an heir or heiress you will have a big advantage, even if your motivation is less. But there are other metrics than just money, of course. If your point is to achieve excellence or greatness, or operate at the peak of your abilities, then possibly there is such a thing as being too comfortable.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  > The way I heard it that makes sense is that to be optimally productive you need to be "hungry" in the sense of wanting more and not being complacent. But you don't want to be starving, generally. Being hungry or starving. OK. But I think a more important point is: do you know if it is a temporary thing (2h, half a day) before you get back to the certainty of not being hungry or worse starving ? I think this uncertainty is killing any mindframe you need to innovate when pushed to the edge like that. It will eat at our brain instead and not trigger macgyveresque magical JIT innovation (also: learned helplessness). Also, not everyone can innovate (wrong place, wrong time, wrong social circle or whatever the circumstances: that's not their thing). > For the same reason, some say the worst addiction is a steady paycheck precisely because it makes you complacent. This is the front, I think `some` here are some of those psycho freaks who rises to the top by violence (symbolic) and want to fit everyone and the whole world into a survival of the fittest vision to justify their behaviour when rising. Most people don't want to fight like that, type A personalities are imposing these values to their benefits because it makes it easier for them to justify their fighting/cheating/being-violent in rising up by imposing it on the rest. There's also the just world hypothesis playing a huge trick on them by justifying their behaviour after the fact. `I did it like this so it is the way to do it. Now fight for your bread, peasants.` Even had coffee yet, I should stop ranting :D.
- patall 5y ago
  I wonder if this actually why we consider kids more creative than adults. Maybe it is really that they have just less to care for and more self-motivation than adults.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

I think by being poor he means having enough money to live, but not so much that all your wants are immediately met by throwing your money at them.

nine_k 5y ago

You are missing the point, it seems. Being poor (but not debilitatingly starving) is an advantage for innovation. You have a lot of incentive to get the heck out of your miserable position, and you cannot fix the problem with just paying more, you have to incessantly invent and try new things. Of course this is not necessarily good for your well-being, longevity, mental and physical health, prospects of your children and even chances to have any, etc. I see this not as an advice to become poor, but as a solace to those who are already poor but whose mind is still inventive.

tgv 5y ago
Now I understand why so much of the modern technology was invented in rural India.
modo_mario 5y ago
Being restricted when it comes to money is what might make me look into building my own pick and place machine because i don't want to dish out so many thousands of euros on a hobby project. Who knows where that will lead me. When i was poor i wouldn't even think of it because i wouldn't be able to because it still costs money and lots of time. As someone else said a lot of inventors of the past were wealthy because they had both the time and money to spend on innovating. Innovation out of necessity is a thing but i'd say it's rarer nowadays.

WalterBright 5y ago

An awful lot of inventors and scientists, at least before 1900, were wealthy because they had the time to play around with things. Other inventors and scientists would get patronage from wealthy people. Or they'd get backing from business interests. Today this patronage often comes in the form of grants by the wealthy to universities for research.

kwdc 5y ago

Being poor is also very expensive. One dollar spent or earnt for a poor person is disproportionally more expensive than that for a rich person.

vishnugupta 5y ago

> Truly new things rarely need an abundance of money. Based on my experience this holds true for organisations. Time and again I've seen a well run startup lose its bearing with the avalanche of new funding and the expectation of hockey-stick growth that comes along with it. Money in this case proves to be counter-productive as everyone starts saying "let's-throw-money" to solve problems. Not only does it not solve the problem but it also starts attracting people who are disproportionately motivated by money. And once an org gets infiltrated by such people it's a sharp downhill from there. > Instead almost all breakthroughs are made by those who lack money,.... Being poor is an advantage in innovation. This is anecdotally true (again w.r.t. organisations). At a startup I worked for, we would come up with creative ways to scale up systems and honestly prioritise customers request. With the advent of funding that was replaced by "launch every darn feature now", "don't bother scaling up just buy more machine". Constraints bring out lasting innovations.

csomar 5y ago

Since he compared to Billionaires, I think he means poor in resources (as you have no abundance); but probably someone who has enough resources not to worry about a meal or housing.

hinkley 5y ago

My extended family is a mix of people across the middle class. As a boy we were hit by a recession and my parents slipped into Pretend Middle Class status. Much of my material lessons in both “being poor is expensive” and the value if Good Tools traces to watching my father struggle to have a working set of lawn care tools. I have a particularly vivid memory of watching him buy the second from the bottom string trimmer three times in seven years, while I tried to talk him into spending $25 more on a sturdier looking one. The damned things kept breaking. Every child eventually sees their parents as a human being with flaws, and for me that reached its apex in the lawn care aisle at Sears. I’m big on doing without until you can do it right. A couple good knives or pans that you clean and pamper until you can afford a whole set. My own solution to the lawn problem was a hand powered edger (basically telescopic shears) and reducing edges wherever I can. String trimmers are bullshit anyway. Construct better beds instead.

nwah1 5y ago

The way I heard it that makes sense is that to be optimally productive you need to be "hungry" in the sense of wanting more and not being complacent. But you don't want to be starving, generally. For the same reason, some say the worst addiction is a steady paycheck precisely because it makes you complacent. These sayings are probably half-motivational with only a kernel of truth. If you are an heir or heiress you will have a big advantage, even if your motivation is less. But there are other metrics than just money, of course. If your point is to achieve excellence or greatness, or operate at the peak of your abilities, then possibly there is such a thing as being too comfortable.

johnchristopher 5y ago
> The way I heard it that makes sense is that to be optimally productive you need to be "hungry" in the sense of wanting more and not being complacent. But you don't want to be starving, generally. Being hungry or starving. OK. But I think a more important point is: do you know if it is a temporary thing (2h, half a day) before you get back to the certainty of not being hungry or worse starving ? I think this uncertainty is killing any mindframe you need to innovate when pushed to the edge like that. It will eat at our brain instead and not trigger macgyveresque magical JIT innovation (also: learned helplessness). Also, not everyone can innovate (wrong place, wrong time, wrong social circle or whatever the circumstances: that's not their thing). > For the same reason, some say the worst addiction is a steady paycheck precisely because it makes you complacent. This is the front, I think `some` here are some of those psycho freaks who rises to the top by violence (symbolic) and want to fit everyone and the whole world into a survival of the fittest vision to justify their behaviour when rising. Most people don't want to fight like that, type A personalities are imposing these values to their benefits because it makes it easier for them to justify their fighting/cheating/being-violent in rising up by imposing it on the rest. There's also the just world hypothesis playing a huge trick on them by justifying their behaviour after the fact. `I did it like this so it is the way to do it. Now fight for your bread, peasants.` Even had coffee yet, I should stop ranting :D.
patall 5y ago
I wonder if this actually why we consider kids more creative than adults. Maybe it is really that they have just less to care for and more self-motivation than adults.