4 ms·

I think the problem with Paul Graham's writing is that it always comes down to talking about getting rich. A lot of people - including very intelligent people

I think the problem with Paul Graham's writing is that it always comes down to talking about getting rich. A lot of people - including very intelligent people - have other things they'd rather do than play such a stupid game. Unfortunately the world is pushing everyone in that direction which will create a lot of bitterness because most people necessarily lose that game.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
I still fail to understand how we've organised society so that the losers of a particular game don't eat. It's virtually decoupled from helping other people with stuff (which is what the economy purports to represent); you have old money, and nth-generation new money, and people working two jobs to afford rent. “Invest” in the stock market in X way, and you can stop working earlier – that is, if you had enough savings to do so.
- jdlshore 5y ago
  You've presented a false dichotomy. There's a lot of room between "get rich" and "don't eat." I'd wager that most software developers fit very comfortably between the two. I agree with GP's dislike of Graham's emphasis on getting rich. There's more to life.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    It's not a dichotomy; there are plenty of people who are doing okay. But there are definitely winners, and definitely losers, and it's a game for some and survival for others.
elihu 5y ago
I'm inclined to agree, but in fairness to Paul Graham I'll note that one of his essays I think relates back to your point. His observation was that even if you aren't trying to do things for the money and just want to solve some problem, a lot of times the only practical option is to form a company. Maybe that isn't always true, but at least it seems plausible. He also notes that not chasing money can have advantages: craigslist isn't a charity, but they run it like one. That makes them pretty hard to compete against. Exerpt: > Back when I was working on spam filters I thought it would be a good idea to have a web-based email service with good spam filtering. I wasn't thinking of it as a company. I just wanted to keep people from getting spammed. But as I thought more about this project, I realized it would probably have to be a company. It would cost something to run, and it would be a pain to fund with grants and donations. > That was a surprising realization. Companies often claim to be benevolent, but it was surprising to realize there were purely benevolent projects that had to be embodied as companies to work. > I didn't want to start another company, so I didn't do it. But if someone had, they'd probably be quite rich now. There was a window of about two years when spam was increasing rapidly but all the big email services had terrible filters. If someone had launched a new, spam-free mail service, users would have flocked to it. http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html

wizzwizz4 5y ago

I still fail to understand how we've organised society so that the losers of a particular game don't eat. It's virtually decoupled from helping other people with stuff (which is what the economy purports to represent); you have old money, and nth-generation new money, and people working two jobs to afford rent. “Invest” in the stock market in X way, and you can stop working earlier – that is, if you had enough savings to do so.

jdlshore 5y ago
You've presented a false dichotomy. There's a lot of room between "get rich" and "don't eat." I'd wager that most software developers fit very comfortably between the two. I agree with GP's dislike of Graham's emphasis on getting rich. There's more to life.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  It's not a dichotomy; there are plenty of people who are doing okay. But there are definitely winners, and definitely losers, and it's a game for some and survival for others.

elihu 5y ago

I'm inclined to agree, but in fairness to Paul Graham I'll note that one of his essays I think relates back to your point. His observation was that even if you aren't trying to do things for the money and just want to solve some problem, a lot of times the only practical option is to form a company. Maybe that isn't always true, but at least it seems plausible. He also notes that not chasing money can have advantages: craigslist isn't a charity, but they run it like one. That makes them pretty hard to compete against. Exerpt: > Back when I was working on spam filters I thought it would be a good idea to have a web-based email service with good spam filtering. I wasn't thinking of it as a company. I just wanted to keep people from getting spammed. But as I thought more about this project, I realized it would probably have to be a company. It would cost something to run, and it would be a pain to fund with grants and donations. > That was a surprising realization. Companies often claim to be benevolent, but it was surprising to realize there were purely benevolent projects that had to be embodied as companies to work. > I didn't want to start another company, so I didn't do it. But if someone had, they'd probably be quite rich now. There was a window of about two years when spam was increasing rapidly but all the big email services had terrible filters. If someone had launched a new, spam-free mail service, users would have flocked to it. http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html